After weeks of silence on constitutional reform, Tung Chee-hwa's brief statement yesterday was long overdue. But his predictable repetition of principles laid down by Beijing has done little to clarify the issues that are standing in the way of progress.
The chief executive watched as the debate over patriotism descended into political mudslinging and unseemly squabbles. His emergence from the shadows yesterday was an opportunity to provide leadership and to dispel doubts. Instead, he has only added to the confusion. Mr Tung read from a script for a few minutes and then hurried away without taking any questions. But he did, during that time, make two points with which we wholeheartedly agree.
The first is that most people in Hong Kong are patriotic. This is an undeniable fact and it should not need to be said. However, in recent days we have seen democrats branded 'unpatriotic' and have heard claims that some people in power are not fit to rule and that opponents of new national security laws should be viewed in a similar light. Hong Kong people have even been compared to dogs. In such circumstances, we needed Mr Tung to defend our patriotic credentials. His comments help, but are unlikely to be enough to bring the row to an end.
The chief executive's call for a calm and rational debate is one we hope will be answered. The dispute over patriotism is getting out of hand and is only serving to distract us from far more important issues. But to bring about a constructive debate, some clear directions are needed. And these were not forthcoming from Mr Tung. He simply referred everyone back to the principles laid down by Beijing on February 10 - and it is these that caused the problem in the first place.
One of those principles stated that patriots should form the main body of people who govern Hong Kong. Not surprisingly, the revival of an issue that provoked strong emotions during the run-up to reunification has opened old wounds and led to much debate over who can claim to be a patriot. In the absence of guidance from Mr Tung, we are left with the definition suggested by Beijing. This takes the form of a speech by late patriarch Deng Xiaoping in 1984. While Deng's comments are, like any, open to different interpretations, they should be sufficient to settle this issue. His definition of patriotism is broad and inclusive. It should pose no obstacle to political reform.
Deng was speaking at a time when we were just getting used to the idea of our city returning to China. It is clear from the content that he was seeking to reassure the people of Hong Kong and the international community. Certainly, he underlined the importance of 'one country'. But other parts of the speech shed more light on the patriotism issue.
