I must say I was even more amused by Tim Hamlett's column headlined, 'Question of credibility' (Sunday Morning Post, March 30) than I was by the article by Fung Wai-kong (South China Morning Post, March 13).
I would like Mr Hamlett to note that I am related to Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa as his sister-in-law, which in some cultures hardly qualifies me as a relative at all. However, I felt the need to identify myself as a member of his family in case someone would accuse me of being biased.
Mr Hamlett questions the credibility of my letter.
Let me point out that I wrote the letter entirely under my own initiative because I felt someone I knew and respected was being unfairly attacked. I believe I expressed my views eloquently and reasonably.
I believe that Mr Hamlett's comparison of my letter to a hypothetical case of Nero's mother defending Nero or Mrs Khan defending Genghis quite ridiculous.
To discount my argument simply because I am a member of the family is even more ridiculous.
Why would my letter be more credible if I were a full-time salaried employee? Does Mr Hamlett suggest that my letter would be more credible if I had submitted it anonymously? Relatives have every right to express their views if they are valid and why not in a letters column? If I have started a new trend, I am pleased to have done so.
HARRIET W. TUNG South Bay