Which way now for the political moderates in Hong Kong?

As a political moderate, I backed a very mild proposal put forward by scholars intending to find a way to develop genuine democracy in Hong Kong within the legal framework set by the Basic Law. Nonetheless, Beijing's decision to block even mild electoral reform removed any illusion that China would grant Hongkongers "real" universal suffrage. Even worse, Hong Kong society is being torn apart by the authorities who seek to silence opposition voices.

On the one hand, pro-establishment groups have done their utmost to mobilise their supporters to vilify pro-democratic actions as irrational, violent and disrupting social order. On the other, the Hong Kong government has begun hardening its treatment of those fighting for democracy through "white terror" campaigns.

Years ago, then premier Wen Jiabao warned that Hong Kong's deep-rooted social contradictions could generate various kinds of socio-economic, cultural and political problems. Today, we face many difficulties, including increasing inequality, rising housing prices and rents, limited chances for upward mobility for youngsters, severe elderly poverty, a backlash against mainlanders, and a contentious legislature. Neither former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen nor the current leader, Leung Chun-ying, has been able to satisfactorily resolve these contradictions.

Not only is the legitimacy of the Hong Kong government fast deteriorating, citizens are also becoming increasingly suspicious of the willingness of the Chinese authorities to allow Hong Kong people to rule Hong Kong, given that the chief executives are all "selected" by Beijing. With so many demonstrations and political demands being made on an increasingly regular basis, some mock Hong Kong as a city of endless protest.

People seriously doubt the capability of the administration to govern, never mind bring prosperity and harmony to Hong Kong. If we had genuine democracy and political autonomy, we Hongkongers would be able to bear these consequences, because the chief executive would have been chosen by us.

But we did not choose Leung; lots of people, myself included, are angry with his incompetent yet arrogant leadership. In contrast to Tung Chee-hwa and Donald Tsang, Leung took over when Hong Kong's economic conditions were good. During Tung's and Tsang's terms, the economy was badly hit by the Asian financial crisis, the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak and the global financial crisis. Today, the unemployment rate is a mere 3.3 per cent and the gross domestic product growth rate is around 5.4 per cent.

It is difficult to understand why the support rate for Leung is almost as low as Tung's. According to the University of Hong Kong public opinion programme's most recent survey, Leung's rating stands at just 42 out of 100. The lowest ratings for Tung and Tsang were 36.2 and 39.3 respectively. The conclusion must be that political rather than economic factors have dragged down Leung's support rate.

I am not saying that granting democracy to Hong Kong will overcome all our deep-rooted contradictions, but it seems obvious that political reform has become the primary contradiction. Without political legitimacy derived from real democracy, the government cannot gain public trust to formulate policies that will resolve the city's other socio-economic and cultural problems. Trust between the people and the government is the cornerstone of good governance.

Political moderates mistakenly believed - and trusted - that through continuous interaction and negotiations, Beijing would ultimately fulfil the pledge guaranteed by the Joint Declaration. Despite the failure to implement universal suffrage in 2008 or 2012, the moderates wrongly hoped that Beijing would gradually give the green light to true democracy.

Thus, they proposed mild reform packages to ease the way for the government to adopt a middle road between the extreme conservative pro-establishment proposals and those of the progressive democrats who demanded direct public nomination that would bypass the nominating committee. The moderates, myself included, wanted to ease the political deadlock that was further polarising Hong Kong society. Unfortunately, those hopes have been shattered. No matter how many concessions we made and how hard we tried to reason and negotiate with the Chinese authorities, our efforts were doomed to fail. Political polarisation in society is inevitable. The question is where the moderates will go now.

From various opinion polls, many youngsters support public nomination and are protesting to fight for democracy, while many baby boomers - the so-called second-generation Hongkongers - are moderates and inclined to compromise. For the youngsters, Beijing's decision has only strengthened their will to push on with the resistance movement. But the moderates have to make a hard choice: recede from the political scene - a kind of escapism - or join the youngsters. As a teacher, I could not stand before my students if I refrained from saying or doing something good for Hong Kong society. Escapism and retreatism may be a way out for others, but not for me.

Over the weekend, I felt hugely disappointed, and heartbroken, at the police's reaction to those students and other citizens who were demonstrating peacefully outside government headquarters in Admiralty. Various government and pro-establishment spokespeople have condemned the students for violating laws and deliberately charging police. What I saw was riot police, wearing helmets and carrying shields, using pepper spray and force - and even firing tear gas - in their attempts to disperse students and supporters, who were using only their hands and umbrellas to protect themselves.

Despite the possibility of being arrested and injured, hundreds of Hongkongers went to the protest sites to express their frustration about political reform and to reinforce the numbers of the student demonstrators. Many of these people were not students, but ordinary adult citizens.

This is the start of a large-scale civil disobedience and non-cooperation movement. It should be remembered that Occupy Central organisers Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man are not radical; in fact, the real radicals often accuse them of being moderates. They proposed Occupy as a way to raise the social awareness of the mostly politically apathetic Hong Kong people. Really, they would have preferred it if the movement wasn't necessary at all. But events have forced people's hand.

The long-waited Occupy movement has begun. And it is drawing hundreds, if not thousands, of political moderates like me.

Lee Kim-ming is a senior lecturer and programme leader in the Division of Social Sciences at City University