image

Legislative Council of Hong Kong

Hong Kong judge blasts localist radicals for oath-taking that bordered on contempt

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung says oath is “not a mere formality or empty form of words”

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 15 November, 2016, 11:32pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 30 November, 2016, 10:57am

A wilful attempt to insult China, advocate independence and make a mockery of the Legco oath – that was the damning verdict of a judge on Tuesday in a ruling that stripped two localist lawmakers of their seats.

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said an oath must be taken solemnly and sincerely under the doctrine of common law, as it represented one’s promise to bear true allegiance to a particular government and support its constitution.

“It is not a mere formality or empty form of words,” he wrote.

He said the speech and actions of Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang fell short of solemnity and even suggested contempt.

Watch: Baggio Leung react to court judgment

Hong Kong court rules localist lawmakers must vacate Legco seats

In the 56-page judgment, Au wrote that when Yau dropped the “f” word to replace “republic” in the nation’s name during the ceremony on October 12, “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”.

Au added that Yau had repudiated any allegiance to the city as an inalienable part of China.

On the pair’s mispronouncing of China as “Chee-na”, Au noted the word was a derogatory term used by the Japanese to refer to China in the war, suggesting they refused to pledge allegiance.

Since the term was often used by anti-Chinese organisations, such as those who promote Taiwanese independence, “Mr Leung and Ms Yau thus conveyed the message that they advocated independence of Hong Kong”.

Hong Kong’s disqualified localist pair vow to appeal and seek injunction to stop their Legco seats being declared vacant

As they each uttered the expression three times, it could not be “the result of mere inadvertence, ignorance or mistake”, but was a wilful and deliberate attempt by both to insult China, advocate independence for Hong Kong and make a mockery of the contents of the Legco oath.

They also displayed a banner that said “Hong Kong is not China” at the swearing-in – again promoting independence.

Leung also crossed his fingers when he took the oath, “intending to send a message of not taking the oath seriously or with a clear conscience, and that he was intending to tell a lie”.

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”.

The pair’s lawyers suggested the court should not meddle with the legislature in light of the common law’s non-intervention principle. In Britain, for example, parliament enjoys supremacy.

But Au said that in Hong Kong the Basic Law was regarded as supreme. So the court had jurisdiction to step in if the legislature had flown in the face of the Basic Law.