SOME MIGHT SAY it could only happen in Hong Kong. For the past fortnight, the oped pages of the Post have been filled with a furious debate over something which is almost certainly never going to happen.
Beijing-friendly stalwart Shiu Sin-por set the ball rolling with a controversial column (' 'Judicial activism' creates court chaos,' February 20). He argued that, far from trying to avoid any more reinterpretations of the Basic Law, it was time to ask the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee to do so once again.
To add insult to injury, the clause he wanted referred to Beijing was Article 39, incorporating international human-rights covenants into the mini-constitution, which Mr Shiu claims the local courts have consistently interpreted far more broadly than its drafters ever intended.
That brought furious responses from legislators Audrey Eu Yuet-mee ('Our judges, our laws,' February 25) and Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee ('Covenant must be honoured,' February 27). They savaged his arguments and warned that any such action risked destroying 'one country, two systems'.
The debate got so heated that a radio discussion on the issue saw Mr Shiu, the executive director of the One Country, Two Systems Research Institute, almost shout down Ms Eu's arguments.
In an aggressive written response ('Abide by rule of law - not judges', March 2), he even tried to cut the ground out from beneath his critics by insisting they agreed with part of his argument - a claim they are sure to vigorously dispute.
The irony, as Ms Ng pointed out, is that Beijing is anxious to show it can abide by international treaties in preparation for China's entry into the World Trade Organisation. Only last Wednesday, the Standing Committee even ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, one of the key provisions in Article 39. So there is little prospect of it agreeing to reinterpret this part of the Basic Law in a more restrictive way, which would send the opposite signal to the world.