The annual meetings of the National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference have just finished in Beijing. Apart from the usual agenda on national issues, there was a strong indication that the central government has consolidated its stand on various Hong Kong issues.
It would be naive to construe the high-profile support from five heavyweight, state-owned enterprises for mainland property tycoon Wang Zheng's bid for control of ATV as simply giving face to an individual. Rather, it was a showcase of official commitment to launch ATV as the CNN of Asia, and to regain Hong Kong's position as the region's media centre.
Similarly, it was no accident or coincidence that various property developers and bankers, who are also CPPCC members, advocated the relaunching of the government's low-cost Home Ownership Scheme (HOS). According to the 'one country, two systems' principle, the central government cannot order the Hong Kong government to do anything regarding its internal policies, but CPPCC members who are also Hong Kong citizens have every right to voice their comments and suggestions.
One thing is for sure; the central government is, at the very least, not averse to this idea - or else a chorus could not have been assembled so quickly.
Viewed in this light, the repeated official blasting in Beijing of the Hong Kong referendum - dressed up as by-elections and funded by the special administrative region government - should send a clear signal to everyone in the city. On hearing that even the most ardent dissident politicians have conceded that a referendum is indeed unconstitutional - and asserted that using such provocative terms are just publicity gimmicks - the ensuing question is: should we take it seriously?
The dissidents' sympathisers say we should not take the term 'referendum' too seriously, and should let them go ahead with it. Most people in Hong Kong will of course take it seriously: HK$150 million of our public money is at stake.
If these dissident politicians simply want to make political statements, they are most welcome to do so, but we are not going to foot the bill for them.
