Press Reports and Comment on the Green Paper on District Administration
(June 12 July 8)
-
Introduction
The Green Paper on district administration remained a topic of interest to Urban Councillors, community leaders, the Heung Yee Kuk, kaifong associations and rural committees, scholars as well as columnists in the period under review.
The Vice-Chairman of the Urban Council, Mr. Hilton Cheong-leen, gave
a warning that the council's status would lower if proposals in the Green Paper were put into practice without amendments. His colleague in the council, Dr. Denny Huang, criticised the Green Paper for increasing Government control and further weakening democracy in Hong Kong.
In a similar train of thought, Mr. Ma Man-fai of the United Nations Association said recommendations in the Green Paper were intended to weaken the powers of certain influential Urban Councillors rather than to allow for more democracy.
In the urban areas, various kaifong associations had expressed concern and interest in the Green Paper. Among other things, they suggested that there should be elected members. instead of official members on the district boards.
Their counterparts in the New Territories also showed equally keen response to the Green Paper. Together with the Heung Yee Kuk, several rural committees said chairmen and vice-chairmen of their organisations should be ex-officio members on the future district boards.
Columnists and scholars in general called for a clearer scope of the work of district boards and their members.
M
_A_columnist saw the Green Paper from a political point of view and felt that the Green Paper, which "clearly sets out the New Territories' position as a district of the Hong Kong Central Government," might be a tactic to make it more difficult for China to take back Hong Kong when the NT lease expired. Another columnist argued that the proposals would take Hong Kong back to the 19th century when local dignitaries dominated the community.
On the proposed extension of the franchise, the general consensus was that the period of residence required of voters should be between five and seven years. As for the age of voters, a few suggested that people aged 18 should be allowed to vote. However, Mr. Hilton Cheong-leen alone said the qualifying age of voters should be 25.
During the period under review. the Green Paper was the subject of editorial comment in three Chinese papers.
The Hong Kong Economic Journal was worried that the proposed district boards would become the sole machinery to monitor public opinion in the future.
On the extension of the franchise, Wah Kiu Yat Po hoped amendments would be made to the proposed period of residence required of voters, while the Hong Kong Times felt that the extension would not boost the public's interest in elections in view of the performance of the Urban Council.
/2 ..