I disagree with Anson Chan's support for the implementation of the controversial and unnecessary Article 23 of the Basic Law.
However, if we must have such national security laws, it is perfectly sensible of her to say that getting them right should be the government's priority, rather than being concerned about a deadline.
However, it is outrageous for an executive councillor, anonymous or otherwise, to state that people should be denied the opportunity of suggesting changes to the legislation of Article 23 ('Anson wants more details on Article 23', South China Morning Post, October 3). The wider the debate, the healthier our political system is likely to be. Expedience must not be allowed to stand in the way of what is right.
As to why Hong Kong is not democratically governed, for the benefit of Mrs Chan's friends 'in the US and elsewhere', the reason is simple: Beijing and Hong Kong tycoons are against it.
Judging from various reports and letters in the Post, the public seem to be very worried about the implementation of Article 23. Such worries are justified and can only be made more acute when people read about the inexcusable behaviour of the police on National Day, when they forcibly removed Lui Yuk-lin from the flag-raising ceremony.
It is all very well for Lingnan University associate professor Paul Harris to say that 'such incidents could happen anywhere in the world' ('Did security staff get carried away?', Post, October 3).
