The Civil Human Rights Front organized a mass demonstration on Sunday to protest against the interpretation of the Basic Law by China's top legislature and to "fight for democracy". Such conduct is definitely not popular among most Hong Kong people, according to an article published by Wen Wei Po Monday. It was written by Tse Wai-mo, president of Hong Kong Political, Economic and Cultural Society. Excerpts follow:

The protesters staged a political show of confrontation. A person from the organizing body, surnamed Hung, said that the protest was meant to achieve three purposes: ask the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to revoke its interpretation of the Basic Law; demand that the NPCSC not undertake any more interpretation of the Basic Law; and push for universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008.

These requests are unreasonable and in violation of the Constitution. They will aggravate political dissension in Hong Kong and compromise the SAR's economic development, social harmony and stability. Are the barristers of the Article 45 Concerned Group and Martin Lee lowering themselves to the level of members of the April Fifth Action who are legally illiterate? Or are they harbouring a hidden political agenda? Otherwise, why did they join the procession and help distribute leaflets, make speeches and fan the fire?

The Standing Committee of the NPC endorsed the draft interpretation on April 6 with 155 votes for and one abstention. It was a decision made in accordance with the duty and power vested by the Constitution and the Basic Law and with stringent legal process. It was also made after listening seriously to the public opinions canvassed by the SAR government and after soliciting directly the views of local deputies to the NPC.

How could the NPCSC have rejected such a bill that was in line with the Constitution, the Basic Law as well as the interests of Hong Kong society?

The NPCSC is endowed by the Constitution with the power to interpret the Constitution and laws and supervise their implementation. Moreover, it possesses the power to invalidate the administrative statutes, decisions and decrees issued by the State Council and local authorities that do not conform to the Constitution or the law.

Article 158(1) of the Basic Law states clearly that the power to interpret the Basic Law rests with the NPCSC. Martin Lee's remarks made to reporters during the Sunday protest, in which he opposed the NPCSC interpretation with common law principles, was an attempt to defy the new constitutional system of the SAR. It was an intentional contravention of the Constitution, an irresponsible act and a cardinal mistake in terms of political and legal principles.

The community should be allowed, according to Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law, to engage freely in discussions on the feasibility of carrying out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008.

The "pro-democracy" camp should not bypass the principles prescribed by the constitutional laws and resort to mass demonstrations as a means to exert political pressure and accomplish certain political ends that run against the greater interests of the majority.

(China Daily HK Edition April 13, 2004)