Whenever a Hong Kong politician advises the central government to usher in universal suffrage so that Taiwan will be assuaged by the effectiveness of 'one country, two systems,' I grow less convinced that Hong Kong is ready for fully fledged democracy. Never mind the hypocrisy; such statements betray a naivete about the nature of the system of governance they are touting. Let them push their cause in Taiwan itself, and they will soon realise their time would be better used instead convincing Taipei of the need to show Beijing that universal suffrage works in practice. Sacre bleu! I have committed a sin by suggesting that universal suffrage is imperfect, have I not? Surely, the only way for a city of seven million people to be governed is by direct election of the executive and legislative branches of government. Well, perhaps it is. But it seems to me that the people who rule China, and have ruled by pretty much the same tradition for thousands of years, are not yet convinced. Don't be fooled by mutterings from Beijing recently about the need for the chief executive to listen to the people and strive not to disappoint them. No one said anything to the contrary just before Tiananmen in 1989. 'The students' aspirations are the party's aspirations too!' Zhongnanhai's wisest agreed. Everyone knew then, and they still know now, that democracy is the end goal. It may be, as Winston Churchill said, the worst system of governance - that is, except for all the others. The questions are how and when. I'm not even going to attempt to answer those questions here, lest I line myself up for a pasting on Chinapol. Yet what does seem obvious is this: Taiwan is no model for China; so if Hong Kong wants to move from what it has now to what it really wants, there are going to have to be some steps in between. Why do I say such a horrible thing about Taiwan? Because - and I mean this in the nicest possible way - universal suffrage has not exactly been a roaring success there. In 2000, the 'heavens changed' (I wrote that headline) when opposition firebrand Chen Shui-bian won a three-way presidential race with 39.1 per cent of the vote. His party increased its presence in the legislature at the following year's elections, but it wasn't enough to give him a majority. So Taiwan has stumbled from crisis to crisis throughout his first term. You might say the beauty of universal suffrage is that the Taiwanese people won't have to suffer another term of Chen. But that's what they said about the people Chen defeated, Lien Chan and James Soong Chu-yu, who ruled previously as premier and governor, respectively. Guess what? They are his opponents again for next March's elections, only this time round, they're on a combined ticket. In the meantime, socio-political cohesion seems impossible, unemployment is dire, and the hospital system has proved to be the most ineffective in greater China at containing Sars. If you were running China, would you wish this on Hong Kong? 'Ah, but Beijing must trust us to get it right,' I hear enlightened Hongkongers say. 'On what resume?' I can almost hear the reply. The people of Hong Kong have no real experience of representative democracy; indeed, Hong Kong has no real political parties, or even politicians. It has experienced civil servants, but that's not the same, as Anson Chan Fang On-sang would soon find out if she had to battle a legislature filled with the James Tien Pei-chun fan club. Sorry, but I don't see anyone from the pro-democracy camp thinking up well-argued alternatives to the 'universal suffrage now!' chant. Nor are we likely to get any from the photogenically challenged lot who gathered last week with Tung Chee-hwa for reassurance about property prices. So whose job is it to come up with the ideas? It's yours, of course. The Central Policy Unit can't be the sole repository of lateral thinking in Hong Kong politics. If it is, our muck is deeper than we thought. Come on, then, our opinion pages await. Anthony Lawrance is the Post's managing editor