In bribery, there's always a giver and a taker
Is everyone stupid? If not, why isn't anyone thinking straight? Ever since Lew Mon-hung unleashed his bombshell allegations against Leung Chun-ying, some people are seeing him as an innocent victim of the chief executive's dirty tricks.
Come on people, use your brains. Surely, you know it takes two to tango. If Leung is indeed guilty, then Lew, otherwise known as Dream Bear, is just as guilty. He claims Leung made up the story about hiring three experts who gave him the all-clear about his illegal structures. And he says Leung reneged on a promise to reward him with an executive council seat for his loyalty during the chief executive election.
The ICAC is investigating complaints by pan-democrats that Leung violated election rules by promising a payback to Dream Bear. For goodness sake, bribery is a two-way street. You have to have a giver and a taker. If Dream Bear agreed to take, that makes him an accomplice, if indeed there was a crime.
The pan-democrats rushed gleefully to the ICAC. They complained not about both the giver and the taker but just the giver. And these are our crusaders for democracy, justice and the Hong Kong way of life? They're buffoons who need to be unmasked.
No, Public Eye is not shining Leung's shoes. We want to see him nailed too if he is guilty of lying to the people and making shady deals with Dream Bear. But we always tell it like it is, even if that comes across as shoe-shining. It smacks of politics for the pan-democrats to target only Leung and not Dream Bear. Someone needs to say that, and we're doing it.
Pan-democrats should look into this, too
After the ICAC arrested Lew Mon-hung for alleged corruption involving listed energy company Pearl Oriental Oil, of which he is deputy chairman, he allegedly sought Leung's help to get him off the hook. That's asking Leung to obstruct the course of justice, for goodness' sake. It's a criminal offence if true. By reportedly asking the top leader to get him off the ICAC hook, Dream Bear wanted Hong Kong to be governed by the rule of man, not the rule of law. So how come the pan-democrats aren't rushing to furiously complain about that? Aren't they supposed to be our champions of the rule of law?
Election law has to be better defined
Why is everyone making such a big deal about Leung Chun-ying having allegedly offered Lew Mon-hung an Exco seat for his election support? Isn't that just a political reward for loyalty rather than a criminal offence? Rewarding political loyalty is the done thing everywhere.
Our election law says it is a crime to offer an advantage to vote or canvass votes for a candidate. As a candidate, Leung offered to build more subsidised housing for needy families to gain their support. Surely, that is offering an advantage to needy families. And it makes needy families accomplices. Why is this not a crime? Our election law is stupid. It needs to be better defined.