BEIJING -- As a plan for 2017 leader election by universal suffrage is scheduled to be voted on by legislators in Hong Kong as early as June 19, the Special Administrative Region's (SAR) democratic development has come to a critical juncture.
The Hong Kong SAR government plans to submit the plan, which was revealed in late April, to the SAR Legislative Council (LegCo) for a vote on June 17.
Whether Hong Kong democracy can move forward or stutters to a standstill is now in the hands of LegCo members.
The plan that candidates to be the next Hong Kong SAR chief executive will be picked by a 1,200-member nominating committee from four social sectors consisting of 38 sub-sectors, conforms to the SAR's reality and has won broad support from residents.
However, some legislators hold different views about the universal suffrage package, threatening to veto the plan.
They will only reveal their selfishness if they let their stubbornness take charge, because, as representatives of public voice, the legislators should respect mainstream public opinion and use their vote to respect the common aspiration.
By voting for the plan, the legislators will not only demonstrate their support for the democratic progress of Hong Kong, but also relieve the SAR from political wrestling and focus its attention on development.
However, if they persist in vetoing the plan, not only will the right to choose of more than five million voters be annulled, the economic development of the SAR will also be affected. Such a prospect does no good for anyone.
The fact that the package must be endorsed by at least two-thirds of LegCo members before Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying gives his consent and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's top legislature, gives final approval, reflects the central government's full trust in LegCo.
Members of LegCo must refrain from venting their own sentiments and use their vote in line with the best interest of Hong Kong and the nation.
Some legislators are ignoring the mainstream public voice and vow to veto the plan. Others care for national development and Hong Kong's future, even if they have different political views.
Some trumpet so-called "real" universal suffrage with the real intention of seizing administrative power. Undoubtedly, their scheme has no chance of success.
The opportunity is fleeting, and Kong Kong residents are so close to their dream of electing their chief executive in a "one person, one vote" election.
The public is watching whether the legislators will make the right decision.
