Same-sex partnership bill: Hong Kong's top court rulings have force of law – lawmakers should know better

HKFP

30-07-2025

At the heart of Hong Kong's success has been its reputation as a bastion of the rule of law in Asia. Yet Hong Kong's rule of law has been severely tested.
In 2014-15, for 79 days, protesters occupied the city's Central district in defiance of the law, characterising their action as civil disobedience. A core characteristic of civil disobedience is breaking the law to protest a political or social cause and facing the consequences.
Authorities arrested many of the protesters, especially their leaders, prosecuting and convicting them for public order offences. Officials reminded citizens of their duty to obey the law.
In 2019, anti-government protesters repeatedly broke the law, breaking into and trashing the Legislative Council (LegCo) chamber, confronting and resisting police, violating public order laws, rioting, and other kinds of violence and vandalism. By 2021, authorities had arrested at least 10,000 and had charged at least 3,000 with various crimes ranging from riot to undermining national security.
In its landmark policy statement made public on October 31, 2019, the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee reminded the people of Hong Kong of their duty to obey the law and urged authorities to strengthen education in the law. Their focus was on Hong Kong's foundational documents, the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution.
Central and local authorities have repeatedly urged citizens to respect the law. It is the law, Chief Executive John Lee has said, and therefore must be obeyed.
For example, in 2023, speaking about whether authorities would permit Tiananmen commemorations, the chief executive said: 'Everybody should act in accordance with the law and think of what they do, so as to be ready to face the consequences.'
Speaking of national security, Secretary for Security Chris Tang and Secretary for Justice Paul Lam have repeatedly urged citizens to obey the law.
As pointed out by Lam, Article 42 of the Basic Law reads: ''Hong Kong residents and other persons in Hong Kong shall have the obligation to abide by the laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'. The rule of law can only exist and prevail in a society where people are willing to, and in fact, obey the law. It follows that people who breach the law should be brought to justice.'
In our system, Court of Final Appeal (CFA) judgments have the force of law. To disobey the law, as the secretary for justice has pointed out, is unacceptable. It follows that citizens may not cherry-pick the law, deciding on their own which legal obligations to follow and which to ignore.
It comes as a disappointment that three lawyers, all LegCo members, appear to be advocating disregarding Hong Kong's legal obligations.
At issue is the government's proposal to establish a same-sex partnership recognition scheme to fulfil a top court-imposed legal obligation. The three lawyers – Priscilla Leung, Holden Chow, and Junius Ho – have all denounced a government bill that would meet the court's requirements and are actively campaigning against it. They propose no alternative.
Other lawmakers appear to have noticed the hypocrisy. For example, LegCo member Edmund Wong asked whether LegCo would be framed as 'not respecting the rule of law' if it rejected the bill. Simply put, yes.
What message does this send? May citizens decide on their own which legal obligations to obey? How can it be right to obey legal obligations generally but to disobey others based on some personal considerations? What if each citizen followed this example? The consequences would be chaos.
The Basic Law requires that LegCo consider the government's proposal, and so it should. But are they up to the job?
Consider the comments of lawmaker Erik Yim, who declared that if the government's proposal became law, 'after completing registration, the same-sex couples might hold bouquets and even wear wedding gowns [at the registration office], taking pictures and sharing them on social media. This may give society a sense of de facto marriage.'
Mr Yim should realise that we already celebrate overseas marriages in Hong Kong. I am attending a same-sex couple's wedding banquet in Hong Kong next month. We hold bouquets, we wear wedding attire, we take pictures and share them on social media. The sky has not fallen.
Are all LegCo members well enough informed to pass judgement on this issue? I don't understand.
Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang has urged LegCo members to be 'rational, balanced and pragmatic.' Let's hope his advice prevails.
We're supposed to have an executive-led system. Where is it?
To the government's credit, authorities recognise that even if LegCo rejects the bill, the government will have an ongoing legal obligation to fulfil the CFA's ruling. And so it should.