Two weeks ago, the SCMP published this ridiculous letter:
Voting rights don't include secession
Virginia Yue ('We should respect voters' choice,' January 30), in her reply to my letter ('Small-circle election for us, please', January 20), can be forgiven for being unaware that universal suffrage can be in the form of indirect election or direct election.
In my letter, I never said anything against universal suffrage per se, only the direct-election mode of it, through which China has been subjected to threats of secession by Taiwan.
The indirect-election mode of universal suffrage, as provided for in Article 45 of the Basic Law, would have provided some safeguard against threats.
But what I would really like to see introduced is a positive instrument, a piece of legislation such as the US Patriot Act. The mainland has such an antisecession law and hopefully in Hong Kong it can be introduced under Article 23.
Yes, respect the voters' wishes, but not when it is secession.
I am sure even the US federal government would come down like a ton of bricks if any state tried to secede, as it did in the secession [civil war] of 1861-65, when 11 states tried to secede.
I suppose, in the case of your correspondent, my argument will fall on deaf ears.
Peter Lok, Chai Wan
Strangely the SCMP has not printed a single letter in response to this load of nonsense.
Would the US government “come down like a ton of bricks” if there was a political party in, say, California that advocated independence? No, because things have changed in the USA in the last 160 years, and if one of the fifty states did really want to secede it would all be resolved peacefully .
Scotland does have a party that advocates independence, and they now control the Scottish Parliament. They will hold a referendum, and if the Scottish people vote for independence then the UK will allow it to happen.
There have been several other peaceful and amicable break-ups, such as Czechoslovakia becoming the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
So you have to wonder why the SCMP lets Peter Lok put forward such absurd arguments and then fails to print letters that challenge his ridiculous assertions.