1 have spoken already on this debate on the original motion and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.10
8ell
12
the majority have accepted the proposals contained in the
White Paper. What purpose does it serve to produce yet another and more limited scope for the motion by restricting
the vote on it to the specific questions of the number of members to be directly elected, and the proposal to replace the
electoral college members by the directly elected members?
Those members who have already accepted the old paper have implicitly or expressly accepted these specific facts, and those who did not accept them like myself have had occasion to voice their objections, And now that Mr, Martin Lee has finished listening to his voice, perhaps our other colleagues will be able to explain their views on the matter.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The amended motion is also badly phrased in that
those who vote against the motion do then not regret the
10 Government's decision to have only ten directly elected members
introduced and so forth, while those who vote for the motion
could be seen to have accepted the rest of the White Paper, while
only objecting to those specific provisions highlighted by the
to amendment, thus not leaving any room whatsoever for those members
A who are unhappy with the other aspects of the White Paper, to
express their opposition by voting against.
23
(Sir, I refuse to accept such an illogical result as
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
I refused to accept the proclaimed righteousness
should call it self-righteousness
who in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, persist in a emotional outbursts or seek subterfuge in petty formality,
or use obtuse or legalistic arguments to deny the obvious political reality. Those who so fervently preach democracy should really learn finally to practise it.
Sir, I am getting somewhat tired of people who seem 32 to believe that the urge to destroy is the creative urge,
particularly here in Hong Kong we can well do without people
l.33
34
35
36
whom yesterday I called perhaps a little bit too charitably
'naive idealists'.
-
or perhaps we
-
and the bona fides of those