A circus has come to town. Apart from the silly pig, here comes the scapegoat again.
It is unbelievable that the pig has disregarded the CE’s former instruction to disclose any unauthorized structures at home and take necessary action. It is even more unbelievable that he has not disclosed it earlier. He might be too worried to disclose this biggie but he should have known that if this is disclosed by others nearer the voting, the damage would be even bigger and irreversible. Was he in fact an ostrich in disguise? This incident clearly demonstrates that he does not have the necessary integrity and is not smart or politically sensitive enough to exercise damage control. How could we rely on him to lead us through in the next 5 years?
As for the wolf, he is smart enough to turn things around in face of the allegation of possible conflict of interest. Again, can he be trusted? There are still some dubious points remaining that need to be clarified. For bidding on engineering projects, there are usually requirements to disclose any apparent or real conflict of interest. Those who are assessing the tenders with real or apparent conflict of interest should declare and may not participate in the assessment of the tenders. Also, a consultant to a bidding team is treated as a subcontractor for which a Letter of Association to the Government is required. Was this not required for the West Kowloon Cultural Center project? Is there a loop-hole to be plugged by Government? The wolf seems to be too quick to deny his responsibility.
In any case, integrity is only one factor required for a good CE, but it is an essential attribute.
Only a couple of days ago, the pig indicated that they may have dug a bit too deep at his house and as a man, he has the shoulders and spine. Maybe, at least the scapegoat has his shoulders to cry on. Great wife, always stand by the side of her husband and takes the blunder!
As poor citizens without any rights voting for the CE, perhaps, the only thing we can do is to pray for ourselves.
Allow me to give you a perspective of why I think your comment on CY is too harsh.
It is very difficult for CY(being the CEO of his Company , he looked after the strategic direction and not the operations) to remember ‘all’ the associations his Company has had business. He relied on his employees to check and report any possible conflicts. You have to remember the alleged business association happened ten years ago-not many CRM system(if it existed ten years ago) can picked this up easily. Whilst he is ultimately responsible as CEO, he was not ‘guilty’ of his offence. It is very gracious of him not to blame his employees like many of the senior management of public listed companies.
The employees involved were his directors and it would be up to the wolf to explain why he wouldn’t have known the connection at the time. In the eyes of the law, he is given the benefit of the doubt, he is still innocent. Extending your comment, if he later becomes the CE, it could be argued that he wouldn’t have known the details and evade any responsibilities by his subordinates. The law also rules that vicarious liability applies.
This article from the HK Economic Journal has an interesting insight into the current CE election:
http://commentshk.blogspot.com/2012/02/blog-post.html?m=1
Thanks for the link which gives an interesting and in-depth analysis of the situation. I fully agree that we should just be on-lookers as this is only a fight between the “vertical and horizontal” stakeholders. In any case, we will have no influence and control over any part of the election.