The veil of patriotism stifles rational debate

Who dares to criticise government plans to send billions of dollars to Sichuan for reconstruction, and who would even dream of questioning Beijing's hosting of the Olympic Games? In a healthy society, criticism and dialogue flourish but, in Hong Kong, fear of being seen as less than patriotic smothers discussion and creates a ghostly atmosphere in which views are suppressed.

This is not entirely the case, because questions have been raised about whether, for example, the Basic Law allows Hong Kong taxpayers' money to be handed to the central authorities and there is some questioning over how this expenditure will be monitored. But no one in public life has challenged the basic notion of the government giving money to Sichuan instead of relying entirely on the massive, freely offered donations of individual citizens.

There is even less questioning of the growing euphoria surrounding the Olympic Games and its little sideshow in Hong Kong where the equestrian events will be held. Compare this to the open debate in Britain over the decision to hold the next Olympic Games in London. Most British people support the London Games, but a significant minority have serious reservations that are aired with vigour.

Were that kind of vigorous criticism to be aired in Hong Kong, it would be quickly met with accusations that the critics were traitors to the motherland or enemies of the Chinese people. Yet, much in the way that a perfectly good case can be made for holding the Games in Beijing, an equally reasonable case can be made for using the considerable resources required to host the event in other ways to develop the nation.

There is no need to determine which of these two arguments is right but every need to allow the discussion to proceed without fear of extreme xenophobic responses and without questioning the motives of those who raise valid questions.

One of these questions, particular to Hong Kong, is how on Earth can the staging of the equestrian events stimulate sport in general when it is crystal clear that horse riding and all that goes with it is entirely beyond the reach of practically everyone here? Moreover, to stage this event meant depriving Hong Kong's struggling athletes of their main training facility. There may be a good argument in response to such criticism, but it is unlikely to be made in a rational manner without resort to epithets.