AN anonymous letter which appeared in the South China Morning Post, on May 4, accused Mr Allen Lee of ''deliberately or unconsciously miss(ing) the point'' of an earlier article by Mr Martin Lee.
What exactly was the point of Mr Martin Lee's commentary on the through train when he vacillated between criticising the concept and expressing his desire to ride the vehicle past 1997? We would like Martin Lee to state categorically whether he accepts, as Britain and China do, that it is good to merge political reform today with the provisions in the Basic Law.
If Mr Lee rejects the whole arrangement, could we then assume that he now renounces the Basic Law, a document he burnt for symbolic reasons (though he denies this now), and refuses to abide by the conditions for boarding the through train? The writer of the letter also repudiates ''convergence'', a notion first raised by the British Government and then adopted by the Chinese. Mr Lee seems of late to want convergence, but then we are not sure because he is not sure. Whether Mr Lee feels that the Basic Law meets the criteria of the Joint Declaration as he interprets both documents, it is up to him. We never say the Basic Law is etched in granite like the Ten Commandments.
If Mr Lee wants to amend it, then he ought to get in touch with the National People's Congress which has the power to alter the charter instead of posturing and constantly trying to remind us how noble he is by opposing it in some ways and abiding by it in others.
We have our questions about the Basic Law, but we will discuss these with the Chinese for a constitution is by definition a domestic issue instead of making political capital out of our misgivings as Mr Lee appears so inclined to do with his.
FUNG BUN-NGOK The Preparatory Committee of the Liberal Party