Government will have only itself to blame for Occupy Central turmoil

Condemnation has recently been hurled at the Occupy Central movement, accusing its organisers of setting out to foment turmoil. Critics argue that their proposed civil disobedience will damage Hong Kong and warn of the potential for the central government to step in.

Make no mistake; if non-violent protest is judged to have caused turmoil, responsibility will lie on the government's shoulders. When government fails to keep constitutional commitments, responsibility for non-violent protest lies with the government, especially if it uses heavy-handed tactics to contain the protest.

Universal suffrage is one of the most solemn commitments in the Basic Law. While universal suffrage comes in various forms, its core ingredients, embedded in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), are the rights "to vote and to be elected on the basis of universal and equal suffrage".

Under the Basic Law, universal suffrage could have been implemented by 2007 and is surely imperative a decade later [for the 2017 chief executive election]. The government's attempt to hide behind British colonial reservations on the covenant concerning democracy is to no avail, as the ICCPR Human Rights Committee holds that such reservations no longer apply.

Any attempt by the Hong Kong government to put forward and the central government to approve a model to screen out democratic candidates, denying the city a fair and lawful vote, would clearly give rise to public protest.

The Basic Law provides for selection of chief executive candidates "upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures". Some government and pro-government critics have tried to discredit democratic demands by attacking popular calls for civil nomination as violating the mini-constitution.