The Hong Kong government on Wednesday formally submitted the election reform proposals to select the city's next chief executive in 2017. The blueprint suggests that election candidates are to be named by a 1,200-member nominating committee, and the chief executive then will be selected through a "one man, one vote" election.

Just as the proposal was unveiled, fierce reaction was sparked among Hong Kong's opposition lawmakers, who claim they will veto the reform proposal in a legislative vote this June or July.

The proposal needs to gain support from a two-thirds majority of Hong Kong's Legislative Council to be approved, but as opposition members account for 27 seats, over one-third of the total seats, at least four to five members from the opposition would have to switch sides and vote in the affirmative to prevent the proposal from being rebuffed.

But the Hong Kong government has expressed its confidence over the approval for its blueprint. Some opinions showed that the actual attitude of the pan-democratic lawmakers is more complicated than their current coherent voice, and the government is capable of pulling enough moderate opposition figures to its side to back up the plan. This will prove to be a difficult game.

The next two months will be critical to influence public opinion for both camps. If more Hong Kongers are in favor of the election plan, some of the pan-democrats will be under pressure to shift their stance.

It must be pointed out that every member of the Legislative Council will be voting for the future of Hong Kong. Thus, it is stupid for a minority of people to take the vote as a fight against the central government.

The constitutional reform proposal is made strictly in accordance with Hong Kong's Basic Law, and China's central government clarified its stance on August 31 last year over this issue. Both realists and radical opposition groups are clear that the central government won't change its mind. But the latter is still trying to scuttle the blueprint, in order to prove its own "correctness" and shore up its power for future political battles.

They obviously haven't placed the city's interests first. They prioritize the political interests of individuals or their small clique, while sparing no expense to sacrifice the interests of the majority of citizens.

Universal suffrage to elect the leader is undoubtedly huge progress compared to previous elections. And it is of historic significance to Hong Kong's democratic process.

Yet when it comes down to it, radical opposition groups hold little sway over the central government and the Chinese mainland public. If they further stir up troubles in Hong Kong, it will only cause a disastrous change for its own citizens, while mainland society will not be affected due to China's strong resilience after comprehensive development all these years.

Whether Hong Kong will step forward or stay where it is, whether Hong Kongers want consensus and stability, or divergences and conflicts to tear apart the city, it will take real action to give their answer.