HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4689
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 29 June 1994
The Council met at Nine o’clock
PRESENT
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE JOHN JOSEPH SWAINE, C.B.E., LL.D., Q.C., J.P.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR NATHANIEL WILLIAM HAMISH MACLEOD, K.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
4690 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
REV THE HONOURABLE FUNG CHI-WOOD
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY HA WING-HO, M.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA
THE HONOURABLE SIMON IP SIK-ON, O.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM KUI-CHUN
DR THE HONOURABLE CONRAD LAM KUI-SHING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4691
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TIK CHI-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
THE HONOURABLE ROGER LUK KOON-HOO
THE HONOURABLE ANNA WU HUNG-YUK
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALFRED TSO SHIU-WAI
IN ATTENDANCE
MR MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
MR CHAU TAK-HAY, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
MR HAIDER HATIM TYEBJEE BARMA, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
4692 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
MR DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY
MR NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4693
Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Securities and Futures Commission (Levy)
(Securities) (Amendment) Order 1994 ................................................ 367/94
Securities and Futures Commission (Levy) (Futures
Contracts) (Amendment) Order 1994.................................................. 368/94 Money Lenders (Amendment) Regulation 1994 ......................................... 370/94
Companies Ordinance (Amendment of Eighth
Schedule) (No. 2) Order 1994 ............................................................. 371/94
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Amendment of
Second Schedule) Order 1994 ............................................................. 372/94
Legal Officers Ordinance (Amendment of
Schedule) Order 1994.......................................................................... 373/94
Limited Partnerships Ordinance (Amendment of
Schedule) Order 1994.......................................................................... 374/94
Places for Post-Mortem Examination
(Amendment) Order 1994 ................................................................... 375/94
Rabies (Declaration of Places Prohibited to
Animals) Order.................................................................................... 376/94
Regulation of Movement of Dogs
(Consolidation) (Repeal) Order 1994 .................................................. 377/94
Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Ordinance
1994 (19 of 1994) (Commencement) Notice
1994..................................................................................................... 378/94
Air Pollution Control (Motor Vehicle Fuel)
Regulation (L.N. 196 of 1994)
(Commencement) Notice 1994............................................................ 379/94
Companies Ordinance (Fee for Taking Affidavit,
Affirmation or Declaration) (Amendment)
Notice 1994 ......................................................................................... 380/94
4694 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
Import and Export (Strategic Commodities)
Regulations (Amendment of Schedule 1)
Order 1994 (L.N. 271 of 1994) (Appointed
Day) Notice 1994 ................................................................................ 381/94
Insurance Companies (Amendment) (No. 2)
Ordinance 1994 (26 of 1994)
(Commencement) Notice 1994............................................................ 382/94
Noise Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1994 (2
of 1994) (Commencement) Notice 1994 ............................................. 383/94
Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Licensing of
Livestock Keeping) Regulation (L.N. 309 of
1994) (Commencement) Notice 1994.................................................. 384/94
Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421) (Commencement)
Notice 1994 ......................................................................................... 385/94
Waste Disposal (Amendment) Ordinance 1994 (28
of 1994) (Commencement) Notice 1994 ............................................. 386/94
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Amendment of
Schedules) Notice 1994 (L.N. 311 of 1994)
(Commencement) Notice 1994............................................................ 387/94
Waste Disposal (Livestock Waste) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994 (L.N. 310 of 1994)
(Commencement) Notice 1994............................................................ 388/94
Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1994 (43
of 1994) (Commencement) Notice 1994 ............................................. 389/94
Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1994 (43
of 1994) (Commencement) (No. 2) Notice
1994..................................................................................................... 390/94
Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax)
Regulation ........................................................................................... 391/94
Sessional Papers 1993-94
No. 91 ― 1993 Annual Report by the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4695
No. 92 ― Audited Statement of Accounts of the Hong Kong Rotary Club Students’ Loan Fund for the Year Ending 31 August
1993
No. 93 ― Audited Statement of Accounts for the Sing Tao
Foundation Students’ Loan Fund for the Year Ending 31
August 1993
Miscellaneous
Technical Memorandum for Specifying Air Quality Objective for Hong Kong
Address
1993 Annual Report by the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, as a Member of the Advisory Committee on Corruption, I have pleasure in introducing the 1993 Annual Report by the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which is tabled in this Council today.
The main feature of 1993 was undoubtedly the huge increase in the number of corruption reports received from the public; 3 284 reports was a 44% increase over 1992. This increase was across the board and, significantly, the number of pursuable reports also rose by 34% over the corresponding figure for 1992.
The Commissioner has tried to find an explanation for these remarkable increases but has not been able to come to any definite conclusions. A self-evident fact is that more people are prepared to come forward and report their allegations and this shows that the community wants to take a stand against corruption and trusts the ICAC to do the job of beating it back. Moreover, two thirds of the people who report corruption are prepared to give their names and addresses and that is important because it is far more likely that a complaint of corruption can be investigated effectively when the complainant identifies himself.
All of this is positive but there is a darker side of the picture. When the ICAC relates the increase in the number of reports to its own intelligence, the assessment is that there is indeed more corrupt activity about than in recent years. It is difficult to gauge how much more. The widely perceived “1997 quick buck syndrome” and the huge growth in cross border trade are probable principal causes. By the end of 1993 the Administration had agreed to fund an additional Operations Department investigating group of 44 officers to help deal
4696 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
with the increase in work and cope with the additional demands anticipated this year arising from district board elections. The new investigating group is now in place.
In his policy address in October last the Governor called for the launching of a business ethnics campaign. Although the main thrust of the ICAC’s efforts will continue to be directed at the public sector it was felt that there was a need to train a spotlight on the private sector. This campaign urges large companies and trade and industry associations to establish codes of conduct. The major chambers of commerce are taking a leading role, assisted by the Commission’s Community Relations and Corruption Prevention departments.
In 1993 the Commission also sought to assist China in the major campaign it launched against corruption. The anti-corruption authorities in China seek the help of the ICAC which shares with them its experience in community education and corruption prevention. The ICAC has developed anti-corruption guidance for Hong Kong businessmen doing business in China, guidance that spells out China’s laws and regulations on bribery and embezzlement and offers friendly advice. This important work by the Community Relations and Corruption Prevention departments has continued into 1994. At the 6th International Anti-Corruption Conference in Mexico in November 1993, China was chosen as the host for the next conference which will be held in Beijing in October 1995. The ICAC was pleased to be able to lend their help to China’s successful bid.
The year ended with preparations being made for the ICAC’s 20th anniversary in February 1994 and for a re-affirmation of its determination to fight corruption in the years ahead.
Mr President, in tabling this report I wish to join the Commissioner in thanking the public for their support and the confidence they show in the ICAC, the members of the advisory committees who put so much time and effort in giving valuable assistance and all the ICAC staff for their dedication, hard work and many successes in 1993.
Written Answers to Questions
Development of Government, Institution and Community sites
1. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) the gross area covered by existing Government, Institution and Community (GIC) sites in the territory;
(b) the gross building area available for development, as calculated by private development plot ratio, if these sites are fully utilized;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4697
(c) whether procedures have been formulated for the Government to develop GIC sites in conjunction with private developers; if so, what the procedures are, and the time required to complete these procedures; and
(d) the effect on Hong Kong’s land supply if the Government adopts positive measures to develop GIC sites in conjunction with private developers?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) About 2 965 hectares of land are zoned for GIC purposes in the territory. About 940 hectares of these are not yet developed for such purposes.
(b) Not all GIC sites can be developed or redeveloped for commercial or residential uses because factors such as land use compatibility, infrastructural constraints and reprovisioning problems prevent this. Each case therefore has to be considered on its own merits. While the gross floor areas which might theoretically be made available from the development or redevelopment of all these sites could be assessed by assuming an overall potential plot ratio, it would serve no real purpose to conduct such a theoretical exercise. It would simply mislead us all into believing potential exists where it does not.
(c) My response is confined to the redevelopment of GIC sites owned by the Government (that is, “government” sites). Selling such sites to the private sector is one way to involve them. As indicated in my oral reply to the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI on 22 June, 12 “government” sites have been sold for private sector development since 1990. To facilitate the redevelopment of other “government” sites, we are considering the possibility of involving the private sector in reprovisioning government facilities on some of them. But each case has to be considered on its merits and suitable funding arrangements worked out. The time required to reach agreement with the private sector will vary from case to case, depending on the complexity of the specific requirements and obligations to be negotiated.
(d) Because it depends on the number of sites that can be rezoned, the impact on land supply is hard to assess. Nevertheless, we are already making every effort to realize the full development potential of “government” sites. A Committee on Redevelopment of Under-developed Government Sites was set up in August 1991 to determine the appropriate land uses and redevelopment potential of under utilized
4698 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
“government” sites. Also, in the course of its deliberations, the Task Force on Land Supply and Property Prices has examined the possibility of rezoning and releasing “government” sites for housing purposes. We will continue to look for more such opportunities.
Islands ferry service from Tsim Sha Tsui
2. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of passengers using the holiday ferry service from Tsim Sha Tsui to Cheung Chau and Mui Wo in the past year, and the occupancy rate; and
(b) whether consideration has been given to stepping up publicity and improving the related services, particularly the ticket selling arrangement, so as to attract more people to use this service?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the Hongkong and Yaumati Ferry (HYF) operates services to Mui Wo and Cheung Chau from the Star Ferry Pier at Tsim Sha Tsui on weekends and public holidays. The patronage and capacity of these two services during the period from May 1993 to April 1994 are:
Service
Total
patronage
Carrying
capacity Occupancy
Tsim Sha Tsui - Mui Wo
Tsim Sha Tsui - Cheung Chau
381 970 1 442 100 26.5% 34 370 328 900 10.5%
Total 416 340 1 771 000 23.5%
Steps are being taken by HYF to promote these services. This includes putting up attractive posters at piers and vessels to inform the public of service schedules, location and operating hours of the ticket counter and the enquiry telephone number.
Regarding the ticket selling arrangements, because of police concerns on crowd control, tickets are presently available only from a ticket booth located at the basement of Star House and not at the pier. This is not too convenient.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4699
Having reviewed the current situation, the police now see no objection to the setting up of a ticket booth at the Tsim Sha Tsui Ferry Pier on a three-month trial. HYF is now consulting Star Ferry and subject to the latter’s agreement, this will be provided.
Impact of Buildings Department’s checking procedures on the new airport
3. MISS EMILY LAU asked (in Chinese): At Present, the building projects undertaken by the Provisional Airport Authority, including the terminal building, have to go through the usual checking procedures as required by the Buildings Ordinance. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the projects will be delayed and whether the costs (including consultation fees and administrative costs) will increase due to this requirement;
(b) what additional manpower will be required by the Buildings Department for checking these projects; and
(c) whether such checking procedures will give rise to an “overlapping of responsibilities” between the professional staff employed by the Provisional Airport Authority and those of the Buildings Department, thus resulting in a waste of public funds?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,
(a) No, this requirement is unlikely to cause any delay or increase in cost.
The Government and the Provisional Airport Authority (PAA) will work closely together to ensure that this requirement has no impact on the programme or cost for the new airport. Both are committed to meeting the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) obligation that the new airport should be completed in a cost effective manner and to the maximum extent possible by June 1997.
Discussions have been going on between the PAA and the Buildings Department (BD) on the streamlining of the procedures for submission and approval, including appropriate exemptions from the provisions of the Buildings Ordinance, with a view to implementing the airport projects according to schedule.
The BD has established a Centralized Processing Co-ordination Committee (CPCC) to monitor the expeditious processing of the plans for the airport and related developments to facilitate their
4700 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
early implementation. This committee comprises representatives from the Fire Services, Lands, Planning, Highways, Transport Departments as well as other departments who will be invited to sit on the committee as and when required.
Regular consultations with the BD have also been carried out throughout the course of the design process for the passenger terminal building and concourse. For those projects which are still in mid-design stage or only just awarded, consultation with the Buildings Department will be carried out before detailed proposals are finalized.
In fact, even for other government projects which are exempted from the requirements of the Buildings Ordinance, it is common that the design will be submitted to relevant government departments for independent checkings/comments, as a prudent practice to ensure public health and safety. Hence the carrying out of independent checkings for the projects will not cause additional cost or delay.
(b) In order to expedite processing of plans for the new airport and associated projects, the Buildings Department has been given additional manpower to set up a dedicated task force comprising a surveying team and an engineering team led by a Chief Structural Engineer together with technical support.
(c) No, there is no overlapping of the responsibilities of PAA staff, who are mainly responsible for the design and overseeing the construction work, and BD staff, who are responsible for independent checking for compliance with the Buildings Ordinance.
Dicipline of a Senior Crown Counsel
4. MISS EMILY LAU asked (in Chinese): According to press reports, when a case concerning the hiring of a killer by a businessman was heard in the High Court on 29 May this year, the prosecutor of the case, who was a Senior Crown Counsel of the Legal Department, was found absent during the time when the Court’s verdict was returned. He also used abusive language when subsequently asked by a reporter about the case. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) why the Senior Crown Counsel was absent;
(b) whether disciplinary action will be taken against him; and
(c) whether the Government has issued guidelines instructing officials not to use abusive language when answering enquiries from reporters?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4701 ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President,
(a) This case concluded on Sunday, 29 May 1994. When the jury retired, the prosecutor returned to his room in the Legal Department to work on some urgent papers leaving his telephone number with the jury clerk and the police officer in charge of the case. Despite the fact that the prosecutor remained in his room, telephone calls made to him were not received. It was only after the proceedings had been completed that contact was made with him.
(b) The prosecutor was telephoned on two occasions by a newspaper reporter asking for his explanation for his non-appearance. He declined as he first wished to inform the Judge, which he did. On 30 May 1994, the reporter telephoned once again and once more an explanation was declined. As the prosecutor was putting down the telephone, he used an expletive which was not intended for her ears but which she did hear. As a result the prosecutor apologized to the editor of the newspaper in writing and the Director of Public Prosecutions spoke to the editor offering his regrets at what had occurred.
Disciplinary action has not been taken but the prosecutor was advised as to his conduct.
(c) There is no specific guideline for civil servants relating to the circumstances mentioned. The general guideline is that civil servants should be courteous when in contact with members of the public, including the press. They should always be helpful and polite.
Arrangement for detained persons
5. MR SIMON IP asked: Will the Government inform this Council of the places in which persons held under section 32(4) (Detention pending removal or deportation) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) may be detained and what guidelines exist for the placement and treatment of minors who are so detained?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, places for the detention of persons pending removal or deportation, including those detained under section 32(4) of the Immigration Ordinance, are specified in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Order made under section 35 of the Immigration Ordinance.
4702 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
Most illegal immigrants detained under section 32(4), are accommodated in Victoria Prison. Prison Rules covering prisoners awaiting trial apply, except for access to a telephone, which, under paragraph 3B of the Immigration (Places of Detention) Order, is more freely available than for prisoners awaiting trial.
The Immigration (Places of Detention) Order also provides that young persons under the age of 16 may be detained in the following places:
(1) The Chuk Yuen Children’s Reception Centre
(2) The Ma Tau Wai Girls’ Home
(3) The Begonia Road Boys’ Home
(4) The Pui Yin Juvenile Home
(5) The Pui Chi Boys’ Home
Boys between the age of eight and 16 detained under section 32(4) are usually accommodated in Pui Chi Boys’ Home; girls in the same age group in Ma Tau Wai Girls’ Home. Section 32(4) is not used for the detention of illegal immigrant minors who are seven years old or younger.
Young persons accommodated in these homes receive the same treatment as those detained in places of refuge under section 34E of the Protection of Children and Juveniles Ordinance. The Protection of Children and Juveniles (Places of Refuge) Regulations made under section 39, and the rules approved by the Director of Social Welfare for welfare, education and control apply.
We are intending to amend the Immigration (Places of Detention) Order to make it possible for those young persons between 16 and 18 years of age to be detained in future in Boys’ and Girls’ Homes operated by the Director of Social Welfare, rather than in prison.
Importation of labour
6. MR JAMES TIEN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council, with the strict restriction on the quota of imported labour under the General Scheme on Importation of Labour, whether the increase in local workers’ wages has been restrained because of labour imported under this scheme; and whether the Government will consider allowing the wages of the imported labour to be adjusted freely according to market demands instead of linking them rigidly to the mean wages for the same kinds of work?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4703
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, there is no evidence to suggest that the increase in local workers’ wages has been restrained because of imported labour. As the number of workers under the General Importation of Labour Scheme is restricted to 25 000, which represents only less than 1% of the total workforce, it is unlikely that the small number of imported workers would have any noticeable impact on the local wage trend.
