Do legislators have a monopoly on wisdom? Is it really the case that whatever they say is the only truth and in the best interests of the public?
From the tirade launched by members of the Legislative Council Public Accounts Committee - over the government's acceptance of the Independent Committee of Inquiry's report on the Grand Promenade saga - it appears that Legco members do not like to be challenged.
They also want the administration to come clean on which report it will ultimately accept - the PAC's or that of the ICI.
On the surface, the government's position is rather dubious. If the conclusions of the two reports are so different, how can it possibly accept both?
Before we challenge the government, let's look at the fundamental differences between the two reports and why legislators are so strongly against the ICI report. We also need to examine in what ways the government has belittled the PAC's efforts, allegedly signalling an intention not to co-operate with the legislature.
Comparing the detailed recommendations of both reports, the core difference is not the technical land-administration issue. Both parties have come up with similar recommendations to tighten the current system.