The decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to give an official interpretation of certain provisions in Annexes I and II of the Basic Law has been described by the "pro-democracy" camp as a great scourge. Their sensational reading of the interpretation exercise has aroused an inexplicable fear in the local community. Is the NPCSC's move really that out of line?

While it is understandable that some people would be sceptical about the interpretation exercise and it is their right to oppose it, they must, however, do so with reason and not just for the sake of opposing it or echoing other's views without making their own judgments.

Some participants in the candlelight vigil at Chater Garden on April 1, for instance, were at a loss when asked by reporters what specifically they were protesting against and why. They replied only with slogan chanting; and their ignorance reflected thoughtlessness and blind obedience, giving the impression that they were deliberately stirring up trouble.

As to how the interpretation exercise should be assessed, Professor Albert Chen, a member of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee, has put forward three guidelines which are quite enlightening. Those who are worried and opposed to the interpretation exercise could make their judgment on this basis.

The first is to see whether the NPCSC has the right to interpret the Basic Law. In this connection, we have to look at Article 64 of the Constitution and Article 158 of the Basic Law, both of which state explicitly that the NPC is responsible for interpreting all national laws and its standing committee the Basic Law, particularly those provisions relating to the relationship between the central government and the SAR. This is the very legal basis of the interpretation exercise.

Since the Basic Law is national legislation and the territory's constitutional development concerns the relationship between the central and SAR governments, it is only right and proper for the NPCSC to make the interpretation. This is a fact that even the "pro-democracy" camp has admitted.

But the "democrats" just do not want the supreme State organ to exercise this power. Martin Lee's intentional misreading of Article 158 of the Basic Law by quoting its contents out of context is nothing but a fraud that has, in fact, insulted the wisdom of the public and does not even deserve rebuttal.

The second guideline is whether the timing is right. Interpretation of the Basic Law is an extraordinary means that should not be resorted to unless major problems are encountered or at crucial junctures.

Fourteen years after the Basic Law's promulgation and seven years after its implementation, this is the second time the mini-constitution has had some of its provisions interpreted.

The first time was in 1999 when the NPCSC interpreted the provisions concerning the right of abode of Hongkongers' mainland offspring in order to prevent them from pouring into the territory. The interpretation mechanism was initiated because Hong Kong was facing the probable danger of being overwhelmed by the influx of a huge number of immigrants that could have resulted in serious social turbulence.

This time around, the local populace is deeply divided in their opinions over certain provisions in the Basic Law that concern constitutional development. An official interpretation by the NPCSC will be able to put an end to all the unnecessary disputes and social polarization.

When news of the NPCSC's decision was released, many leading social figures hailed the move as not only timely but also essential since it could help resolve differences. The "democrats", however, think otherwise. They claim that there is no need for an official clarification as all the Basic Law provisions are clear as daylight; they have turned a blind eye to the existing dissensions. Their suggestion that the NPCSC may subsequently interpret the Basic Law at will using the exercise this time as a "precedent" is extremely irresponsible speculation.

The final and most important guideline is to see whether the content of the interpretation is fair and reasonable. The current exercise is focused on Clause 7 of Annex I and Clause 3 of Annex II, the provisions that have aroused the greatest controversy in society. The members of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee, who are in Beijing to participate in the interpretation exercise, have reiterated that the outcome will be moderate and that it will neither be an "amendment" nor a "supplement" -- it will be a simple clarification of the provisions in question. They believe it will be something Hong Kong people will accept.

On the other hand, the "democrats" have started to oppose the interpretation exercise even before they have seen the results, suggesting that Beijing will put in contents that originally did not exist and deny certain contents' existence. I would like to ask them how they have come to such conclusions. Are they measuring others' corn by their own bushel?

The NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law is nothing to fear. What is really fearful is malicious misleading of public opinion as well as the general public's gullibility.

Hong Kong people must think twice before they do anything rash.

(China Daily HK Edition April 4, 2004)