Editor's note: Ken Moak, who taught economic theory, public policy and globalization at the university level for 33 years, co-authored a book titled "China's Economic Rise and Its Global Impact" in 2015. The article reflects the author's opinion, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Since the return of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) to the Chinese Mainland in 1997, various activist groups have sprouted up in the former British colony, protesting against anything from the education curriculum amendment in 2012 to the return of the territory to the motherland. The latest one was the protest against Hong Kong's fugitive bill, which they fear the government might use to send political dissidents to the Chinese Mainland. On July 1, tensions rose again when hundreds of protesters stormed and broke into the Legislative Council building, asking for a complete withdrawal of the bill and demanding Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's Chief Executive, step down.

Although the authorities might not have explained the policy changes adequately as some in Hong Kong suggested, the "pro-democracy" activists twisted the intent of the policy changes. For example, the 2012 education amendment was a proposed civic course found in almost every country in the world, giving students a proper perspective of their respective countries. Similarly, the recent protest might not be about the fugitive bill per se anymore, but the "pro-democracy" activists used it as an excuse to disrupt the territory's security and law system.

It might not even have anything to do with the Chinese Mainland, as the proposed law was reported to be driven by a murder case where a Hong Kong resident murdered his pregnant girlfriend in China's Taiwan and then fled back to Hong Kong. Since there was not fugitive transfer system between Hong Kong and Taiwan, the bill was meant to fix the loophole in the current law system and prevent lawbreakers from using Hong Kong as a "haven" for fugitives.

It's thus fair to say the protests are "much ado about nothing," except risking Hong Kong's future. Hong Kong "pro-democracy groups" took to the streets in 2014 to protest what they referred to as China reneging on the "one country, two systems" architecture.

But, the irony was that the democracy level the central government guaranteed to Hong Kong was higher than when it was a British colony, at which time the governor of Hong Kong was directly appointed rather than elected. The Hong Kong police did not stop the protests, except when some members acted like hooligans, throwing bricks and pouring urine at the police. Some went as far as breaking into the legislature and damaging properties.

Some former Hong Kong residents (now living in Canada) commented that the British would have never allowed the local Chinese population to protest against its rule. Unlike the British colonial governor, the Hong Kong Chief Executive is elected or selected from a pool of acceptable candidates by the 1200-member Election Committee, whose members represent private citizens and special interest groups known as "functional constituencies" with major sectors such as the teaching profession or labor unions.

In the end, there is evidence that the "people's voice" matters in Hong Kong and strongly influences public policy. The national education amendment was dropped from the school curriculum and the proposed fugitive bill might be facing the same fate.  

Then, it begs the particular question of what the "pro-democracy" activists protest against. It needs an answer because the activists' actions are risking Hong Kong's future, a prospect not lost to the majority of the territory's residents.

According to a poll by the University of Hong Kong in 2014, 70 percent of Hong Kong residents expressed that they would like the Occupy Central movement to stop. News outlets reported that businesses from taxi companies to retail store owners were hoping the current protest would end soon. The financial community warned of capital flight and erosion of foreign investment if civil order was not reestablished.

Moreover, the protesters might be "cutting off their noses to spite their faces" because an uncertain Hong Kong would dampen their future. Indeed, one could even argue that it was Chinese Mainland that sustained the territory's economic well-being, sending vast numbers of tourists and designating it as the Chinese yuan hub to boost economic growth.

The British, on the other hand, used Hong Kong as a "cash cow," taking land away from the locals just to lease it back to them. The policy turned out to be an endless source of revenue; no wonder the British did not want to give Hong Kong back to China.

Taking the analysis to its logical conclusion, the "pro-democracy" activists should think about the possibility that their actions could backfire.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com)