MEYER: Democrats and liberals in Hong Kong feel incredibly pessimistic. They say this is the most important sign yet that the rule of law in Hong Kong is being eroded. IP: I think all these objections are more rhetorical than real. You only need to look at the responses from some of our judges. One retiring judge said that his job is to judge according to legal principles: the consequences are never his business. That is for the government to sort out.

People say that the rule of law is what makes Hong Kong different from any other Chinese city. If it is gone, what is left? What specific evidence is there that the rule of law is being threatened? We are not talking about overturning court decisions; we are only seeking clarity on a very important form of law.

People say this is the first step down a slippery slope: once business people feel that laws are negotiable, the cost of business goes up. We know this because in China, where there is no rule of law, business depends on bribes, and contracts are not honored. Again, I appreciate these concerns, but I think people really have no grounds to worry. We are really dealing with a very exceptional situation, facing a problem of exceptional magnitude that calls for an exceptional solution. We are not going to go down this route wantonly whenever we are not happy with a court decision.

How do you define an “exceptional situation”? When exactly will China be asked to intervene in Hong Kong’s laws again? I don’t see this likely to happen in the foreseeable future. This right-of-abode problem is exceptional because we are really talking about opening the door to 1.67 million people, a quarter of our population, at a time when Hong Kong’s economy is in a state of negative growth, and the social-economic consequences are simply not acceptable, and the opinion polls show clearly that the public wants the problem to be resolved as quickly as possible.

A lot of people feel that the government’s report on the effects of migration has been a propaganda campaign aimed at terrifying the public. Some say you purposely miscalculated the number of immigrants and the adverse economic impact.

This is unfair and unwarranted. The survey that was conducted was an honest survey, and it was conducted with the usual methodology that we have employed in undertaking other surveys. We have definitely not cooked up the numbers to terrify people.

One of your arguments has been that the decision represents the wish of the majority of the people in Hong Kong. Why are you using popular opinion to justify legal and constitutional decisions? We are not using popular opinion to justify constitutional solutions. I’m just pointing out, as a matter of fact, that the solution we are opting for has widespread support.

Decades ago, many people in Hong Kong migrated here from mainland China. Now you want to deny the same right to another generation. Doesn’t anyone feel ashamed? No, why should we? Of course we benefited from immigration, but we’ve always had a problem with people. Although we’ve decided we can’t take 1.67 million, don’t forget we are still taking 150 legal entrants daily from the mainland. That’s 54,000 a year, 0.8 percent of our population.

Who will decide when a similar set of exceptional circumstances comes up again? The decision will rest with the chief executive. He is responsible for implementing the basic law, and is accountable to the people of Hong Kong for [his] decisions.

When you put the power of judging how the laws should be interpreted in the hands of one person, who is not popularly elected, isn’t that how dictatorships start? Someone has to make a decision. In our society, which is so open and transparent, it’s not easy for someone vested with this responsibility to make this decision. You really have to pay attention to local opinion, international perceptions and the opinion of professional members of our community.

The rule of law makes Hong Kong the region’s No. 1 financial center. If it erodes, could it be replaced by Shanghai? I couldn’t agree with you more. Rule of law is something we are determined to safeguard jealously. It’s one of our competitive advantages–we know that very well. We want to maintain our edge over other cities in the region. It’s not in our interests to undermine the rule of law. And Hong Kong is not the sort of place where one man holds absolute power.