The National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s unexpected move to disqualify four pan-democrat lawmakers in Hong Kong has shocked many people. This act draws a new red line on the opposition’s participation in the city’s political system. However, I am afraid its effect extends not just to the city’s politicians but also to the general public of Hong Kong (“ Who are Hong Kong’s ousted Legco members, and what exactly did they do? ”, November 11). One detail may have been overlooked by commentators. The NPCSC cited three provisions in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China in support of its decision: Articles 52, 54, and 67(1). The first two articles provide that it is the duty of Chinese citizens to defend national interests, while the last one specifies the power of the NPCSC to interpret and supervise the implementation of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China now directly applies to Hong Kong. Beijing is binding Hong Kong people to national duties that are not written in the Basic Law. The central authorities not only interpret the Basic Law at their pleasure but also decide whether Hong Kong has fulfilled its duties under the national constitution. This is exactly a reflection of the “overall jurisdiction” mentioned in the 2014 white paper . It was promised that the mainland socialist system would not apply in Hong Kong. It was promised that what was written in the Basic Law would be our system. That was “one country, two systems”. Now, that is changing. It will keep changing. Oscar Leong, Tin Shui Wai Why can’t Hong Kong be a democratic part of China? I refer to “ Hong Kong opposition to resign after Beijing rules on disqualification ” (November 11). No one should be disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Council simply for promoting democracy, as long as they believe that Hong Kong should remain an integral part of China. In principle, there is no reason Hong Kong cannot remain an integral part of China while having democratic institutions and significant legal and cultural autonomy. Among other things, such an arrangement would promote prosperity in both Hong Kong and China in general. In Britain, at both the national and regional levels, there are legislators who support Scottish independence ; and in Canada, at both the federal and provincial levels, there are elected representatives who support Quebec independence. At the same time, I find it quite understandable that Beijing would want to exclude legislators who support Hong Kong independence. Bruce Couchman, Ottawa, Canada Ousting of people’s representatives will deepen mistrust I disagree with the decision to disqualify the four democratic Hong Kong lawmakers. I think this move was unwise and would have irreversible impacts on Hong Kong’s governance. Firstly, the removal of sitting opposition lawmakers in this way will further damage the relationship between citizens and the government. Not only has this plan been implemented without public consensus but also without transparency, because it bypassed the city’s courts. Citizens do not clearly know the criteria or reasons for disqualifying all four elected public representatives, whose job it is to help voice people’s opinions to the government. To remove them like this will deepen public dissatisfaction and mistrust towards the government. Secondly, silencing opposition voices affects the quality of decisions made by the government. The purpose of including both pro-democratic and pro-establishment camps in the parliament is to balance the various interests, opinions and values of citizens when implementing any plan. Kicking out lawmakers, no matter which camp they belong to, will affect the comprehensiveness of plans down the road. This will lead to ineffective or unequal policymaking. Legal experts cast doubt on Beijing’s path to unseat Hong Kong lawmakers The government won’t be able to properly carry out its duty to address citizens’ problems as it will remain ignorant of public opinion, given the lack of channels for people to make their voices heard. Moreover, questions have been raised on whether this mode of unseating lawmakers violates the Basic Law and whether the Legislative Council can fulfil its original purpose going forward. Andy Tong, Kwun Tong