The Government’s policy is that imported workers should receive no less favourable treatment in employment, including wages, as that enjoyed by local workers. This serves to protect imported workers against exploitation and, at the same time, safeguard the interest of local employees. It is in line with the requirement under Convention No. 97 of the International Labour Organization which has been applied in Hong Kong.
Anti-corruption laws in Hong Kong and China
7. MR JAMES TIEN asked (in Chinese): In view of the busy cross-border trade between Hong Kong and China and the different criteria set by anti-corruption ordinances in the two places, will the Government consider comparing China’s latest laws on commission rebate with Hong Kong’s anti-corruption laws, and compiling briefing notes showing the similarities and differences of the two sets of laws for the reference of the industrial and commercial sectors?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, during the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (ICAC) visit to the Guangdong Provincial People’s Procuratorate last October, the ICAC and the Procuratorate agreed to produce jointly a publication on the anti-corruption laws of China and Hong Kong for the benefit of Hong Kong businessmen involved in cross-border trade and investment. The objective of the publication is to explain the differences between these two sets of anti-corruption laws and to offer practical advice on how to make complaints of corruption in Guangdong or in Hong Kong. The publication is now under preparation and will be ready for distribution to Hong Kong businessmen through ICAC regional offices by the end of 1994. However, the publication will provide general information only and is not intended to take the the place of professional legal advice which Hong Kong businessmen should seek from their own legal advisers.
Outreaching service for the elderly
8. MR HUI YIN-FAT asked (in Chinese): As the pilot scheme launched by non government organizations to provide outreaching service for the elderly has been assessed as very successful by the social welfare sector at large, will the Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to
4704 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
providing funds to the organizations concerned for expanding this new service, so that more elderly people can benefit from this service?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, two outreaching teams for elderly persons at risk were established on 1 April 1991 as an experimental project with a grant from the Lotteries Fund. At the end of the experimental period, an evaluation exercise was conducted. The two operating agencies began to receive subvention for the two outreaching teams with effect from 1 October 1993.
As outreaching teams for elderly persons at risk are a relatively new service, the Social Welfare Department, the Hong Kong Council of Social Service and the two operating agencies are jointly monitoring their operation and performance. The mode of service delivery and development of this service will be reviewed after the service has operated for some time. Proposals for further expansion will be considered in the light of available resources and competing priorities.
Unfair treatment in tertiary institutions and the Civil Service
9. DR CONRAD LAM asked (in Chinese): In view of the deep concern expressed by the general public over the case in which a staff member of the Hong Kong Polytechnic was punished for revealing alleged deficiencies in the operation of the institution, will the Government inform this Council how it can ensure that the staff members in both the tertiary institutions and the Civil Service will not be unfairly treated for pointing out the mistakes of senior staff members?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, a panel set up by the Hong Kong Polytechnic to look into the case referred to in the preamble to this question concluded that there was no supporting evidence to the allegation. The Administration cannot therefore associate itself with the preamble when answering this question.
The University Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC)-funded institutions are legally autonomous bodies which, under their respective ordinances, are entitled to freedom of action, within the laws of Hong Kong, in managing their internal affairs, including the termination of appointment and dismissal of their staff.
The Administration understands that all UPGC-funded institutions have established procedures governing the termination of contracts and dismissal of their staff. The governing bodies of the institutions are ultimately responsible for ensuring that these procedures are applied fairly and reasonably. The Administration has been given to understand that all institutions endeavour to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4705
act carefully and responsibly to prevent unjust treatment of their staff and appeals procedures are in place for staff to seek redress if necessary. Nevertheless, disputes about contracts of employment or dismissal of staff may be resolved by the courts if necessary.
As regards practices in the Civil Service, the Administration promotes open and positive management in the Civil Service. There are a number of channels, both formal and informal, for staff to put forward suggestions for improvements, as well as views and criticism on the inadequacies of individuals or organizations. The management always treat these criticisms positively with a view to making improvements wherever possible. If a staff member feels unfairly treated for revealing deficiencies of his department, he has the right to lodge a complaint with his Head of Department or even higher authorities, such as the Chief Secretary or the Governor. There are clearly laid down complaints and grievance procedures to ensure that staff are protected from victimization and that their complaints are dealt with promptly and fairly.
Working Group on Care for the Elderly
10. DR LEONG CHE-HUNG asked: At the Legislative Council sitting on 1 December 1993, the Secretary for Health and Welfare said that the Working Group on Care for the Elderly, established to review the policy on care for the elderly people and to advise on ways of meeting the demand for services for the elderly, had to report by August 1994. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the progress of work of the working group;
(b) whether it will complete its work on time; and
(c) whether the working group’s report will be released for public consultation?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, in his annual address to the Legislative Council on 6 October 1993, the Governor announced that a Working Group on Care for the Elderly would be appointed to conduct a general review of services for the elderly and to advise on the formulation of a strategy for the development of future policies and services. The working group was appointed on 11 November 1993.
The working group is making good progress in its work. It has almost completed its deliberations and a report will be submitted to the Governor on time in August this year. The report will not be published before it is submitted to the Governor.
4706 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 Traffic accidents inside tunnels
11. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): Since speeding might have been the cause of some serious traffic accidents which took place inside the tunnels, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the number of speeding cases detected in the tunnels in the past year (please provide the breakdown by the day and time of the week) and the number of such cases in which the drivers concerned were prosecuted; and
(b) the number of traffic accidents which occurred inside the tunnels in the past two years which were caused by speeding?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) 2 518 cases of speeding in road tunnels were detected in 1993 and 485 drivers were prosecuted for the offence.
A breakdown of cases by day of the week and time is attached. This shows that 85% occurred in the early hours of the morning, when traffic is light.
(b) Police investigations indicate that in the past two years 70 accidents were caused by vehicles speeding in road tunnels.
To follow up this and other recent questions asked by Honourable Members on speeding and accidents in tunnels, I have asked the police, Transport Department and the private tunnel operators to give higher priority to tackling these problems.
Tunnel speeding offences for the year 1993
Time Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Total 0101-0700 299 329 297 268 340 263 346 2 142 0701-1300 0 0 256 0 91 0 29 376 1301-1900 00000000 1901-0100 00000000 Total 299 329 553 268 431 263 375 2 518
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4707 Insurance Claims Complaints Board
12. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): The great majority of complaints to the Insurance Claims Complaints Board are caused by disputes over the terms of insurance policies, and of the complaints made to the Board in 1993, four cases were decided in favour of the complainants and 21 in favour of the insurance agents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) what action will be taken to ensure that the terms of insurance policies are not so worded that they place the consumer at a disadvantage; and
(b) whether the Government has investigated the reason for the low success rate of complaints, and whether it is satisfied that the Board is acting fairly for the protection of the interests of the general public in handling complaints?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) There is little evidence to suggest that the terms of insurance policies are so worded that policy holders are placed at a disadvantage. According to the 1993 Annual Report of The Insurance Claims Complaints Board (ICCB), there were 30 complaints about the terms of insurance policies and these were mainly attributable to policy holders not fully understanding the meaning of the terms. The number of complaints about policy terms is very small bearing in mind that in life insurance alone there are already 2 million policies in force in Hong Kong.
In 1993, The Insurance Claims Complaints Board dealt with 99 cases including those carried over from the previous year. By the end of 1993, 32 cases were still being processed in various stages. Sixty-seven cases were settled, of which 40 were settled by agreement between the parties concerned before adjudication by the board. These 40 cases were settled on an ex gratia basis and were therefore not mentioned in the annual report. Thus, although awards were made by the board in four cases, in fact two out of three cases handled by the board in 1993 were closed in favour of the complainants.
Steps have been taken by the insurance industry to improve the comprehensibility of insurance proposal forms and policies. Simple English is used in insurance proposal forms and Chinese translations are now available for most insurance proposal forms as well as motor and employees compensation insurance policies. The drafting of a standard Chinese translation of policy terms is also in progress.
4708 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
Apart from the above, the Insurance Companies (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1993 has been introduced into the Legislative Council and has received support from the Bills Committee of the Council for early enactment. This Bill will enhance the professional standards of the insurance agents and brokers. An insurance agent or broker will be required, among other things, to give clear explanation of the terms of an insurance policy to a prospective policy holder.
(b) The ICCB is an integral part of self-regulation by the insurance industry. It provides an independent avenue for complaints in respect of personal insurance policies. The majority of the members of the ICCB are persons drawn from outside the insurance industry. It has been chaired by a retired Justice of Appeal over the past few years. The fact that two out of three cases handled by the board were closed in favour of the complainants, cannot be regarded as indicating a low success rate. That the rest did not succeed was due mainly to the lack of understanding of the policy terms on the part of the complainants. There is no reason to doubt the integrity, independence and fairness of the board. The working of the ICCB has been closely monitored by the Government. It is noteworthy that the maximum amount of award by the ICCB has recently been increased from HK$250,000 to HK$400,000 and its jurisdiction has been extended to cover complaints lodged by third party claimants.
It should also be borne in mind that insurance companies who are members of the ICCB are bound by the awards of the board while policy holders have the right to pursue their claims in court if they are not satisfied with the awards.
Voluntary Repatriation Programme of Vietnamese migrants
13. MRS SELINA CHOW asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of Vietnamese boat people who have returned to Vietnam under the Voluntary Return Programme since January 1994; and
(b) whether these figures reflect a deterioration; and if so, how they have fallen short of the estimated figures and what the Administration intends to do to remedy the situation?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4709
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, 3 747 Vietnamese migrants returned home under the Voluntary Repatriation Programme in the first five months of this year. This represents a significant decline over the 7 909 who returned to Vietnam in the last five months of 1993.
We do not maintain estimates of the number of Vietnamese expected to return each month.
The remedy to the current situation lies in promoting the Voluntary Repatriation Programme. The UNHCR take the lead in this area. Their promotional efforts include individual and group counselling, distribution of newspapers, magazines and information bulletins, and the operation of information centres in the detention centres where videos, photograph exhibitions and other printed information on the latest developments in Vietnam are made available to the Vietnamese migrants.
The report of the Whitehead Inquiry has suggested that, in conjunction with the international community, the Government should consider how the incentives for voluntary return could be improved. We are now exploring with UNHCR how this suggestion might be taken forward.
Regulation of airguns
14. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of injury cases involving airguns in the past three years; the number of persons who had been prosecuted successfully for causing such injuries and the penalties imposed on such persons; and
(b) what measures are in place to regulate the use of airguns; whether consideration will be given to reviewing the existing legislation so as to step up the control of airguns; if so, when the review will be completed; if not, what the reasons are?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) We do not keep statistics on the number of cases reported to the police of injuries inflicted by airguns, nor of resulting prosecutions. We believe such cases to be very rare.
(b) Airguns from which any shot can be discharged with a muzzle energy greater than two joules are defined as “arms” and hence subject to control under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance. The Ordinance requires licences for the possession of such arms and
4710 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
contains conditions regarding their use, transport and safe storage. An applicant for an arms licence must be able to demonstrate that he has a legitimate need for arms and that he is a fit and proper person to be eligible for the possession of such arms. It is also a requirement that no licence shall be granted to any person under the age of 18 years.
Licence conditions require that such airguns (that is, with a muzzle velocity of more than two joules) may be fired only on specific ranges. These include:
(i) ranges approved for air pistol/air rifles under the control of shooting associations; and
(ii) other ranges approved for air pistol/rifle shooting when the licensee is participating in a bona fide competition under internationally recognized rules, or if he is a member of a team constituted by the association participating in such a competition.
There are currently no controls over airguns with a muzzle velocity of less than two joules. However, the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance is currently under review, with the objective of strengthening the licensing regime of arms, including airguns, in Hong Kong. The question of whether licensing controls should be extended to airguns with a muzzle velocity of less than two joules will be considered as part of this review. We expect the review to be completed by the fourth quarter of the year.
Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund
15. MR PETER WONG asked: The audited accounts of the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund as at 31 March 1993 show reserves at some $500 million but claims not yet approved stood at $91 million which was almost twice the amount paid out in 1992-93. Will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) the levy at a rate of $250 for every Business Registration Certificate issued is excessive in view of size of the reserves in the above-mentioned fund;
(b) the objectives of promptly relieving hardship caused to employees in the event of insolvency of employer have been achieved;
(c) the rate of recovery from insolvent employers’ estates is satisfactory;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4711
(d) there are plans to raise the preferential amount of wages eligible for prior claim on the estates and if so what are the justifications; and
(e) there are plans for the investment of the reserves?
Also will the Government give a detailed breakdown of the claims amounting to $91 million not yet approved, together with claims lodged since 31 March 1993, demonstrating the time taken between:
(a) the date the employer went into liquidation or bankruptcy;
(b) the date when the application for payment was lodged with, or recognized by the Labour Department, together with the amount applied for; and
(c) the date when the claim was paid and the amount paid out?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the replies to the eight-part question are as follows:
(a) At present, the maximum sum an employee can obtain from the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund is $118,000 in the event of insolvency of his employer. This sum is made up of three items, namely, arrears of wages up to $18,000, wages in lieu of notice up to $6,000 and severance payment up to $94,000. During the past four years from 1990-91 to 1993-94, an average of 6 800 applications were received each year. Considering that the total accumulated fund of $500 million is only sufficient to cover 4 237 applicants at the maximum payment of $118,000 each, the levy at the current rate of $250 for each Business Registration Certificate issued is not excessive. Besides, there is a need for the fund to have a significant reserve to cope with any sudden downturn of the economy which will give rise to more insolvencies. In fact, the number of applications made to the fund has been increasing during the past five years from 4 460 in 1989-90 involving $60.6 million to 7 091 in 1993-94 involving $189.6 million.
(b) Payments from the fund have been made to applicants much faster than is possible under the normal liquidation and bankruptcy proceedings. The objective of promptly relieving hardship caused to employees in the event of insolvency of employers has on the whole been achieved.
(c) The rate of recovery from insolvent employers’ estates has been dropping. The annual average recovery rate is 17%. The declining trend is partly due to the fact that the preferential limits in respect of arrears of wages, wages in lieu of notice and severance payment
4712 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
under the Companies Ordinance and Bankruptcy Ordinance have not been revised since 1977 while the maximum payment limits to employees out of the fund have been revised upward for several times.
(d) The Administration is reviewing the preferential limits under the Companies and Bankruptcy Ordinances. At present, the preferential limits in respect of arrears of wages, wages in lieu of notice and severance payment under the two Ordinances were set in 1977. Consideration is being given to bring them to a more realistic level, taking into account the interest of other debtors as well.
(e) The fund board has been adopting a prudent investment strategy in managing its uncommitted surplus. Most of these surplus funds were placed on term deposits, and a minor portion was handled by a fund manager investing mainly in fixed term securities. The fund board is currently considering to entrust further funds with a second fund manager to handle up to 20% of the uncommitted funds.
(f) The required information on detailed breakdown of claims is not readily available. To produce such information would require manual analysis of all applications received by the fund before and since 31 March 1993. Nevertheless, the available statistics for the months of April and May 1994 indicate that of the 1 150 applicants who received payments during these two months, 129 were paid within three months after liquidation petitions were presented or upon the recommendation of the Director of Legal Aid where the presentation of such petitions were considered not appropriate. Another 1 015 applicants were able to receive payment in four to six months.
Issue of covered warrants
16. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) how the Securities and Futures Commission and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong monitor the issuance of covered warrants;
(b) whether the issuance of covered warrants would exert pressure on the stock market and stock prices; and
(c) whether any issuers of covered warrants have been found to be parties with vested interest and, if so, whether this is in the public interest?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4713 SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK) vets and approves every issuer of listed derivative warrants for compliance with the requirements of the Listing Rules. In respect of any new derivative products, or any new features of existing derivative products, as in the case of the recent call-spread warrants, the SEHK is required to consult the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) pursuant to the Memorandum Of Understanding Governing Listing Matters before granting listing approval.
