With Donald Tsang Yam-kuen reinstalled in the chief executive's office and having promised a green paper on constitutional development early in his new term, the scene is set for the next round of the battle over political reform. The parties opposing him have hastily scrabbled together a common platform and a united front. The issue of constitutional development boils down to two points - the way we handle relations with the central government and with business interests. In Beijing's eyes, these issues have long been settled under the concept of 'one country, two systems', and enshrined in the Basic Law, with the central government pledging to respect our capitalist society, plus democracy, western style. This was designed to allay the fears of many in the early 1990s that after the handover there might be political struggles, and individual rights and private property would not be respected. Now, 10 years after the handover, the central government appears perfectly happy with the status quo, imperfect as it is, and moving gradually towards universal suffrage. The dissidents are, however, not so happy. It has nothing to do with individual rights and private property, which are properly guarded. The issue is their desire to rapidly change the system so the central government exists in name only, and business - now protected by functional constituencies - has to fight under a one-man, one-vote system. For the record, I was against functional constituencies from the beginning, when our self-appointed 'democrats' were firmly behind the idea. Now, they are a fact of life and we must find a way to get rid of them peacefully. All ideas put forward by the dissidents opt for wiping out all functional constituency seats with a single stroke. This amounts to asking half of the Legislative Council to commit suicide together, and I ponder how such an arrangement possibly could attract its needed two-thirds majority of Legco. At face value, cutting the number of functional constituency seats seems appealing, but which one wants to go first? A toss of the dice is not the answer. These options are clearly non-starters. While the dissidents can yell and protest, it is the chief executive who will have to 'get the job done'. The Hong Kong government is a regional power only, with its authority delegated by Beijing. The central government has total control over all regional authorities, and its power is not diminished after delegation. As 'two systems' are derived from 'one country', the logic is deceptively simple: without 'one country', there is no 'two systems'. This defines the whole game, and it should be taken without question if you want to stay in the game.The central government is, therefore, obliged to participate in the whole process of constitutional development of Hong Kong to ensure it works according to the original principles. The central government will be with us every step of the way. The dissidents can protest, but it is all in accordance with the Basic Law. If you want to do away with the central government, then you are done for. The dissidents portray themselves as fighting for democracy, and others are all bad guys doing otherwise. The world is not that simple. If the dissidents really are serious about tackling the real issues, they will have to debate, haggle and, finally, to compromise. They will also have to give up their siege mentality. Trying to create a united front is bad strategy because it restricts flexibility, without which, there will never be compromise. An open mind will help, sensitivity will help and, unless they want to play another game, respecting the ground rules will be a must. Lau Nai-keung is a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate
