Last week, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress unanimously approved a decision that authorizes the sixth Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to continue performing its duties for no less than a year, as a result of the postponement of the seventh LegCo election because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision gives Hong Kong a solid constitutional and legal foundation for maintaining socio-political stability by preventing a legislative lacuna from emerging. At present, it is the best way to avoid possible lapses in legislative affairs after the sixth LegCo’s term in office ends later this year, and before the seventh LegCo is returned by an election in September next year.

The NPCSC decision offers all opposition members of the sixth LegCo an opportunity to prove themselves worthy of public trust by serving Hong Kong society honestly and diligently

The decision to keep the sixth LegCo in office for another year was made in response to a formal request by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government according to the Basic Law as well as the nation’s Constitution. The central government consulted with representatives of people from all walks of life in Hong Kong before presenting the proposal to the NPCSC for approval. It is safe to say the decision is the culmination of exhaustive public consultation and procedural justice.

Although many people in Hong Kong maintain that members of the sixth LegCo who have been disqualified as candidates in the seventh LegCo election, originally scheduled for Sept 6 this year, should be deemed unfit for public office and barred from the extended term in office, the NPCSC decision has granted all 66 members of the sixth LegCo, including opposition lawmakers, at least another year in office, unless they are unable to discharge their duties and have to quit. This clearly demonstrates the central authorities’ tolerance and inclusiveness toward the opposition camp as long as the latter abide by the Basic Law and Hong Kong law.

The NPCSC decision was essentially driven by the pressing need to bring the COVID-19 pandemic under effective control as soon as possible, as was the Hong Kong government’s decision to postpone the seventh LegCo election till September next year.

Given the extraordinary circumstances and indispensable service of the legislature in the next year or so, the arrangement of extending the sixth LegCo’s term in office by no less than a year is in the best interest of Hong Kong society as a whole because it is the least controversial arrangement. 

Meanwhile, the best way to bridge the potential legislative lacuna is undoubtedly for the NPCSC to pass a resolution at the request of the Hong Kong government. This decision would pre-empted any possible legal challenge against such an arrangement because the right to make such a constitutional arrangement rests exclusively with the NPCSC, which is the highest body of state power. The NPCSC decision was made in accordance with the Basic Law as well as the Constitution and therefore represents the highest constitutional authority and legality. It is beyond challenge by anyone and must be followed regardless of one’s political belief. 

The arrangement is only intended to address the issue of a legislative lapse after the sixth LegCo theoretically retires this summer and the seventh LegCo is sworn in a year later. It is a one-off measure taken to cope with an extraordinary circumstance, namely a life-threatening pandemic. The NPCSC decision maintains that the seventh LegCo’s term in office will still be four years instead of three. That is why it does not violate the Basic Law provision regarding lawmakers’ four-year term in office, which is a general rule under normal circumstances.

Instead of granting many Hong Kong residents’ wish for barring the opposition politicians who have been disqualified as candidates in the seventh LegCo election from the extended term in office, the NPCSC decision offers all opposition members of the sixth LegCo an opportunity to prove themselves worthy of public trust by serving Hong Kong society honestly and diligently. Of course, they have the right to resign if they believe they must, presumably to create a legislative vacuum if not a constitutional crisis at the expense of Hong Kong society as a whole; but they must bear responsibility for their own action and live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. 

In a sense, the NPCSC decision can be seen as an olive branch extended by the central authorities to the opposition camp. Members of the opposition camp have a choice to make: to work together with the SAR government for the common good of Hong Kong society and remain relevant in Hong Kong’s social-political development or to allow themselves to be hijacked by the political zealots and take the path to self-destruction. It shouldn’t be a difficult choice to make. 

The author is a current affairs commentator. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.