The Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats (LSD) have been acting as if they have been taking ecstasy, in shouting slogans that are increasingly provocative.

From "referendum" to "uprising" and to "liberation", these slogans are signs that the two parties are moving down the path of unyielding confrontation with the Central Government and total alienation from all Hong Kong people.

Soon after the two parties announced the campaign of "'referendum' in five geographical constituencies", the spokesman of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office under the State Council solemnly pointed out that "referendum" is a constitutional arrangement that carries specific political and legal implications.

The Hong Kong SAR, being a local administrative region under the People's Republic of China, does not have the power to set up a system of referendums on its own. Staging a referendum in Hong Kong to decide its future constitutional development is incongruous with the SAR's legal status, no matter in what form the referendum may appear. Such a move would be a fundamental violation of the Basic Law as well as the decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on this issue, and a blatant challenge.

In short, advocating a referendum in Hong Kong crosses the line drawn in the sand. It is a serious challenge to national sovereignty and the power of the Central Government.

The three LSD legislators brought radicalism into the law-making body the day they were sworn into office. They swore and threw banana skins around, making a mess in the legislative chamber. Now the barristers have caught the disease and acted increasingly like the LSD group.

They can wreak as much havoc as they like in Hong Kong, but there is a line they must not cross. The moment they start targeting the Central Government and undermining national sovereignty, they will have crossed the line, and it will then be a completely different ball game.

Only a sovereign state has the constitutional power to conduct a "referendum". If staged without a government, it would be called "self-determination by the people". An "uprising" is an act to overthrow the ruling regime, which may involve violence and bloodshed, while a call for "liberation" is tantamount to proclaiming "independence".

By employing such provocative terms, the two parties are engaging in political sedition with hidden agendas. They are playing with fire, thereby putting themselves in harm's way.

The failure of the grand alliance for a referendum indicates that the vast majority of Hong Kong people have simply ignored these political lunatics.

Perhaps only when they run into the wall will they understand that there is a line they must not cross.

(HK Edition 02/03/2010 page1)