Tai Yiu-ting and his fellow "Occupy Central" advocates have admitted multiple times the destructive campaign is illegal and comes with economic and social cost. What I want to stress is that the ethical basis and popular support of "Occupy" are actually rather flimsy.

The right to join a procession, to assemble and protest is among the basic civil rights in modern society, and Article 27 of the Basic Law guarantees that Hong Kong citizens enjoy freedom of expression in unmistakable terms. However, as many people will agree, there are limits to exercising such freedoms and rights; at least they should not infringe upon other people's interests, freedoms and rights. "Occupy", for example, is designed to achieve the organizers' political demand by pressuring the government with a massive standstill in Central, but why do people who do not approve the movement have to be inconvenienced by it? And why do local residents who do not support "Occupy" have to pay the economic price of other people's political ambition?

There have been many instances of civil disobedience around the world, but hijacking public interest is certainly not the only way to do it. Civil disobedience aims to seek social justice by illegal means and take responsibility of the illegal action in a court of law afterwards. Tai and his gang can initiate civil disobedience if they want to but have no right to trample other people's interest and freedom, period.

On the other hand, the popular support for "Occupy" is very fragile. Even a public opinion poll by the University of Hong Kong on behalf of Ming Pao, which is obviously inclined to support the illegal campaign, found the percentage of respondents opposed to "Occupy", doubling that of its supporters. The organizers of "Occupy" held their first "Deliberation Day" earlier this month but only invited some 600 opposition hot shots and their supporters, plus about 100 people randomly selected by computer. Given Hong Kong's population of 7 million there is no way this group of 700 mostly biased people can be seen as "broadly representative", or even slightly mainstream for that matter.

Besides, there are so many diverse political aspirations under the sun it is impossible to categorize them simply as black or white. Some people insist certain international conventions are universal standards for matters such as universal suffrage, but I have to remind them that the Basic Law still rules supreme in Hong Kong as far as constitutional development is concerned.

If they believe in "one person, one vote" and that "the one with the most votes wins" is the ultimate definition of democracy, please explain why Al Gore won more voter votes than George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election, yet it was the latter who won the US presidency that year? This may sound cynical but it's true: whatever the arguments are and however righteous they may seem, in politics it always comes down to bargaining and compromise. And it is seldom about social justice per se but always about power. So save your breath on ethics and values.

The fact is the central government has reiterated time and again that it supports the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Right now it is time to discuss how it should be implemented, not to prepare to fight to the death, so to speak. This is the time to form consensus, not to escalate conflicts.

After months of hyping it is time for Tai and his fellows to take a step back and think about this calmly: Will "Occupy" really help implement universal suffrage? What is the probability of the central government giving in to a hardcore stunt like "Occupy"? If in the end, neither side budges, and the dream of realizing universal suffrage is all but dashed, who would be the biggest loser? Opposition parties hold more than one-third of the Legislative Council seats, which means they have enough leverage to bargain with the central authorities and the SAR government. Do they honestly need to elevate their rivalry with "Occupy"?

By now readers should have no problem understanding that "Occupy" is illegal, has no merit in ethical terms, suffers a serious case of popularity deficiency and is neither necessary nor conducive to the implementation of universal suffrage. It is by all accounts a political game played by a very small number of irresponsible individuals. Why should any honest Hong Kong resident jump into that cesspool?

The author is vice-chairman of the Hong Kong Association of Young Commentators.

(HK Edition 06/22/2013 page6)