HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -28 February 1990
香港立法局
—————————一九九0年二月二十八日
Like them, I am disappointed.
49
The most important of all, the issues that would affect the future of the people of Hong Kong were agreed, behind closed doors, between the Governments of Britain and China, with apparently little regard to the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong.
It is true that over the last four years there have been divergent views in the community, and indeed in this Council, over the future political system of Hong Kong: not so much over the ultimate objective of the formation of a fully democratic government, but over the pace of development to that worthwhile objective whilst maintaining stability and prosperity through these troubled times.
The result of this divergence of views was that there was not a strong, clear and united Hong Kong position: a weakness that was easy to be manipulated or even exploited by those who have the power to influence its destiny. I said in the motion debate on the draft Basic Law in this Council on 14 July 1988 that it was "a highly unsatisfactory and regrettable state of affairs. For if Hong Kong people do not agree and cannot put forward a mainstream concept, these important issues will be decided by others on their behalf."
This weakness was not unrecognized by conscientious opinion leaders. Thus, a group of 89 members of the Basic Law Consultative Committee, chiefly from the business and professional sectors, agreed on a consensus model in August 1986.
Much to the credit of this group and of other groups who held different and more liberal views, a compromise model was eventually jointly worked out, which was to become the so-called "4-4-2 model" in October 1989.
Before the "4-4-2 model" came into being, the need for unity and consensus was deeply felt by non-official Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, and the OMELCO consensus emerged in July 1989 after some very intensive and soul-searching sessions. It should be properly recognized that the consensus did not come easily, and here I must acknowledge both the leadership and immense patience of the convener of the OMELCO in-house, Dame Lydia DUNN, as well as the willingness of Members who held widely different views, to put aside their personal interests so that a consensus could be achieved for the benefit of the community.