It has been described as the legal bedrock of the 'one country, two systems' policy in Hong Kong. Some call it the bible on the dos and don'ts for the special administrative region and the mainland authorities after 1997. The importance of the Basic Law just cannot be emphasised more.
But 15 years after its promulgation, and more than seven years since it took effect on July 1, 1997, a long shadow is cast over whether the Basic Law can stand the test of time.
Tomorrow, a silent march organised by the Article 45 Concern Group will protest against a government move to seek an interpretation by the national legislature on the Basic Law provisions over the chief executive's term.
If the National People's Congress Standing Committee gives a stamp of approval - and it is likely to do so - it will be the third interpretation since the handover, and critics warn it will erode the rule of law and the 'one country, two systems' policy.
It will come on the heels of a similar government request on the right-of-abode provisions in 1999, and one initiated by the Standing Committee on universal suffrage on April 26 last year. Former Basic Law drafter, Maria Tam Wai-chu, said more interpretations could not be ruled out.
A prominent lawyer and veteran political figure, Ms Tam was among 23 Hong Kong elites who, together with their mainland counterparts, helped turn the concept of 'one country, two systems' into a legal document. Drawing an analogy on different electricity systems, Ms Tam described the Basic Law Committee as an adaptor that could help absorb differences and diffuse conflicts that may arise when the two legal systems interact.
The committee - comprising 12 members with six each from Hong Kong (including Ms Tam) and the mainland - advises on the interpretation and amendment of the Basic Law as required under the post-handover constitution.
