One hundred and fifty years of British colonial rule came to an end on July 1, 1997, when Hong Kong was returned to mainland China. In Hong Kong’s Basic Law, mainland China pledges to abide by the principle of “one country, two systems” for 50 years.

Having been given this pledge, the people of Hong Kong care deeply about whether they can truly exercise self-rule, and whether they can really elect their chief executive without interference from Bei­jing. Beyond these things, moreover, they want to elect the chief executive through universal suffrage in a process governed by the principle of one person, one vote. In other words, the manner of the chief executive’s election determines whether the spirit of democracy informs the “one country, two systems” arrangement.

Article 45 of the Basic Law provides: “The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress.” In a 2007 decision, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) of the PRC declared that Hong Kong’s fifth chief executive could be elected through universal suffrage in 2017. This decision gave the people of Hong Kong hope that democracy was coming.

On August 31, however, the NPC Standing Committee made a new ruling imposing limitations on how the chief executive is to be elected in 2017. This triggered a firestorm of controversy over whether Hong Kong’s democracy is real, hastened the launch of the Occupy Central movement, and got student activists involved in Occupy Central.

The nub of the controversy lies in the fact that the candidate nominating committee, whose membership is largely pro-Bei­jing, is structured to exclude locally based political parties and ordinary citizens from the nomination process. Within this system, someone from the pro-democracy or opposition camp could never be nominated as a candidate, and voting by the people of Hong Kong is just a rubber-stamp proposition. Universal suffrage exists in name only.

The Economist has described the set-up as “voting with Chinese characteristics.” Only someone anointed by the communist party could ever get elected as chief executive.

Overnight, the “one country, two systems” pledge that mainland China made to Hong Kong has become an object of editorial scorn in major news organizations throughout the world.

For example, The Economist mocked the clampdown on democracy and self-rule called for in the decision on the 2017 chief executive elections, referring to Hong Kong’s situation as “one country, one-and-a-half systems.”

Keith B. Richburg, former Hong Kong bureau chief of the Washington Post, recently contributed an article to the Post in which he observed that for mainland China there was never anything but “one country,” while the “two systems” part was just a fiction.

Commenting on the end of belief among Hong Kong people in the “one country, two systems” construct, major international news organizations have cautioned us in Taiwan­ that “one country, two systems” is a fine-sounding but utterly mendacious promise by mainland China.

In an interview with Al Jazeera during the early days of Occupy Central, President Ma Ying-jeou clearly stated, in response to these warnings from the international ­media, that Taiwan could not possibly accept the “one country, two systems” concept.

President Ma stated that in the early 1980s the “one country, two systems” formula was created for Taiwan, not for Hong Kong. But Taiwan has sent a clear message that we do not accept the concept. If the system is good, he said, then it should be “one country, one system.”

President Ma stressed that very few people in Taiwan are supportive of “one country, two systems,” and pointed out that Taiwan is fundamentally different from Hong Kong, because the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a sovereign state that elects its own president and parliament, and regulates its own affairs.

Taiwan, said the president, cannot accept “one country, two systems,” but it can accept “one country, respective interpretations”—the idea that each side acknowledges the existence of “one China” but maintains its own interpretation of what that means. And in 1992, he added, Taiwan and mainland China reached a consensus on this point. President Ma pointed out that recent opinion polls have shown that if the “country” in the “one country, respective interpretations” formulation is taken to be the Republic of China, then more than 50% of the people of Taiwan support it.

Commenting on the true universal suffrage that the Hong Kong people are demanding in the Occupy Central movement, President Ma stated that Hong Kong understands Taiwan is the one ethnically Chinese society most capable of putting democracy into practice. The people of Taiwan are therefore fully able to understand the Hong Kong people’s desire for universal suffrage. If they do achieve universal suffrage at some point, both Hong Kong and mainland China would benefit.

“Hong Kong’s march toward democracy is a win–win proposition, or even a multiple-win proposition,” he said.

President Ma is concerned, however, that having over 200,000 people take to the streets in search of true universal suffrage could affect Hong Kong’s future, and how the world looks at mainland China.

Hong Kong is a key global financial center. As such, political unrest there affects more than just the Hong Kong economy. President Ma therefore issued a call to both sides: “I hope the mainland authorities and Hong Kong can work out an arrangement that is acceptable to both sides. This is very important to Hong Kong. And the people of Taiwan are watching.”