The 10-day poll organized by Hong Kong protest group Occupy Central closed on Sunday evening. It was reported that nearly 800,000 ballots had been counted, among which online votes accounted for about 90 percent, and only about 52,000 people voted in person at the poll stations.

This "referendum" is facing a crucial problem: a lack of legitimacy and credibility.

Firstly, China's administrative system determines that Hong Kong is only a special administrative region under the leadership of the Chinese central government. There is no constitutional basis for any so-called referendum in Hong Kong, nor will it have any legal effect.

If Hong Kong boasts itself as a democracy under the rule of law, then the paramount laws it should comply with are the Basic Law and the Chinese constitution.

In addition, the procedure of the poll cannot guarantee it reflects the true image of the public opinion of Hong Kong society. The organizers of the poll claimed the participation was much higher than they had anticipated, and the number almost equaled one fifth of Hong Kong's electorate, but more attention should be focused on the number of the people who chose to vote in person at the poll booths, merely 6.5 percent of the whole turnout.

Considering the technological loopholes in the online vote, it is worth asking a question: To what extent does an online poll represent real public opinion?

Universal suffrage is the consensus reached by both the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong, but the crux lies in the nomination procedures. Getting Beijing's nod for the candidates for Hong Kong's chief executive is a red line. It is a symbol that indicates China, as a whole, is united and the central government has supreme authority. This red line won't be compromised no matter what the pan-democracy camp does.

This red line must be well recognized by these pan-democracy activists. They have to know the "one country, two systems" is never a shield that allows Hong Kong to be a fully autonomous region without the involvement of the central government.

China is a united state with only one centralized government, which will never take the risk of having a situation in which the new Hong Kong chief executive might have the chance to confront it over certain key issues, such as the unity of the country.

Besides, if Hong Kong was allowed to elect whoever chief executive it wants, then the central government would be regarded as the violator of Hong Kong's Basic Law, which clearly stipulates that the chief executive shall be selected "by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee," and appointed by the central government.

The White Paper on Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" practice issued last month is not what Hong Kong's pan-democracy camp stated: It was not a distortion of the basic national policy. It's a detailed interpretation. Several principles have been reaffirmed in a clearer manner, and they can highlight the bottom lines of the central government's administration of Hong Kong.

The Chinese mainland and Hong Kong have seen rising tensions between each other in recent years. They are in a complicated phase in which more problems will emerge as ties grow closer. These problems do not foretell the dead end of the "one country, two systems" framework.

Both sides are still in an early stage, and more common ground will be found in the future.

The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Liu Zhun based on an interview with Zhang Dinghuai, professor and vice director of the Center for Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions, Shenzhen University. liuzhun@globaltimes.com.cn