(b) While there have been many international studies on the correlation between the cash or physical markets and the derivative markets, the findings of such studies have so far been inconclusive. In any event, the level of activity of listed derivative warrants in Hong Kong still falls well short of the level which might give rise to concern that the derivative warrant market over listed stocks may be exerting pressure on the price of the underlying stocks. To guard against such a situation occurring, the Listing Rules permit derivative warrants to be issued only over highly capitalized listed stocks and also limit the number of derivative warrants which may be issued over any particular listed stock to a small percentage of that listed stock.
(c) The Listing Rules prohibit the issue of derivative warrants directly or indirectly by a controlling shareholder or a person who has effective management control of the underlying listed company, with the result that derivative warrants issued over shares of listed companies are issued by arms-length third parties.
The Listing Rules further require the issuer to disclose to the Exchange and in the listing document any agreement or arrangement in place at the date of issue between the issuer and any substantial shareholder of the underlying listed company.
In order to promote greater transparency in the activity involving the underlying stock, an issuer of derivative warrants is also required to disclose to the Exchange and in the listing document any dealings in such stock by itself and a wide range of persons associated with it or the issue during the period leading up to the issue.
The Administration and the regulator consider that these Listing Rules adequately deal with the question of vested interests.
4714 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 Proposed Tsing Yi South Bridge
17. DR SAMUEL WONG asked: This Council was given to understand that, to improve the traffic flow between Tsing Yi and Kowloon mainland, the construction of a duplicate south bridge was proposed sometime ago, and that it would be constructed and paid for by the future operators of Container Terminal No. 9 (CT9). However, up to the present, there is still no progress in the appointment of CT9 operators. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether design stages have been completed for this bridge; and
(b) if further delays are anticipated, what are the fallback positions to cater for the local traffic demands, bearing in mind the present south bridge was meant for carrying utility connections primarily with very limited provisions for traffic?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the duplicate Tsing Yi South Bridge will add four lanes to the existing two-lane bridge. The transport justification and timing for the expanded bridge hinge on the decision to locate (CT9) on Tsing Yi. We intend to entrust construction of the bridge to the developers of CT9 and to require that the first two additional lanes are completed before the commissioning of the first berth of the container terminal. The whole project is to be completed before CT9 becomes fully operational.
The detailed design of the bridge has been completed. The Finance Committee approved a sum of $785 million for the construction of the bridge in July 1992.
The duplicate Tsing Yi South Bridge has been designed to meet both existing traffic demands and those which will arise from the operation of CT9 Since it remains the Government’s firm intention that CT-9 should be built on Tsing Yi as soon as possible, we believe that there is no reason to revise our plans or proceed with a project that only seeks to accommodate local traffic demands.
Telephone tapping
18. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: In 1984, the European Court of Human Rights found the United Kingdom’s then arrangements for telephone tapping were inconsistent with the right to privacy. As a consequence, the United Kingdom legislated the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to make the arrangements transparent and provide for supervision of the scheme by an independent commissioner. Will the Government inform this Council of the following:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4715
(a) are the arrangements in Hong Kong as good as, or better, than those now in operation in the United Kingdom from the point of view of the protection of the right to privacy; and
(b) having regard to the Secretary for Security’s advice that the publication of the figures on the number of warrants issued for telecommunications interception is not justified in the public interest, but noting that these figures are, however, published in the United Kingdom in the commissioner’s annual report, is public interest defined differently in Hong Kong as compared with the definition in the United Kingdom?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, we are committed to upholding the right to privacy. As I made clear in my answer to the question on this matter on 25 May, we have rigorous safeguards against abuse built into our procedures.
We are prepared to consider ways in which existing arrangements may be improved. This is why we have asked the Law Reform Commission to address the whole issue of privacy, including the question of telephone interception. When the Law Reform Commission reports, we will consider the recommendations and whether changes are required.
As regards part (b) of the question, our view remains that the public disclosure of detailed figures would serve to make the jobs of the Police Force and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in the prevention and detection of serious crime, which includes corruption, more difficult. Criminals and others who do not have the best interests of Hong Kong at heart should not be able to estimate, however approximately, the extent to which lawful interception takes place. Much of the work of the police and ICAC relies on informants and extreme confidentiality. Revealing details of the number of interceptions would have the effect of making this work more difficult.
Redemption of own shares by listed companies
19. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) what ordinances are in force to regulate the redemption by listed companies of their own shares and whether these ordinances will be reviewed; and
(b) whether the practice whereby a listed company using the company’s funds to redeems its own shares and write them off subsequently is fair to small shareholders; and whether the Government will review such a practice?
4716 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) Redemption or repurchase of its own shares by a listed company is not regulated by ordinance, but by the Hong Kong Code on Share Repurchases (the code) administered by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Listing Rules of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK), both of which are non-statutory.
Under the code, a listed company that wishes to redeem or repurchase its own shares is required to make a general offer to all of its shareholders in accordance with the rules set out in the code. However, the company may seek exemption from this requirement if it does not wish to make a general offer. The most common exemption a company may resort to is for on-market repurchase, that is, the company may repurchase its shares through the facilities of SEHK, in which case, the re-purchase will be subject to the Listing Rules of SEHK.
The Listing Rules impose a number of requirements on a company repurchasing its shares on-market including:
(a) specific approval or a general mandate at a shareholders’meeting of the company approving the repurchase following the provision of an Explanatory Statement cleared by the SEHK;
(b) a 10% ceiling on the proportion of the issuer’s share capital that may be repurchased under any mandate to repurchase shares;
(c) a limit on share repurchases in any calendar month of 25% of the trading volume on the SEHK during the preceding calendar month; and
(d) a prohibition on share repurchases being made from a “connected person”.
The purpose of the code and the relevant sections of the Listing Rules is to ensure that all shareholders will be treated fairly in the event that their company wishes to redeem or repurchase its shares. The arrangement is working well and is not currently under review.
(b) It is considered that in appropriate circumstances, the repurchase by a company of its own shares may be favourable to the remaining shareholders, such as by increasing a company’s earnings per share or allowing a company to use its excess cash more effectively. This reflects the widely accepted practice in major international markets. So far, this issue has not been a cause for concern in Hong Kong and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4717
no problems have been identified by our regulators. The Government therefore has no plans to review such arrangements.
Employment problem subsequent to upgrading of tertiary institutions
20. MR HENRY TANG asked: As approval-in-principle has been granted for a number of tertiary institutions to be upgraded to the status of a university, it is believed that some of their existing staff are unable to satisfy the required qualifications for the teaching posts in a university. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the estimated number of unqualified teaching staff in each of these institutions;
(b) what measures will be taken to ensure these institutions will handle properly the employment problem of these unqualified teaching staff and the personnel disputes that may arise therefrom; and
(c) whether consideration will be given to setting up an independent body to deal with these issues?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the two polytechnics and the Hong Kong Baptist College (HKBC) have been offering degree programmes for some time. The approval to grant university title/status to the three institutions followed acceptance by the institutions of the principle and terms of a differentiation of roles, implementation of common salary scales for staff primarily engaged on degree level work, and successful self-accreditation. The Administration is aware that in fact all University Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC)-funded institutions, including the two polytechnics and the HKBC, would like to enhance the quality of their academic staff and in this process the required qualifications for the staff of some disciplines have been raised.
The two polytechnics will continue for the foreseeable future to offer sub-degree level courses in order to fulfil their distinctive roles and missions. Those of their staff who are not considered to be suitably qualified for degree level work may, therefore, continue to teach sub-degree programmes. Regarding HKBC, it has been 100% degree-awarding since the academic year 1993-94 and all the college’s teaching staff are engaged in teaching at degree level.
The three institutions concerned have established procedures and criteria for selecting their academic staff whereby only suitable candidates are offered appointment. The Administration understands that all their existing staff satisfy
4718 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 the required qualifications for teaching posts either at degree level or at sub-degree level.
All the UPGC-funded institutions have established procedures governing the selection, termination of contracts and dismissal of their staff. Disputes about contracts of employment or dismissal of staff may be resolved by the courts if necessary.
The UPGC-funded institutions are autonomous statutory bodies which, under their respective ordinances, are entitled to freedom of action, within the laws of Hong Kong, in managing their internal affairs, including the appointment, termination of appointment and dismissal of their staff. The Administration does not consider it appropriate, therefore, to set up an independent body to deal with disputes concerning the employment of their teaching staff.
Motions
FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ORDINANCE THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER moved the following motion:
“That the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Suspended Working Platforms) Regulation, made by the Commissioner for Labour on 8 June 1994, be approved.”
He said: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper.
Under section 7(1) of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, the Commissioner for Labour is empowered to make regulations to ensure the safety and health of employees in industrial undertakings. The Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Suspended Working Platforms) Regulation was made by the Commissioner for Labour on 8 June 1994. In accordance with section 7(3) of the principal ordinance, I now move that this regulation be approved by this Council.
In recent years, there has been an increasing use of suspended working platforms (commonly known in the trade as gondolas) for construction, maintenance and external cleansing work on high-rise buildings. In the past four years, there were 18 gondola accidents resulting in two fatalities and 17 injuries.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4719
At present, the use of suspended working platforms is governed by the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Lifting Appliances and Lifting Gear) Regulations. However, the provisions are neither specific nor stringent enough to ensure their safe operation.
To strengthen control on the use of suspended working platforms, we consider it necessary to make a new set of regulations to provide for additional safety measures. The main provisions of the new regulation are:
(a) the owner of a suspended working platform must ensure that it is of good design and construction and is properly constructed, anchored, supported, suspended, counter-balanced, installed and assembled;
(b) additional safety ropes fitted with automatic fall-arresting device must be provided;
(c) a suspended working platform should be inspected by a competent person once every seven days, examined every six months and tested and thoroughly examined every 12 months by a registered professional engineer;
(d) a suspended working platform must not be used in bad weather conditions; and
(e) any worker on a suspended working platform must wear a safety belt and keep it attached to an independent lifeline.
We propose that the new regulation should be brought into effect 12 months after enactment to give time for owners of these platforms to make necessary modifications and install additional safety devices.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, I speak in support of stepped-up control of suspended working platforms (gondolas). However, it has taken the authorities concerned several years to draw up the relevant regulations. I find such kind of work efficiency regrettable.
Gondolas have been in widespread use in Hong Kong since the early 1980s but the Labour Department has all along been neglecting the safety problems posed by the use of gondolas.
Although a series of gondola accidents occurred at the end of the 1980s, the authorities concerned still acted as if nothing had happened. Then in 1990, the gondola in Pacific Place fell which unfortunately led to the death of two
4720 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
workers. It was only upon the strong demands of labour organizations and family members of the dead workers that the authorities concerned promised to consider drawing up legislation for controlling the safety of gondolas. The formulation of the relevant legislation has taken as long as four years which indeed make people doubt the degree of determination to legislate and the work efficiency on the part of the departments concerned. Therefore, apart from passing the legislation, it is necessary for the authorities concerned to review the problems that surface in the legislative process.
I wish to raise two points regarding the contents of this regulation which I urge the authorities concerned to consider in detail.
Firstly, I think that all gondola operators have to be provided with training by the employers. They can only work on gondolas after they have been issued with the work permits. The training programme should include how to use safety belts, how to operate gondolas, contingency measures in case of danger and fire prevention techniques on the gondolas.
Secondly, the present proposed legislation will only be brought into effect 12 months after enactment. The time involved is indeed too long. Taking into account that the formulation of the legislation has already dragged on for over four years, the enacted legislation should now be implemented as soon as possible.
I hope that the Government will consider the relevant proposals.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY moved the following motion:
“That the Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Rule 1994, made by the Chief Justice on 24 May 1994, be approved.”
He said: Mr President, I move the resolution standing in my name in the Order Paper.
Rule 63 of the Criminal Appeal Rules stipulates the fees for a transcript of the note of the proceedings which are appealed against. This fee was last reviewed in 1988. The purpose of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rule 1994, which was made by the Chief Justice on 24 May of this year, is to revise the fee from $10 to $17 to take into account the increasing costs since the last review.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4721 Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
First Reading of Bill
PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL
Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to provide protection from requirements, prohibitions and judgments imposed or given under the laws of countries outside Hong Kong and affecting the trading or other interests of persons in Hong Kong.”
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Mr President, I shall speak in Chinese today. However, Honourable Members need not worry that their ears will suffer for I am going to speak in Cantonese, not Putonghua.
I move the Second Reading of the Protection of Trading Interests Bill. The Bill seeks to localize the United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (Hong Kong) Order 1990, which I will refer to as the “1990 Order”.
The 1990 Order provides useful protection for Hong Kong businessmen and companies against extraterritorial demands placed on them by overseas governments or courts which may damage the trading interests of Hong Kong.
The Bill repeals the 1990 Order and replicates its provisions, with minor changes of drafting style, to provide the same protection to Hong Kong businessmen and companies. Its main purpose is to enable the Governor to prohibit persons in Hong Kong from complying with extraterritorial measures of overseas countries or requirements of overseas courts if those measures or requirements may damage the trading interests of Hong Kong or would infringe the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. The Bill also imposes restrictions on the enforcement of overseas judgements for multiple damages and certain judgements in restraint of trade.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
4722 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (ELECTORAL PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 9 March 1994 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR ANDREW WONG: Mr President,
Report of the Bills Committee
As Chairman of the Bills Committee studying the Bill, I shall first report on the deliberations of the Bills Committee before expressing my personal views.
At the outset, Members agreed that the Bills Committee should concentrate on the technical aspects of the Bill only and seek clarification on the proposed provisions.
On the proposals on functional constituencies (FC), the Bills Committee sought clarification from the Administration the groupings under the respective constituencies.
Some Members suggested that the Health Care FC should be renamed Health Services FC to reflect more accurately the functions of the respective groups under the constituency. This suggestion has been taken on board by the Administration and the Administration will move such an amendment at the Committee stage. Some other Members are opposed to it and will obviously speak to the effect at the Committee stage.
The proposal to replace corporate voting in some existing FCs by individual voting was also discussed by the Bills Committee. The Bill proposes no limit on the number of company directors (or executive committee members of organizations) who can register as electors, but measures are introduced to tighten the qualification for registration, that is, the need for the company (or organization) to be carrying on business for at least a year, for company directors (or executive committee members) to have served for at least a year, and attended at least 50% of meetings. Members noted that different qualifications are set for the Labour FC, as individual union officials are not subject to the “one-year rule”, and the number of electors of each trade union is restricted to no more than four officers. The reasons, as explained by the Administration, are to cater for different circumstances of the trade unions, which usually hold annual re-elections of office-bearers, with the main officer-bearers normally comprising a chairman, a vice chairman, a secretary, and a treasurer. Some Members have reservations on these proposed arrangements, and will no doubt state their views in the debate today.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4723
Members have put forth to the Administration a number of suggestions for improving the voter registration system for FC elections. They include the stipulation of both the names of electors and their respective companies (or organizations) in the voter register, with the names of electors grouped under each company name; finalization of registration for FCs before the nomination for candidature; inclusion of residential and business address of individual voters on the voter register. The Administration advised that voter registration would be completed before the close of nomination for candidates, and undertook to consider the suggestions raised by Members.
On proposals concerning the Election Committee (EC), the Bills Committee invited the Administration to illustrate the operation of the “single transferable vote” (STV) system to be adopted by the EC in electing 10 Legislative Council Members. As advised by the Administration, the STV system will produce maximum proportionality in the allocation of seats based on the votes cast. Members enquired why there is a need for voters to state no less than 10 preferences on their ballot papers. The Administration explained that this would facilitate the transfer of votes which is the essential feature of the STV system, and that EC members have a duty and do have the ability to indicate their preferences in full in order to make the system work efficiently.
Members discussed ways to minimize any possibility of election corruption under the STV system for EC election. There were concerns that votes would be easily identifiable if voters put down a specific number of preferences on the ballot papers. Members therefore requested the Administration to consider the possibility of using machine or computerized voting for the purpose.
At the request of the Bills Committee, the Administration also briefed Members of its 1993 modified proposals on the delineation of the new FCs and on the Election Committee. Such information provided useful reference for Members in considering the Bill and form the basis of some of the amendments to be moved by some of the Members during the Committee stage.
Personal views and proposals
Mr President, I shall now turn to my personal views and proposals. I have given notice to move amendments to the Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 1994, and I earnestly urge you to favourably consider my proposed amendments on 29 June 1994 at the Committee Stage.
