Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee said in the letter 'A matter for the court' (December 29) that she 'happened to consider' the decision of the Department of Justice not to prosecute Antony Leung Kam-chung incorrect.
The decision was consistent with the independent legal advice provided by two leading silks. The difference between these silks and Ms Ng is not one of legal opinions. Her position on this case is part of a longstanding and consistent pattern: her views are coloured by political affiliation.
Why did Ms Ng not challenge the department when it decided not to prosecute opponents of the government such as the 'long hairs' when they openly admitted a variety of public order offences? Why did she not press the department to prosecute and leave the decision to the courts?
Why are her views so predictable along political lines?
Adversarial politics are all the more distasteful when political objectives are couched in legal arguments by people branded as legal experts. One could have looked the other way if Ms Ng was not the representative of the legal constituency in Legco.
In many other parts of the world, lawyers make good politicians. But in politics they do not brand themselves as lawyers. Ms Ng should tell us when she is just a member of the opposition and not a lawyer.
