Less than 24 hours after the unprecedented debate between Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and Audrey Eu Yuet-mee on constitutional reform, the public had already shifted its focus to the compromise political reform proposal put forward by the Democratic Party and the Alliance for Universal Suffrage.
Hong Kong has been fighting for more democratisation for over two decades. The first step was taken in 1988 when Hongkongers demanded direct elections. The number of directly elected seats in the Legislative Council has gradually increased over the years.
By 2004, half the Legco seats were returned by direct elections in geographical constituencies. The following year, the government proposed to add five geographical and five functional seats, with the latter being selected by district councillors. It was rejected because pan-democrats opposed the idea of non-directly-elected functional seats.
Back then, I proposed abolishing the appointment of district councillors and implementing 'one man, two votes', but my advice fell on deaf ears.
In 2007, the National People's Congress reiterated that Hong Kong's democratic reforms should be in accordance with the Basic Law's principle of gradual and orderly progress. It ruled out dual universal suffrage for Legco and the chief executive elections in 2012, but said the chief executive could be directly elected in 2017, and Legco thereafter. This week, the government unexpectedly accepted the Democratic Party's reform package, saying it was within the legal framework of the Basic Law and the 2007 decision of the NPC on the pace of democratisation.
Under the proposal, candidates for the five new Legco functional seats would be nominated by elected district councillors and then voted on by the 3.2 million voters who currently do not have a say in functional constituencies.
The proposal may not be perfect and it does not equate to genuine direct election, but it is still the best option and a good tactic in a stalemate.