First, the protesters should not object to the government's position that anything discussed should be based on the Basic Law. In fact, the protest leaders should insist on this. Hundreds of thousands of protest supporters took to the streets to demand that the government fulfil its commitment to universal suffrage under the Basic Law. The public has not been prepared to accept "fake democracy" as meeting Basic Law requirements.

The government will argue that complying with the Basic Law means adhering to the NPC Standing Committee decision. The Standing Committee decision is just a decision, not an interpretation. Universal suffrage is more than "one person, one vote". If that is all that is required, then even mainland China today could lay claim to having universal suffrage.

As the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear, for an electoral process to qualify as a democracy with universal and equal suffrage, the voters must be given a free choice in a competitive election. The pan-democratic camp has consistently won 55 to 60 per cent of the popular vote. Excluding them from nomination clearly falls way short of the Basic Law commitment to universal suffrage. It also engenders the very contention in Hong Kong that China seeks to avoid.

Second, the protest leaders must insist on a fundamental change of policy from the government. The biggest source of public anger with the Hong Kong government has long been the perception that it invariably sides with the central government.

Hong Kong has been promised a high degree of autonomy and a separate legal system with the rule of law and human rights. Such a model depends by its nature on the local government defending autonomy. This includes defending those core values such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law that are instrumental to autonomy.

Rather, in the recent consultation exercise, the Hong Kong government appeared to misrepresent popular views, largely suggesting that Hong Kong people supported Beijing's model for democratic reform. In the NPC Standing Committee decision, the central government accepted these representations without question. Protest leaders would surely be justified in demanding that the Hong Kong government submit a more accurate assessment.

The Hong Kong government generally is seen to lecture Hong Kong on Beijing's needs. Judging from Beijing's lack of understanding, there is little evidence local officials or even pro-Beijing politicians have made any effort to convey deeply held Hong Kong concerns. Rather, there appears to be a competition to win favour by saying what Beijing wants to hear.

Hong Kong people know that more than democracy is at stake in this current debate. The protest leaders should insist that the government reverse course and start standing up for those core values listed in the Basic Law. Universal suffrage should mean just that. Those very words and Hong Kong's adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should require no less.

Privileging expediency over the rule of law, as was done in the NPC Standing Committee decision, puts basic freedoms and rights at risk. The rule of law cannot survive when too much liberty of interpretation is taken with the solid legal commitments in the Basic Law. If words do not carry their ordinary meaning, then they may carry no meaning at all.

Third, the students have insisted on civil nominations. This is largely because they have judged they could not trust the central and local governments to put forth a model under Basic Law Article 45 that would meet international standards. The NPC Standing Committee decision surely justifies this mistrust.

Unfortunately, the argument for civil nominations has enabled officials who have taken great liberty with the Basic Law themselves to attack democracy proponents for violating the Basic Law.

While a civil referendum has embraced civil and party nominations, the Occupy Central movement has argued for a base line of compliance with the international standard of giving the voters a free and fair choice of candidates.

A number of avenues to this might be considered, including expanding the constituency base of the nominating committee to provide for fair and equal election of its members and lowering the threshold for nomination. A popular run-off could be used to narrow the final number of candidates to two. When one committee nominates candidates on both sides of an election, a low threshold is essential to providing the voters with a free choice.

Finally, both protest leaders and the government should appreciate that a variety of non-violent tactics are available to sustain the public demand for true democracy. The government should not count on protest fatigue to offer a half-hearted response to people's heartfelt demands to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the Basic Law.

Protests in Hong Kong - over Article 23, national education and even currently - have typically been driven by spontaneous public anger over government indifference or heavy-handed tactics. Further indifference and lack of sincerity in any current negotiations will surely do the trick again.

Protesters, however, cannot always count on such government mistakes. Lingering on the street may accomplish very little when supporters dwindle. For a sustained movement, they will need to bring together a coordinated leadership. Negotiations or other government initiatives dismissive of their concerns will need to be met with varied responses. Movements for social justice typically have a variety of tools that may require leadership and discipline. These may include boycotts, targeted sit-ins, teach-ins, democracy art and performance, and so on.

In other words, the government should not count on sincere public concerns to simply fade away. A sincere response that takes seriously the need to represent Hong Kong interests to Beijing and facilitate better understanding all around is obviously a better way to proceed.