On July 15, two important political reports were finally released. The Task Force on Constitutional Development (TFCD) of the Hong Kong SAR Government disclosed a report on public consultation on the methods for the Chief Executive (CE) election in 2017 and the Legislative Council (LegCo) election in 2016. At the same time, CE Leung Chun-ying submitted a report to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). It asks the NPCSC to consider whether it needs to amend the methods for selecting the CE in 2017 in order to attain universal suffrage. It also states that Annex II of the Basic Law should not be amended in regard to the method for forming the Legislative Council in 2016.

Leung told the press conference: “(It) is a historic moment in the constitutional development of Hong Kong.” However, he added: “We will be able to take a big step forward in the democratic development of Hong Kong if we are willing to forge consensus as much as we can and leave behind our differences in a rational and pragmatic manner.”

Frankly speaking, the city’s political atmosphere isn’t conducive to developing consensus on universal suffrage. Since last spring the opposition camp has tried a number of tactics, including its threat to launch the “Occupy Central” campaign, to compel the central government and SAR government to accept their demands for so-called “genuine universal suffrage”. This is ultimately aimed at changing Hong Kong from a SAR of China into an independent political entity.

Nevertheless, the authorities still hope to turn the majority of Hong Kong people’s desires for “one person, one vote” into reality. As Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie Lam told LegCo: “The Hong Kong community is generally eager to see the implementation of universal suffrage for the CE election in 2017.” However, this has to be based on the Basic Law and relevant decisions by the NPCSC.

In order to help develop consensus on universal suffrage, the TFCD’s report reflected all opinions and proposals in its appendices. It even included some which did not conform to the Basic Law and NPCSC decisions. The CE’s report also included the opposition’s views, including those expressed during the so-called “civil referendum” from June 20 to 29. Meanwhile, the two reports clearly noted that: “The community generally agrees that the discussion should be made on the basis of the Basic Law and the relevant interpretation and decisions of the NPCSC, and in a rational and pragmatic manner”.

As expected, the opposition camp immediately criticized the two reports. They keep demanding that “real universal suffrage” should conform to so-called international norms rather than the SAR’s constitutional requirements.

Hong Kong really has no time to be immersed in these political disputes. The NPCSC will make a decision on the CE’s report in late August. In the next month and a half can the opposition and patriotic camps reduce their differences?