After the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) announced the grounds on which Hong Kong Legislative Council members could be disqualified, our government moved quickly to unseat four opposition lawmakers. That sparked the shocking collective resignation of pan-democrat lawmakers. The aftershocks are yet to come. Hongkongers’ opinions on this development vary. Some think the pan-democrats have been rightly punished for their antics at Legco meetings, such as filibustering and calling for meeting suspensions due to a lack of a quorum. However, it is clear the decision-making is now entirely in the hands of the NPC, and our Hong Kong government is only responsible for implementation of what has been decided. Many Hongkongers, myself included, are very worried about Legco’s future. After the NPC extended the current Legco term for at least a year, the government allowed all lawmakers to stay on. By backtracking on this, the government has lost credibility. Hong Kong is distinguishable from other Chinese cities because of its rule of law and a legal system that is the legacy of British rule. This is our advantage over other Chinese cities. The removal of the four lawmakers will have dire consequences. An effective Legco cannot have only one camp that speaks in one voice. That was not the intention of the Basic Law . The opposition in Legco has an important role to play. Of course, with fewer voices to be heard, and perhaps less nuisance, the passage of bills will speed up. But undesirable behaviour can be stopped by means other than throwing legislators out of office. Instead of red cards, perhaps yellow cards should be given first to rein in undesirable behaviour and childish acts, such as inverting the national and Hong Kong flags. With only one voice left in Legco, it could well turn into a rubber stamp for the government. In the future, controversial large-scale projects that use up government fiscal reserves such as Lantau Tomorrow Vision can easily be passed. Randy Lee, Ma On Shan
