MY TAKE
My Take
by

Forget about localism, now it’s narcissism that’s at play

Youngspiration’s Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung are blaming everyone but themselves for being thrown out of the Legislative Council

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 17 November, 2016, 12:52am
UPDATED : Thursday, 17 November, 2016, 3:22am

What sad, solitary figures those two struck against the closed gates to the High Court. By now, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang have become politically toxic. Even their one-time allies from the pan-democratic camp were nowhere to be seen. Those from the Civic Party who helped them gatecrash their first Legislative Council meeting were conspicuously absent.

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung of the Court of First Instance has delivered a stunning rebuke to every key point fought for by the pair from Youngspiration in the government’s case against their disgraceful oath-taking.

Disqualified localist lawmakers set to apply for court order preventing their removal from Legco

His judgment is a model of common sense and judiciousness. Those who have tried to defend the indefensible on behalf of Yau and Leung would do well to study Au’s ruling.

The judge wrote that the pair’s oath-taking was a willful attempt to insult China, advocate independence, and mock the Legco oath itself.

Not only did they not swear solemnly and sincerely under the doctrine of common law, they showed outright contempt for the “one country, two systems” principle.

When Yau used the “f” word to distort “republic” in the nation’s name, Au wrote, “the inevitable inference is the contempt she showed for the People’s Republic of China as the ‘one country’ in the ‘one country, two systems’ concept which is fundamental to the Basic Law”.

Pro-Beijing group member asks Hong Kong court to disqualify 11 lawmakers over Legco oaths

Au wrote that Yau had repudiated any allegiance to the city as an inalienable part of China, as did the pair’s deliberate mispronouncing of China as “Chee-na”, a derogatory term used by the Japanese during wartime.

“[They] manifested a clear intention not to be bound in conscience to perform faithfully and truthfully the oath as required by Basic Law Article 104 and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.” Au ruled.

Yau claimed the court was under political pressure from the central government, and that Hong Kong’s legal system was under threat because she lost her case. Wrong! Yau has a tendency to blame everyone else for her own mistakes and stupidity. No, you lose, Ms Yau, because of your own blindness, willfulness and juvenile irresponsibility. The same with your friend, Mr Leung.

The two put on a brave face, vowing to appeal all the way to the highest court. Some people just don’t know they have crossed the line – in the court of law and that of public opinion.