Chitty, chitty bang bang! Cathay picks a fight it cannot win
Updated: 2013-09-17 07:20
By Lau Nai-keung(HK Edition)
|
|||||||||
I am glad that my piece "Junketeers damage city's reputation" published here last week made a few people uncomfortable, so much so that Cathay Pacific's director of corporate affairs, Chitty Cheung, sent my editor a complaint letter. What does it say? I think it says chitty chitty, chitty chitty, chitty chitty, chitty chitty, chitty chitty, bang bang!
I talked about a lot of things in that previous piece, and Cathay was only mentioned in passing. Unfortunately, this important fact was overlooked because of Chitty's poor English. "Lau also says that those joining the trip have been 'exposed'," Chitty wrote. "(But) there has never been any secrecy behind the fact-finding aircraft delivery trips and new destination launches that we have organized for many people from all sectors of the local community over the years."
The word "expose" has a number of meanings, including the indecent exposure of body parts in public. In the actual context, what I was implying was clearly not "secrecy", but "impropriety". If Chitty cares to consult a dictionary, she will find that it carries the meaning of "to make known (something discreditable)" and "to reveal the guilt or wrongdoing of" (for example to expose a criminal).
Was Chitty saying that the information of these "fact-finding aircraft delivery trips" and "new destination launches" that Cathay has been organizing for "many people" is readily available to the public? If that's true, I hereby request a list of all such events - past, present and future - from Chitty. For public interest, I promise I will do some free publicity for Cathay and post this list on my blog so that all concerned citizens can see what Cathay means by "all sectors of the local community".
I hope "all sectors of the local community" includes not only those who are privileged with the ability to influence public policy, but also the poor, the disadvantaged, and the mentally challenged, etc.
Chitty also complained that I have no proof that the trip was "an inducement to influence legislators regarding a third runway at Hong Kong International Airport." Sorry, on what has been exposed so far, I am afraid it is Cathay that is obliged to furnish the proof that there was no hanky-panky, not me.
However, in the next sentence we see "[Cathay] made it clear that discussion topics during the trip included issues relevant and important to Hong Kong aviation development, including the third runway at Hong Kong International Airport." Yes, they "made it clear" in a statement after the whole thing was exposed. These discussions indeed are relevant and important to Hong Kong's aviation development, all the more reason why they should not be taking place in paid-for luxurious trips and side-trips.
The intention of these "discussions", without a doubt, is to influence the legislators so that they become more sympathetic towards Cathay's stances, such as its support for a third runaway. Or else we are to believe that all our honorable councillors did during the "aircraft delivery trip" was just chit-chat.
To repeat the main point I tried to drive at, but Chitty failed to pick up in my last piece, the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is very strict about public servants (such as legislative councillors) accepting any advantage. Inducement need not be actual, but can be imputed (who knows for sure how a decision is made in the public servant's mind?). If it is proved that "the accused accepted any advantage, believing or suspecting or having grounds to believe or suspect that the advantage was given as an inducement to or reward forany act referred to in that section", it is not even a defense even if "he accepted the advantage without intending so to do or forbear" or "he did not in fact so do or forbear" (Section 11 of the Ordinance). Prima facie, Cathay and its honorable junketeers have together committed a serious crime.
After the Democratic Party apologized for its member's improper behavior and most legislators on the junket paid the trip that they did not wish for (or could not afford), proper public relations (PR) technique would advise Cathay to cut its loss and lie low. But Chitty the PR head instead chose to pick the fight that Cathay cannot win, and it shows one most annoying thing: they think they are right and there is no remorse. Oh how I miss the good old ICAC that served its master well.
The author is a member of the Commission on Strategic Development.
(HK Edition 09/17/2013 page1)