The hottest topic for the opposition camp right now is universal suffrage. The real intent behind the opposition clamor is to be the rule-maker of the 2017 Chief Executive (CE) Election by "genuine universal suffrage" and pave the way for seizing Hong Kong's governing power.

That is why all members of the Hong Kong society should see through the smokescreen, separate the right from wrong and gain thorough understanding of the CE election by universal suffrage in 2017. First of all, we should trust that the central government's promise of implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong is sincere and it has absolutely no intention to shun or delay it. Hong Kong never had universal suffrage during its 150-odd years of British colonial rule, or even entertained the idea for that matter. All the governors of Hong Kong at that time were appointed by the Queen of England, while none of the legislators was democratically elected. The demand for universal suffrage was voiced loud and clear at least six times by Hong Kong residents over the years before the handover, but was rejected or shelved indefinitely by the British colonial government every time.

Great Britain is known as the "Mother of Parliament". Its parliament was established in the 13th century. With a parliament of more than 700 years history, Britain should understand perfectly well why the society wants democracy. It refused to let Hong Kong have democracy simply because it was afraid the opposition would rise and say no to London. Ironically, the first election with democratic elements was held in 1985, after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It would have been only 32 years from then until 2017, when the CE election by universal suffrage is supposed to take place. That means Hong Kong's democratic development is very fast compared with Great Britain, which has more than 300 years of experience, and the United States, which used about 200 years to achieve universal suffrage. It is fair to say that Hong Kong's democratic progress is not only fast but also solid every step of the way.

Meanwhile, we must also recognize the fact that Hong Kong is a special administrative region directly under the Chinese central government, not a country or independent political entity. Hong Kong's local elections and democratic reform should be mulled within the framework of national interest and the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. It is unacceptable to apply the same standard for elections of sovereign states in Hong Kong or treat the SAR government and the central government as equals.

Some opposition figures deliberately take "genuine universal suffrage" out of the context of the "One Country, Two Systems" principle and the reality that Hong Kong is a special administrative region, not a country. This is a misinterpretation of the Basic Law and misjudgment of the democratic development situation. Hong Kong's political system, as prescribed in the Basic Law, is a means to exercise the "One Country, Two Systems" principle rather than the goal. In other words, Hong Kong's democratic progress, including CE and LegCo elections, must guarantee it will never undermine national interest and Hong Kong's healthy relationship with the central government. According to this logic, none of the politicians and political forces that do not agree with the "One Country, Two Systems" principle is allowed to take over Hong Kong's governing power. This is the bottom line that must be kept intact. And this is why the opposition is so mad right now, because their dream of seizing the CE office has been shattered.

Some members of the opposition camp insist "Hong Kong's electoral system must comply with the international requirement for popular, fair election" and even cite the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as proof. However, in Human Rights and Elections, a handbook published by the United Nations in 1994, the UN states in Chapter I (17) "United Nations human rights standard relating to elections are broad in nature and thus may be achieved through a wide variety of political systems. United Nations electoral assistance does not seek to impose any given political model. Rather, it is based upon a realization that there is no single political system or electoral methodology which is appropriate for all peoples and states."

These words tell us there is no universal standard on universal suffrage. Even Western democracies do not have a uniform model for universal suffrage. The UN handbook goes on to say, "the best formulation for each jurisdiction will ultimately be that shaped by the particular needs, aspirations and historical realities of the people involved, taken within the framework of international standards." Therefore it is normal for individual countries to weigh electoral models against their own national conditions. And it is widely accepted by the international community that a variety of standards exist on universal suffrage. Here is an example that couldn't be closer to home: Great Britain became a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, but never made the article applicable to Hong Kong in legislation for implementation. The Covenant became applicable in Hong Kong only after the Bill of Rights was passed in June 1991.

Many insightful people agree that a nation's development is not determined by whether it has universal suffrage, but rather by whether the existing political system and traditional socio-cultural structure contribute to a long and peaceful reign of the country. Political issues should be handled rationally and pragmatically, not confrontationally. The much ballyhooed execution plan for "Occupy Central" that had many people worried can be seen as an advertisement for a course counter to the democratic principle.

Hong Kong is a mature citizen society where the core values include the rule of law, fair competition and the pursuit of freedom, equality and reason. They form the spiritual constitution of the mainstream Hong Kong people and the foundation for the city's ability to rise above adversities. The social chaos that may result from radical movements such as "Occupy Central", on the other hand, represent despise for and destruction of the rule of law, absence of rational and critical thinking, and a populist pandemic.

The author is a current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 04/18/2013 page9)