My amendments form a total and thorough package for the reform of Legislative Council elections. The package is logical and coherent. It is democratic and meets the requirements of Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and Article 21 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. In other words, elections must at least be universal and equal. Furthermore, it does not contravene the stated requirements of the Basic Law, in other words 30 functional, 20 geographical and 10 Election Committee seats.
4724 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
It is my honest belief and considered opinion that my package is superior to any package on the table, namely the Governor’s 1992 package which is the substance of the Bill and his 1993 package which was put to the Chinese side in 1993 during negotiations, the Honourable Emily LAU’s amendment Bill to the Electoral Provisions Ordinance which calls for all 60 seats to be elected directly on a single-seat, single-vote basis, and the various partial packages which are based on but modify either the Governor’s 1992 package (for example, the United Democrats and the Meeting Point) or his 1993 package (the Liberal Party together with some independent Members and the Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood).
It should be crystal clear, Mr President, that the Honourable Emily LAU’s proposal will be unacceptable to China as it clearly contravenes the Basic Law. It should also be clear by now that any package based on though modifies the Governor’s 1992 or 1993 package will not be embraced by China with open arms. A new way must be found, hence, my package. The superiority of my package does not rest here, nor do I claim that mine will be acceptable to China. My superiority is in the package itself. Let me explain.
Reform of functional constituencies
Mr President, first and foremost, I propose to reform all 30 functional seats in such a way that they become universal, equal and direct elections yet, at the same time, remain functional. Specifically, I propose to group the 30 functional seats into five constituencies of six seats each: Commerce, Culture and Education, Industry, Labour, and Public and Social Services. All registered electors on the general electoral roll registered under the Electoral Provisions Ordinance will be deemed to be registered electors in all five functional constituencies, hence, entitled to five votes and can vote in all five functional constituencies. However, such elections are functional as candidates are restricted to persons who possess substantial knowledge and experience in the functions concerned, and the power to nominate is confined to recognized bodies in the functions concerned and to recognized political parties. These will be provided for in regulations to be made by the Governor in Council under section 28 of the Ordinance.
I freely and boldly confess that my reform of functional constituencies deviates from the existing arrangement of segregating voters into separate functional electoral rolls to elect their own representatives. However, the reform does not contravene the Basic Law which does not provide for a definitive definition of functional constituencies.
The reform is necessary in the interest of democracy. Under the existing arrangement, it is impossible to achieve universal and equal elections. Even if we are able to include all voters on the general electoral roll in one or another functional electoral roll, thereby making the franchise universal, the number of voters in the various functional electoral rolls cannot be made more or less equal, thus violating the concomitant principle of equality. The existing
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4725
arrangement can only find equivalents elsewhere in the concept of minority communal representation which, in most cases, is communal and not functional and which, in all cases, does not feature as many as half of the entire legislature.
Furthermore, the existing arrangement tends to encourage functional representatives to narrowly focus on the interests of their respective constituents with the result that we either have 30 sectorally segmented functional members or have 30 functional members segmented along class lines and that will be very dangerous indeed. What should be a battle at the ballot boxes for popular votes to secure seats in the legislature has deteriorated into a battle, in the current controversy ― electoral reform controversy ― for seats to secure sectoral or, even worse, class interest.
The Governor’s 1992 and 1993 packages and their variants have not addressed the above concerns. They further muddy the water by preserving and/or creating different types of functional constituencies which are radically different in nature. The existing two municipal council seats are obviously very different from the other functional seats (they were originally electoral college seats). The nine new “employee” functional seats in the Governor’s 1992 package are obviously so radically different from the others that they are tantamount to direct elections without any functional flavour. The fashioning of functional seats according to whether they are “employer-based”, “employee-based”, “self-employed based”, “professional/occupation-based”, or “unemployed-based” or whatever-based further detracts from the satisfaction of the transitional need of securing various talents to ensure a knowledgeable legislature, and deteriorates into the satiation of the gluttony of vested interests demanding a piece of the cake. It is indeed time that we lift ourselves up from this quagmire.
The Election Committee Constituency
Second, Mr President, on the question of the composition of the Election Committee Constituency, I am of the view that the Governor’s 1992 package to give the vote to directly elected district board members only can be and should be supported at least prior to 1997.
I have to admit that I had been saying, since 1992, that if in addition to the 20 geographical seats, the 30 functional seats were to be reformed along the above lines, that is, in my lines, we should not worry ourselves excessively over whether or not the remaining 10 election committee seats satisfy the principles of universal and equal elections. However, I had all along been supportive of the idea of a “single grand electoral college” type of election committee. In other words, I support one single election committee, not a few separate committees, to be composed of members who had originally been elected universally, equally and directly and this is precisely what the Governor proposes.
4726 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
It has been argued that this proposal deviates from the Basic Law. I can agree with this argument but only to the extent that it deviates from the intent of having only one election committee to elect both the 10 Legislative Council Members and the Chief Executive, which committee is founded on the concept of a four-part composition. However, it deviates from no provision governing the composition of the election committee for the election of the 10 election committee seats for 1997, as there is none in the Basic Law nor in any decision of the National People’s Congress.
Proportional representation for all three types of constituencies
My third proposal, Mr President, is to introduce proportional representation as the system of voting and counting in elections for all three types of constituencies ― election committee, functional and geographical. The Bill, which follows the Governor’s 1992 package, proposes to stipulate the “single transferable vote” (STV), which is a form of proportional representation, as the system of voting and counting, albeit, for the 10-seat Election Committee Constituency only. This, at least, is indicative of the Government’s acceptance that proportional representation is a respectable system. In fact, proportional representation is widely adopted in European countries. It is an equally if not more democratic system of voting and counting, if introduced across the board for the entire or, at least, a majority, a large majority of the legislature. It has been rejected in Hong Kong perhaps because we had had no experience of it, hence, do not really understand it, but primarily because proponents of proportional representation in Hong Kong wished to introduce it only for the 20 geographical seats, and not the 30 functional seats.
The single-seat constituency nature (Labour being the only exception) of the 30 functional seats in the Governor’s 1992 and 1993 packages and their variants has meant that candidates can only be returned under a single-seat-single-vote, or an alternative-vote or a preferential vote system of voting, none being a proportional representation system. However, with my proposed reform of functional constituencies into five multi-seat constituencies of six seats each, it becomes possible for proportional representation to be introduced.
With the introduction of proportional representation to the 30 functional seats, it is only rational and fair that the 20 geographical seats ought to be returned in like manner. I, therefore, propose to provide for the creation of five geographical constituencies of four seats each, instead of 20 single-seat constituencies.
The specific proportional representation system of voting and counting I proposed is a “list system”. The contest will be between and amongst lists of candidates arranged, at the time of nomination in descending order of priority. A list can and will normally be a party list, but “independents” can either organize themselves into lists or stand as single candidate “list”. Electors will choose and vote for one list only.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4727
A list system does pose problems for independents. However, our first concern must go to the electors, and not to the candidates. For the electorate, the list system is much simpler than the single transferable vote. A list system requires voters to choose categorically only one list while the single transferable vote requires them to rank-order as many candidates as there are vacancies. This not only puts an unbearable burden on the voters, but also can produce bizarre results caused by the so-called “donkey votes” (for example, in the case of six vacancies, the lazy voter might simply pick the first six names and rank all them in that order) and “void ballots” (if the system compels rank-ordering candidates for all vacancies).
The particular list system I propose is commonly known as the d’Hondt rule. It is a system of vote counting and seat allocation in accordance with the rule of largest average. In other words, it is designed to make the number of votes per member elected equal, as nearly as possible, for all parties concerned. This ensures fairness in the distribution of seats amongst different parties and lists and, hence, different political persuasions.
A further word on the geographical constituencies
Interwoven into my third proposal of introducing the list system of proportional representation for all three types of constituencies is my fourth proposal ― the creation of five multi-seat geographical constituencies of four seats each. In my proposed amendments, the power to delineate constituency boundaries is vested in the Boundary and Election Commission but I hasten, Mr President, to stress that this proposal is conditional on the Legislative Council’s acceptance of my reform of functional constituencies and my proposed list system of voting and counting. That is to say I will move the amendments concerned if and only if my amendments to the functional seats and the voting method are carried.
Simplicity and economy
Mr President, my fifth is a technical proposal to consolidate all matters relating to consolidation into the Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) Ordinance. Mr President, the package detailed above appears to be complex. This is due entirely to the need to frame amendments to an amendment bill which seeks to amend the existing Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) Ordinance. In fact, the package, if adopted, provides for an electoral system which is not only democratic and within the stated requirements of the Basic Law, but is much simpler and less expensive.
A final word
Mr President, I do hope I have demonstrated to you and all Honourable Members that my comprehensive and democratic package is the superior package and deserves your support. My package is in your hands. Hong Kong is in your hands. Mr President, I support the motion.
4728 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, the Legislative Council stands today on the brink of one of the most momentum decisions in its entire history ― a decision that will pave the way for the first fully elected Council. It is therefore right that Members of this Council and community should have the opportunity to debate fully the electoral arrangements for the 1995 Legislative Council, and to put forward proposals. Indeed, the debate today marks the culmination of a long and intensive discussion within the community stretching over 18 months from October 1992 when the Administration first announced its proposals. We must now decide exactly how the Legislative Council election in 1995 should be conducted. The decision we make today will have far-reaching implications and will affect future generations for many years to come.
The key objective of the Joint Declaration is clear. It is to preserve Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity, in the run-up to 1997 and beyond. At the heart of this, and of Hong Kong’s spectacular success over the years, is the rule of law. For our remarkable success story to continue after 1997, therefore, it is paramount that there is confidence, both in Hong Kong as well as internationally, that the rule of law will continue after 1997. That can best be assured by an electoral system which is manifestly open and fair and in which the community can have faith.
This Council has served the community well for many years, but just as the Hong Kong success story has been founded on the constant search for progress and improvement, so too our electoral system must evolve to meet the community’s growing aspiration for a greater say in the process of government. That is the Hong Kong way. We must do our best to set a blueprint for the historic elections next year that will bear the stamp of openness, fairness and credibility.
The establishment of fairly and openly elected representative institutions is not just an abstract, lofty political ideal. It brings practical benefits. It is essential for the protection of the fundamental aspects of Hong Kong’s way of life which we hold so dear, including just an honest government, a level playing field for business, respect for human rights, the resolve to tackle corruption at all levels, and the impartial enforcement of our laws. In other words, all the vital elements which underpin Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity. Experience in established democracies round the world offers ample evidence that representative government and economic prosperity go hand in hand.
Open and fair election is what our Bill sets out to achieve and, I strongly believe, the yardstick against which any alternative proposals should be measured. But whilst the community aspires for clean electoral arrangements, it also aspires for arrangements which are capable of achieving continuity after 1997. That is why in putting together our proposals we have been careful to ensure conformity with the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law, and past agreements with China. That is why, for instance, we have not put forward proposals to increase the number of geographical seats to more than 20 even
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4729
though that would have been the most direct way to broaden the representation of this Council.
It is for those same reasons that we conducted, in good faith, 17 rounds of intensive talks with China last year in the hope of being able to legislate for the 1995 electoral arrangements on the basis of an agreement between the two sides. Most unfortunately, an agreement proved beyond our reach. But time marches on and we must move with it. It is incumbent on the Administration to introduce legislation which meets the clear aspirations of the community. In doing so, we go down a path already signposted by this Council when it, earlier this year, supported our proposals to turn district boards and municipal councils into fully elected bodies and to provide for a “single-seat, single-vote” system in geographical elections.
There have been concerns, and understandably so, about the consequences of putting in place arrangements without an agreement with China. On such concerns, I have three observations.
- Firstly, whilst it would doubtless have been preferable to legislate on the basis of an agreement with China, it does not follow that we should go for an agreement at any cost. For, clearly, electoral arrangements which are less than open and fair strike at the very root of the rule of law on which the whole fabric of this vibrant, articulate and successful community depends.
- Secondly, whether China will dismantle all tiers of our representative government on 1 July 1997 is a question which only China itself can answer. But if it does, as no doubt it can if it really wants to, how will that sit with the community’s clear and often-repeated wish for a through train for the Legislative Council? Under the Joint Declaration, both Britain and China are obliged to ensure a smooth transition. The abolition of representative institutions which are carefully constituted, properly elected and which command the support of our people cannot be conducive to a smooth transition. Nor is any suggestion, I would add, that we should ourselves limit the tenure of the 1995 Legislative Council to 30 June 1997.
- Thirdly, the Administration continues to believe that the best case for a through train is for the electoral arrangements to be demonstrably open and fair, resulting in a credible Legislative Council which can command the wide respect of the community. This, Mr President, is what our Bill is all about.
Ultimately, it is for this Council to decide whether to pass, amend, or reject the Bill before us today. I am confident that in making your decisions, Members will not fall below the level of events on this historic day and will not
4730 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
fail to act in accordance with the hopes and wishes of the people of Hong Kong. The community expects nothing less from this Council.
Thank you, Mr President.
MR ALLEN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, since the Governor, Mr Chris PATTEN, unveiled his political reform package in this Council on 7 October 1992, the people of Hong Kong have experienced emotional ups and downs that ride with the fluctuations of Sino-British relations. Little wonder that many are now feeling helpless and disgusted. A latest public opinion poll has found that only 15% of the people of Hong Kong are interested in these constitutional reforms, compared with a much higher percentage interested in the World Cup. One does not know whether to laugh or cry at this.
The Liberal Party has been steadfast in its position. We made our position clear in this Council as early as a month after Governor PATTEN had unveiled his package in the Legislative Council. In our opinion, the 1992 package was neither consistent with Britain’s policy in respect of Hong Kong’s political system in the wake of the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1985, nor in observance of the seven diplomatic letters exchanged between China and the United Kingdom in 1990. We were of the view that the 1992 constitutional package was detrimental to a smooth transition of Hong Kong. We have also made many statements stressing the paramount importance of full co-operation between China and the United Kingdom and between China and Hong Kong to a smooth transition. The Sino-British dispute over Hong Kong’s constitutional reform has now spilled into other areas. The undeniable fact is that since October 1992, the dispute has adversely affected the new airport project, the Container Terminal No. 9 project, the disposal of military sites and the work of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. The Liberal Party has made active attempts to reverse the adverse effects of the Sino-British dispute during the last 20 months or so. We have urged China and the United Kingdom to settle the question of Hong Kong’s transition by way of talks and discussions. Regrettably, all our efforts have come to naught at the last minute.
I remember that in our visit to the United Kingdom in January last year, we asked the British Prime Minister, Mr John MAJOR, to reopen the talks between China and Britain. In March last year, we visited Beijing to make a similar request to the Chinese Premier, Mr LI Peng, and to explain the Legislative Council’s role. After some hard work on our part, the Sino-British talks were finally reopened. In September last year, we successfully persuaded both sides to overcome their impasse by proceeding to resolve the easier issues first. We thought that China and the United Kingdom would move gradually towards reaching a consensus. Little could we have envisaged that the voting method for the Legislative Council election could become a fuse for the breakdown of the talks.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4731
When he first came to Hong Kong, Governor PATTEN stressed that the people of Hong Kong needed democracy as well as a smooth transition. In many question and answer sessions in the Legislative Council in 1993, he emphasized again and again that while any package should be democratic, it must also be endorsed with continuity and be acceptable to China and the people of Hong Kong. If he had put the interests of the people of Hong Kong first, he would not have tabled his 1992 package at the Legislative Council under any circumstances, knowing very well that the people of Hong Kong want a smooth transition. How could he use the future of the people of Hong Kong as a gambling stake? Last week, the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs made a speech in the Legislative Council. But his speech clearly showed everything has been a charade, did it not? Everybody knows that the 1992 package will not have continuity. And yet the Secretary could be so impudent as to tell our colleagues right to their face that it would. He was treating us as either kindergarten children or dim-witted persons, not to mention a downright insult to our intelligence.
