Daughter of Hong Kong leader thanks "taxpayers" for diamonds on Facebook



Let them eat cake?


Wasn’t sure how I felt until I confirmed she was 23.

1 Like

You stay classy, 1%. When we hang you up by your necklaces, they will make for lovely tinsel on the leafless tree.

Okay, that’s a bit harsh. I don’t know how the London School of Economics is doing these days, but it should probably consider adding a course on the causes of poverty and then making the visiting hoi polloi take it.


Devil’s Advocate: If you receive your income from the government, then technically the tax-payers pay for all of your stuff. Even if you supplement that income, you could still argue that the tax-payers are paying for it. This doesn’t mean you are wasting their money or corrupt.
If the Bill de Blasio buys a Lexus, it is paid for by the tax-payers. If he buys a Prius, it is paid for by the tax-payers. If he buys a bike, it is paid for by the tax-payers.

1 Like

You’re not fooling me. That’s Michael Jackson.


I haven’t seen anyone questioning the accuracy of her statement, just her timing and tone.

1 Like

True, Mephisto, but would it be perhaps a little gauche for Barack Obama to buy himself a faberge egg and then say “Thanks for my bitchin’ egg, taxpayers!!!”

Methinks it might be.

most of you here are probably unemployed hence all this time obsessed with bombarding me with messages

This coming from an unemployed woman who spends her time insulting poor people on Facebook.


How are you this stupid and got into the London School of Economics and Political Science, it has political science in the name and political science 101 is don’t taunt the tax payers?


This gal got some serious psychological issues. She also posted self mutilation / suicidal photos on her FB page recently. She’s trolling and seeking attention at best.


True, but if you’re talking about expensive jewels and clothing, that’s an awful lot of tax money. And bragging about it when you’re the adult daughter of said tax-paid politician makes it highly uncool – that tax money wasn’t going to you directly.


When a person performs their job, they are paid by their employer. That money comes from the employer, but when the money arrives in the bank account of the person in question, it becomes THEIR money. My clients don’t buy things for me, they pay me for my work. What I do with MY money has nothing to do with the entity which paid me. If I want to buy a Faberge egg, bacon, or an abortion, my clients (employer) don’t get a say in it, because they are not paying for it.

If her father bought the necklace out of his personal money (presumably earned through his job) then the people of Hong Kong didn’t pay for the necklace. They paid the man’s salary, based on his terms of employment. In this scenario, she’s acting like an an entitled asshole spilling drivel from her mouth (keyboard), but there’s no law against that.

If he bought it with government funds, that would be the taxpayers of Hong Kong paying for it, and it would be corrupt.

I have no idea how the necklace was paid for, just differentiating two scenarios.

ETA: Also, this has nothing to do with whether he is good at his job, or deserves to keep it.


Its actually, taunt the taxpayer but blame it on the poor.
She tried. She failed.


Somehow I doubt that “the princess” actually works for the people she receives “income” from.

1 Like

23? Isn’t it about time to move out and get a job you entitled little princess?

This does look an awful lot like daddy’s little drama queen trying to get attention though.

1 Like

KockBrosTea{B}agger’s are in Hong Kong now too…

Wow. Bad timing.

It’s very easy to make jokes about Chai Yan Leung and her facebook fail (Daedalus, Old) . It’s also easy to be contrarian (cleveremi, pucksr) . But the people in the streets of Hong Kong being gassed by police, rallying for the right to choose their administration may not take this young lady’s facebook comments so lightly.

Cory put it best in an earlier post:

underlying it all is rage about growing wealth disparity.


Certainly indicates her father is either a fool for his daughter, or vastly overpaid, or on the take, or most likely some combination of the three.