I refer to Timothy Ma Tsz-kiu's comments on universal suffrage ('We must move slowly on the path to universal suffrage', October 17). No matter what their walk of life may be, every citizen should have the equal right to choose Hong Kong's leader.
An elected government, he claims, may not be able to 'balance the interests of different parties and plan properly for Hong Kong's future development' if voters fail to correctly identify 'the type of leader Hong Kong most urgently needs'.
Mr Ma wrongly assumes that some people's views on Hong Kong's development are more valid than others'. But no-one should have the absolute power to decide what is best for Hong Kong.
There is no absolute 'best' in a free society. We can all decide what we consider to be best, and we will all be responsible for the decisions we make.
If the majority of Hongkongers eagerly wanted to live in a high-taxation, high-welfare city, that would be their decision. The role of the government is to spark sufficient discussions at different levels in society on the possible benefits and consequences, but not to decide what is 'best' for us.
Mr Ma refers to Taiwan. It may not be a perfect example of democracy, but that is not a legitimate excuse to slow down the pace of political reform in Hong Kong. Mr Ma doesn't like Taiwan's 'demonstrators taking to the streets'. But I do not see why the exercise of freedom of speech should be considered bad, especially in Hong Kong's context. The World Trade Organisation conference in 2005, showed that Hong Kong's police can handle mass protests. But we know that most demonstrations are peaceful.