The Liberal Party and many independent Members have worked together to fortify the principle of convergence which Britain has said time and again that the people of Hong Kong should accept. Despite China’s repeated stresses that Hong Kong’s representative government framework will be reconstituted in 1997, we think that the system should not be changed dramatically. We feel that nothing could be worse than starting all over again, and that repercussions should be contained to the minimum. Our 1994 package is a consolidation of the views of all those colleagues who are opposed to fundamental and drastic changes in 1997. It has also incorporated the views exchanged between China and Britain during their talks including, among others, the many basic and essential points on which there is consensus between them. A case in point is our suggestion about the five new functional constituencies and our suggestion that the election committee should be elected and constituted by four sectors of people. Our suggestion concerning the election committee is the same as that put forth by the British side during the talks. Additionally, we have taken on board the views expressed inside and outside this Council, including the views expressed to and discussed by this Council Select Committee in 1992. We have also noted the findings of many surveys, in particular many Hong Kong people’s view that any package should be geared towards compromise. These are the cornerstones of our 1994 package.
The reality that we have the Basic Law above us begs the question whether we should consider it a constraint or a safeguard. From a positive point of view, it is a starting point for everything on 1 July 1997. Any statement which calls for disregard for the Basic Law is misleading and an utterance made without considering the possible consequences. We must be vigilant against such arguments. It has been suggested that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China can amend the Basic Law even now. If one amendment can be made, then any amendment can be made. Many colleagues were members of the Basic Law Drafting Consultative or the Basic Law Consultative Committee. They had worked hard for five years
4732 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
before they finished drafting Hong Kong’s post-1997 constitution. Hong Kong is a society ruled by law. Are we being responsible to Hong Kong if we seek amendments to a piece of legislation even before its very commencement?
The administration of Hong Kong will be turned over to China in three years’ time. But three years will pass very quickly. I remember 11 years ago I organized a group of local elites into a delegation to Beijing, stating to the Chinese leaders Hong Kong people’s worries about the 1997 question. I am sorry to note that two members of this delegation have passed away and see not the onset of 1997. I have very often indulged in this thought: Will Hong Kong’s economic prosperity, social stability, rule of law and free lifestyle continue beyond 1997? Our first visit to Beijing was meant to reflect to the Chinese leaders our concerns over these questions. We proposed that problems should be resolved through dialogue rather than confrontation. I am deeply convinced that the majority of the people of Hong Kong want dialogue. The people of Hong Kong now still do not quite understand the meaning of sovereign state. But I am equally deeply convinced that this problem will be resolved soon.
Many colleagues of this Council have never set foot on China over the past five years. They have not witnessed China’s development which includes not only an increased number of modern buildings, but also a gradual progress towards openness, as I have noted. The people have now a greater degree of freedom of expression and higher expectations for the government. They are heading gradually towards a society ruled by law. It is true that the Chinese Communist Party has made many mistakes since coming to power. But which government does not make mistakes? The Chinese people have already paid the price. Seeing China’s present development, I think it is heading in the right direction. There are, of course, many problems to be resolved. A country with a population of 1.2 billion cannot change overnight. World-renowned economists have predicted that China will become the world’s biggest economic entity by the year 2012. It has always been my view that China’s future is Hong Kong’s future. China and Hong Kong are closely linked not only by political ties, but more obviously in the economic sense. Hong Kong would not have become what it is today had it not been for China’s policy to open up. Therefore, I neither agree to nor appreciate Governor PATTEN’s constitutional package, which has no future and which has led to a breakdown in Sino-British and China-Hong Kong relations. Governor PATTEN will leave Hong Kong on 30 June 1997. He would not have to bear the consequences which the six million people of Hong Kong have to bear. I hope that honourable colleagues will give the question a second thought.
Finally, I would like to urge honourable colleagues to support our 1994 package, which is a result of discussions and compromises between us and independent colleagues, for the sake of discharging our obligations towards Hong Kong and ensuring that the next three years will see both democratic development and smooth transition in the territory.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4733
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, today makes a historic moment because the future of Hong Kong will rest on several Members of the Legislative Council. It depends on how they will “push the button” to decide whether Hong Kong people will have the chance to enjoy “one country, two systems”; “a high degree of autonomy”; and “Hong Kong being ruled by Hong Kong people” after 1 July 1997. All I can say is “there is such a chance” because we all know that it is never easy to truly realize the great notions of “one country, two systems”; “Hong Kong being ruled by Hong Kong people”; and “a high degree of autonomy”. Suffice it to say that on 4 May this year I put forth a motion in this Council criticizing the Chinese and British Governments for not working in compliance with the Joint Declaration and calling on the two governments again to genuinely realize the rights which Hong Kong people have been promised in the Joint Declaration. How did we vote at that time? No one voted against the motion. In fact we all know that implementing the Joint Declaration is extremely difficult. Now what should we do?
I have listened to the Honourable Allen LEE’s speech and looked at his recent publicity leaflets. Now the Liberal Party also follows in the footsteps of the United Democrats by distributing many leaflets. What are their ideas? They actually want to abandon what the Joint Declaration has bestowed on us.
Mr President, faced with the Chinese Government’s approach directed at Hong Kong, how do we feel? According to Mr Allen LEE, China is growing wealthier and stronger with her economy getting better and better. We are, of course, happy about it. But what about Hong Kong? Does Hong Kong have to continue protecting human rights? Nothing seems to have been mentioned in this regard. Obviously, money is important. Without money we will have nothing to feed on. But I hope that Members will understand one point. The Bible says: “Man does not live on bread alone.” To us human beings, if all we have is food to feed on, is it worthwhile to lead such a life? Now we are facing the ultra-leftist approach adopted by the Chinese Government. We all know what the Chinese Government is waiting for. The state of mind of the leaders of the Chinese authorities resembles that of one at the end of a dynasty. Even the leaders themselves have no idea what position they will be in in future. So, pursuant to the usual practice of the Chinese Government, “left” rather than “right” will be the order of the day. Hence, striking hard blows on Hong Kong every time. So how can “a high degree of autonomy” and “Hong Kong being ruled by Hong Kong people” be deemed possible?
Today, irrespective of whatever resolution the Legislative Council has passed and however close the wish of the Chinese Government is being adhered to and even if we support the “capitulation proposal” of the Liberal Party, Mr LU Ping would say, “It has to be knocked down anyway on 1 July 1997.” Such being the case, what do we have to capitulate? In fact, is it so difficult for us to make our choice? If we do not look at the matter from a self-serving point of view but have in mind the overall interest of the public, and, even knowing that our purse might be affected and still not caring at all, then, today’s vote will be very easy to cast.
4734 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
According to newspaper coverage, many Members have called themselves “independent legislators”. But judging from the inclination so far, one feels that they are not so “independent”. In reality, is it easy to be an independent legislator in Hong Kong? When some leading financial corporations are exerting their pressure and when the powerful Chinese Government is exerting its pressure, is it easy to handle them? There are many reasons which would make one succumb to the Chinese Government. Who does not want stability, prosperity and smooth transition? “Smooth transition” seems to be the monopoly of the Liberal Party. Whoever refuses to listen to its advocacy is acting against stability and prosperity. It seems that if Hong Kong citizens choose Members whom they favour instead of them (the Liberal Party) to sit in the Legislative Council, there would be serious consequences and social unrest would arise in Hong Kong. Based on what evidence are they saying this? Of course, they can write whatever they like in the leaflets to be distributed. But do they not have to be responsible? In fact, why do they not have confidence in themselves?
According to newspaper coverage, Members from the Liberal Party have been to Beijing entreating the Beijing Government to lend a helping hand by making those pro China Members assist them or else the Liberal Party’s amendment proposal would not be passed. Should it be voted down, the Hong Kong society would not be able to achieve stability and the democrats would become as the dominant party.
I found this very funny. Why would a comparatively open and fair election system render the Liberal Party a disastrous failure? Even our friends from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) have not said so. Of course, friends from the DAB have greater confidence. But why do Members from the Liberal Party hold such view? Why do they think so poorly of themselves? Why would they suffer defeat because of an open and fair system? I was a bit disappointed by what the Honourable James TIEN had said in Beijing (according to newspaper coverage). I think he lacks confidence to a far too large extent in himself and other Members from the Liberal Party. But if they go on doing this, support for them from the Hong Kong people will be further undermined. In fact, under an open and fair system, no matter who gets elected, I will accept that. What the United Democrats support and hope for is a comparatively democratic political reform package. The United Democrats know that we are not doing this for our own selves. There is no guarantee that we will win all elections. It rests on the decision of the general public in choosing which candidate. Why do we not trust even the Hong Kong citizens? If you do not trust the Hong Kong citizens, how can you possibly make them choose you? The simple truth is: in order to have faith in the public, you will have to, at least, make the public believe in you. If you do not have confidence in the public, how can the public have confidence in you?
Mr President, I wonder if there is any other proposal which is worse than the present one put forward by the Liberal Party. It seems that there is none. I think even if Lord WILSON is the incumbent Governor, it is believed that he
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4735
will not ask the three ex officio Members to vote for it because it is indeed far too bad. From what has been covered in news reports, even the Chinese officials have not put forward any proposal which is worse than this one. The only possibility is that some fiddling may have to be done to those 20 directly elected seats. The Liberal Party has done nothing of the sort. At least, they have not played any gimmicks here. But what is Hong Kong people currently in need of? Hong Kong people need a Legislative Council which can genuinely counteract the Government, with its legislators never cowering before brute or arbitrary power. To be honest, it is very difficult for Hong Kong citizens, in particular friends from the industrial and commercial sector or professionals, to stand out and speak into the loudhailer about the rule of law and about democracy. Why? Because everyone wants to make money. Everyone is thinking of securing business from China. But would colleagues elected from respective functional constituencies in the Legislative Council think clearly what your constituents actually want? Do your constituents want you to press the button to vote in line with Beijing’s wishes on all matters in the Legislative Council? Is it the wish of your constituents that you listen to whatever Beijing says? And now is it being feared that it is already late in inviting Beijing to exercise control over Hong Kong? Is it what your constituents think? Do your constituents object to democracy?
Several Members from the functional constituencies have enquired about their constituents’ choice by means of questionnaires. Having received the feedback, many Members, who are basically very conservative, were very surprised to find that their constituents are in favour of democracy. In fact, this is not surprising at all. To Hong Kong people, businessmen, professionals or the general public, who would ever want to live under the tyranny of the communist system? If they do, why do they stay in Hong Kong but not go to China? As Mr Allen LEE has spoken so highly of the mainland, why do we not head for the mainland? As a matter of fact, we all understand that the wish of Hong Kong citizens is to see Hong Kong truly having “a high degree of autonomy”, with all of its internal affairs being free from the control of the Beijing Government.
Therefore, I would like to say one thing to Members who are elected by functional constituencies. Why did your constituents elect you? It is because you can speak their mind (which they themselves dare not). If what you do is the same as what they do, that is, casting vote with an eye on how it will affect your purse, then you should not be their representatives. What they want you to do is what they are unable to do.
As to the appointed Members, I also have one thing to tell them. Most of the appointed Members in the Legislative Council now were not appointed by Governor Chris PATTEN. They are not accountable to the public. Is it enough just being accountable to their conscience? I do not know how stringently their conscience exercises supervision over their behaviour, but apart from being accountable to their own conscience, they are obligated to be accountable to the conscience of the general Hong Kong public as well. As for the three Members
4736 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
appointed by Governor Chris PATTEN, they know what is contained in Governor Chris PATTEN’s proposal when they accepted their appointment. If they did not agree with the proposal, they should not have accepted their appointment. Since they have accepted their appointment, they should, at least, have the courage to support it.
Mr President, later on when we vote, would all of us please bear in mind that we shall not vote for our personal interests. We should vote for the general benefits of the public and for the goals of “Hong Kong being ruled by Hong Kong people” and “high degree of autonomy”.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr President, when the Governor made his fateful speech in October 1992, he committed two fundamental errors.
1. He broke the Sino-British agreement for the two countries to work out the details on the run-up to 1997, following on discussions in writing between the two foreign ministers in early 1990.
2. He said he was only putting forward proposals when in fact he knew that he was announcing decisions that he would not change. This has been proved by the fact that in spite of receiving thousands of submissions, and in spite of holding numerous discussions, he has not moved one inch from his so-called proposals. They are in this Bill before us today.
When China enacted the Basic Law she first consulted the Hong Kong people. Consultations continued for five years. When eventually the Basic Law was formulated, naturally it did not meet everyone’s aspirations, but no law ever does because human beings have different expectations. However, the Basic Law was an acceptable beginning and gave promise of steps towards full democracy after 10 years of Chinese sovereignty. The British, in contrast, had never consulted the Hong Kong people on its constitution for Hong Kong during 150 years of sovereignty until the 1997 changeover came within view. The Basic Law, therefore, was a vast improvement on anything that went before it. Given co-operation by Britain, I believe that a smooth transition could have been reached. And since China has tolerated unequal treaties with Britain for 150 years, even during the Cultural Revolution, there is no reason to believe that China would have reneged on either the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law. Nor is there reason to believe China will renege even now.
Fragile agreements between China and Britain still required some final touches when in October 1992 hope for 1997 was brutally crushed under the clumsy feet of a Governor who trod on it in the belief that he knew how to deal with China, in the same way that western politicians have for centuries dealt with Asians and other nations they once colonized.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4737
Leaving aside these bull-like tactics, the Governor committed a further blunder by putting before the Legislative Council a Bill that the Administration was not prepared to discuss or amend in the way other bills are discussed and amended. The so-called proposals were actually orders to the Constitutional Affairs Branch, who came to the meetings of this Council to explain and persuade, but never to listen to or accept any alternative proposals. The fact that there are so many amendments today is living proof that no official listened with the intention of amending, before putting the Bill to the vote. As far as the Governor was concerned, this Bill was a fait accompli from the start, except for the fact that today we now have the final say. Yet the Governor has tried to circumvent even this requirement in the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions, by lobbying Members as no other government has done, to persuade them to vote his way.
Turning now to the amendments, I will attempt but cannot promise, to put all I have to say into this one speech.
I shall vote against the Bill as it stands because it contravenes all previous concepts of the meaning of functional constituencies, because it does not make a viable path towards the election committee as set out in the Basic Law for future elections, and because it constitutes unashamed gerrymandering, a term interpreted in my favourite Chambers’ Dictionary as “manipulating facts, arguments, and so on, so as to reach undue conclusions” in the context of electoral constituencies.
On the amendment put forward by the United Democrats, I notice that they have taken up my original proposal that women, students and the elderly should have their own constituency seats. However the concept differs from mine in that my proposal was for women’s organizations, student unions and associations for the elderly and the handicapped to elect representatives for these seats, but it was not my intention to give them double votes as individuals. I see no way in which functional constituencies can operate by means of double universal franchise. I therefore have to write these proposals off as a form of gerrymandering.
I will not pass any remarks on Mr Andrew WONG’s amendments except to say that I find them erudite, but not so easy to understand or carry out. I received the copy only this morning and I am sure that in the future we can consider their merits, but at this moment I think we are not sufficiently aware of what he wants.
I hope that Mr Frederick FUNG will find it possible to join with the group which has attempted to find a coalition agreement. That agreement may not last beyond 1997 because I believe that China intends to make a new start in July 1997. But at least the proposals voiced today which will be voiced by Mr Howard YOUNG will avoid unnecessary upheaval in the next three years, and will smooth over the 1997 transition. The amendments which I invite Mr FUNG to support, because some are similar to his own, go under the name
4738 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
of the Liberal Party, but I can confirm that they were hammered out with concessions on all sides by different groups, many of them independents like myself. I regret that the remaining parties would not unite with that coalition. I believe that that particular model can keep us on an even keel up to 1997, and hopefully after 1997.
Mr CHIM Pui-chung’s amendment concerning the 1995 Legislative Council’s term of office expiring at the beginning of July 1997 unless by resolution of this Council, merely states the obvious. China has stated categorically that the Patten package has put an end to the through train concept, so it seems unnecessary to reiterate what is already a foregone conclusion. Yet, I see no way to oppose it, because it is not within our jurisdiction to decide on matters beyond 1997. However, I must express my great disappointment that the British U-turn in 1992 has destroyed our hope for a through train. The train has already gone off the rails. Mr CHIM’s amendment leaves open a slight possibility of getting back on to those rails, and therefore I shall support it.
As for my own amendment, I call for a “one-person, one-vote” system as being the only fair one. In 1985 I had three votes, one through the district board election, one through the teaching profession and one through the Urban Council. I considered myself overprivileged. Others had even more votes than that.
In 1991, the number of my votes was reduced to two, one through the Urban Council and one in the geographical constituency. I still considered that an unfair system.
