When petty politics points to desperation
Hong Kong's democrats have fought many unworthy battles in the past, battles that hurt their primary cause and earned them a reputation as politicians who criticised for the sake of criticising without coming up with concrete alternatives. But their latest battle is so senseless that I'm beginning to wonder if they've lost all direction, and taken some of the Hong Kong media with them.
We're going to have a chief executive election in two months. The people are not allowed to vote - only the 800 members of the Election Committee can - and the winner will be Beijing-backed incumbent Donald Tsang Yam-kuen.
But he wants to earn a mandate by campaigning as if it is a real race. His challenger, democrat Alan Leong Kah-kit, wants to use the race to mangle Mr Tsang's record as chief executive.
So far, so good. A real punch-up about the issues - or so I thought. But instead of going after Mr Tsang's policies on pollution, the wealth gap and greater democracy, the democrats set their bloodhounds on the manner in which the chief executive visited his campaign office.
They cried foul that he did this during office hours, in his capacity as chief executive, and using his official car. The attacks fuelled controversy, and the media, sensing blood, seized on the story.
Is this what Hong Kong's political debate has been reduced to? Aren't we supposed to be talking about children growing up with asthma because of the dirty air, the half a million households earning less than HK$8,000 a month, and the quality of our food?
The impropriety of Mr Tsang travelling to his campaign office in his official car is debatable at best. As he himself noted, he is the chief executive, and like leaders elsewhere seeking re-election, he is still the leader, and that means having to govern, keeping his bodyguards, and so on.
The angry outburst by the democrats that Mr Tsang should have taken a leave of absence and used his own car to travel to his campaign office is at best puerile and at worst, stupid. It's even more childish than their demand that the chief executive should quit his job during the campaign period.
What next? That he should move out of Government House, put all official matters on hold, or not meet visiting state leaders, presidents or prime ministers because that would add to his stature and give him an unfair advantage in media exposure?
Politics is unfair, and if the democrats don't know this by now, they shouldn't be in the business. The power of the presidency is used to the hilt by incumbent US leaders seeking re-election. The rules are clear on what is classified as campaign expenditure, but the line that separates that from the president's official duties still takes into account the fact that he is both president and candidate.
When Mr Tsang formally declares his candidacy - and he shouldn't delay any longer - then he should pay for the use of his official car, not use government staff for campaign purposes, and not in any way plot strategy in Government House with his campaign staff.
Mr Tsang is too smart a man to violate these rules, anyway. He didn't when he last ran for the job and, as a candidate who can't lose, he has no reason to cheat.
What the democrats have done is to sucker themselves. They have forced the focus on to an issue that doesn't question Mr Tsang's abilities as a leader, just his behaviour as a candidate.
Even if Mr Tsang is hurt by this, there is no gain for the democrats. But their loss is that they have wasted time, ammunition, and the public's attention on an issue of irrelevance. By making an issue of the way Mr Tsang visited his campaign office, the democrats are saying they have no real ideas with which to pummel their opponent.
They have given the impression they are desperate people playing petty politics. Maybe that's why they're no longer the force they once were.
