Legislators-elect Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching used insulting language when taking their oaths. Their oaths were therefore declared invalid. The government has applied for a judicial review to disqualify the two. Until now their oath-taking process is still not complete. It is safe to say the oath-taking row is far from a final solution. Rather, this is just the start of a new wave of chaos.

Oath taking is a formal procedure. Legislators-elect need to take the oath before they can officially perform their duties as lawmakers. Taking the oath means obedience and compliance with the Basic Law, but the oath does not imply that the lawmakers need to submit to the government. In previous cases, many lawmakers took the oath normally and they could still express their political views. The ways to demonstrate differences in political views should be decent and appropriate. In other words, under the established unwritten rules, the two young legislators-elect have enough room to demonstrate their political stands but they have gone too far. Mainstream opinion clearly disapproved of their behavior. When the unwritten rules are violated, there is a high possibility that other established rules and procedures also will be. The fragile dynamic equilibrium in the Legislative Council will be torn apart.

The words used by the pair were very rude and insulting. They were roundly disapproved of by most people in society. It is worth noting that many experts in the fields of history and the humanities have made public statements in newspapers to denounce them. These verdicts use phrases like "arrogant" and "ignorant". These are indeed very serious expressions because these academics are well-known to be usually very restrained in their comments. Regrettably, some legislators have tried to rationalize the inappropriate behavior simply because of their political views. Clearly these lawmakers will make their case according to their political views but not based on the real nature of the issue. Sadly this is going to be the norm in the coming four years.

Many people had high hopes for the newly elected legislative councilors. But the young members-elect rejected a moderate approach and rational discussion. They are not interested in a peaceful, rational and non-violent approach; instead they embraced more radical and controversial approach with the objective of paralyzing the operations of the government. While many people believe that the two young legislators-elect were merely being childish, subsequent events have shown that the whole LegCo could degenerate into chaos if there are further episodes of childish and offensive conduct by young members. The pro-establishment camp definitively will disapprove of such actions. But the "pan-democrats" apparently will not oppose such actions. Further bad behavior can easily make LegCo a dysfunctional body.

Frivolous actions by young lawmakers will also put enormous pressure on them. Their future conduct will be closely scrutinized by the public. If they make political mistakes in the future, it is doubtful the "pan-democratic" camp will continue to support them. The legislators-elect's improper behavior will also have a negative effect on future political reforms. The quality of directly elected legislators is now perceived to be poor. This is not a good sign for the success of future political reforms.

The current LegCo term has clearly been greatly disrupted. The pro-establishment, "pan-democratic" and "localist" camps have great divisions among them. Even within each camp, there are different groups. It is impossible for them to come to a consensus on major issues. The next four years will most likely be wasted on endless disagreements and fighting in the chamber. We have wasted many LegCo terms since the handover. Can Hong Kong afford to waste another four years?

(HK Edition 10/28/2016 page9)