This Bill for the 1995 elections makes the system much worse by offering two votes to all workers, while non-workers are reduced to half-persons with one vote. Giving them all two votes, however, would be another form of gerrymandering, as I have already explained. Giving two votes to everyone circumvents the tripartite system of 20 directly elected seats, 10 elected by an election committee, and 30 by functional constituency voting. If Members want a fully directly elected system, as some say they do, then they should agree with what Miss Emily LAU is saying, and not try to manipulate the Basic Law to reach the same goal through devious means. If I truly believed that Hong Kong could survive a sudden change to a fully directly-elected system without upsetting the economy and affecting the livelihood of the people, I would go for Emily’s Bill. But we have recently seen in European countries how sudden changes pressed upon them by the West have destabilized them and badly affected the livelihood of the people. Mr Martin LEE talks about man cannot live by bread alone, but I must add neither can he live without bread. I happen to believe that steady progress is the right way to go in an economy like ours, in which our only resources are capital and labour, where capital cannot operate without labour and labour cannot exist without capital. We have to work together on our economy and in our political system. I think we have been working together fairly successfully. I believe we need to have equal representation of capital and labour on this Council in order to maintain a
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4739
balance. Perhaps those capitalist countries which are now floundering could learn a lesson from us, because their democratic system has deteriorated into political party struggle, in which the losers have been the workers, cheated by political promises that cannot be fulfilled.
Mr President, I shall not speak on the other amendments, except to say that I shall support Mr Michael HO’s amendment on chiropractors, who would prefer no vote rather than be placed under the Health Care Constituency, which is really unsuitable. Their qualifications and work are more related to the medical profession, and I believe that the public has the right to choose what medical treatment they want, whether Western, Chinese or other alternatives, provided that they are all administered by trained persons and provided that they keep to a recognized code of practice.
Mr President, I have on two occasions requested that the three official Members on this Council be allowed to abstain from voting on this issue which is one entirely for the Hong Kong people who will be here after 1997. I hope one of them will be here at least. My requests have been rejected. Other Members have now once again made the same request and they, too, have been refused.
My objection does not reflect on the three officials concerned. No one knows their views because they are not allowed to express them. They have my sympathy. Not so the Governor. He has misrepresented the whole case to the public by saying that the situation of the three officials is the same as that of other appointed Members which Mr Martin LEE also agrees with. The Governor knows perfectly well that that is untrue, because the other appointed Members may vote according to their own consciences in spite of the undue pressure he has had put upon them to support him. And I am very surprised to hear Mr LEE saying that they should vote with the Governor. That seems very undemocratic. But the three officials have no choice and are compelled to vote as they are told on all issues.
The public should take note of this fact so that they may understand that even in the voting today, democracy is being flouted by the Government.
Mr President, I so speak.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, today this Council will pass one of several constitutional packages and decide the arrangements for the Legislative Council election in 1995. Ironically, we cannot even be sure when the term of Members in the next Legislative Council will expire.
Whichever package or amendments may be passed today, the fact remains that the people of Hong Kong want a smooth social and political transition. But I am afraid that their wish will not come true. China and the United Kingdom are totally to blame for the non-convergence between Hong Kong’s political
4740 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
systems before and after 1997 and for the political uncertainties in Hong Kong’s future. China and the United Kingdom have ignored Hong Kong people’s wish for a smooth transition of the political system. They have failed to reach agreement on Hong Kong’s 1995 electoral arrangements. They have broken their promises made to the people of Hong Kong in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. In that declaration, they said that they would work together for smooth transition and for a society in which the people of Hong Kong would govern themselves with a high degree of autonomy. But problems have arisen even before 1997 arrives.
China has declared again and again that the three-tier representive government will be reconstituted in 1997. This simply signifies that there will be no through train for any constitutional package. Whether the constitutional mode is or is not compatible with the Basic Law, it will not continue beyond 30 June 1997. In other words, the Basic Law coming into effect on 1 July 1997 will not retrospectively give validity to the 1995 elections. Therefore, whatever constitutional package may be passed today, the question of its being compatible with the Basic Law or not will not arise. Whose package will be the best for 1995? This is a political judgment for every individual, every Member and every political party to make, taking into consideration the most important factors, which probably include Hong Kong’s social conditions, the wishes of the people and the aspirations of the political parties. This situation has actually given us, the Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL), a great deal of flexibility in dealing with the issue of constitutional arrangements for 1995. At its general meeting last Sunday, ADPL made a decision: Apart from proposing and voting for ADPL’s package I may also consider voting for another plan if it specifies an election method which is fairer compared with ADPL’s plan and which is more consistent with universal suffrage and will allow more people to vote in the elections. And that will be how I will cast my votes today.
Therefore, today, when this Council votes on the 1995 electoral arrangements and the amendments, I, representing ADPL, will vote basically for ADPL’s package but I will also vote for some other packages including that of the United Democrats of Hong Kong, of the Meeting Point, of Mr Andrew WONG and of Governor Chris PATTEN.
The constitutional package expounded by ADPL dates back to July 1992, when preparations for its formulation first began. It was unveiled in September 1992, before Governor PATTEN unveiled his. Our hope was that the pace of democracy would be quickened when the principle of “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” became a reality. That was our goal. We hoped that the three documents that we then had in our hands ― the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance (all of them have parts dealing with constitutional matters) ― would be implemented. We hoped that the spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration would be observed in practice, that the provisions of the Basic Law would be implemented, that everybody would enjoy equal political rights as laid down in the Bill of Rights Ordinance and that a
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4741
democratic political system consistent with Hong Kong’s long-term interests would be developed. ADPL lobbied Government House and the Xinhua News Agency for their support for this package. ADPL even made lobbying trips to Beijing and London and they were long trying trips.
ADPL believes that a political system based on equality, openness and universal participation and developed in full accordance with the provisions of the three constitutional documents will presumably be able to last beyond 30 June 1997 and will practically meet the ideal of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.
ADPL’s package will allow all the 4 million qualified voters of Hong Kong to cast one vote each to elect either a directly elected Legislative Council Member or a Member indirectly elected through electors.
ADPL’s package will allow all voters to vote the same number of times in the 1995 Legislative Council elections. In contrast, the Government’s plan will allow two-thirds of all voters (about 2.7 million of them) to vote twice and the other 1 million-plus voters to vote only once, thus creating inequality for voters in the geographical constituencies. ADPL’s “one person, one vote” plan will rectify such inequality.
Also, ADPL proposes that an Election Committee should be formed of 400 electors, who are to be elected by universal suffrage from four election committee constituencies, which in turn are to be defined the way the functional constituencies are defined. The Election Committee will elect 10 of its members to the Legislative Council. Compared with the Government’s proposal, which is to let members of district boards form an Election Committee to elect Members to the Legislative Council, our proposal will help to return Legislative Council Members who have a broader representative base and who have closer ties with the voters.
The Sino-British talks on constitutional arrangements for Hong Kong have now broken down. As a result, the final objective of ADPL’s constitutional package ― an election system which is fair and consistent with universal suffrage and which will continue to evolve beyond 30 June 1997 ― will not be realized. But the package can still broaden the base of voter participation and the present inequality of the functional constituencies. I hope to be able to persuade Members to consider supporting ADPL’s package.
We can almost be certain that the political reform package that we pass today will have a life of only two years. Still, we should use the opportunity to promote an election plan of universal suffrage which is in line with the wishes of the people and which will be good for Hong Kong. I believe that, given Hong Kong’s social base and conditions, we can fulfill and practise one idea of some political scientists. This idea is that democratic development can proceed steadily in many countries with stable democratic societies usually because certain basic conditions and factors exist there. Some scholars, from a study of
4742 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
120 countries in the world, have found three very important factors which enable societies to develop full-fledged democracy. These factors are:
(1) A well-developed information system. Almost everybody has the means and the opportunity to own a TV set, to own a radio set and to buy newspapers. A well developed information system enables everybody to receive information. The basis of access to information is also the basis of democracy.
(2) A will-educated population and a low illiteracy rate. Where the illiteracy rate is low, the population can understand, analyze and judge information and make decisions based on such judgment.
(3) A good socio-economic foundation. Most families have basic amenities like refrigerators, TV sets, radio sets and even motor cars.
I believe that these factors exist in Hong Kong. They exist to a sufficient degree to enable the development of an election system of universal suffrage in Hong Kong at this time. We can make use of the next two years to search for a democratic political system appropriate to Hong Kong. We can try out fair election methods of universal suffrage to see if they will smooth over the run up to 1997 or, as some fear, create disorder in Hong Kong. Actually, we can make one more judgment in 1997. If such election methods prove to be feasible, then the SAR Government set up on 1 July 1997 should be asked to act at once to have the Basic Law amended accordingly. If they turn out to be unsatisfactory over the next two years, then the original provisions of the Basic Law should stand. I believe that the people of Hong Kong will accept this.
During the last two years in the run up to 1997, we can put to the test a democratic political system which is in line with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, we should not support the political reform plans of those who favour “going through the motions without actually moving forward” or “democracy within narrow constraints”.
I feel that the Liberal Party’s 1994 package, particularly its preservation of corporate voting (perhaps under a revised “one vote per company” or “six votes per company” system), is contrary to the provisions of the Bill of Rights Ordinance concerning election methods. We will not support it. Today is a historic moment. This historic moment is difficult for the people of Hong Kong. We can see that the promises of the Sino-British Joint Declaration are not being honoured. We can see that there will be no convergence between the political systems before and after the transfer of sovereignty. But we can also see Hong Kong’s economic base and social conditions. Hong Kong’s economic growth and the capability of the people of Hong Kong have been there for all the world to see for the past 30 or 40 years. Whatever package may be approved today, I feel that its passage (popular or not) will not lead to serious disorder in society. The history of the past 20 or 30 years has shown that the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4743
people of Hong Kong are against riots and violence. The people of Hong Kong are for stability. The history of the past 20 or 30 years has shown that the people of Hong Kong are against conflicts, particularly against conflicts among political parties. The people of Hong Kong are for a harmonious, pluralistic society. These are the foundation, the convictions, the culture and the values. I cannot see that today’s decision one way or another will be a blow to the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, I will vote basically for ADPL’s political reform package. Apart from the Basic Law (there is an argument about complying or not complying with it), I have with me two other constitutional documents: the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Bill of Rights Ordinance. I will also vote for any other package which is consistent with these two documents and with ADPL’s political reform plan. I will not vote for any other kind of plan or package.
Of course, after the final round of voting, we will have to accept whatever package that is passed. If we do not pass the Government’s Bill, we will have to go back to the appointment system of 1991 and we will find that even less acceptable. When the voting time comes, I will vote in the following manner. I will vote for any political reform package which, compared with ADPL’s package, will allow a larger number of people to vote in the elections. I will abstain from voting on any other kind of plan or package.
I so submit.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the people of Hong Kong have been caught in the Sino-British disputes over the new airport and democracy as induced by the political reform proposal put forward by Mr Chris PATTEN in his first policy address 20 months ago. After 20 months of helplessness and hard time amid the war of words, today marks a monumental moment in history.
My mind is exceptionally clam today. After all, what will come will come and getting excited will not help. I take the view that today’s debate carries another implication. It gives us a chance to review the controversies over the past 20 months and even the sticking points between the democratic and anti-democratic camps over the past 10 years since the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration so that we may identify our future work and direction.
Over the past 10 years, both the Chinese and the British Governments have committed grave mistakes in the course of democratic movement. They have forfeited the people’s confidence; they have lost the people. The first major mistake was to throttle direct election in 1988. Under the pressure exerted by the Chinese side, the British Hong Kong Government collaborated with China and dragged its feet over democratization in Hong Kong to dampen Hong Kong people’s craving for democracy. We may say that Hong Kong people’s determination to abandon and resist the Chinese Government when it
4744 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 resumes sovereignty began to take shape as a result of the 1988 direct election issue.
The second major mistake is the tightening of the Basic Law by the Chinese side. As a matter of fact, since the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the Chinese side has been trying to tighten its control over Hong Kong through the enactment of the Basic Law. The democratic movements in 1989 further aggravated the Chinese side’s fear that the democratization of Hong Kong might lead to a peaceful evolution in China. In other words, once the issue of sovereignty is resolved, democracy will become an exhibit in the museum to gather dust. “When flying birds are all killed, the good bow is put away” as the saying goes. History is both realistic and cruel.
The third major mistake was the appointment of a conservative Legislative Council by the British side after the 1991 election as a measure to counter-balance the strength of the democratic camp. Such a Legislative Council began as a pro-British one but ends up pro China. Nothing is more preposterous than such a situation. Today, government officials have to roll up their sleeves and make every effort in lobbying the appointed Members whom the Government appointed. Should their efforts fail to secure enough votes to counter the free votes cast by the pro-China Members, the mistake the Government made in the first place would stand out more glaringly. “The evils we bring on ourselves are the hardest to bear”, as the saying goes. It has nothing to do with others. What we really regret is that democracy in Hong Kong is in the hands of individual appointed Members. It grieves me to find that their votes will determine the future of democracy.
The fourth major mistake is Governor PATTEN’s backpedalling on his political reform and his toying with public opinion. The British Hong Kong Government has all along been treating democracy as some sort of commodity transaction. A high price is asked to win applauses to be followed by a low counter-offer in exchange for benefits. This tactic was employed when the Basic Law was formulated and the same applies to the recent political talks as well. The 1992 package was modified into the 1993 package and when it ran into snags, it reverted to the 1992 package. During this period, public opinion was being kneaded and moulded. We became a pawn, an on-looker and our passion cooled down and faded out. “One careless move loses the whole game” as the saying goes. This mistake cannot be blamed on fate or on other people.
Mr President, in the course of democratic development over the past 10 years, if we say that the British side is reaping what it has sown, the Chinese side is forfeiting the trust and good will of its people. The reversion of Hong Kong to China marks the end of humiliation in our nation’s history. Being an ethnic Chinese, I consider it a time for great rejoicing. However, over the past 10 years, although China gains its sovereignty, it completely forfeits the good will of its people. Tomorrow will be 30 June 1994. With three more years to go, Hong Kong will revert to China in 1997. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong people does not get excited nor jump for joy. We do not feel the sense of glory
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4745
in history, but rather suspicion, fear and resistance. By resuming a territory without getting the popular support of its people, is it a victory to China or is it a loss?
Why has China come to such a sorry state in its dealings with Hong Kong? Why is “pro-China” a derogatory term? Why is it that the Chinese side’s take-over officials, the Preliminary Working Committee members and Hong Kong affairs advisers are not popular among Hong Kong people? The crux of the issue is that the Chinese side never wants to give Hong Kong people a high degree of autonomy on the basis of democracy. It simply wants to keep Hong Kong people in an economic cage under Chinese rule. They do not realize that the worldwide trend of democratic movement has taken root in the minds of the awakening Hong Kong people. We would no longer submit ourselves to colonial rule or any other form of dictatorial rule. We are striving for the establishment of a democratic and autonomous new metropolis in China. Who dares to resist this trend will not be able to gain people’s support.
Hong Kong people’s indignation is not only directed at the Chinese side but also directed at every individual and party under the thumb of China. Be he a jack-in-office or a collaborator, he will be spit upon and cast aside by the people of Hong Kong. Take today’s political reform package as an example. Many Members and party members cast their vote having regard to the wishes of the Chinese authorities, not in the interests of Hong Kong people. On the 1994 package proposed by the Liberal Party, at first they were in support of it because this package is similar to the Chinese side’s interpretation of the Basic Law. Later, they opposed of or abstained from voting because the Chinese authorities did not support it. Recently, in view of a more positive attitude adopted by Mr QIAN Qichen, the Chinese Foreign Minister, they again supported the package. Three changes in attitude were made within one month. This indicates that voting is just like making investment which fluctuates with China’s baton and the changes in the political situation. Changing one’s political direction is the prevailing mode and a common phenomenon. There is no political belief and commitment any more but rather political relations and interests. How can one expect such kind of Member, political party or council to shoulder the historic responsibility of exercising a high degree of autonomy? How can we expect them to win the respect and confidence of the people?
In the face of such a depressing situation, there are only two alternatives before us: one is to remain silent and encourage dictatorship and the other is to resist and strive for democracy. Today, in striving for democracy in this Council, we, the liberal camp, may be the minority. But once we leave this changing, we are the majority. The majority’s aspirations for democracy are like the grass on earth which “cannot be burned out by a prairie fire but grows again with the spring breeze”. It is impossible for us to predict the outcome of the voting. In case we lose, does it imply that the progress of democratic development will be blocked forever? Is it possible that the tide of history will be blocked forever? The river will continue its flow eastwards even though the mountain stands in its way. What can a few blocking stones do?
