This is my letter written to SCMP, to express my dismay to people who viewed the outburst at LegCo by the Leaque of Social Democrats (黃毓民, 梁國雄,Albert Chan) as a threat to democracy.
Why don't we HK people get angry at the CE, the administration etc. but be so reactive with the behavior by 黃毓民, 梁國雄,Albert Chan? Why do people lambast on the CUHK Student Magezine editorial board for discussing sexual topics whereas turn a blind eye on the tyrranical/hypocritical ways of CUHK Chancellor Lawrence Lau and the Tribunal ? (not to mention the two Christian ministers who attempted to put the students behind bars).
Democracy no test of manners
I refer to Lau Wing's comment on the League of Social Democrats' emotive protest in Legco during the policy address ("Trio's outburst debased Legco", October 20).
Democratic values are not to be narrowly defined by how legislators conduct themselves. The sort of polite behaviour we see in today's political environment verges on hypocrisy. Courtesy is equated with being democratic and we water down democratic values. An outburst is seen as a threat to these values, but the actual threat is the downplaying of the real issues - the accountability of government and the erosion of our liberties.
The league's legislators were democratically elected. Any attempt to silence them represents a threat to our democratic values
Virginia Yue, Tsuen Wan
Mild, politeness and "well-groomed" officials or politicians are those that are harming or core values.
中大學生報"情色版"事件﹐人們都指責學生鼓吹色情等﹐期實也是保守者要學生將來作當權者馴服工具的手斷﹐群起指責的人﹐當日報串的兩條躝坦傳道人﹐也只係敢對無力反抗的學生動口﹐即使今日都好自由﹐就是不敢對這些虛偽作出責備﹐只敢鬧黃毓民等。Why ? Because they (CUHK students,黃毓民) are not in power. When they put themselves on the line to express their thoughts, people are afraid their behavior will provoke the ones in power !
Typical "Stockholm Syndrome" mindset.
蘋果日報講﹐有個小粥檔老闆李松興，近日起每天早上免費向逾百位長者送贈靚粥，又加送腸粉炒麪，為節衣縮食的公公婆婆帶來人間溫情。長者們吃得滿足，對非大富大貴的李松興心懷感激，口裏卻咒罵特首曾蔭權大條道理剝奪長者的生果金，「抵佢俾人掟蕉」 -- 我估我係老人家而有今日身體那麼好﹐都想向特首曾蔭權掟蕉。