When three HK candidates Leung Chun-Ying, Henry Tang, and Ho Chun-yan were on the stage, the tool they used to promote themselves to get elected is shadowing and ineffective.
Dragging the opponents down brings the negative reaction and feelings against each other in the debate. Thus the debate once again became a fighting Arena.
Like Ho Chun-yan attacked the other two’s “小圈子選舉” (means exclusive for all citizens’ vote); and Henry Tang criticized Leung Chun-Ying’s trustworthy while Leung questioned to Tang’s private life.
I’m not saying what they pointed out are not important. The criticism are crucial for each candidate, but in three hours’ debate I think it should be developed with more varied and important topics people want to hear more than just this.
Attacking each opponent’s weakness or private life has nothing to do with one’s policies toward the future of HK, which is more important to citizens since it relates closely to them. Also while the other opponents’ reputation is down by media deterioration it doesn’t mean you will be the right one for the city and the citizens within.
While they wasted time on attacking each other, the points they brought out on written policies of how to make changes for citizens was way too oversimplified and fragile. Because the policies they have were not the focus, instead what their characteristics were specialized for or benefit the city comparing the very lack of other opponents was the thing they wanted to point out and they believe it is their winning point.
One thing they had ignored is to lead a city, what they need to have is more than just one specific field, and their ability to lead people has to be strong enough and they have to consider for all the needs in society. Attacking opponent’s small area only harms their overall capability of being a leader. In here not just one thing that the other opponent doesn’t have can win them all.
Nonetheless, they have to put words into action in many areas in the society to achieve real doing for all citizens there. However, fighting or attacking each other was only creating drama to the people who were watching them. It’s only benefit for the media popularity, not their supporting rate.
Moreover, the way they did to “lay things out” was their beautiful talking without much details. The words they gave out sounded provoking but lacked of the trustworthy in their personalities and the execution afterward.
Narrow framing one aspect, they generally gave some perspective, but mostly are just foggy things. They sounded like they promised something but we couldn’t hear what those were. And the answers to the questions were not solid or strong enough to carry on any real doing since they have their own position in the party with political concern. While worrying about these things they promises seem fragile and empty.
It still needs a better way to go…