The multiple choices of the green paper on constitutional development have been answered by the Business and Professionals Federation, and the paper has been returned to the bookshelves. But I wonder: could it all have been made simpler if the paper had set out the facts in the Basic Law and the explanatory statement from Beijing; and said quite firmly that any proposal that did not fit with the Basic Law and the statement would not be considered?
We have also to ask if any proposal for reform we put forward adopts a gradual approach - gradual, that is, measured not from some time in the past but from this year's chief executive election and next year's Legislative Council polls. Would our proposals for 2012 be a gradual step forward or a fast track?
The wording of the April 2004 decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress is quite clear. It said the methods for selecting the chief executive and forming Legco must conform to principles compatible with the social, political and economic development of Hong Kong, and must be conducive to the balanced participation of all sectors and groups.
Finally, we have to ask whether our proposals can obtain the 40 votes in Legco that are necessary to change the procedures for the elections in 2012. If it's not possible to get the votes, there is no use in wasting time on the proposals.
Perhaps it is a habit born of former times, but it seems that some in Hong Kong treat the government in Beijing rather as they did Britain. Namely, they feel free to argue and disagree with it - as if it were not our sovereign, which has clearly stated the principles that we must follow when addressing the questions of constitutional development posed by the green paper.
The Business and Professionals Federation tried to follow these prescriptions when forming answers to send to Stephen Lam Sui-lung, secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs.
We believe changes to the method for selecting the chief executive should receive priority over those for electing Legco members. But we feel strongly that there should be changes in 2012 to involve a wider electorate and to improve substantially the election rules.