No place for politics in implementation of the law
Stephen Vines is disturbed by the official silence on illegal cyberattacks
Hypocrisy is an ugly word; when combined with a dangerous disregard for the fundamental interests of Hong Kong, it becomes something more than ugly.
A massive intermittent cyberattack is under way to block both Occupy Central's referendum website and the far bigger websites of the Next Media group, which publishes the Occupy Central-supporting Apple Daily.
The force and breadth of these attacks suggest the mobilisation of considerable resources; not surprisingly, therefore, the finger of blame is pointing across the border.
This almost certainly explains the hypocritical wall of silence coming from government officials in the face of illegal activity that is now targeting its political opponents but tomorrow may well confront other citizens, if it becomes known that Hong Kong has become a place where there is selective implementation of the law.
In case anyone has missed the point, there is no such thing as selective implementation of the law in a society that practises rule of law.
Hong Kong has long understood the sacrosanct nature of this principle. Although the recent State Council white paper on Hong Kong confirms a worrying attitude towards this concept, it is, or should be, fully understood that partial rule of law is no more feasible than a semi-pregnancy.
Yet there is official silence on this criminal matter. Compare this with the daily warnings about the threats to law and order posed by an event that has not happened and may not happen, namely the occupation of Central.