Moderates must come together to compromise on political reform

The key debate on constitutional reform today is still on the mechanism and procedure for electing the chief executive by universal suffrage. Practically, the reform package that the Hong Kong government can propose must be acceptable to the central government, and if Beijing finds it acceptable, then the pro-establishment camp would most likely follow suit.

At the other side of the divide, pan-democratic factions in the Legislative Council have clearly indicated that their votes will depend on whether the package provides for genuine universal suffrage and whether it is widely acceptable to the general public.

In other words, for a constitutional reform proposal to be deemed suitable, it would have to be acceptable to the central government, the pro-establishment camp in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government, the pan-democrats and the general public. Something that is ideal for one party but grossly unacceptable to another would not pass muster.

At one extreme of the spectrum of views, civil nomination must replace a nominating committee as the means of candidate selection, or if the nominating committee is to be kept, it must serve only as a rubber stamp for civil nomination.

At the other end, the demand is that Beijing faces zero risk of having to consider appointing an unacceptable chief executive elect. This demand manifests itself in the call for a high threshold for someone to become a candidate; that is, 50 per cent support from members of the nominating committee.

It is now very apparent that neither extreme can prevail (procedurally, that means winning at least two-thirds of legislators' votes). Civil nomination is not acceptable to the pro-establishment camp and Beijing, while a high threshold to ensure zero risk - that is, political screening via the nominating committee - will not be acceptable to the democrats.

Insisting on either stand will ensure that our constitutional reform comes to a standstill.