Public largely ignored in the so-called 'consultation' exercises

'Public consultation' is a term bantered about by government and its critics alike. The conventional wisdom is this term represents an important part of the process as the Government strives towards democratic representation. However, the true meaning of this term, when taken in the context of government action, is less clear.

The meaning most people would apply to the term - and certainly the definition that vocal proponents of democratisation might use - would be along the lines of: 'A spirited and open public debate through which Hong Kong citizens can make their feelings known so government can take prompt action that is responsive to the people's aspirations.'

The definition that government seems to take would be closer to: 'A necessary concession to give the people of Hong Kong the belief that their opinions matter when the reality is that nothing will ever happen unless Mr Tung and his cronies want it to happen.'

Two examples illustrate my point.

Firstly, anti-discrimination laws. Hong Kong is clearly at odds with all developed societies on this matter and the only aspect open to debate should be the severity of the penalties. The Government's excuse for inaction is to state that [more] legislation would not eradicate discrimination so there is no benefit. Laws are not enacted to eradicate anything. Laws are enacted to define actions contrary to the well-being of the public and to impose penalties on those who commit these acts as a deterrent to others.

Secondly, the proposed restrictions on smoking in public places. This is a public-health issue hardly worth debate - the effects of secondhand smoke are well documented and there is no excuse for inaction. People who claim this law will result in severe hardship for the restaurant industry are simply wrong as the impact in other jurisdictions has been neutral or positive. The only real issue here is what is in the best interests of the public at large.