Dissent vs loyalty

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 25 September, 2003, 12:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 25 September, 2003, 12:00am

I refer to the letter 'Loyal politician' (September 20) responding to my 'Question of loyalty' (September 9).

I had used a marriage oath as an example to prove that Emily Lau Wai-hing's statement respecting the choice of either reunification or independence by Taiwan people was in violation of her loyalty oath.

In reply, the letter said Ms Lau's oath does not mean she must accept every change of central government policy without question or dissent, and she was expressing an opinion, an accepted basic human right.

I agree that she has the right to dissent even after she made the oath. However, her statement made in Taiwan is a violation of her loyalty oath and has nothing to do with the voicing of dissent. Similarly, a husband who wants a divorce cannot use 'basic human right' to back out of a marriage oath. To renounce the marriage, he must speak up. This also applies to Ms Lau.

The letter also said that whether Ms Lau supports or opposes actions and opinions of the mainland or Taiwan people is largely irrelevant because she neither represents the people of Taiwan nor the mainland.

When Hong Kong was a British colony, was it irrelevant if a legislative councillor (after swearing allegiance to the Queen) stated his or her support of Northern Ireland's demand to separate from Britain?

VINCENT CHAN, West Kowloon