自香港回歸祖國，在這短短的14年間，政府已三番四次要求人大常委會解釋基本法，這是否是太頻繁呢？
中國法律學院的殷先生回應，表示並不算是頻繁，同時也不是中央政府主動提出要釋法，而是香港提出的，故不是問題。他亦指出在歐盟，民法和普通法交流產生正面的影響，如香港的司法發展有同樣的結果絕對是好事。但Lester指出釋法像地震，越少發生越好。
在消化了他們的演講後，我很快地在資源豐富的網上搜尋，並找到要找的資料。按統計，香港的司法機構每年要處理大約50萬件案件，換句話說每三年半，或1.7萬件案件才出現一次釋法。表面看來，這個比率算是很低。
此外，比較一下美國已經修改過憲法27次，頭10次修正案還是在1789至1791年之間獨立後短期內進行的，可以說我們還未到達要修改“基本法”的階段，這應該是好兆頭。
Plenary Session on Constitutional Law
Since the change over, there have already been three to four applications for an interpretation of the Basic Law over a span of 14 years. The question brought up was whether this was already too many?
Mr. Yin of the China Law Society replied that from his view this was not so frequent and that these interpretations were not instigated by the Central Government and was sought for by Hong Kong and he did not view these as a problem. He further noted that the interaction between civil and common law was already happening with positive effect in the European Union and so it would be good for Hong Kong’s jurisprudential development in this regard to achieve the same. However Lester’s view was that like earthquakes, the less it happens the better it would be.
Having digested their speeches, I quickly browsed the internet which is indeed a powerful source for research purposes and came upon what I was looking for. Statistically, Hong Kong’s judiciary handles a high caseload of around half a million cases per annum in which only one in every 1.7 million cases over three and a half years required an interpretation.
This on the face of percentages was therefore quite minimal.
Besides, when comparing with the United States who has already made over
27 amendments and with their first ten amendments done in 1789 to 1791 within a short period of time from their independence, one may state that since we have not reached the stage of having to amend the Basic Law that this was possibly a good sign.