Hong Kong Today
今日香港
Would Legco please rule yourself well?
請立法會管好自己
|
|
|
 |
On Thursday, not long after the Legislative Council moved into a new building for meetings, it went through the most unpleasant Chief Executive question-and-answer session  in history. It was not just Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen but even Legco Chairman Jasper Tsang Yok-sing who became the target of criticism. Past connivance  has become today's bitter fruit.
The explosive scenario on Thursday could be roughly divided into two levels of what was directed at Donald Tsang's rebuttal and Jasper Tsang's ruling. The fuse was the two Legco members branded by many citizens as "radical and trouble-making": Wong Yuk-man and Leung Kwok-hung.
The three lawmakers Wong and Leung, together with Chan Wai-yip, have since the early years walked a thin line at the chamber , often intentionally violating meeting regulations by scolding, shouting and throwing objects and being expelled. They would walk away freely after successfully winning exposure . Such methods eventually became an unwritten understanding and routine work between themselves and the chairman. They had been used so many times that people lost interest in them.
Chief Executive speaks the minds of many citizens
To keep the attention of the masses, the three relied on continually "innovating" or increasing the intensity of their radical behaviour. Leung, the day before flew a balloon with a strip carrying a complaint message at Legco when Donald Tsang was reading his Policy Address. It stayed at the ceiling until the meeting was over. Wong, who had in the past meetings spoke "suspected foul language" in the chamber , on Thursday used the excuse of attacking the Chief Executive's breach of political ethics, scolding him with words that sounded like "immorality" in Chinese. Even the TV station news broadcasts removed the voice. They had gone past the thin line.
Donald Tsang on Thursday rebutted Wong, describing what he did as "thug-like behaviour" and saying that Legco was not a triad place . As a result, it was criticised by the pan-democratic lawmakers. Some people were dissatisfied with his response but at the same time, it spoke the minds of many. Those who supported his striking back included not only those officials insulted by the three through speech or action all these years but also citizens who did not like the three turning the chamber into a farce leaving no dignity , the masses dissatisfied with them bringing a violent culture into peaceful street protests and many parents who were worried the three would lead their children astray.
As for Jasper Tsang expelling the two just at the time when Leung stood up asking to speak on rules of the meeting, pan-democratic lawmakers protested that Tsang did not follow meeting rules and started leaving the chamber . Leung who originally threw the meeting into chaos was instead made into someone suppressed and "deprived of the right to speak". He had enough time to throw only one egg at Donald Tsang from the eggs and tomatoes he prepared.
Jasper Tsang explained that Leung was the one who breached the regulations and caused the chaos first. Expelling him was not a way of preventing him from speaking. There may be disputes about who is right and who is wrong. Lawmakers can express doubts but is it worthwhile to leave the chamber in protest? If in future the officials are dissatisfied with the chairman not strictly enforcing the rules and collectively staying away from the meeting, would these lawmakers be able to treat others the way they treat themselves and use the standards they used on that day and accept the boycott action of the officials?
Radicals going too far, pan-democrats do not win favour
After Jasper Tsang's ruling, Leung was unable to throw his tomatoes in the chamber but he resumed using force and used the portrait of Jasper Tsang outside the chamber as a target for throwing tomatoes. However, Leung knew that he should throw lightly and that the mess could be easily cleaned, not causing any criminal damage but making it another successfully run political show . To citizens who do not agree with such behaviour, the pan-democratic lawmakers who stood beside in support may be playing a precarious supporting role that cannot please everyone.
The tomato on the portrait could be easily wiped off but the spot that the incident left in the citizens' hearts was hard to wipe off. The rough, overly extreme, and irrational style within the chamber further lowered the image of Legco in the hearts of the citizens. When unruly behaviour becomes more intense in the chamber , the voice for Legco to rule itself properly from the citizens will become louder and louder.
|
|
|
