Members of the opposition camp have been engaged in fierce debate on whether its 24 lawmakers should serve another year, following the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to extend their terms until the seventh Legislative Council is elected. The fiasco saw some of its members calling the NPCSC decision a violation of the Basic Law, with threat to resign en masse to create a legislative crisis.

However, such political grandstanding was short-lived, as Tanya Chan Suk-chong, convener of the “pan-democratic” lawmakers, announced on Monday that the majority of the bloc intended to remain in their jobs during extended session. The opposition lawmakers must have realized how whimsical the threat was, while admitting the complete failure of their “standing-as-one” tactic in confronting the government.

The announcement was welcomed by the public, who sincerely wish those with a penchant for filibusterers can abandon their confrontationist tactics and cherish the opportunity to prove their sincerity in serving Hong Kong society.

Unfortunately, the camp’s ambivalence soon raised some eyebrows, with concerns that Chan’s statement may have been inspired not by a sincere desire to serve, but by access to financial gain. Councilors are paid a handsome salary, which is beefed up by various allowances and expense reimbursements. The combined total for the 24 lawmakers amounts to what is essentially a political fund exceeding HK$20 million ($2.6 million) during the extended tenure.

Over the years, the bloc has painstakingly tried to cultivate the image that its only desire is to serve to the interests of Hong Kong society. But people have discovered that the opposition lawmakers serve the demands of external interests more than the public’s.

The opposition lawmakers may have succeeded in convincing some innocent young citizens, but there is little chance, if any, of disguising their real intention in abandoning their boycott scheme — their foreign masters have taken a different approach to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.

Certain Western countries led by the United States launched rounds of sanctions under the pretext that the implementation of the National Security Law infringed the rights of Hong Kong people, despite the fact that they all have their own strong laws to protect their national security.

To their disappointment, the central government has resisted the US with grace and reason and has stood strong against their local proxies’ gimmicks. When the West saw its attempts to contain China through violent provocations, among others, were futile, its proxies in Hong Kong gave up their radical means of confronting the SAR government.

For the opposition councilors, if they wish to win seats in future LegCo elections, they should refrain from abusing Beijing’s benevolence and abandon their far-fetched political agenda that associates them with secessionists.

Hong Kong, badly hit by the double whammy of the pandemic and its economic fallout, aspires for solidarity from all fronts to win these fights. There is obviously no better time than now for the opposition legislators to be “loyal oppositionists” who prove their potential in making our city a better place, rather than choosing a doomed confrontationist path of paralyzing LegCo to satisfy China-bashers.