Looking at the turmoil and heated rhetoric that have embroiled Hong Kong in recent days, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that Hong Kong is the envy of economies around the world.

The turmoil resulted from the a decision made by the National People's Congress Standing Committee on Aug 31, 2014 to set a framework to limit the number of candidates to two or three and require them to have the support of at least half of the 1,200 nominating committee members. The main grievance of the protesters is they want any Hong Kong resident to be able to put forward candidates for election (referred to as civic nomination) rather than just those approved by a nomination committee. But there are reasons to question their sense of grievance.

First, civic nomination is plainly inconsistent with Article 45 of the Basic Law which expressly states that the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage be "upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures". The Bar Association has already issued a legal position paper on July 11, stating that, as a matter of law, Article 45(2) cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean civic nomination.

If the Basic Law is respected, which it should be, the people of Hong Kong should work on how to make the nomination committee broadly representative, so as to ensure that nominees who are nominated for election by "one man one vote" do present the Hong Kong people with a real choice. There is no good reason for suggesting that the framework under the Basic Law denies universal suffrage, or that civic nomination is the only acceptable way to select the chief executive.

Hence, contrary to the impression often given by the Western media, the central government is not taking democracy away from Hong Kong or breaking its promise on universal suffrage.