Chan Tak-leung says the proposals offer a high degree of freedom for Hong Kong people and are a significant milestone in the development of democracy

The electoral reform package to introduce universal suffrage in Hong Kong for election of the next Chief Executive (CE) in 2017 was presented in Legislative Council (LegCo) on Wednesday. The package ticks all the boxes for the following reasons. First, it will allow a maximum of 10 candidates to be nominated by the Nominating Committee (NC) to go into the first round of voting. Second, there will be a second round of voting which will result in the names of between two to three candidates going forward in the SAR's first CE election by universal suffrage for 5 million eligible voters.

If this is not a high degree of freedom for Hong Kong people and a significant milestone in the exercise of democracy for the SAR, I don't know what is.

The support by two-thirds of LegCo members, however, is crucial in making these changes a reality. The changes proposed in the package were attacked by the "pan-democrats" for "not meeting international standards" and "not being democratic or open enough". They vowed to use their votes to veto the package.

Is there any truth in their headline-grabbing slogans and sound bites? None whatsoever is the answer, and the reasons that substantiate my assertion are facts.

Let's start with their allegiance to so-called "international standards" for universal suffrage. The United Kingdom, I suppose, is one of the many countries in the West which "pan-democrat" legislators and their supporters would recognize as a subscriber to universal suffrage. Let me tell you that under the principle of universal suffrage, the UK has no less than six different electoral systems. These range from first-past-the-post, single transferable votes, alternative votes, supplementary votes, an additional members system to a closed party list.

What "international standards" would "pan-democrats" and other activists be referring to in their slogans calling for "genuine universal suffrage? Could it be by "civil nomination"?

They will be disappointed - for it is not available in Hong Kong.

As for Hong Kong, it was made explicitly clear under Article 45 in the Basic Law in relation to selection of the CE, and I quote, the "ultimate aim is selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative Nominating Committee in accordance with democratic procedures".

The proposed change is exactly that.

Besides referring to the Basic Law, "pan-democrat" legislators and human rights activists who claim the package being proposed is neither democratic nor open should also take note of United Nations Human Rights Council's (UNHRC) 2013 recommendation in relation to Hong Kong's constitutional changes. Again I quote: "UNHRC called for measures to implement universal suffrage to ensure the right of all people to vote and to stand for election without unreasonable limitations".

I hope "pan-democrat" legislators understand that their vetoes will definitely put a stop to the implementation of universal suffrage in 2017. As a result, they will be acting against the recommendations of the UNHRC and the interests of the 5 million eligible voters.

I don't know how can they not feel ashamed of their mindless actions in taking away the franchise for "one person, one vote" from voters. Yet they still expect to be recognized as defenders of democracy.

Under changes being proposed, a candidate can join the race to become CE with the endorsement of 10 percent or 120 members of the NC. This entry point could hardly be called "unreasonable limitations". Furthermore, if candidates have enough support in the second round of voting, their candidacy for CE will have six times more legitimacy compared with British Prime Minister David Cameron when he was elected leader of the Conservative Party in 2005.

The reason being that NC members in Hong Kong were elected with a total number of over 230,000 electorates (4.7 percent of the 5 million eligible voters) while the Conservative Party leader was only elected by 134,446 Conservative Party members - including me (0.3 percent of UK's 45.6 million eligible voters). Where's the "civil" element in this? Yet Cameron was voted prime minister for the last five years in his capacity as the leader of the Conservative Party.

The mandate to govern is granted by the electorate who exercised their rights to vote under the "one person, one vote" system and not from a nomination process.

I fully agree that comments that changes proposed are "legal, feasible, rational and practical" as they were within the framework outlined under the "One Country, Two System" policy, the Basic Law and the Aug 31, 2014 decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. "Pan-democratic" legislators can continue to make derogatory remarks about China, let me remind them that the obligation in "upholding national unity" is very much China's as well as their responsibilities.

Just consider what can be achieved for Hong Kong and its people if all the energy and time spent in arguments and demonstrations are channeled into constructive dialogues and actions in the delivery of freedom, autonomy, democracy and opportunities for all.

The author is the director of the Chinese in Britain Forum. He was the first-ever Chinese British citizen to be elected mayor of the Greater London Borough of Redbridge (2009-10) and served as a member of the city council for over 10 years.

(HK Edition 04/27/2015 page8)