The thing is, at least on paper, democratic countries has a written set of policies for people to appeal such investigations. Granted, there would be a lot of red tape involved, but at least in a dem ...
China doesn't need this kind of law since it is "rule by law" instead of "rule of law"
Hello? Do you know anything about conducting business at all? Why do frequent customers receive better service? Businesses are ALL about preferential treatment, and the bank is a business. Preferred customers are preferred customers becuase the business can make money off them. They know Anson and her family is fully capable for supporting that mortgage, so the bank did what they could within the law to lend as much money to Anson as possible. Had any laws been broken, do you really think the finance commission, the business / commerce investigation team, and the police would have left it alone during this past 12, 13 years?
In the end, it was a business decision. I see nothing wrong with it.
I agree Yip Lau was "just carrying out her duties", but that is precisely the problem. As a high ranking official of HK, do you just do whatever task Grandfather has given you? Or do you exercise your own judgement and consider whether the policy is best for HK, or whether it's best for Grandfather? As I have said numerous times before, we need people working in the interest of HK. We do not need puppets to carry out Grandfather's orders.
I am not even gonna bother arguing with you over Article 23. If Article 23 wasn't problematic, why did you think 500,000 people took things to the street back in 2003? Why did you think the CP 4-Big-Lawyers worked tirelessly to prevent the bill from passing? Are you even aware of the implications of how far Article 23 can extend?
You don't even have a clue of what you are talking about. Your pro-British attitude is clouding your judgement. If the HK Monetary Authority sets the rule of 70% mortgage, then the most preferential customers, no matter how rich, will get 70% at most. All the others will get even less than that. What people are suspecting now is that Anson Chan got preferential treatment because she was a high ranking officer.
Also, there are discrepancies between her clarifications back in 1995 and those she made more recently. This shows she has something to hide from the public. When is she going to come clean about her shady business dealings? HK does not need a dishonest official.
Her character is also in doubt, since she is 除了忽然民主，更是忽然民生. The first day on the job after the election, she said some crap like "no democracy for HK, no prosperity for HK". As we all know there was no democracy under the British masters, and yet there was prosperity. As she was a high ranking officer under the British masters, she should have exercised her judgement and decided what was good for HK people. But she was such an obedient puppet to the British that she didn't have the courage to ask for democracy from the British.
As for Yip Lau, at least she is consistent with her past position. In order to protect HK from terrorist attacks, HK needs Article 23. Even the US and other western countries have these laws to protect them from terrorists attacks. But HK people didn't realize this. A lot of HK people who protested were misled by those pro-British puppets. Unless you do not want HK to have the ability of protecting itself from terrorists, why wouldn't you support it? Even the Americans are giving up some privacy for protection.
One way to look at this is, at the time of the British rule, the overall atmosphere and awareness for a need to democracy was not as prevalent. Certainly there was our share of tireless fighte ...
發表於 2007-12-7 00:32
| 
