Above all, political reform plan must be realistic
Andrew Leung says it's time for all sides of the political reform debate to realise they will have to compromise and satisfy some of the interests of others if Hong Kong is ever to move forward
A Chinese saying has it that when a boat reaches a narrow bridge, it will somehow manage to traverse it. As the five-month public consultation period for Hong Kong's electoral reform draws to a close, oars of all shape and complexion are working overtime. Even US Vice-President Joe Biden is making noises from the sidelines. However, with the boat moving in different directions in an unfavourable undercurrent, there is little chance it will pass the bridge in time.
Much of the lack of consensus results from denial, or a lack of appreciation, of some critical realities and dynamics. These should define any reform proposals if they are to be acceptable to Beijing as well as to the Hong Kong people, sectoral interests and political parties.
First, Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy is not unbounded. It is defined by the Basic Law; Article 45, for example, lays down the powers of a nominating committee for the election of a future chief executive.
It also stipulates the central government's power of appointment. These powers are substantive. Any attempts to circumvent, vitiate or water them down would be unacceptable to Beijing. Nor would these attempts augur well for "one country, two systems", of which the Basic Law is the bedrock.
While the flow of public opinion begins to move towards the Basic Law, a wide divergence of views remains as to what nomination under the Basic Law should represent.
Meanwhile, the Occupy Central movement remains active in trying to force Beijing's hand to grant what its supporters regard as the right nomination method for universal suffrage.
