Government attacked the hopes of citizens wanting fair society
In Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee's column ("An appeal for understanding", August 3) illogic abounds.
She asserts that "publicly apologising for policy mistakes" is an imperial virtue. It is not one yet learned by policymakers who weaken education, make housing unaffordable, reduce opportunities for personal growth and attack the hopes of ordinary Hong Kong citizens for a fair society offering equality of opportunity and representation. In this, our government and civil service policymakers are abetted by functional constituencies. She sees contradictions between "the wider community" and "pro-democracy circles", as if people rejected having a greater say and trusted the government. Polls show the opposite is true. Given wilful blindness, a bust-up surely looms.
She explains that the Manchu and the Han - but presumably not the Mongol - were legitimate rulers of China. This is, she says, why our motherland's government wants to ensure we are not confused, or lopsided. This is itself confusing. She then attacks "espionage, illegal campaign financing...surfacing right now", allegations not even China Daily tried to substantiate. And so we need political oversight of judges' patriotism, because the US Congress approves Supreme Court nominations.
However, she ignores the fact that Congress is elected without functional constituencies, and the oath is not of patriotism, but loyalty to the constitution and to law. So our geographical constituencies could approve chief executive nominees? Our judges swear to the Basic Law? Fine, if that's what's asked.
In her finale, we're asked to renew the contract with the Hong Kong people. But contracts are bilateral. Two sides agree. We surely thank Beijing for boosting its domestic economy and ours, up to a point. It supported our retail trade, employment, rents and property prices. These are mixed blessings, as the property supply shortfall caught our government short.
Now members of our middle class fear their children cannot afford housing, families or a future. And are we asked to agree to this contract? Who would buy into that? And on top, she wants gratitude and understanding.