|
Where is the political wisdom? |
|
|
Written by ALFRED LIU WAI-TUNG
|
|
Thursday, 03 April 2008 |
It doesn’t take long for a politician to ruin his or her future. One
simple gaffe and a few seconds will do. So, political figures have
apologised one by one for their gaffes and misbehaviours to the public:
not only two or three, but four in total.
 Regina Ip Lau Suk-yi has apologised for “personally” making mistakes in her promotion of the Article 23 Security Bill. James Tien Pei-chun has apologised for criticising the MTRC’s chief executive for nominating an election candidate.
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has retracted his remarks about democracy and the Cultural Revolution.
And, Anson Chan Fang On-sang said she has learned a lesson from her hair salon visit during the pro-democracy march.
Each of them had particular reasons for the apologies. The two ladies undoubtedly wished to win back support for the by-election campaign, while the two gentlemen wanted to avoid any other conflicts. However, all the remarks and apologies can never disguise their stupidity and a lack of political wit.
Many government officials were groomed under a colonial regime before the handover and they were mostly confident and even snobbish. They stood firm on their decisions, tended to turn a deaf ear on the grassroots voice, and were not well trained to be tactful in dealing with the public.
Just like Regina Ip, who once said “low-skilled workers such as staff of McDonald’s and taxi drivers are not concerned about the Article 23”, and refused to answer legislators’ questions if they were “rude”, while promoting the bill.
Donald Tsang said on a radio programme: “if we go to the extreme, people go to the extreme, and you have a Cultural Revolution, for instance, in China. When people take everything into their hands, then you cannot govern the place”.
Well, I was speechless after listening to these extraordinary remarks, especially the links between democracy and the Cultural Revolution. I can see they were loyal to their own thoughts and honest to express what was in their hearts. Perhaps Mr Tsang’s speech just indicates his wish to be elected.
These gaffes were rooted in elitism to a certain extent. They think they are wiser, that’s why they think they are superior. But come on, please learn to be more considerate and take a history lesson first before doing anything to flatter your boss.
Surprisingly, Anson Chan, Hongkongers’ favourite “political idol”, also could not stop herself from doing something silly.
Mrs Chan worked hard to gain support from the public, including emphasizing the importance of establishing communication channels with Beijing to give a moderate and pro-democracy image for the election.
However, her ideal plan almost fell through after an early exit from the pro-democracy demonstration for her hair salon date in Causeway Bay. Followed by broad media coverage, she argued that she had promised to attend a private meeting in the afternoon and so she wanted to appear neat and tidy.
Okay, Mrs Chan now has to get her hair done and probably thought that it’s already enough for her to show up for a while to support the rally in the Victoria Park. But she should not forget she is still in the political spotlight. It simply shows she is not as politically sensitive as expected.
Meanwhile, Mr Tien’s “open threats and coercive remarks” interfering with the nomination of an election candidate also tell his political naïveté. No matter what his intention was, his opinions were unwise. If his words had not been overwhelmed by Mr Tsang’s unprecedented remarks, Mr Tien might have faced a hard time afterwards.
All in all, “too simple, sometimes naive” can be applied to wise men sometimes as well as to reporters.
Edited by PHOEBE CHAN CHO-YAN
 |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 03 April 2008 )
|
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
