I REFER to the editorial which appeared in the South China Morning Post on December 21, headlined, 'Lau plays it his way'. While I think that Mr Lau Chin-shek should have offered to resign with immediate effect, I object to the view expressed in the editorial that his chosen timetable for leaving the Legislative Council served no special purpose other than to make him feel righteous. I have the following points to make: The editorial argued that if Mr Lau's threat of resignation was due only to a sudden outburst of anger, then regard for his party interests should have persuaded him to stay. I believe that Mr Lau's anger was prompted by his political convictions and principles, principles so blatantly violated by the Government's withdrawal of the Employment Ordinance (Amendment) Bill. He was not wrong to defend those principles in a lawful and peaceful way. Had he shied away from what was happening, then he would have been in the wrong. It was also pointed out that since the Government still refuses to acknowledge the superiority of the Legislature to the Labour Advisory Board or indeed other government advisory bodies, the resignation would have achieved little. Few of us who have lived in Hong Kong for a long time would have hoped that the Government's attitude towards Legco would change overnight because of Mr Lau's resignation. But does that mean that we should acquiesce? I believe Mr Lau's actions have put pressure on the Government and this will have long-term repercussions. I do not imagine that the Government would have proposed introducing an enhanced version of the bill had Mr Lau not offered to resign. The editorial contended that Mr Lau had a responsibility to his constituents and was 'not elected to give up in disgust when things are not going his way'. I would argue that when the Government withdrew the bill, things were not simply going against him but also against the interests of the public at large. When his constituents voted him into office they knew very well that Mr Lau's main concern was to improve workers' welfare. By resigning and thus showing disgust he has not abandoned his responsibilities. He has vowed to fight on for workers' interests outside Legco and I am sure there are few of us who would doubt his sincerity. Finally, the editorial said that Mr Lau should have given greater consideration to his party's interests and should have discussed the matter with his colleagues before taking his decision. It also referred to the possible loss of a Legco seat to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) in the by-election. If the voters really believe that the DAB or some other party can better represent their interests, then let the Legco seat go to that party. This is the essence of democracy which I am sure Mr Lau's party treasures. I agree that the sequence of events on December 20 may have undermined Mr Lau's political image, but this is not all about image. Mr Lau's decision to stay until the conclusion of the Employment Ordinance (Amendment) Bill is, judging from the fine balance of division in Legco on the issue, hardly unreasonable. There is too much party politics and there are too many compromises and deals in Hong Kong. I am glad to see someone of principle and courage stand up and speak out and tell the Government that it cannot always just do what it wants.