When is an oath not an oath? That’s a question for Hong Kong’s courts, not the legislature

Ronny Tong says despite the howls of protests, the government’s challenge over two incoming legislators’ fitness to serve – after they bungled their oaths on purpose – has solid legal grounds

Reading Time:6 minutes

Published: 5:15pm, 25 Oct 2016Updated: 11:00am, 30 Nov 2016

A promissory oath is a solemn and binding oath. If you intentionally choose to flout it and use it to ridicule the system or make a political point, why should anyone presume you intend to make the statutory oath even if you were given a second chance? Illustration: Craig Stephens

Everyone expected the Hong Kong localists to start some kind of trouble at the swearing-in ceremony of newly elected legislators, but no one foresaw the magnitude of the storm. Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration made our jaws drop when, while taking her “oath”, she said “Re-f**king” and “Cheena”, a derogatory term the Japanese used for China during the second world war. Her fellow party member, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, also said “Cheena” in his “oath”. Clearly, both legislators-elect intended to humiliate the Beijing government. Well, humiliate all Chinese they did.

What surprised people more is that the pan-democrats not only did not see anything wrong with such antics, but they chose to rally behind the two, as if to show solidarity. One even went so far as to say, “A bit of humour and relaxation is OK!” So, should “humour and relaxation” go hand in hand with the taking of an oath?

One would have thought it’s axiomatic that oath-taking is a solemn and sincere act. One doesn’t joke about one’s religion or integrity as a person – no normal person who wants others to take him seriously will do so, anyway.

Pro-Beijing supporters display materials depicting legislator-elect Yau Wai-ching as a traitor. Clearly, both legislators-elect intended to humiliate the Beijing government by mangling their oaths. Photo: AP

What next for Hong Kong’s separatist lawmakers?

The law makes it even clearer. The Oaths and Declarations Ordinance refers to the oath to be taken by legislators as a “promissory oath”. It also provides that the content of the oath must be in the form as set out in schedule 2 thereto. A court has ruled in a previous case that incoming legislators must not depart from the statutory oath so provided. That means: sorry, one cannot read the People’s Republic of China as People’s “Re-f**king” of “Cheena”.

If on that occasion a person declines or neglects to take the statutory oath, the legal consequence is that he shall be disqualified immediately