Sedition laws may lead to a constitutional crisis due to the vague wording of the legislation, the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party said on Thursday. Pro-establishment lawyers have said the party may be violating sections of the Crimes Ordinance, which cover seditious offences, but the National Party says the legislation is too indeterminate to be applied.
Eleven lawyers, including pro-establishment Business and Professional Alliance’s Priscilla Leung, signed a statement on Wednesday opposing Hong Kong independence, saying that Hong Kong independence disregarded the law, history, culture, national feelings and political reality.
The pro-independence party responded on Thursday, saying that, “after the transfer of sovereignty, when it is transferred from a monarch to a government (or a party), there will be a lot of indeterminate points in the law.”
“Simply interpreting these terms as ‘the central government’, from a colonial power, is crude,” they said, referring to the reinterpretation of the term “Her Majesty” to different aspects of the state after 1997, as specified in the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.
The term “Her Majesty” carried multiple meanings, but it was unnecessary to differentiate between the three definitions since they all ultimately referred to the Queen herself.
The party said that until the day it is taken to court for violating sedition laws, nobody will know what the law means or what the consequences are. “We ask Hongkongers to see whether the Hong Kong communist regime is going to cooperate with us to detonate this constitutional crisis.”
Kevin Yam Kin-fung, a solicitor and a member of the Progressive Lawyers Group said on Commercial radio on Thursday that he did not see any justification for the Department of Justice to prosecute the party as Hong Kong was protected by freedom of speech through laws and international agreements.