Three words succinctly sum up my feelings, and those of many Hong Kong people, towards the extraordinary debate over political appointees and their passports: get some perspective. The debate has raised many valid points. Sadly, however, the issue has escalated to a stage where patriotism is being confused with nationalism in some people's minds and where a fair inquisition is in danger of becoming a witch hunt.
It is reasonable enough for members of the public to demand to know what passports our undersecretaries hold and to argue that, in cases where they hold overseas rather than Hong Kong passports, they should give up that foreign citizenship.
I do not believe that holding foreign citizenship is the only criteria that makes these officials less committed to their jobs or less capable of fully and faithfully serving the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
However, people in positions of exceptional responsibility should expect to be subjected to exceptional standards of scrutiny and probity. It is the price of high public office and one they must expect to pay.
But to extend that argument to political assistants, civil servants and holders of other public offices, demanding that they hold only Hong Kong passports as some people have suggested, is a step too far and one that could have a devastating impact on the quality of our city's human resources.
Hong Kong is a city with a rich, cosmopolitan population and a unique political history. Before the tumultuous social experiment of the 1997 handover, we all hoped fervently that reunification would be a success. It was not until years later that anyone could say with absolute certainty that it would be.
The debate engulfing political appointees, other than the specifics in the Basic Law, is a direct result of those years of historic change. We cannot and should not judge them on the decisions they took for themselves and their families in those days of unchartered change.