Offhand dismissal of criticism over Leung Chun-ying’s luggage saga will only fan Hong Kong people’s discontent

Some say that Hong Kong has become too “noisy”. What with protests over the handling of a piece of luggage left outside the security area by the chief executive’s daughter and the disappearance of Lee Po over the border, are we taking ourselves too seriously?

Reflect on your deeds, Hong Kong delegate to top China body would advise CY Leung over left luggage saga

Pro-Communist commentators have tried to categorise these protests as making a mountain out of a molehill. After all, so the argument goes, even Lee himself has come out to explain that he illegally left Hong Kong with no travel papers without telling his family, because he wanted to take care of certain matters on the mainland. Now he’s back safely, Hong Kong should just shrug it off even though, in our heart of hearts, we remain unconvinced that he left voluntarily.

They claim that to dwell on this incessantly is just to play into the hands of the US, which is trying to subvert the moral legitimacy of China’s government. Hong Kong should not take itself overly seriously, it is said. Just let this insoluble mystery remain, and move on. By traditional Chinese thinking, this is a way of “giving face” and not pressing for an answer that would expose something that threatens to stink so much that it would create an even bigger uproar.

Only the truth about what really happened to bookseller Lee Po will calm the jitters in Hong Kong

But then, what if Lee was actually taken away by Chinese officers (directly or through agents). Would that not constitute a breach of the “one country, two systems” arrangement under the Sino-British agreement? If such a breach is not identified, and rectified, how can Hong Kong be assured that it would not happen again?

Many in Hong Kong are understandably perturbed about a possible knock on the door in the middle of the night.

As a lawyer, day in and day out in the commercial world I see Party A being accused of infringing some contractual or proprietary rights of Party B. When confronted, Party A may deny it, and fight to the bitter end out of a sense of self-righteousness or face.

Alternatively, it may take a sensible approach by saying something to the following effect: “While not admitting to any infringement, it is regrettable that some misunderstanding has arisen. Without going into details of the facts, you can be assured that every care will be taken not to breach Party B’s rights in the future.” Often, such an assurance is accompanied by an offer of recompense (which is not really relevant in this case).

Such an offer would allow Party B to shrug and say, “OK. Even though it’s not 100 per cent of the explanation we want, or assurance in the strongest terms, let’s take a pragmatic view, accept this and move on.”