The chief executive is basically a pawn of Beijing, where democracy is limited and many delegates who elect the CEO are appointed by pro Beijing groups.
If HK got rid of their appointed delegates, the anti-Beijing group would have a clear majority.
It's not clear who would have the majority if functional constituencies were eliminated. The pro-Beijing camp got a higher proportion of the popular vote than the anti-Beijing camp in the last Legislative Council election.
Yes, democracy is limited in Hong Kong. The city has never been ruled democratically. The issue now is that Beijing will not take the risk of allowing separatists to take power.
As for the Chief Executive's actions, it's not entirely clear to what extent she's responding to popular pressure, business groups in Hong Kong that want stability, or the central government.
> As for the Chief Executive's actions, it's not entirely clear to what extent she's responding to popular pressure, business groups in Hong Kong that want stability, or the central government.
I would say, the Chief Executive is more like a coordinator between Hong Kong and Beijing on such big issues. I don't think she is able to make important decisions like this on her own.
which has been becoming more and more hardline since 1997. Besides, the HK government cannot act on her own on such big issues. It has to be consulted with the PRC government.
This isn't the central government of China. The government in question is the government of the Hong Kong SAR.