Opinion | Beijing not interfering if Hong Kong asks for Basic Law interpretation

To many people, an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee is something to be avoided at all costs because, they believe, it constitutes interference in Hong Kong affairs.

But this is not necessarily true. In the past, when the Hong Kong administration requested an interpretation, it was because it felt it faced an insoluble problem and Beijing agreed to help.

The first interpretation, in 1999, on the right of abode issue, was solicited by the Tung Chee-hwa administration because it felt Hong Kong would be inundated with mainlanders if a decision by the Court of Final Appeal was allowed to stand.

Similarly, in 2005, Hong Kong could not decide the term of the new chief executive after Tung's resignation, and an interpretation was sought. And, in 2011, the Court of Final Appeal itself sought an interpretation regarding whether absolute state immunity applies in Hong Kong.

One can differ from the positions adopted by the NPC Standing Committee - and many do - but they hardly constitute interference.

The central government, on its own initiative, issued an interpretation in 2004, when there was a demand in Hong Kong for universal suffrage in the 2007-2008 elections for the chief executive and the entire legislature. Then, the "interpretation" was that Beijing, not Hong Kong, would decide when the mode of election would be changed.

That saw Beijing renege on promises made by the previous director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Lu Ping, and the foreign ministry to the effect that Hong Kong could, on its own, decide on the pace of democratisation of the legislature.