Opinion | Hong Kong sovereignty debate is a non-starter
Alice Wu says no matter whether it's the year of the sheep, goat or ram, there can be no ambiguity on the issue of sovereignty in Hong Kong
As we embark on the first days of the new year, the goat/sheep/ram debate is a fun one. It's fun precisely because we don't really need to agree on one, unless maybe you're a linguist, a zoologist or a veterinarian. But even for those whose professions require that they know the difference, this is not a life-or-death issue. Thanks to the ambiguity of the Chinese language - goat, sheep and ram can all be categorised under one Chinese word, "yang" - we get to pick and choose, according to our preference.
Those who prefer things to be warm and fuzzy for the year would probably go with sheep.
Those who see sheep as too docile and weak could always go with the goat. And since the chief executive had called on the people of this city to be inspired by sheep, those adamantly against him may well opt for the goat.
For the alpha males among us, or those who would like a bit more flare, the ram is a great alternative.
The distinction between the three isn't something to lose sleep over. It's a matter of auspicious interpretations, beliefs and opinion.
However, there is zero ambiguity in Hong Kong's relation to the mainland. For civil servants to standardise the use of language in correspondence - including that of the city's sovereignty and its relations with the mainland - is nothing to fuss over. Perhaps the only surprising thing is the fact that a "correct use of terminology" circular had to be issued in the first place.
Sovereignty is not a fuzzy issue and neither is it an issue up for debate. Addressing the city's relations with its country as "China-Hong Kong" relations is factually inaccurate. Period.