To propose impeaching CY Leung is hypocritical

    Updated: 2013-01-03 06:54

    By Chan Wai-keung(HK Edition)

      Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按鈕 0

    According to the Bible, Jesus once faced a mob that was eager to execute a woman caught in adultery. He shamed the crowd into dispersing however, and rightly averted the execution with a simple challenge: anyone who has not sinned should step forward and cast the first stone. This parable is often cited as a reminder to avoid judging others when there are faults in our own lives that need to be addressed.

    Unfortunately, one opposition lawmaker in Hong Kong recently seemed indifferent to the great saying of Jesus, brazenly casting the first stone to his foremost political opponent without introspection.

    Last Sunday, speaking on RTHK's "Letter to Hong Kong", Civic Party barrister-lawmaker Ronny Tong lambasted Chief Executive (CE) CY Leung for "only telling half-truths" about his unauthorized structures at a Legislative question and answer session. Tong went on to contend that Leung's "arrogant demeanor" in the LegCo had warranted a motion of impeachment due to be tabled against Mr Leung on Jan 9.

    Tong elaborated on his accusation that on June 20, the then CE Elect CY Leung "apparently directed or authorized the office of Chief Executive to deny responsibility for the existence of an illegal trellis at his home, when in truth it was built by him as proved later by aerial pictures."

    Has Tong ever done any soul searching himself? Has he ever asked himself whether there is "no sin in his life"? I don't think so. In May 2011, some newspapers reported that an illegal glass house had been built on the rooftop of a garage at Tong's house in Taipo. Faced with tough questioning by informed reporters, Tong's initial reaction was equally defensive, denying the illegality of his glass house. In defense of his notion that the glass house was legal, he even evoked the power of law by quoting a Court of Appeal judgment. Yet, a government spokesman promptly refuted Tong's legal argument, highlighting the fact that the quoted judgment had been overturned.

    Tong later admitted that his recollection of the court judgment was flawed and apologized. Whether or not Tong's illegal structure and his early misleading statement really stemmed from his inaccurate memory of the court judgment is never known to members of the public. It is however reasonable for us to give him the benefit of doubt in a tolerant society

    Like Tong's, CY Leung's early account of this unauthorized structure was probably inconsistent with the truth. Like Tong, Leung has offered a public apology for his mishandling of the controversy. As Leung has explained, their inconsistency in his previous accounts, like Tong's, was probably due to a lapse of memory.

    When a public apology can exonerate Ronny Tong from all responsibility for his erroneous reference to an invalid Court of Appeal judgment, why can't we, especially Tong, show similar clemency to Leung by giving him a benefit of doubt? Are Tong and other opposition lawmakers guilty of maintaining a double standard when it comes to Leung's case?

    Surely, what CY Leung has done constitutes neither a serious breach of law nor a gross dereliction of duty which imperils public property and interest. Given the lack of hard evidence to substantiate the claim that Leung has violated the article 73 (9) of the Basic Law, which says that "if LegCo by a motion charges the CE with serious breach of law or dereliction of duty and if he or she refuses to resign, he or she can be impeached". Any responsible lawmaker should not be reckless in moving an impeachment of the CE.

    Bear in mind that Jesus, the only man free of sin, did not cast the first stone and condemn the woman, not because he approved of her adultery, but because the men who brought the woman to him were hypocrites. In the eyes of Jesus, there was nothing more disquieting than the men's moral conceit. Likewise, in Hong Kong, there is nothing more terrifying than our lawmakers' hypocrisy and pretence.

    The author is a lecturer at Hong Kong Polytechnic University and a former Scouloudi Fellow at London University.

    (HK Edition 01/03/2013 page3)

    亚洲大尺度无码无码专区| 无码人妻少妇久久中文字幕| 无码精品蜜桃一区二区三区WW| 亚洲中文字幕久久精品无码APP| 中文字幕丰满伦子无码| 18禁免费无码无遮挡不卡网站 | 熟妇人妻中文字幕无码老熟妇| 一本大道香蕉中文在线高清| 亚洲国产91精品无码专区| 久久Av无码精品人妻系列| 最新中文字幕AV无码不卡| 天堂а√在线地址中文在线 | 欧美中文字幕一区二区三区| 免费一区二区无码视频在线播放| 人妻无码一区二区三区AV| 亚洲国产无套无码av电影| 日韩精品无码人妻一区二区三区| 中文字幕亚洲色图| 91中文字幕在线| 91中文字幕yellow字幕网| 久热中文字幕无码视频| 最近的中文字幕在线看视频| 亚洲成?Ⅴ人在线观看无码| 乱人伦人妻中文字幕无码| mm1313亚洲国产精品无码试看| 无码国产福利av私拍| 无码精品日韩中文字幕| 无码日韩人妻精品久久蜜桃| 无码人妻精品一区二区三区东京热| 中文字幕日韩第十页在线观看 | 免费无码国产欧美久久18| 中文字幕欧美日本亚洲| 国产成人无码一区二区在线观看 | 亚洲Av综合色区无码专区桃色| 无码人妻丰满熟妇区BBBBXXXX| 无码乱码av天堂一区二区| 无码任你躁久久久久久老妇App | 亚洲乱码无码永久不卡在线| 亚洲中文字幕无码久久2020| 无码国产福利av私拍| 国产v亚洲v天堂无码网站|