tim's experiment

One of the advantages of “one country two systems” is that we are not required to follow the Mainland system under which the truth is whatever is currently politically convenient. Or at least we weren’t until recently. Now it seems Mr C.Y.Leung’s efforts to encourage greater integration have extended to this unlovely convention.

There was a poignant coincidence on Wednesday. On the letters page of the SCMP (Soon China’s Mouth Piece?) came the first salvo from the “our leaders are wonderful in all circumstances” brigade. Entertainingly they contradicted each other. Julia Fung from Central thought Mr Leung had been elected (I must have missed that) because Hong Kong people wanted something and he should be given a chance to deliver it. Peter Kwei, on the other hand, cited Mr Leung’s achievements as evidence for the idea that “people at the grass-roots level” now thought Mr Leung was wonderful. Meanwhile on page A3 readers who were still dubious could find a convenient little guide to Mr Leung’s “twists and turns”, going back to May 2011 when he told reporters that he had “no illegal structures at his home.”

Well I have rather lost track of the updates on this point but it seems that at that time the number of illegal structures Chez Leung was somewhere between seven and ten. Some of the explanations do not hold water either. Mr Leung claims to be inexperienced in matter of removing illegal structures. Oops, another whopper. He removed one from his house in Stanley in 2000.

The only question remaining is whether it is acceptable to have a bare-faced liar as Chief Executive. I do not mind the man having illegal structures. Most people who own houses in Hong Kong have such things. But after so many twists and turns what is the point of him speaking in public about anything? There is no reason to believe a word he says.

Of course we should not really be surprised. Mr Leung’s status as a senior trusty in Basic Law matters clearly indicated that our mainland brothers thought he could be trusted to assert fearlessly that black was  white and two plus two made three, if the political circumstances demanded it. We can, perhaps, draw some useful conclusions for future Chief Executive races. The less the liaison office has to do with this matter the better. Their criteria are not our criteria.

May I in closing offer a warm welcome to my new reader from the blog-monitoring team at the Central Policy Unit. You can classify this one as “hostile”.