{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020947176684881604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009107468123861567, 'mean_word_length': 5.244318181818182, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Chinese Jurisprudence and Hong Kong Law

On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong, a colony (euphemistically called dependent territory) of Britain, was returned to the fold of the motherland, China, as a Special Administration Region, with a high degree of autonomy. Ten years on, we find that the common law system established by the British in Hong Kong, as guaranteed by the Basic Law, survived and thrived. A cursory review of legal and social science literature shows that there is little scholarly discourse or public debate on the proper jurisprudence standards to be applied in the making and evaluation of Hong Kong legislation. This research raises a most fundamental policy qua jurisprudence issue: Should Hong Kong law be formulated, applied or evaluated with indigenous legal standards and local jurisprudence principles, based on Asian values, Chinese culture and/or Hong Kong ethos? In so doing, this article questions the appropriateness and challenges the legitimacy of adopting Western jurisprudence principles in shaping and evaluating the Hong Kong legal system, especially after 1 July 1997.