The High Court yesterday began a judicial review initiated by the Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice on whether Sixtus Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching's oaths are valid and whether the President of the Legislative Council (Legco) has the right to administer the oath to the duo a second time. Lawyers representing parties involved appeared in court to debate the case. Court hearings continues today.
At the same time, the word is spread that Li Fei, Deputy Secretary-General of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) and Chairman of the Hong Kong SAR Basic Law Committee under the NPC Standing Committee, will come down to Hong Kong to meet with personages from the legal sector. This attracts wide attention.
No doubt, the incident of Leung and Yau declining to take their oaths but instead taking the opportunity to insult the nation and advocate "independence for Hong Kong" has turned white hot, like a stone stirring up a thousand waves. Apart from of the legislators-elect's oath-taking issue, the impact of NPC Standing Committee's interpretation of the Basic Law itself is also a focus of attention by various sectors. On this matter, some lawyers' organisation has asserted that the NPC Standing Committee making an interpretation of the Basic Law on its own initiative has much more harms than benefits. Such assertion is neither comprehensive nor very accurate.
As a matter of fact, the NPC Standing Committee is making an interpretation of the Basic Law this time against its own will. It is forced to do so by certain people and affairs. The NPC Standing Committee moves to interpret the Basic Law on its own initiative this time not because it wants to "make fun of" the SAR judiciary on a whim, nor because it is so disgusted by the "two little punks" of Leung and Yau that it wants to teach them a lesson. This is by no mean the case.
The fact is that "the tree desires to stand still but the wind won't stop". According to Article 158 of the Basic Law, the power of interpretation of the Basic Law is no doubt vested in the NPC Standing Committee. But the NPC Standing Committee apparently shows no special interest in this power, as it always uses this power as the last resort when there is no other choice. This is fully proved by facts since Hong Kong's return to China. The right of abode of Hong Kong residents' children in the Mainland, the length of the term of office of a Chief Executive elected through a by-election, whether the SAR alone could decide when to start political reform, and whether courts in Hong Kong were entitled to handle lawsuits involving state immunity - these were problems that could not have been solved without the NPC Standing committee interpreting the Basic Law. Only in such cases did the NPC Standing Committee move to interpret the Basic Law as the last resort.
Likewise, the NPC Standing Committee has no other choice this time but to interpret the Basic Law. This is just like in Wong Fei Hung movies, when Shih Kien comes to provoke a fight on the doorstep, there is no way for "Master Wong" to get away so he has to strike back. Now the "Villain Kien" is none other than the pro-Hong Kong-independence elements under the banner of "localism" and "self-determination"!
As a matter of fact, everything in this world has a "bottom line" or "red line". Generally speaking, everything tolerable can be tolerated, but when the "red line" is crossed, then it is quite another matter. In Hong Kong SAR, hurtling abuses at the SAR Government or uglifying Chief Executive as "Wolf Ying" won't prompt the NPC Standing Committee to interpret the Basic Law. Even on the case that the glass hurled by Raymond Wong Yuk Man nearly hit on Leung Chun-ying, the NPC Standing Committee makes no comment. This time, however, Sixtus Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, as well as pro-independence elements and their ilk, have lost their heads by their wild arrogance, going so far in messing around as to utter "Shina" and talk about "fxxking" at the swearing-in ceremony of the dignified Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China, and even to put on a piece of cloth with the words "HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA" printed on it, to openly pose a challenge to the Basic Law in an extremely arrogant, skittish and scornful attitude and a challenge to national sovereignty, history and the Central Government's constitutional status. In this way, they have stepped their feet on the "bottom line" of "one country two systems" and the "red line" of splitting the country. With such a crossing, they are doomed beyond all hope of redemption.
In conclusion, the NPC Standing Committee wants to interpret the Basic Law not just because some individuals declined to take their oaths in accordance with the law, but more because "independence for Hong Kong" is absolutely not allowed to wantonly spread in the SAR infiltrating into schools and the legislature to endanger national sovereignty, security and the interests of the whole nation. Surely this is a matter no Hong Kong court can handle.
04 November 2016
