I always believe we can elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. Without a doubt, constitutional reform has been one of the issues that are most arresting and controversial to Hong Kong residents over the years. Constitutional development has not been smooth at all, but I see a positive side nonetheless: forces that drive efforts to implement universal suffrage are very strong and consensus is stronger than difference over its process.

In terms of consensus, the Basic Law has established all along that the Chief Executive (CE) will eventually be elected by universal suffrage after being nominated by a broadly representative Nomination Committee; the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) also decided in 2007 that the CE election by universal suffrage can be held as early as 2017. Meanwhile, State leaders have spoken publicly many times in recent years that the central government's stand on implementing the CE election by universal suffrage in 2017 is firm as always.

And the mainstream wish of Hong Kong society is of course to see it happen in 2017. This shows beyond any doubt it is the consensus of all parties concerned to hold the CE Election by universal suffrage in 2017. It is the common goal for the central authorities as well as Hong Kong residents and the greatest driving force behind Hong Kong's progress toward universal suffrage.

As for difference, there is no question it exists, but only because some people are trying to create disputes with false propositions and non-issues, which are worthless as talking points. So far some organizations are still waving the political banner of "demanding universal suffrage" to mislead the public. With the 2007 NPCSC decision on holding the CE Election by universal suffrage in 2017 Hong Kong residents have already got what they wished for and the next part is implementation. What exactly are those noisy groups after, except fabricating popular discontent toward the central government? What they are doing means nothing to the implementation of universal suffrage.

Another major controversy is that the central authorities cannot accept someone opposed to them as CE of Hong Kong, which is again a false proposition. That it has been the central government's bottom line since China and the United Kingdom began drafting their joint declaration over Hong Kong's future more than 30 years ago notwithstanding, both the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law stipulate clearly that Hong Kong is an inseparable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China and a special administrative region directly under the jurisdiction of the Central People's Government. Its Chief Executive reports to the central government and is accountable to the Hong Kong SAR as well as the central authorities. In short, the HKSAR is a part of the centralized administrative hierarchy and its CE a regional government official. If someone is decidedly opposed to this institutionalized system what's the point to vie for the CE office in an election? Did Sun Yat-sen demand the Qing emperor appoint him the viceroy of Guangdong and Guangxi while organizing the revolutionary movement to overthrow the Qing government? It is simply against political ethics and politically self-contradicting to oppose the central government and try to become the CE of Hong Kong SAR at the same time.

Besides, we should not exaggerate the implications of the bottom line that "the CE cannot oppose the central government." Can a CE who meets the central authorities' requirement suppress "developer hegemony", establish universal retirement insurance and restore the right to do collective bargaining? The answer is yes to all three questions. The truth is that "not countering the central government" and "Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong with considerable autonomy" are not mutually exclusive. NPC Law Committee Director Qiao Xiaoyang further explained earlier this year that "the CE cannot counter the central government" does not mean the CE cannot criticize the central government. The CE should not be a "yes man" who has no sense of right or wrong; and fierce criticism is acceptable as long as it serves national interest. Needless to say the central government will not allow anyone to be CE unconditionally, but does that automatically mean the bottom line is draconian and hurts public interest? No. There is no need to exaggerate the central government's bottom line on the CE election. Will it help the implementation of universal suffrage to divide society this way? No again.

After so many people's efforts to make it happen, Hong Kong residents are just one step away from being able to finally elect the CE by universal suffrage. The final dash is usually the most decisive moment of a distance race; and no result is worse than stopping just before the finish line. Nothing is more disappointing for Hong Kong people than halting the constitutional development now, when the most crucial thing is to build consensus instead of expanding the divide. All parties concerned should display as much rationality and sincerity as they can, throw away false prepositions and replace bias with common understanding however possible to let Hong Kong be that much closer to practicing universal suffrage!

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

(HK Edition 06/21/2013 page9)