The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress earlier this month passed a decision that prevented a legislative lacuna in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by letting the city’s sixth Legislative Council continue discharging its duty for no less than a year until the seventh LegCo is elected in September next year.

Without this decision, a legislative lacuna would happen with the current LegCo term due to expire at the end of next month, posing a constitutional challenge to the normal operations of the HKSAR government. The NPCSC decision also says the term of office of the seventh LegCo will be four years, as stipulated in the Basic Law of the HKSAR, despite being delayed for at least a year. With a potential governance challenge removed, public attention is now on how LegCo will continue discharging its duty in the coming year or so.

For starters, the NPCSC decision says the current LegCo will “continue to discharge its duty” instead of “continue to function”. The difference between “duty” and “function” is that LegCo’s duty is clearly spelled out in the Basic Law and relevant Hong Kong law, while the word “function” merely indicates the legislature is not in recess. In this context, “duty” means LegCo must fulfill its responsibility according to the Basic Law and Hong Kong law. What is LegCo’s duty, one may ask. Article 73 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR stipulates, the Legislative Council of the HKSAR shall exercise the following powers and functions:

“To enact, amend or repeal laws in accordance with the provisions of this Law and legal procedures;

To discharge its duty effectively, LegCo must work efficiently in exercising the powers and functions spelled out in Article 73 of the Basic Law, which do not include politically motivated acts

“To examine and approve budgets introduced by the government;

“To approve taxation and public expenditure;

“To receive and debate the policy addresses of the Chief Executive;

“To raise questions on the work of the government;

“To debate any issue concerning public interests; 

“To endorse the appointment and removal of the judges of the Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court;

“To receive and handle complaints from Hong Kong residents;

“If a motion initiated jointly by one-fourth of all the members of the Legislative Council charges the Chief Executive with serious breach of law or dereliction of duty and if he or she refuses to resign, the Council may, after passing a motion for investigation, give a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form and chair an independent investigation committee. The committee shall be responsible for carrying out the investigation and reporting its findings to the Council. If the committee considers the evidence sufficient to substantiate such charges, the Council may pass a motion of impeachment by a two-thirds majority of all its members and report it to the Central People’s Government for decision; and

“To summon, as required when exercising the above-mentioned powers and functions, persons concerned to testify or give evidence.”

To discharge its duty effectively, LegCo must work efficiently in exercising the powers and functions spelled out in Article 73 of the Basic Law, which do not include politically motivated acts such as filibustering government legislation and tabling bills aimed at obstructing the HKSAR government’s normal operations. It is no secret that opposition lawmakers have done tremendous damage to the overall interest of Hong Kong society with numerous politically motivated acts aimed at undermining the executive-led HKSAR government in the past 23 years. Such deeds have been strongly condemned over the years and many local residents have demanded legal action against certain opposition politicians for suspected dereliction of duty.

Second, an eye-opening dispute within the opposition camp has been going on over a proposed “resignation en masse” by opposition LegCo members to demonstrate their defiance toward the NPCSC decision, which requires them to continue discharging their duties for no less than a year. Some “pan-democrat” parties are apparently opposed to such a radical move, because LegCo membership comes with guaranteed political and financial resources, not to mention certain “privileges” unavailable elsewhere. Those interest-driven opposition lawmakers have come up with a counteroffer called “fighting for every inch of ground”, by continuing to obstruct the normal operations of the SAR government inside the establishment, instead of abandoning their advantageous position, while enjoying all of the benefits. Of course, this is just an excuse to pursue vested interests, with no guarantee for holding “moral high ground”. They know, as well as members of the public do, that they will very likely lose popular support in the LegCo election in September next year if they fail to mend their ways.

Last but not least, the pro-establishment parties must prove their worth to the public as well. Let no one assume the NPCSC decision deals with the opposition camp only, because it applies to all members of LegCo equally. It is common knowledge that the great majority of Hong Kong residents also expect pro-establishment lawmakers to do their best in exercising their powers and functions according to the Basic Law, and they will lose public trust if they fail to do so.

The author is senior research officer of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.