AbstractUnlike any other form of professional communication, legal discourse, especially in a legislative context, is unique in the sense that it is full of contradictions. Firstly, it is highly depersonalized, as its illocutionary force is independent of any specific writer or reader, and yet it is meant to address a diverse range of audiences. Secondly, it is meant for ordinary citizens, but is written in a style that is meant only for legal specialists. Thirdly, although its primary function is to assign rights and impose obligations to act or prohibit action, it is written in a highly nominal style (language of thinking) rather than verbal style (language of doing). And finally, legislative provisions are meant to be “clear,” “precise,” “unambiguous,” on the one hand, and “all-inclusive,” on the other, which can be seen as a contratdiction in terms. Most of these seeming contradictions make it difficult for the various stakeholders, which include specialists as well as non-specialists, to manage “socio-pragmatic space” in the construction and, more importantly, interpretation of such provisions, particularly when they are interpreted in broadly socio-political contexts. Drawing on some of the contradictory interpretations of certain sections of the Basic Law, widely regarded as the mini-constitution of Hong Kong, this paper will identify and discuss key theoretical issues emerging from a diversity of meanings attributed to somewhat innocuous legislative constructions, which precipitated the “Occupy Central” movement, largely popularized as the symbolic “Umbrella Movement.” The paper thus attempts to highlight two rather different aspects of interpretation of legal meaning, one in the court of law for the negotiation of justice, and the other in wider socio-political and public domains where law is interpreted broadly with wider social implications.