Second, the system being proposed for 2017, whilst not perfect, is neither wholly unreasonable nor undemocratic. There is of course room for discussion and improvement. For instance, the announced framework requiring the minimum support of half of the members of the nomination committee for a candidate to be nominated, the limiting of nominees to two or three, and the decision that the nomination committee will remain 1,200 members (following the structure of the electoral committee), are points that arguably could have been further relaxed to achieve broader representation and greater choice.

However, within the decided framework, there is work to be done to ensure the members of the nomination committee are representative of the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. In addition there are many ways in which people's views of the candidates may be gauged for the benefit of the members of the nomination committee.

One must see things from Beijing's point of view too. Hong Kong is just one city in a nation of over a billion people. Beijing reasonably cannot risk having a chief executive that seeks to subvert Beijing's authority or frustrate its policies. It is neither unreasonable nor unjustifiable that it wishes to have some control over the candidates for chief executive. Since 1997, Beijing has taken a relatively hands-off approach to Hong Kong affairs save ensuring national security and unity. Given the matters above, is it worth risking all of the things that generations of Hong Kong people have worked so hard for and done so well with, so that a segment of the population can pursue their dream of so-called true universal suffrage? And can it seriously justify a complete subversion of law and order?

As some people have said, the protesters can occupy Victoria Park or Kowloon Park. Most people in Hong Kong would have no objection to that and would be far more sympathetic to their cause. But what the protesters are doing, including occupying public roads, seriously affects people's livelihoods, and blockading the chief executive's office goes far beyond a peaceful protest. It is tantamount to blackmail in order to force an accession to their demands irrespective of the wishes and interests of others who may not share their views. Surrounding and blockading the office of the head of the executive branch of government is a direct assault to law and order in a civilized society, and the government is fully entitled to restore law and order by removing the protesters, with reasonable force if necessary.

As for complaints of police heavy-handedness, in my view, the police were very restrained. There may of course have been isolated incidents where, with the benefit of hindsight, the situation could have been better handled. However, these must be viewed in perspective. One needs to look no further than the recent events in Ferguson in the United States to see the kind of paramilitary force other countries use in such situations. The government should be commended for the restraint it has shown so far. However, the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue much longer. It is the prerogative of the government to maintain law and order and to ensure that the residents of the city can go about their lives and business.

The author is a Hong Kong professional.