Hong Kong High Court's ruling raises suspicions of judicial bias

The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ruled on Monday that the provisions of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, which empowered Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to make the anti-mask regulation were inconsistent with the Basic Law, and that the anti-mask regulation failed to meet the proportionality test.

Those who are not familiar with the legal affairs of the SAR might think that the ruling is intended to prevent the government from abusing its power. In fact, the ruling has shown the supreme judicial authority of the SAR feels no qualms about abusing its power by misinterpreting the law - presumably to make a point about its own position.

The Emergence Regulations Ordinance, which was introduced in 1922 and invoked several times during colonial rule, was confirmed to be in accordance with the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the country's top legislature, in February 1997 and it was adopted as a law of the SAR without any objection from Hong Kong's High Court.