4746 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
However, we are not going to underestimate the difficulties before us. The Chinese Government has time and again said that all tiers of our representative government are to be dismantled in 1997 and a new kitchen to be started. In other words, the 1995 Council will be a short-lived one no matter whether there is democracy or not. To be short-lived is of course regrettable but we should not give up, kneel down and surrender ourselves because it is short-lived. Better to light up in glamour and glory for two years than to live in darkness for four years. Even though we are going to be compelled to “get off the train” after two years, we shall carry on with our democratic mission in the streets. As a matter of fact, we are from the streets and there is still boundless space for us to “take up our old profession”. We truly believe that if a fair and just democratic system cannot be established before 1997, if we still have a politically privileged legislature, if we let colonial and dictatorial rule extend it influence to the Special Administrative Region (SAR) in another form, the SAR with its internal conflicts will link up with corruption and illegal practices in Mainland China. As a result, conflicts, turmoil and confrontation will take place in Hong Kong. It will promote wider social recognition of and provide more development room for democratic movements. As mentioned before, be it 10 years or 20 years, what will come will come after all. And the venue will not be confined to Hong Kong but will spread into China.
The amendments to be moved by the United Democrats today are not simply for the 1995 election. A more important implication is to propel the forward development of democracy and to add more foundation stones to the democratic movements in Hong Kong. From this perspective, victory is of course a time for rejoicing but even if we lose, we are going to carry on with our battle in the years to come. We are still young and democracy still strong.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Mr President, I admire the courage of the Honourable CHEUNG Man-kwong after listening to his impassioned speech. He is courageous in the sense that he is seeking to bring to Hong Kong, within three years, the democracy that has not been in place in Hong Kong for the past 150 years. May I wish him every success.
Mr President, most people of Hong Kong cherish the same hope as mine, that is, to have a stable social environment in Hong Kong, so that the economy can continue to prosper while we can continue to enjoy stability and prosperity, which is particularly important in the latter part of the transition period. As a Member from the Industrial Functional Constituency, I fully understand the aspirations of the industrialists and businessmen. These aspirations are that the favourable investment environment will be maintained in Hong Kong to ensure a predictable future, so that businessmen can put their mind at ease and carry on with their investments and their businesses. For members of the general public, their greatest hope is to have more employment opportunities and to live and work in a harmonious and stable environment.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4747
Last year, there were talks between the Chinese and British sides over the 1994-95 electoral arrangement. Everyone cherished the hope that a bilateral agreement could be reached, so as to ensure political convergence and to secure a smooth handover and transition. However, things went against our wishes. With no agreement between the Chinese and British sides, Governor Chris PATTEN unilaterally proposed his own political reform package. On the political front, we, first of all, can secure the through train arrangement no more, which will undermine the basis for convergence during the transition to 1997. The political reform bill that we are scrutinizing today can hardly meet the Hong Kong people’s expectations of a smooth handover and a stable transition. Any amendment introduced under the present Bill will only last for three years from now. Honourable colleagues, the Chinese side has repeatedly stated in public that the PATTEN political reform package is a package of three non-compliance, and is not in the interests of the people of Hong Kong. The constitutional structure unilaterally proposed by the Governor can only operate until 30 June 1997, and after that date it will have to be disbanded and reorganized. The Governor’s repeated claim of not believing that the Chinese Government will disband the three-tier boards and councils after 1997 is his own wishful thinking, which can only serve the purpose of comforting himself and misleading the people of Hong Kong.
It is beyond doubt that the PATTEN package, no matter how it is being amended, will come to an end when British rule over Hong Kong expires on 1 July 1997. This is a hard political reality. Although I am against this political reform bill, I will not forsake my responsibility as a Legislative Councillor to examine bills. Since the British Hong Kong Government will have only a political lifespan of three years, I urge colleagues to devote their efforts to the issue of political reform, with a view to minimizing the impacts the implementation of the PATTEN political reform package will have on Hong Kong in the latter part of the transition period. I also hope that the people of Hong Kong can play an active role by either standing or voting in the elections to the three-tier boards and councils, so as to elect the Councillors who, in the mind of the public, can best represent the interests of the people of Hong Kong. This is both the right and the obligation of the citizens. This shall not be forsaken no matter how undesirable the circumstances we may find ourselves in. In fact, the people of Hong Kong should actively participate in the elections to show that they really love Hong Kong and are striving for Hong Kong’s well-being. Voting is not tantamount to supporting the political reform package of the Governor.
We were born and brought up here in Hong Kong. It is our duty that we speak for our own future and put in efforts to protect our own future. We shall never give up our right of protecting ourselves.
I support the 1994 package proposed by the Liberal Party, which includes the composition of the nine new functional constituencies and the formation of the Election Committee based upon the requirements as laid down in the Basic Law. The Honourable James TIEN’s proposal of adopting the established voting
4748 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
system in the election of the functional constituencies also has my support. The existing composition and election mechanism of the functional constituencies can adequately cater for and reflect the needs of their constituents. And the system has been operating well enough that it has been conducive to social stability and the development of industry and commerce. Therefore, I can see no reason why we should take the hasty move of initiating any changes. Any radical or drastic amendment or legislation will only bring negative impacts on Hong Kong because the public will have to pay a heavy price for it.
I will also vote for the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung’s amendment which merely states the obvious. The Honourable Martin LEE criticized the Honourable Allen LEE for giving up the things conferred on us by the Joint Declaration. I do not know what exactly he was referring to. Maybe he was referring to the three major things, namely, human rights, the rule of law and democracy. The Joint Declaration is an agreement formulated after a series of difficult negotiations between the British and Chinese Governments. At that time, it was held in high esteem by not only the people of Hong Kong, but also the whole world. I believe that everyone of us may be able to recall the three basic principles enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The first principle is the preservation of the free life style of Hong Kong people. The second principle is the implementation of the free capitalist economic system, including the free operation of business and the free flow of capital. The third principle is the maintenance of our legal system, that is, the continued application of the British common law system. These three principles have offered protection to our way of life in Hong Kong and assured an environment under which Hong Kong has developed into a metropolitan economy admired worldwide nowadays. These three principle have been enshrined in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. As the Honourable Mrs Elsie Tu has said, the Basic Law, which has enshrined the three general principles, was drafted subsequent to numerous discussions and consultations with the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, it is impossible for Mr Allen LEE to give up the principle of human rights, the rule of law and democracy, as was alleged by Mr Martin LEE. These remarks are absolutely absurd. Mr Allen LEE has not given up these principles, nor have the people of Hong Kong. The Liberal Party also has not given up the general principles enshrined in the Joint Declaration or the things that are conferred on us by the Joint Declaration. All these have already been laid down in clear terms in the Basic Law. Our compliance with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law does not mean that we are giving up our interests and our rights.
We have indeed given up something. What we have given up is the possibility of being used as political chips. I believe the people of Hong Kong will not stop striving for their own future. This is something that they certainly will not give up.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4749
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, today’s sitting can be said to be long overdue. Twenty months ago Governor PATTEN proposed his political reform package, but the Second Reading debate has not been resumed until today. I find it very deplorable that the Governor should repeatedly procrastinate on the issue of the political reform, making pretensions to be a hero on the one hand while trying to appease every party concerned on the ohter. Governor PATTEN’s political reform package is in fact no big deal. It is only a tiny step forward from the old undemocratic system, changing only slightly the grotesque functional constituency election, so that the new functional constituencies and the election committee can be formed on a more reasonable basis. Nevertheless, the entire composition of Hong Kong’s representative government and the undemocratic election mechanism have remained unchanged.
Mr LU Xun once said that even moving a table would cause bloodshed in China and change might not be effected even after blood had been shed. Although moving a table in Hong Kong now in 1994 will not cause bloodshed, it will regrettably attract from the Chinese Government continual intimidations, invectives, curses and even threats of overturning everything for a brand new start. Despite its pledges of safeguarding the interests of Hong Kong, the Chinese Government has been indifferent to public opinions, mustering all its strength to hurl the “anti-communist” and “anti-Chinese” epithets to oppose even the moving of a table in Hong Kong.
I remain to be convinced that Mr PATTEN has formulated his political reform package purely for Hong Kong people’s democratic cause. But whatever the motive up his sleeve, the principal question must be finding out why he has won the support of the public after putting forth the political reform package. The Chinese Government should have an introspection rather than concluding blindly that Mr PATTEN and a small group of “anti Chinese”, “anti-communist” and “pro-British” elements are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Indeed, we know in our hearts the true cause of what has been happening. Were it not for the conspiracy between the Chinese and British Governments in selling out the people of Hong Kong, turning blind eyes and deaf ears to their demand for democracy and employing all possible means to distort the opinions of the people, today’s situation would not have arisen. If the Basic Law could really embody Hong Kong people’s quest for democracy, then even if Mr PATTEN had made pretensions to be the hero, nobody would have paid him any attention. The postures put up by the Chinese Government during the Sino-British dispute over the political reforms have completely destroyed Hong Kong people’s confidence in “one country, two systems” and “a high degree of autonomy”. Looking however from a positive point of view, we can at least know the situation earlier, rather than waking up on the morning of 1 July 1997 only to find that all our hopes have been dashed.
As the Chinese Government has decided to “set up another stove”, the Preliminary Working Committee has become the “crown prince”, volunteering “advices” on the internal affairs of the future Special Administrative Region
4750 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
(SAR) government according to the baton of the “emperor”, and acting just like a ruler and flouting even the Basic Law, not to mention the principles of “one country, two systems” and “a high degree of autonomy”. Such farces have been staged one after another before us, well in advance and with new and spectacular shows daily and monthly to keep reminding the people of Hong Kong that they should from now on cast away all kinds of reveries.
I believe that many years from now when we look back at this point of history in which the moving of a table would cause a big disturbance, we cannot then help laughing aloud. But if we think about China where the moving of a table would cause bloody oppressions with tanks and guns, not only will we be unable to laugh, we will instead congratulate ourselves for having been born in Hong Kong.
I believe the people of Hong Kong have already learned a precious lesson from the dispute over political reforms which has lasted for over a year. The hypocrisy of the British Government, the bigotry of the Chinese Government, and the time-servers among our political figures have all been unveiled before us, allowing us to see with our naked eyes the frivolity of these fiends. This is undoubtedly the best psychological preparation for the 1997 transition.
The Liberal Party has claimed that the amendments to the 1994 package are intended to bring the political system of 1995 closer in line with the Basic Law such that the tremors caused by the Chinese Government’s disbanding of the Legislative Council in 1997 can be reduced. However, I believe this is nothing but wishful thinking. Given the Chinese Government’s determination to implement at all costs the policy of “setting up another stove and overturning everything for a brand new start”, tremors are inevitable in 1997. However much the political system of 1995 is in compliance with the Basic Law, it will be impossible to soften the osified ultra-Leftist tendency of the Chinese Government. As the Preliminary Working Committee is controlled by the Chinese Government, it will naturally cater to the Chinese Government’s preferences by formulating a post-1997 legislature readily susceptible to control by the Chinese Government and a framework which will suppress as far as possible any democratic participation by the people of Hong Kong. In the face of the Chinese Government’s incessant interference with the internal affairs of the future SAR government, if we readily yield to its demands or even volunteer to castrate ourselves by spontaneously proposing to limit the tenure of the Members elected in 1995 to 30 June 1997, we will be virtually giving up our own rights to having the SAR administered according to the principles of “one country, two systems” and “a high degree of autonomy”.
What is most important now to the people of Hong Kong is how to strive for a high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong after 1997. In the face of the Chinese Government’s incessant interference with the internal affairs of the future SAR, I believe that the fight in the days ahead will be extremely difficult. Therefore, the people of Hong Kong should prepare themselves as much as possible before 1997, participate in the democratic political system and bring
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4751
into prominence the importance of a democratic political system, such that the safeguarding of the democratic system and the high degree of autonomy will become values commonly accepted in society after 1997.
Mr President, I so submit.
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, the biggest ever controversy in Hong Kong’s political history will now end today with the passing of the Bill tabled before us. Since October 1992, Sino-British negotiations over the territory’s political reform, looked upon by some as mere bickering out of distrust and suspicion of the two sovereign states, have dragged on and on to the extent that most of Hong Kong is now politically exhausted. A public opinion poll conducted last week showed that 69% of the respondents were indifferent to the political reform package, quite contrary to the official claim that it got Hong Kong’s popular support. This feeling is shared by the Accountancy Functional Constituency, the majority of whom tend to adopt the pragmatic attitude in opting for a reform package that will make the transition to 1997 as smooth as possible.
I fully endorse this stance for the following reasons. I do not subscribe to the claim that only the Government’s reform package will bring home Hong Kong “open, fair and credible elections”. Instead, it will provoke further backlash from China which has formally and repeatedly made known its intention to wreck the political through train ― the most constructive agreement reached between China and Britain since 1984. The corrollary therefore is a less fair and open political system than what we may be able to achieve after 1997. In my view, a political reform package that only provides transient democracy is in itself a self-defeating cause.
The consequences of derailing the political through train, which go beyond the political system, are far reaching and insidious. China’s intention to replace the top administrative echelon will not only disrupt the continuity of our valuable civil service and administrative manpower, but will also aggravate the backlog of unfinished legal and administrative work. Hong Kong, intricately bound to the booming economy of southern China, will then suffer great economic loss. But the anathema must be the weakening of China’s commitment to the Joint Declaration which strikes at the root of people’s confidence in Hong Kong.
As a pragmatic professional, it is my duty to exercise utmost prudence to ensure that Hong Kong will not be paying too high a price for its political reform. Thus, I shall cast my votes today based on the singular, solid objective of minimizing the foreseeable turbulence a failed through train will create.
The proposals put forth by the Governor in 1992, in a nutshell, seeks to enlarge the popular electorate with the help of new-style functional constituencies. The latter are totally at variance with the basic concept of
4752 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
functional constituency as has been commonly known or understood in Hong Kong. Carried to their logical and perverse conclusion, they would amount to a declaration of the intention for Hong Kong’s independence, which explains why some critics have branded the package as “sugar-coated poison”. The 1993 compromise package, which is an improvement over the original proposals, still caters for a larger than realistic functional constituency electorate, with only four categories complying with the fundamental principles set out for the functional constituencies. As for the assortment of amendments to the Bill, most are harping on the same tune of bigger functional constituencies with whom I personally disagree.
The 1994 political reform package, worked out between various independent Members and political parties in which I cannot detect any divergence in spirit to the Basic Law model and hence promises the best chance of smooth transition, has won my approval. By voting for the 1994 package, I hope that the lasting repercussions injurious to Hong Kong as a liberal society can be avoided. In striving to minimize the high principle of “one country, two systems”, we must not ignore the public sentiment in Hong Kong towards conciliation with China over our constitutional development. Taking Hong Kong people’s well-being to be our guiding principle, we should be able to look realistically at the reform package and to refrain from rubber-stamping a package that will cause irreparable damage to Hong Kong.
Mr President, for us accountants, the battle over the political reforms has long been over. It is high time that both sovereign countries picked up the threads and guided Hong Kong through the three years ahead. Co-operation on the economic, administrative and social fronts is urgently needed unless these other segments of the train can get through, otherwise Hong Kong people are doomed to undergo interminable, exasperating stop-and go for a very long time to come. Having said that, co-operation is not synonymous with automatic acquiescence to China’s demands. Freedom, the rule of law, democracy and human rights ― the attributes of a liberal society ― should be zealously guarded by all of us. It is for this reason that unity and harmony are of paramount significance to this Council and Hong Kong.
Whatever the outcome of today’s debate, life must go on. At this critical moment in Hong Kong’s history, let us all work together to avoid internal strife that will tear us apart. In the best interest of Hong Kong, let us try our very best to ensure that, through train or no through train, Hong Kong will remain stable and prosperous in the years to come.
