HK protesters have no valid grievance

Looking at the turmoil and heated rhetoric that have embroiled Hong Kong in recent days, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that Hong Kong is the envy of economies around the world.

The turmoil resulted from the a decision made by the National People's Congress Standing Committee on Aug 31, 2014 to set a framework to limit the number of candidates to two or three and require them to have the support of at least half of the 1,200 nominating committee members. The main grievance of the protesters is they want any Hong Kong resident to be able to put forward candidates for election (referred to as civic nomination) rather than just those approved by a nomination committee. But there are reasons to question their sense of grievance.

First, civic nomination is plainly inconsistent with Article 45 of the Basic Law which expressly states that the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage be "upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures". The Bar Association has already issued a legal position paper on July 11, stating that, as a matter of law, Article 45(2) cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean civic nomination.

If the Basic Law is respected, which it should be, the people of Hong Kong should work on how to make the nomination committee broadly representative, so as to ensure that nominees who are nominated for election by "one man one vote" do present the Hong Kong people with a real choice. There is no good reason for suggesting that the framework under the Basic Law denies universal suffrage, or that civic nomination is the only acceptable way to select the chief executive.

Hence, contrary to the impression often given by the Western media, the central government is not taking democracy away from Hong Kong or breaking its promise on universal suffrage.

Second, the system being proposed for 2017, whilst not perfect, is neither wholly unreasonable nor undemocratic. There is of course room for discussion and improvement. For instance, the announced framework requiring the minimum support of half of the members of the nomination committee for a candidate to be nominated, the limiting of nominees to two or three, and the decision that the nomination committee will remain 1,200 members (following the structure of the electoral committee), are points that arguably could have been further relaxed to achieve broader representation and greater choice.

However, within the decided framework, there is work to be done to ensure the members of the nomination committee are representative of the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. In addition there are many ways in which people's views of the candidates may be gauged for the benefit of the members of the nomination committee.

One must see things from Beijing's point of view too. Hong Kong is just one city in a nation of over a billion people. Beijing reasonably cannot risk having a chief executive that seeks to subvert Beijing's authority or frustrate its policies. It is neither unreasonable nor unjustifiable that it wishes to have some control over the candidates for chief executive. Since 1997, Beijing has taken a relatively hands-off approach to Hong Kong affairs save ensuring national security and unity. Given the matters above, is it worth risking all of the things that generations of Hong Kong people have worked so hard for and done so well with, so that a segment of the population can pursue their dream of so-called true universal suffrage? And can it seriously justify a complete subversion of law and order?

As some people have said, the protesters can occupy Victoria Park or Kowloon Park. Most people in Hong Kong would have no objection to that and would be far more sympathetic to their cause. But what the protesters are doing, including occupying public roads, seriously affects people's livelihoods, and blockading the chief executive's office goes far beyond a peaceful protest. It is tantamount to blackmail in order to force an accession to their demands irrespective of the wishes and interests of others who may not share their views. Surrounding and blockading the office of the head of the executive branch of government is a direct assault to law and order in a civilized society, and the government is fully entitled to restore law and order by removing the protesters, with reasonable force if necessary.

As for complaints of police heavy-handedness, in my view, the police were very restrained. There may of course have been isolated incidents where, with the benefit of hindsight, the situation could have been better handled. However, these must be viewed in perspective. One needs to look no further than the recent events in Ferguson in the United States to see the kind of paramilitary force other countries use in such situations. The government should be commended for the restraint it has shown so far. However, the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue much longer. It is the prerogative of the government to maintain law and order and to ensure that the residents of the city can go about their lives and business.

The author is a Hong Kong professional.