Legal Experts Jostle Over Interference Row

Legal heavyweights in Hong Kong have expressed vastly different views over whether Beijing's liaison office is bound by Article 22 of the Basic Law, which states that any mainland government departments are prohibited from interfering in the SAR's local affairs.

This comes after the Hong Kong government published three statements on the issue within hours, sparking confusion about the setting up of the liaison office and whether it's bound by the article. The SAR administration ultimately sided with the office's contention that it is not subject to Article 22 restrictions against mainland interference.

The chairman of the Bar Association, Philip Dykes, said on Sunday that Hong Kong people are entitled to a proper explanation as to why that is the case. He said he personally thinks the situation remains as "clear as mud".

"[The Hong Kong government] switching the positions two, three times over a space of a few hours, indicates a lack of clarity... it's not enough to say, 'oh, we're not bound by Article 22, that's it'," Dykes told RTHK.

However, executive councillor Ronny Tong said he thinks the office's contention has its merits, especially if it is understood within the principles of the mainland's civil law system.

He said under the mainland's constitutional order, the SAR government was established under the powers of the central government, which can direct some of its departments and organisations to monitor Hong Kong's governance.

Tong, himself a senior counsel, said this is not just a matter of Hong Kong's autonomy because it involves the relationship between the SAR and the country.

And because the National People's Congress Standing Committee has the ultimate power to explain the Basic Law, he said there's a need to apply principles of the mainland's civil law in understanding Hong Kong's mini-constitution.

Tong also said the changes to the government's statements suggest differences in how the SAR and Beijing explain the Basic Law.

And if the Hong Kong government issues statements without getting things straight, it does not help the state of affairs in Hong Kong, its political environment as well as this whole saga about alleged interference, he said.

Tong said the government should learn a lesson and consult constitutional experts, especially those on the mainland constitution, before responding to matters with regards to the Basic Law.

Hong Kong's only honorary senior counsel, Johannes Chan from the Hong Kong University law school, said he thinks the SAR government's change of stance is politically motivated, as it tries to justify the action of the liaison office by presenting different legal arguments.

He said if the office intervenes with the press statements issued by the Information Services Department, it's a further example of erosion of the One Country, Two Systems principle.

Chan noted that previous Legco documents the government provided had clearly stated that the Liaison Office was set up in accordance with Article 22 of the Basic Law.

Another HKU legal scholar, Albert Chen, said it's legally unclear whether the office is a department formed by Beijing under Article 22.

Chen, who's also a member of Beijing's Basic Law Committee, said he doesn't think there's a need for Beijing to interpret the Basic Law over this issue. He said the crux of the matter is not the wordings of Article 22, but whether the recent statements given by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office had violated the Basic Law, which he did not think so.

Last week, the offices accused pro-democracy lawmakers of violating their oaths of office and committing misconduct in public office by delaying the proceedings at Legco's house committee. The lawmakers hit back by saying the offices should not interfere in local affairs, adding that they had conformed with the legislature's rules throughout.