{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0327653997378768, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01310615989515072, 'mean_word_length': 5.063492063492063, '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}}
Electoral Disqualification, Political Allegiance, and the Courts: A "Fruitless Debate"?

We disagree with the Court of First Instance’s decision in Chow Ting v Teng Yu Yan Anne to confer upon the Returning Officer (RO) the power to evaluate the authenticity of election candidates’ intentions to uphold the Basic Law and to disqualify those who are deemed disingenuous. In our view, neither the text of s 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap 542) nor its history indicates that the RO has this power. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Chief Executive of HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council is not precedent for this position. The 2016 Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Interpretation also does not mandate this result.