Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying earlier filed an application to the High Court for a judicial review on Legislative Council (Legco) President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen’s decision for Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to retake their oaths.　　The case will be heard on 3rd November.

It must be pointed out that, this is the only legal and effective way to deal with the problem of the pair's oath-retaking within the SAR system.　　Otherwise, it will have to seek reinterpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC).　　There is no other way out.

From this perspective, Leung Chun-ying seeking a judicial review from the High Court not only does not constitute an "intervention" in the legislature, but is exactly a major commitment by the CE to implementing "one country two systems" and the Basic Law and safeguarding the SAR's constitutional status.　　In this matter, he does not err but renders a great service.

As a matter of fact, since the Leung-Yau pair refused to take their oaths in accordance with the law and insulted the nation, the situation has become very clear that the problem can impossibly be solved just by the Legco President taking up his responsibilities and within the framework of the legislature……

In such a tough yet complicated situation, how could the problem be dealt with?　　There is only one answer.　　That is to implement Article 104 of the Basic Law: "When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China."

More importantly, to comprehensively and accurately implement the Basic Law is not only the CE's statutory power but also his most important and crucial responsibility……

In fact, according to Article 43 of the Basic Law, the CE is the head of the Hong Kong SAR and represents the SAR, and the CE is accountable to the Central People's Government and the Hong Kong SAR in accordance with the Basic Law.　　In other words, constitutionally the CE is the head of the SAR and at the same time exercises powers over Hong Kong on behalf of the Central Government.　　It is within his powers not to tolerate any attempt or behaviour to advocate and seek separation of the country.

What must furthermore be pointed out is that, according to the strict stipulations of the Basic Law, the Leung-Yau pair already brutally violated relevant stipulations in the Basic Law and Legco's Rules of Procedure when they refused to take their oaths in accordance with the law at the Legco's swearing-in ceremony but wantonly distorted the Oath and used foul language to publicly insult the nation.　　As the CE, Leung Chun-ying could have exercised his powers to ban them from taking seats in the Legco, which is beyond a shadow of a doubt legal and within his powers.　　Nevertheless, Leung Chun-ying chose to apply to the High Court for a judicial review and an interim injunction so as to let the court to hear the case and make its ruling.　　How can such a respect for judicial independence and for the legislature be questioned and criticized?　　Cries about "intervention" can go to hell!

Therefore, the court hearing on the CE's application for the judicial review on 3rd November will be a major move in the implementation of the Basic Law and embodiment of the spirit of the rule of law in the SAR.　　Under the Basic Law and Legco's Rules of Procedure, the only and necessary ruling shall be to strip Leung and Yau of their seats in the Legco, given that they unconstitutionally and illegally advocate splitting the nation and deliberately "declined or neglected" to take an oath duly requested.

And until then, Legco President Andrew Leung must more accurately and prudently exercise his powers, not to make any change to the case and give the pair a chance for retaking their oaths.

　　21 October 2016