It's been an unsettled political summer in Hong Kong. There have been rumblings - in the form of a mild pro-democracy demonstration on July 1, and uncertainty over whether the chief executive will stand unopposed for a second term.
We are good at adapting to testing conditions in Hong Kong. But two significant developments this summer have the business community concerned - and with good reason. The first is the re-emergence of two familiar faces on the political scene: former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang and former security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee.
Their return is welcome: it is always good to see old friends invigorate and enliven our sometimes-stale political scene. It doesn't matter how much of a makeover they may have had in terms of changing their perspectives and altering their points of view in the intervening years. However, it is important for us all that Mrs Chan and Mrs Ip state their intentions clearly and their policies in detail - if their re-emergence is to serve any objective other than to spread confusion and uncertainty.
Do they intend to re-enter the political spectrum? Or is theirs a 'hit-and-run' contribution to the debate over the road map to universal suffrage? If they do intend to play a role, what exactly is it: do either of them intend to run for the position of chief executive in future?
The second development of this unsettled, and unsettling, summer has been the heightened campaign by the pan-democrats. They are pushing for measures that I, and many others, fear will push Hong Kong towards becoming a welfare-state community.
Mrs Chan has already acknowledged the concerns of the business sector about universal suffrage: namely, that candidates seeking the popular vote will promise more spending on education, health care, housing and welfare in general. And that they will then leave businesses and middle-income groups to pick up the bill.
The democratic camp already wants a minimum wage, whether or not small businesses can afford it. They want a progressive corporate profits tax that would effectively punish many businesses for their success in surviving the recent economic slump. Both measures could scare investors away.
We would be wise to beware of the drift towards a welfare state. While other countries have curtailed such spending, Hong Kong has seen the number of CSSA cases shoot up by 182 per cent in the decade from 1994.
Beyond the business realm, the pan-democrats want an across-the-board pension for senior citizens, which takes no account of whether they really need it or not. Nor does it sensibly consider whether, with our ageing population, it would be either practical or sustainable.
We in the Liberal Party support universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2012. However, we also see a danger that the words and actions of its so-called promoters are more likely to delay than hasten that day.
Talk of punitive taxes to fund the establishment of a welfare-state-type benefit system runs contrary to Hong Kong's natural instincts as an entrepreneurial hub. It is also likely to confirm the suspicion in Beijing that the economic price of universal suffrage in 2012 may be too high.
Those who aspire to become political figureheads in our society must spell out their beliefs and intentions clearly. Those who campaign for universal suffrage must make sure they can afford to pay for their promises for welfare spending.
We need clear agendas, clear indications of intent and clear thinking if we are to continue on the road to universal suffrage.
James Tien Pei-chun is chairman of the Liberal Party