According to the Bible, Jesus once faced a mob that was eager to execute a woman caught in adultery. He shamed the crowd into dispersing however, and rightly averted the execution with a simple challenge: anyone who has not sinned should step forward and cast the first stone. This parable is often cited as a reminder to avoid judging others when there are faults in our own lives that need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, one opposition lawmaker in Hong Kong recently seemed indifferent to the great saying of Jesus, brazenly casting the first stone to his foremost political opponent without introspection.

Last Sunday, speaking on RTHK's "Letter to Hong Kong", Civic Party barrister-lawmaker Ronny Tong lambasted Chief Executive (CE) CY Leung for "only telling half-truths" about his unauthorized structures at a Legislative question and answer session. Tong went on to contend that Leung's "arrogant demeanor" in the LegCo had warranted a motion of impeachment due to be tabled against Mr Leung on Jan 9.

Tong elaborated on his accusation that on June 20, the then CE Elect CY Leung "apparently directed or authorized the office of Chief Executive to deny responsibility for the existence of an illegal trellis at his home, when in truth it was built by him as proved later by aerial pictures."

Has Tong ever done any soul searching himself? Has he ever asked himself whether there is "no sin in his life"? I don't think so. In May 2011, some newspapers reported that an illegal glass house had been built on the rooftop of a garage at Tong's house in Taipo. Faced with tough questioning by informed reporters, Tong's initial reaction was equally defensive, denying the illegality of his glass house. In defense of his notion that the glass house was legal, he even evoked the power of law by quoting a Court of Appeal judgment. Yet, a government spokesman promptly refuted Tong's legal argument, highlighting the fact that the quoted judgment had been overturned.

Tong later admitted that his recollection of the court judgment was flawed and apologized. Whether or not Tong's illegal structure and his early misleading statement really stemmed from his inaccurate memory of the court judgment is never known to members of the public. It is however reasonable for us to give him the benefit of doubt in a tolerant society

Like Tong's, CY Leung's early account of this unauthorized structure was probably inconsistent with the truth. Like Tong, Leung has offered a public apology for his mishandling of the controversy. As Leung has explained, their inconsistency in his previous accounts, like Tong's, was probably due to a lapse of memory.

When a public apology can exonerate Ronny Tong from all responsibility for his erroneous reference to an invalid Court of Appeal judgment, why can't we, especially Tong, show similar clemency to Leung by giving him a benefit of doubt? Are Tong and other opposition lawmakers guilty of maintaining a double standard when it comes to Leung's case?

Surely, what CY Leung has done constitutes neither a serious breach of law nor a gross dereliction of duty which imperils public property and interest. Given the lack of hard evidence to substantiate the claim that Leung has violated the article 73 (9) of the Basic Law, which says that "if LegCo by a motion charges the CE with serious breach of law or dereliction of duty and if he or she refuses to resign, he or she can be impeached". Any responsible lawmaker should not be reckless in moving an impeachment of the CE.

Bear in mind that Jesus, the only man free of sin, did not cast the first stone and condemn the woman, not because he approved of her adultery, but because the men who brought the woman to him were hypocrites. In the eyes of Jesus, there was nothing more disquieting than the men's moral conceit. Likewise, in Hong Kong, there is nothing more terrifying than our lawmakers' hypocrisy and pretence.

The author is a lecturer at Hong Kong Polytechnic University and a former Scouloudi Fellow at London University.

(HK Edition 01/03/2013 page3)