Hong Kong's legal community is planning another silent march today. Wearing dark suits, lawyers will solemnly walk from the High Court in Pacific Place to the Court of Final Appeal on Battery Path to protest at the request for a Basic Law interpretation on the length of tenure of a chief executive elected to fill a vacancy in mid-term.
This form of protest is a very potent weapon. For one thing, lawyers in Hong Kong - especially barristers - enjoy a special place in the minds of most people. They are seen as high-minded and principled, acting in the best interests of Hong Kong. And when they stage a protest, it is solemn and dignified.
Such protests, to have an impact, must be rare, and the issues must be carefully chosen. It is six years since the lawyers last staged such a protest. In June 1999, they held their first silent march to express their outrage over the government's decision to seek an interpretation from Beijing on the rights of mainlanders who are children of Hong Kong permanent residents to live in the special administrative region.
The government acted after the Court of Final Appeal ruled against it - in a judgment considered provocative by the central authorities. The administration, fearing that the SAR would be swamped by mainland migrants, sought a Basic Law interpretation from Beijing.
This time, the government is asking for an interpretation before the courts have had a chance to act. Arguably, such a move is less damaging to the rule of law than seeking to overturn a court judgment. Nonetheless, it is understandable why the lawyers are angry. To them, the law is clear and needs no interpretation from Beijing.
In the right-of-abode case, the National People's Congress Standing Committee resorted to 'legislative intent' and an 'opinion' of the preparatory committee delivered in 1996 to support the Hong Kong government's case that right of abode should be limited to those mainland residents whose parent or parents were already a permanent resident at the time of the mainlander's birth. This time, the government's case appears even flimsier. It will be interesting to see how the standing committee justifies the decision to limit a new chief executive to the remaining portion of his predecessor's term. It certainly cannot be found in the Basic Law.
There is speculation - to which I do not subscribe - that Beijing wants to limit the term of the chief executive to be elected in July to two years simply because it wants that time to observe the behaviour of the new leader before deciding whether to give him five more years in 2007.