Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, on behalf of the SAR Government, earlier filed a judicial review to have Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching disqualified as legislative councilors.　　Judge Au Hing-cheung of the High Court yesterday handed down his ruling that the pair failed to take a valid oath of office and therefore must be disqualified and the President of the Legislative Council (Legco) has no power to allow them to take their oaths again, declaring vacant their seats.

After the indictment was handed down, it was passed quickly from mouth to mouth.　　Messages about "the government having won the case" or "the Leung-Yau duo being disqualified" spread far and wide.　　All who had heard of the news felt their spirits buoyed up, applauding and cheering.　　This could be well said the most popular and welcomed court ruling in recent years.

The ruling is of great significance in at least three aspects.

The first is its unambiguous ruling that the Leung-Yau pair's oath was invalid and they thus were disqualified and their seats vacated.　　This pair who declined to take their oath lawfully and insulted the nation eventually comes to no good end.　　The "oath-taking" incident that has been harassing Hong Kong society for over a month is concluded for the time being.　　The ruling also provides the basis for solving follow-up problems.

The second is that the interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) shows its power again.　　The High Court in the SAR implemented the interpretation in accordance with the law to make the convincing ruling.　　This highlights the Central Government's authoritative constitutional status and also effectively manifests the independence of the SAR's judiciary.

The third is that the arrogance of pro-Hong Kong independence elements is almost completely deflated at once.　　A few individuals pursuing separatism under the pretext of "localism" attempted to sneak into the SAR's governance structure through geographical constituencies but, as a result, ran into bumps and bruises before the NPC Standing Committee's interpretation of the Basic Law and the SAR's Judiciary, and ended up in failure.　　

As early as when the Chief Executive and Justice Secretary just filed their lawsuit till after the NPC Standing Committee interpreted the Basic Law, some people have kept spreading the word that the NPC Standing Committee's interpretation of the Basic Law "deprived" the SAR of its judicial power, and at the same time claimed that judges of SAR courts have the power to make their judgment according to their own comprehension without the need to implement the NPC Standing Committee's interpretation of the Basic Law.　　In this way, they make the NPC Standing Committee's interpretation of the Basic Law run counter to the SAR's Judiciary.　　On this, Director Zhang Xiaoming of the Central Government's Liaison Office in Hong Kong pointed out in a speech earlier that the SAR's judicial power could not override the NPC Standing Committee's interpretation of the Basic Law, but judges in the SAR were not "enemies".

The High Court ruling before our eyes is evident that judges in the SAR are not "enemies" to the Basic Law interpretation but instead exactly "good friends" and effective enforcers of the Basic Law interpretation.　　Judge Thomas Au Hing-cheung solemnly pointed out in his judgement:　　"An oath must be taken solemnly and sincerely and is a form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.　　An oath of allegiance or loyalty means that a person promises and binds himself to bear true allegiance to a particular sovereign and government and to support its constitution."

Judge Au further specifically pointed out: the manner and way in which the Leung-Yau pair purported to take the oaths "show objectively and clearly that they did not truthfully and faithfully intend to commit themselves to uphold and abide by the two obligations under the LegCo Oath and BL104 [Article 104 of the Basic Law], as they objectively clearly did not recognize the principle of 'one country, two systems' and the importance of 'one country' under that principle, which (as well recognized by the Court of Final Appeal) is the foundation for the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the People's Republic of China and of the Hong Kong's constitutional model under the Basic Law."

(To be Continued)

　　16 November 2016