Eddy Li argues the NPCSC has every right to explain the legislative intent of Article 104 of the Basic Law, and its interpretation enjoys widespread public support across the SAR

On Nov 13, more than 40,000 citizens joined an assembly outside the Legislative Council Complex at Tamar, shouting slogans of "Anti-Independence and Support the Basic Law Interpretation". This massive rally no doubt reflects the views of mainstream Hong Kong society. Two days later, the High Court disqualified the Youngspiration duo - Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching - as lawmakers because they didn't truthfully and faithfully take their oaths at the inaugural meeting of the new LegCo on Oct 12.

This is a victory for the government and Hong Kong people. It has also greatly satisfied people from all sections of society. This lawful, timely and reasonable judgment by the court is a crucial action which will help stop the advocacy of "Hong Kong independence".

What's funny is that some people are still trying to justify the behavior of Yau and Leung. Take Martin Lee Chu-ming for example. Although he doesn't fully agree with their actions, he said the insulting words from the pair were just like naughty comments by kids. He also said the latest interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC was "violently jeopardizing" the fundamental spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Since the "Occupy Central" campaign in 2014, we have several times witnessed illegal behavior which the pair has been involved with (just to name a few incidents): the Mong Kok riot during the Lunar New Year this year, an aggressive intrusion into a LegCo meeting which resulted in six security staff being injured, also a large group of people storming the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR and so on. None of this behavior could be viewed as either petty or childish. It is very serious. Society can certainly forgive childish and innocent actions by young people, but if young people are mature enough to participate in political affairs which affect Hong Kong's future, then they cannot be considered acting like children any more.

And the claim of "violently jeopardizing the rule of law" is even more ridiculous. The Basic Law has constitutional status in Hong Kong. The power to interpret the Basic Law has been vested in the NPCSC. Therefore, it has every right to explain to Hong Kong people the legislative intend of Article 104 to uphold national unity and territorial integrity.

In the interpretation, all requirements of the oath-taking by a lawmaker-elect are clearly spelt out to avoid unnecessary disputes in future. This will facilitate the correct implementation of Basic Law in the SAR. It is highly conducive to the maintenance of the rule of law in Hong Kong. Although the Youngspiration pair has been expelled from LegCo, the pro-independence forces remain intact. The "localists" who used to chant "Hong Kong self-determination" have now modified their slogan to "democratic self-determination". This is after the interpretation of Article 104 of Basic Law made it clear that anyone violating his or her oath would be prosecuted according to the law. However, we should understand that those "localists" haven't changed.

"One Country, Two Systems", as we all know, is the fundamental principle behind the central government's policy to Hong Kong. This single concept cannot be divided or viewed separately. Trying to focus only on "Two Systems" and ignoring the premise of "One Country", as many "localists" do now, is not protecting Hong Kong's original system of capitalism as they claim; rather, their purpose is to promote the idea of separation from "One Country".

Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, a member of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee, once said that the only alternative of "One Country, Two Systems" is "One Country, One System". I agree with him. I believe most, if not all, Hong Kong people would like to keep our original system running to maintain the stability of the city. If the basic principle is replaced by anything else, the consequences would be disastrous.

(HK Edition 11/28/2016 page1)