> Although full universal suffrage was never granted by the British to its colony before the handover in 1997, some democratic reform began in 1984.
> ... but they stalled due to opposition from Beijing, local business interests as represented by Executive Council, and the British Foreign Office under the pretext that it would bring chaos to Hong Kong.
> In 1987, many surveys indicated that there was more than 60% popular support for direct elections. The government, under governor David Wilson, issued another green paper in 1987 proposing direct LegCo elections for 1988.
> However, the proposal was ruled out after a government consultation concluded that people were 'sharply divided' over its introduction that year.
The "vested interests" you refer to is "Patten's push for reform was strongly opposed at the time by vested interests within LegCo and by former ambassador to China Percy Cradock." However that was in response to "labour rights and collective bargaining" and not strictly democratic elections.
Local business interests, and a "sharply divided" public were the reasons democracy never came sooner. Of course I'm not sure how reliable those government consultations were. I do want to point out I fully support Democracy in Hong Kong. I'd just rather not be a pawn in an opportunistic power grab by business elites who decided Chinese rulers don't work out as well for them as their former British ones. Freedom of information and thought aside, the elites have more to lose from Chinese rule than the working class.
No, by "vested interests" I mean whoever had power at the time. In the 70s-80s it was the ExCo, which had on it a few business elites hand-picked by the British.
In the 80s-90s, as China opened up its markets and needed HK investment, many business elites cozied up with Beijing, gaining political power in the process; they became the vested interests today. But they are not exactly the same group as the vested interests in the 80s.
> > However, the proposal was ruled out after a government consultation concluded that people were 'sharply divided' over its introduction that year.
By that time the CCP was heavily involved. People feared that introducing direct elections would (and eventually did) antagonise Beijing.
> rather not be a pawn in an opportunistic power grab by business elites
This is an interesting take. Do you have anything to support this claim?
From the article you linked, it says it was stalled by vested interests and the CCP. Where does it say it was stalled by HK people?