Opinion | Hong Kong is not helped by threat of national security law, or those who suggest it

It never ceases to amaze me how many political amateurs we have here who stubbornly insist on applying what I call "cavalier political resuscitation", or CPR, to this city. Given the desperate attempt by at least one person to drop the ultimate political bomb by resuscitating national security legislation, it's clear that as long as these people are around, we will be stuck in 2003.

There is little wisdom in threatening Hong Kong with the mainland's national security laws as a response to the Umbrella Movement. It's inappropriate, untimely, nonsensical and outrageous.

Yes, thanks to former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa, we're aware that Beijing has the power to introduce mainland laws into Hong Kong. But, as law professor and Basic Law Committee member Albert Chen Hung-yee pointed out, drafters of the Basic Law had decided that Hong Kong's legislative body should handle the relevant legislation by itself.

Basically, this is what Chen meant: if applying the national security laws in Hong Kong were a good idea, there would have been no Article 23.

Doesn't Stanley Ng Chau-pei, who made the call to enact the national laws, appreciate this fact? Though a deputy to the National People's Congress, Ng is neither a legislator nor a member of the Hong Kong government. So, when even the current chief executive has reiterated that the government has no plans to try and enact a national security law in the city, it was certainly not Ng's place to suggest otherwise.

Ng is proof that our pan-democrats aren't the only cherry-picking experts. Article 23 states that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region "shall enact laws on its own". Alas, Ng vehemently points to "shall", but ignores "on its own".