The current controversy over whether Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen attended a concert at the Happy Valley Racecourse in May 1989, days before the military crackdown at Tiananmen Square, is a tempest in a teapot if ever there was one. Mr Tsang was, at the time, a senior public servant who was barred by civil service rules from attending political events like the pro-democracy concert. He said he did not attend the concert but had a meal in a Jockey Club restaurant with his son that day. If he did attend the concert - even though he said such claims were nonsense - he would be guilty of having violated civil service regulations. Moreover, following his denial, he would be accused of lying, or at least of stretching the truth. But is this really such a major issue? These events took place more than 17 years ago, when circumstances were very different. Many people in the forefront of the pro-China camp today were part of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. Many of them were present at the concert. This is largely irrelevant now. Surely, dragging up these events today in an attempt to embarrass someone in high office does nothing for the democratic cause. If Mr Tsang secretly supports the democratic movement, is he going to be more supportive as a result of these embarrassing allegations? And if he does not support it, then what is the point of saying that he attended a rally in 1989? Journalists are now asking other senior officials, such as Denise Yue Chung-yee, secretary for the civil service, and Wong Yan-lung, the secretary for justice, whether they attended the concert. Fortunately, they - or their spokesmen - had the good sense to refuse to answer the question, saying it was a personal matter. Such questioning represents an attempt to get senior officials to declare where their political sympathies lay 17 years ago. It is tantamount to political vetting, and must be rejected. Moreover, it is clearly an attempt to embarrass senior government officials by trying to depict them as having betrayed their consciences. It is hard to see this as constructive in any way. What good does it do? This, ironically, is an unusual form of muckraking. There seems little doubt that Mr Tsang and his son were at the racecourse on May 27, 1989 and had a meal there. Since the concert featured well-known singers and movie stars, it would have been the most natural thing, either before or after eating, for Mr Tsang and his son to wander around, looking at the crowds and celebrities. Would this constitute attendance at the concert? I suppose that it depends on how much time they spent doing this. Memory is a tricky thing and it is difficult to say, 17 years after an event, that recall is accurate. Something may seem absolutely vividly stamped on one's mind, yet not have happened at all. I know that has happened with me - I have no doubt that it happens to others, as well. For example, Lee Wing-tat, chairman of the Democratic Party, says he recalled that the Jockey Club restaurants were closed on that day, so that Mr Tsang could not possibly have eaten there with his son. And yet the Jockey Club, presumably after checking its records, announced that all its restaurants were open on that day. This does not mean that Mr Lee was lying. It just underlines the fact that memory is a very tricky thing, and that something one 'recalls' may not have happened - or may have happened in a somewhat different way. The sooner we put this episode behind us, the better. No good will come of it. Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator
