Dialogue with democrats resumed on April 1 after 15 years

In the first formal dialogue between Beijing and the democrats since the Tiananmen tragedy in 1989, a two-hour meeting was held between Central Government officials and Democratic Party lawmaker James To Kun-sun, The Frontier's Cyd Ho Sau-lan and Frederick Fung Kin-kee, of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood. The democrats cancelled their plan to fly to Beijing to air their concerns about the decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) to interpret sections of the Basic Law. Instead, they rushed to the Central Government Liaison Office in Western to meet Cao Erbao, director-general of its research department. Previously Beijing officials had adamantly refused to hold direct talks with members of the democratic camp.

The three democrats travelled to the airport in the morning to brief reporters of their decision. Fung said he had been contacted by a liaison office official on Tuesday night, saying a meeting could be arranged. An agreement was reached shortly after midnight when the office said the three could meet with Cao who, though not of ministerial rank, is one of the most senior officials in the office. However Fung denied suggestions a pre-requisite for such a meeting was the cancellation of their Beijing trip.

Afterwards, Mr Fung described the atmosphere as "amiable" and "reasoned". "This meeting marked the start of a formal dialogue between the pan-democratic camp and the central government on the city's constitutional development," he said. "At least we were able to talk directly with Beijing officials on local political issues. For their part, they assured us if we had other [political] problems to discuss, they were willing to meet us." Fung also highlighted the cultural gap which would inevitably make negotiations harder. He quoted an official as saying: "Your opposing of Article 23 is equal to opposing the Basic Law. Opposing interpretation of the Basic Law is tantamount to opposing the NPC Standing Committee's power to interpret the Basic Law." Mr To said they had explained to the officials that the interpretation of the electoral provisions would undermine the one country, two systems principle and Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy. "We also asked whether the move could be delayed ... but we didn't get a satisfactory reply," he said.

Mr Cao commented that the NPCSC interpretation was "timely" and "necessary" for Hong Kong's review of constitutional development. "I hope that these lawmakers can come up with constructive suggestions ... and help to handle Hong Kong's political problems together for the long-term stability and prosperity of Hong Kong," he said. Cao said he had listened to what the democrats had to say about the law interpretation and would pass on those views to Beijing's leaders.

Academics and commentators are divided over the outcome and implications of the meeting. Some see it as a major breakthrough in communications, a gesture from Beijing to foster better relations with the democrats. Others doubt the sincerity of the initiative, calling it a diversion which will allow the Central Government to appear more flexible than it really is. Most agree that it is an ice-breaking move that would have a positive impact on relations between pro-democracy groups and the central government.

Ma Ngok, a social science professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, called Beijing's move "a new approach". "They are showing a more friendly attitude but also indicating that if the group is not confrontational and only wants to express an opinion, the central government is willing to listen." Ma is hopeful that this implies that the Central Government has not yet ruled out the possibility of political reform in 2007. "They may not allow one big step to universal suffrage but they may accept milder forms of political development," he said. "If this is the case, it is possible there would be more such discussions with the pro-democracy camp." Wong Ka-ying, co-ordinator of Chinese University's Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, said the liaison office's action was a good public relations move. "Given the fact that it could help ease public resentment, it was the right thing to do," he said. "The meeting was a breakthrough. But whether this will lead to a reconciliation between the democrats and central government, will depend on the two sides adjusting their attitudes and seeking ways to improve relationships."

Pro-Beijing hardliner Shiu Sin-por, the director of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute, was also optimistic about the meeting. "Both parties had a chance to sit down, share their views and exchange opinions on what they believed. I believe it was a good start," he said. "Although there are still big differences in their views and stances, I believe they can progress from this."

However Democratic Party vice-chairman Albert Ho was more reserved, saying the meeting was a tactical move and does not represent the opening of a communication channel between the pro-democracy camp and the central government.