And we mean not just those who say what they want to hear.

We have pledged to stay - no matter what the future holds - and work for progress for both Hong Kong and China.

We have criticised both Britain and China whenever we felt they were breaking their promises or acting against the best interests of Hong Kong.

But we have said at all times that our door is always open for dialogue with China.

'One country, two systems' clearly assumes that the leaders of the one country - China - will be talking to and negotiating with the leaders of the Hong Kong system - who have been elected for that specific purpose.

Some of us were able in the past to work with Chinese leaders to help them understand the foundations of Hong Kong's system.

We argued when necessary with Chinese officials.

And we sometimes even succeeded in convincing them to adopt policies that were beneficial to Hong Kong.

But after Tiananmen Square in 1989, a line was drawn by Chinese leaders.

Since then, despite - or perhaps because of - our consistently strong showing at the polls in 1991 and 1995, Chinese leaders have refused to see or talk to us.

Rather than the promised high degree of autonomy, China's policy towards Hong Kong in recent years has appeared to be a high degree of control.

All of Beijing's major decisions - the abolition of the three-tiered electoral system, the appointment of a provisional legislature and the emasculation of the Bill of Rights - have been wildly unpopular in Hong Kong.

Now, only after many of the most important decisions on Hong Kong's future have been made, have China's leaders expressed a willingness to talk to democrats.

Dialogue does not simply mean a seat at the conference table.

When and if dialogue with Chinese leaders materialises, we hope China will come to the table prepared not only to listen - but to change.

Perhaps because China's quarantine of the Democratic Party has been seen as a particularly bad omen for the future, Hong Kong people have been very anxious to see us talk to China.

Opinion polls last week showed wide support for the Democrats sitting down with China.

Many politicians and pundits went so far as to insist that the Democratic Party reciprocate China's olive branch by putting our names forward to be appointed to the Selection Committee - the 400-member body which will rubber-stamp China's choice for both chief executive and the provisional legislature.

We look forward to any dialogue with China.

But we cannot sign on to a blueprint for abolishing an elected legislature.

That would be tantamount to sacrificing the end for the means.

Indeed, I believe the reason the Democratic Party now has a chance of communicating with China is principally because of our steadfast insistence that we will stay in Hong Kong.

And, for that matter, because of our refusal to compromise the Joint Declaration's core promises of autonomy and freedom.

The Selection Committee - no matter who its members are - exists to produce a specific result.

Taking part in the Selection Committee would confer legitimacy on an illegitimate process and would hopelessly compromise our ability to fight the provisional legislature.

As for the appointed provisional legislature, I have never heard a convincing argument for why we should trade our mandate from Hong Kong people for a mandate from Beijing.

If we as democrats agree to participate in a process leading to the destruction of Hong Kong's elected institutions, it would be a betrayal not only of everything we believe, but also of the solemn trust we asked voters to place in us.

We are committed to opposing both the Selection Committee and the provisional legislature because we know the most important thing is to get Hong Kong's system right.

An elected legislature means accountability to the public.

A 'selected' or appointed legislature means demise of accountability.

As Deng Xiaoping himself said: 'When there is a good system, even evil men cannot do evil, but when there is no good system, even good man cannot do good and may be forced to do evil.' So our course of action is clear: the goal of any dialogue with China is to urge Chinese leaders not to undermine democracy and freedom in Hong Kong.

We are not unrealistic or naive about what we can accomplish. If meetings with Chinese leaders materialise, it will be only a first step on a long road.

However, we are confident that our fight to preserve elected institutions in the territory is the right thing for Hong Kong and China.

We are confident, too, that we will continue to have the support of our people who aspire for democracy.

And we hope that Chinese leaders now understand that we share with China one key goal: making the transfer of sovereignty work. Time is not on our side and much precious time has been wasted already.

With barely 300 days until the transfer of sovereignty, we need to see not just a breaking of the ice, but a genuine thaw.

Belated though China's olive branch is, it still gives some hope to make a difference.

After all, what better message to send the world about the future of Hong Kong - and of China - than a picture of Chinese leaders communicating in earnest with the territory' elected representatives to assure Hong Kong's future? Martin Lee is Chairman of the Democratic Party and a democratically-elected Legislative Councillor.