January 13, 1999 -- Hong Kong -- What is it that motivates a person to seek public office? We're not talking about the Mandela, Havel type of power seekers here. In a country that is governed by the rule of law and where in general everyone gets their fair share of opportunities, what is it that makes a person think he or she can improve on what is already a working system?

Here in Hong Kong our semi-sort-of-elected Legislative Assembly meets in general session once a week to debate weighty subjects. In the newsroom we are kept up to date with constant flow of faxed copies of the written questions and answers. Far be it from me to suggest that this might be an indication of the interest generated by the debates, but the housekeeping department puts on extra staff just to keep the bins empty. When I think of all those poor trees......

Take the United States for another example. While Congress and the Senate have been preoccupied with impeachment, the garbage still got collected, right? Cops went out and got the bad guys and social security cheques were issued. When you think about it, most of the time that garbage doesn't get collected or when 'government' shuts down and social security cheques don't get sent, it is because of those elected officials who promised us that everything would work better if we voted them into office.

When I see 'former' elected government officers on the lecture circuit or offering their opinions on chat shows I am reminded of the financial secretary who once added this final note to an annual report: "I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity of serving as financial secretary. I have truly received much more than I have given."

And talking about a guy who demands mega-bucks to dispense wisdom. The release this past week of transcripts of conversations between former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Chinese government in the early 1970s sent me scrambling through my notes for the following gem uttered by dear Henry himself: "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." He might have been joking at the time, but you've gotta love the guy for his honesty. Uncharacteristically, the usually verbal Henry was unavailable for comment.

So who are these 'politician' people who try to convince us that something that isn't broken needs to get fixed? Are they really doing better than the folks who went before? Flipping through my files I came across the following - my apologies if you've heard it before. The Ten Commandments contain 297 words. The Bill of Rights is 463 words long. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words. A Federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words. So I guess there are leaders, and there are politicians. Don't quote me on this, but I think there is a European Union document devoted to the shape of bananas and strawberries that is even longer.

I don't know how many of APJ's readers have actually sat through a political debate on the size and shape of strawberries, but if you had I am sure you would have come away wondering: Do these folks really get paid for this? Well, credit where credit is due. The E.U. Commission has demonstrated great talent in 'losing' more money in the space of a year than most countries in the World have ever had in their reserves. And those responsible for departments and programs that cannot account for most of the money (Edith Cresson - for example) still have the arrogance to sneer at 'plebe' journalists who pester them for an explanation.

Okay, so who the hell are we to ask into which particular black hole did 5-billion dollars of taxpayer money disappear? Well, I guess we are the unelected representatives of the public of which we are taxpaying members. The 'elected' members of the European Parliament are already seeking a compromise solution where a couple of commissioners will get sacked - and the issue will get swept under the carpet. Hey, not if we can help it!!

Politicians. When they are on the stump they love us journos - we are their bosom pals. Once they are in office many of them either get struck dumb when asked a pertinent question or they speak to the press in a condescending manner that a child would find mildly insulting. And when (note: when, not if) they are caught in the act of exhibiting some of the less than 'noble' human characteristics that all of us are prone to from time to time, they become abusive.

Who are these people? Do they think they are above criticism just because they are in office? Or do they think that office gives them the right to be above criticism? In my circle of friends, I know more journos who don't vote than non journos who do. That's gotta tell you something. Not only are we subject to their legislative dictums, we have to deal with them on a day to day basis too.

And those faxes from the Hong Kong Government Information Service? They are sent to us and every news gathering organisation in the territory. And this from a Government and Legislative Council that is supposed to be deeply concerned about ecology and the environment. You've got to laugh. Not.

-- Chris Gelken