The three Basic Law interpretations - beginning with the one on the right-of-abode issue in 1999 and culminating with the one last month on the term of the next chief executive - have caused considerable damage to Hong Kong's confidence in the rule of law.
In contrast, confidence in the judiciary remains strong, especially in the aftermath of the decision last Thursday by the Court of Final Appeal exonerating Falun Gong practitioners who were arrested in 2002 while protesting outside the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong.
However, immediately after the decision was publicised, Wang Rudeng , assistant director of the liaison office, insisted that the Falun Gong members did cause an obstruction and had disrupted the order of the community. But he stressed that he respected Hong Kong's rule of law.
There is now a fear, subdued but nonetheless real, that Beijing may disagree with the court ruling, and that the National People's Congress Standing Committee may issue another Basic Law interpretation.
Concern about a possible interpretation has also been voiced in another case being heard by the Court of Final Appeal. Legislator 'Long Hair' Leung Kwok-hung asked Gerard McCoy, the government's lawyer, if he could guarantee that another interpretation would not be sought if the administration lost. He refused to make such a pledge.
Both cases have to do with the right to hold public protests. Already, legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah has been quoted as voicing concern that the Standing Committee might issue another interpretation if the Court of Final Appeal's decision is 'too liberal'. He said that freedom of peaceful demonstration was within the ambit of Hong Kong's autonomy and there should not be a fourth Basic Law interpretation.
There is anxiety that if the Hong Kong government loses the 'Long Hair' case, then even if it does not ask for an interpretation, the central authorities may, on their own, issue one to limit the right to express public dissent in the city.