Hong Kong’s ‘hypocrisy camp’ cannot treat CY Leung both ways
Michael Chugani questions the opposition’s outrage over Beijing’s appointment of the chief executive to top advisory body
I am confused. Is Leung Chun-ying the chief executive or not? Well, he is and he isn’t. It depends on what political points need to be scored.
To opposition lawmakers, he is just a Beijing lapdog who won the top job with just 689 votes. And since they don’t accept him as chief executive, they refuse to stand up when he makes Legco appearances and choose to taunt and hurl missiles at him.
But now, suddenly, he is the chief executive. Opposition legislators have sent a protest letter to Beijing saying it is a conflict of interest for Leung to be made a senior member of its top advisory body while he is still chief executive. The letter said it was morally wrong to give him the mainland role while he is allegedly being investigated for pocketing HK$50 million from Australian firm UGL.
But why the outrage over someone they don’t consider as chief executive being appointed as a mainland adviser? And what right do they have to protest?
If opposition lawmakers can accuse Beijing of meddling in our affairs by backing Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor for chief executive, then surely it is meddling for them to think they can tell the central government who they can appoint as an adviser.
The conflict of interest argument can only be morally made if the opposition treats Leung as the chief executive. It insults morality to treat him as the city’s leader only when there are political points to be scored.
I am in no way defending Leung – he knows how to throw his own punches. I am simply highlighting how low those in the hypocrisy camp can go.
Legislator Lam Cheuk-ting exemplifies just how low they can go. He has used his double standards to target a police fund that was created to help seven officers convicted of bashing an Occupy protester.
He says the fund should have rejected a HK$7 million-plus donation from entertainers, claiming some had shady backgrounds. He is worried these crooks could demand payback later.
Why is Lam not also worried about the Youngspiration pair raising money for a court battle to be reinstated as legislators? Crooks could be bankrolling them in the hope of paybacks if they do get back into Legco.
And why is Lam not outraged about John Tsang Chun-wah raising money for his chief executive bid? Isn’t he worried crooks could finance Tsang in return for favours if he does become chief executive?