Now Hong Kong must face the big questions in wake of Occupy
The shouting is over and the talking must begin as the city confronts the big question of how to achieve electoral reform without confrontation
For two months, Hong Kong's politics have been dominated by whether, when or how the Admiralty occupation should end. With the camp gone, the city now faces the question at the crux of the debate: how should we reform our electoral system and prevent further confrontation?
Lawmakers and academics who spoke to the South China Morning Post were generally pessimistic about the prospect of achieving universal suffrage for the election of the chief executive, as Beijing has made it clear that it will not back down.
On August 31, the National People's Congress ruled that Hong Kong could pick its leader by "one man, one vote" in 2017 - but only from a list of one or two candidates who had received the backing of at least half of a 1,200-strong nominating committee.
That decision was a trigger for the Occupy Central protests in September. Students, activists and citizens urged Beijing to scrap the ruling, saying it deprived them of a "genuine choice" of candidates.
They had hoped they could force authorities to give in, but with the clearance of the Admiralty base camp, some believe there is no more hope of a breakthrough in the 2017 constitutional reforms. And the chance of minor improvements to Beijing's framework could have also vanished, as the central government further toughens its stance.
A day before the Admiralty clearance, Chen Zuoer, the former deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, reiterated that he thought Occupy Central was Hong Kong's version of a "colour revolution", a reference to uprisings in post-Soviet states.