So with these remarks, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, just now a Member expressed his admiration for Mr CHEUNG Man-Kwong’s courage. On behalf of Mr CHEUNG Man kwong, I hereby thank the Honourable Member for his admiration. Here I must also express my admiration for this Member for his
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4753
forgetfulness. He has highlighted in his speech three major principles of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. But he has failed to mention the high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong people in terms of personal freedom and the retention of the capitalist economic system and the laws currently in force, did he not? Why did he leave out the principle of “a high degree of autonomy”? Is it not a crucial principle in the Sino-British Joint Declaration? Is it the case that having heard Mr LU Ping make the comments that “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” was a non-scientific statement, he, therefore, does not dare to even mention it? Being forgetful is just a lapse of memory, which is not blameworthy. But should it be a reflection of his state of mind, it is surely something to be “admired” for.
Today is 29 June 1994. Three years from now it will be 29 June 1997, one day before the end of Hong Kong’s more-than-a-century-long colonial history and, on the following day, Hong Kong will have become a Special Administrative Region. Mr President, today is 29 June 1994, a day of historic importance. I said this is a day of historic importance not because of the great changes that we will have to face three years later, but a decision this Council has to make today on behalf of the Hong Kong people, which reflects the view held by the Hong Kong people towards the 1997 issue. Are we going to be on our knees, kowtow and act servilely as 1997 draws close, or are we going to stand upright and fearlessly defend the principle of “one country, two systems” and “a high degree of autonomy” with the approach of 1997? Today is not only a day of historic importance to Hong Kong. To every Member of the Legislative Council, this is also a historic day in the sense that it is going to tell whether one, as a legislator, would follow one’s conscience and reflect the wishes of the Hong Kong people by casting one’s vote in light of the interests of the Hong Kong people, or one would, acting against one’s conscience and succumbing to might, vote for one’s own political and economic interests. I believe that people abroad may not understand this Council’s intricate composition. And once this Council has made a decision, they would consider it a reflection of the opinion of the Hong Kong people. Every Member should therefore obey what our own conscience dictates and vote for the interests of the Hong Kong people to reflect their wishes. Otherwise people all over the world would think, from the decision of this Council today, that Hong Kong people have decided to give up on themselves, reject democracy and willingly be on their knees, kowtow and act servilely. I hope that in making their decisions, Members will not bring all the Hong Kong people into disrepute.
There will be many rounds of voting today. I believe that there must be Members who will claim a division on each of such occasions. Should there be no one claiming a division, I shall do so. A record will be kept as to who have voted for or against certain motions; who have abstained and who have not voted. This is an important historical record for Hong Kong. In future, no matter how many years away, historians will query why a particular Member had voted this or that way. Even the Member’s descendants will certainly try to find out why. The focal point of the entire sitting today lies in the defeat or the triumph of the Liberal Party’s so called “94 package”, which the party has
4754 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
claimed to be the closest to the spirit of the Basic Law. In fact, the two words “close to” merely is the euphemism for “to flatter”, “to side with” and “to please”. The Basic Law simply denotes might. To be close to the spirit of the Basic Law only means “to flatter”, “to side with” and “to please” those with power. They have heard the Chinese side state loud and clear that: “Another stove will be built no matter which proposal is passed. All members of the three-tier representative government will have to get off the political through train”, did they not? Do they dare to say that their 94 package will be spared? The stove which they construct will also have to be dismantled, just that it is one which their future masters will not have to take a lot of trouble to remove. Here I call upon Members from respective political parties, all independent Members and indeed Members from the Liberal Party to think twice before casting their votes, and consult their conscience and bear in mind that history will be the judge. No matter which motion is carried today, the United Democrats, Meeting Point and the Democratic Party, which is soon to be formed, will continue to strive for democracy for Hong Kong and for the establsihment of a democratic political system which will uphold freedom, human rights and the rule of law to the end.
I am advanced in age but my brothers and sisters are young. Although I may not be able to witness the day of our success, they will be able to witness it. Here I wish to express to the people Hong Kong my resolve to carry the fight through to the end. I will be fearless of any hardships; I will be fearless of living in poverty; I will be fearless of imprisonment; I will be fearless of being killed. I am going to carry through to the end in any case. I had seen Schindler’s List. When I left the cinema with a heavy heart, a few words out of nowhere came to my mind, and they are “the greatest justice is death”. Later I reflected on the words and tried to figure out why I came up with them. Finally I had the answer. I realized that at the end of the day, the Jews in agony died; the domineering German soldiers died; SCHINDLER died; and even those who had been rescued by SCHINDLER died. They met the same fate. When they died, the pain and humiliation were gone; also gone are some people’s imperiousness and ferocity. However, no one can deny the historical fact that SCHINDLER rescued more than a thousand Jews who had been suppressed and persecuted. This piece of history will not die. Is this not the greatest justice? Man is mortal. There is no exception. What matters is how one spends one’s life. The path one takes will have one’s footprints. I hope we are able to appreciate the essence of the greatest justice so that we can work fearlessly with an open mind for the benefits of our children. Every one of us will have to face up to the fact that one’s days on earth are bound to end. But the future of mankind is eternal. Our future is in our own hands. It depends on our fearlessness born of the fact that we are mortal. If more people have such fearlessness, the future of mankind which is eternal shall be even brighter.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, I agree with the Honourable Elsie TU that it would be best for all of us to speak once and make our positions clear and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4755
then perhaps not have to speak too often during the day. So I shall touch on some of the points which will come up later in discussion.
Mr President, on this historic day I feel a sense of great responsibility. A feeling that what we are debating will affect the lives and the future of the 6 million people of Hong Kong. It may also affect relations between Britain and China and relations between Hong Kong and China. We have come to a point of decision after two anxious years and after great debate, soul searching and spiritual examination. This Council has been given the responsibility for making decisions on Hong Kong’s system of government which no previous legislature has ever had to accept. It is hardly surprising that there has been so much argument and lobbying before positions have been taken up.
I would like to make the position taken by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce clear. I will then explain the position taken by the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation and finally the position I have taken personally and why in regard to the very important proposals now under consideration. But first let me point out that a majority of this Council, in two lengthy debates on 14 October and 11 November 1992, approved Governor PATTEN’s political proposals in general and the composition of the election committee specifically. The Hansard record, which I have with me today, shows which Councillors put their names to such approvals. I will not indicate those who appear to have changed their minds but the Hansard record of today’s debate will provide some interesting comparisons.
The two principal proposals are the composition of the election committee and the nine new functional constituencies. I will deal first with this latter issue.
The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce has published its view that the nine new functional constituencies should align with the 21 existing functional constituencies in terms of their characteristics, also that where appropriate, corporate voting should be retained.
The Hong Kong Democratic Foundation has taken the view that there is a good case for both the narrow functional constituency and the very much broader ones proposed by Governor PATTEN. They are therefore somewhat divided in their views.
I have supported the creation of nine new functional constituencies much along the lines now proposed by the Liberal Party and the so-called breakfast club, or at least some of them. However, in recent weeks China has made it abundantly clear that she will dismantle the three tiers of government in 1997. I have no doubt whatsoever that China will do exactly that. In these circumstances, I do not feel bound by my earlier adherence to what I thought had been agreed between Britain and China as defining a functional constituency. These are strange creatures of many shapes and sizes and subject to, I would say, some manipulation and unreasonable control. I have always felt
4756 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
that the larger they are and the greater their electorate, the less chance there is for gerrymandering and organizational abuse.
I tend to trust the individual and not the corporation. I think in terms of people and not profit, and my conscience lies heavily upon me. I am not willing to be directed nor to be a puppet for any small group of people no matter how powerful and influential.
I have to say at this stage that I disagree also with Mr Martin LEE when he castigates businessmen, and I assume businesswomen, regarding democracy and the feeling for democratic reform. I ask him perhaps to modify his position when he speaks again. If businessmen were all against democracy and democratic reform, I would never have been elected in 1988 and I would not have been re-elected in 1991. I believe that I was elected by the membership of the chamber and not its general committee whose membership can be strongly influenced by proxy voting, which in my view is not a democratic system ― at the last count, 85% of all votes cast.
I have therefore taken the view that although I have been brought under great pressure by senior chamber members right up to today, I will decide by myself how to vote and the membership of the chamber will decide by themselves next year if they agree with me.
I consider that my duty is to speak to the wider interests of the ordinary people of Hong Kong and to allow my conscience to dictate my actions. I will therefore vote in favour of the Patten proposal for the nine functional constituencies. I will also vote for the democratization of the 21 existing functional constituencies and against corporate voting.
Mr President, as I have mentioned on 14 October, this Council approved the composition of the election committee by a substantial majority. The subject was very fully debated and many views were expressed. None as far as Hansard is concerned even remotely approximated the dog’s breakfast and dinner which the Liberal Party Members and their supporters in this Council have served up today for consideration. Instead of a substantial group of district board members, who have all been democratically elected by the people of Hong Kong and who are in the widest sense fully representative of all the people, we have been asked to consider a mathematical abomination. A convoluted nightmare which rose in tiny companies, running one taxi, for example, with massive people movers. Every kind of association, in any way connected with transport, such as the United Friendship Taxi Owners and Drivers Association Limited and the Wai Fat Taxi operators. Why indeed? These companies are straight out of the Yellow Pages. Sixty of them. We also have every company or organization with the word “ship”, “marine” or “boat” in its title and so on and so on and so on, dozens of specified companies loosely categorized as transport. Another batch of organizations connected in some way with fishing and agriculture, for example, the Hong Kong New Territories Poultry-Culture (Geese-Ducks) Mutual Association. My mind boggles.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4757
Why is the Liberal Party so afraid of democratic elections? Why can the Liberal Party not trust the people of Hong Kong in electing high quality district board members who are fully capable of thinking and acting in the common interest? Why do they have to try to align their proposals for the election committee with what they imagine China will accept? It is very clear that China will do no such thing. Why, therefore, should the Liberal Party Members in this Council and their supporters, seek to appease China with a pale and anaemic copy of the kind of election committee that China may impose on Hong Kong in 1997? Whose interests are being considered?
I feel we must trust the district boards and the district board members to form an effective election committee, which I am sure will do all that is expected of it. We must reject this undemocratic monstrosity that is being offered to us.
Mr President, I will therefore vote in favour of the government proposals on both these major proposals. Thank you.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, as I walked into the Chamber this morning there were obviously many in the Council with baggy eyes. No doubt this has somewhat to do with the very exciting World Cup matches last night, but more importantly, lobbying from the different sides which extended into the small hours this morning.
Mr President, as the Chief Secretary just pointed out that today’s debate is a monumental issue. So too, obviously, Members of this Council representing the interests of Hong Kong people must put all our “grey matters” together and work out for the best of Hong Kong now and into the future.
But Mr President, the intense last minute lobbying and the 17 to 18 months of inconclusive argument between Britain and China which has undermined Hong Kong people’s confidence and sense of security, need not happen if Britain and China were serious for the well-being of Hong Kong, and if Hong Kong people, especially those of us who have the power to do good to Hong Kong, are really taking Hong Kong people’s interests at heart and not that of China nor Britain.
Mr President, if Britain were determined to move on a course of development of representative government as promised by their 1984 Green and White Papers on constitutional reform and not changed its stance because of China’s criticism; if the June 4 Tiananmen incident had not happened; if Britain truly pushed the OMELCO consensus for Hong Kong and not just providing lip service; if Britain had been consistent and not wavering from promising Hong Kong people to push for a faster pace of democracy and yet moving towards achieving what the Foreign Secretary Douglas HURD has consistently considered as a first prize, which is to strive for a consensus with China and finally now, to appease China for economic reasons; if Britain did not have any
4758 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
secret letters with China, which has kept Hong Kong people in the dark and suspended Hong Kong people’s confidence like a yo-yo, then Hong Kong would be in a better position now, a better position to live in and prosper for the future.
So the message is clear, we cannot depend on our current or future sovereign. We have only ourselves to depend on to strive for what we have, what we should for Hong Kong people, and what we all Hong Kong people want and not what China wants, nor to object to China for the sake of objecting to China itself.
During the course of the wee hours last night, I was also asked how I would vote. Mr President, my answer is simple, because I will vote according to two basic principles. Firstly, I will vote according to what I have told my voters I would do, in other words, my commitment and my accountability to my election platform.
Secondly, I will vote according to the feelings and the thoughts of my voters through continually monitoring their pulse, as it is, and through repeated referenda on important policy matters. Let me take myself and my constituency as an example. I stood for election on a platform for a faster pace of democratization and in the ensuing years I have stood by it with no obvious dissention from my constituents.
In the issue concerning the current Bill and the details it contained, I have done two referenda. I am not surprised to report that both the results show a very positive support of some 60% to 80% of the different items of the current Bill before us today. What I am surprised is that the findings of the two referenda were consistent. Admittedly, the return rates were poor or not as good as I hoped. It was 16% for the first referenda and 6% for the second.
Mr President, I am aware of another survey done by an Honourable Member of the Liberal Party which was reported as showing different results. Let me first of all thank the Liberal Party for taking this move for it will no doubt give me a further insight into my constituents’ minds. Mr President, I am in no way discrediting the result, yet I would like to point out a few areas of fundamental difference.
Firstly, I did a referendum, or rather two, not a selected sampling. Furthermore, I did these two referenda on the same subject, on the same way, with a gap of some 15 months in between, and as mentioned, the results were consistent. Fifteen months to give them a chance to look at the details, to think about the details, to change their minds if they wanted to, as a result of the continuous war of words between the two sovereign states is in my mind, Mr President, in contrast to the one-off sampling telephone survey that my honourable colleague did.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4759
Secondly, the referendum I did on both occasions were completely unbiased, including all the issues of the current Bill. This is again in contrast to specific questions asked by my Honourable colleague of the Liberal Party during his survey, where you could no doubt easily be taken out of context by either the interviewer or the interviewee.
Certainly my referenda have given time for my constituents to chew over it, to ask questions if they did not understand it, and then to reply.
On the grounds that the issues are very complicated and the current Bill is such that many of us, even in this Chamber, would have difficulty in grasping it, I question the degree of clear thoughts or rather clearly thought out reply that a telephone interview would obtain, taking into consideration the very busy practice of most members of my constituency. Just imagine, a doctor feeling the pulse of a patient or a tummy of somebody with tummy ache, or a dentist trying to pull out teeth on the one hand and holding a telephone on the other, trying to answer questions relating to the current Bill, which is so complicated that I, myself, have to admit that I have difficulty to apprehend.
Fourthly, the survey of my Honourable colleague from the Liberal Party showed a maximum positive support of items of, at best, some 50% to 54%. This is again in contrast to my referendum which showed a definite response of 60% to 80% in support of the different items of the current Bill.
My Honourable colleague also said that my referendum only targets at specific “more radical groups”, while his were all inclusive, including “the silent majority”. Let me ask a fundamental question, how do you select the silent majority in a scientific sampling survey?
Mr President, I have no intention to prolong the argument of these two surveys to bore Members. Suffice to say that the voice of my constituency is clear. You would like a faster pace of democratization within the ambit of the Basic Law.
In essence, therefore, we look to a widening of the franchise, or the size of the electorate in both the functional constituency and the election committee.
Finally, Mr President, I turn to the very low response of my recent referendum as compared with that I have done two years ago. The result of the recent survey done by one newspaper indicating Hong Kong people’s apathy to this current debate speaks for one thing and one thing alone. Hong Kong people are being suffocated by all these arguments on constitutional reform. We look forward to getting it over and be done with and to move on to more important and social issues which will affect the daily lives of all of us, who may well be the silent majority and will have to stay in Hong Kong ― a permanent home for ourselves and for the next generation after 1997.
4760 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, many Members who have spoken today have said that today is a historic occasion, but events in the past 18 months have led to the Chinese Government making it known very clearly that whatever the decisions today, the legislature will be disbanded on 1 July 1997 and fresh elections according to a new set of rules in conformity with the Basic Law will be held. Members will be debating on the political system that can last only to the stroke of midnight 30 June 1997, that is 21 months. Does today’s debate have historic significance for Hong Kong only for how it would affect the last years of British rule? Whether it would mean a smooth transition or whether it would bring about uncertainties and hindrances to the development of democracy for Hong Kong?
Ever since Mr PATTEN unveiled his package of political reforms in October 1992, what has concerned me most was how much the people of Hong Kong and the international community are aware of the real issues surrounding his proposals. Mr PATTEN has been hailed as a champion of democracy for Hong Kong but there is a whole host of questions to be answered. Did he truly expect that his proposals, which deviate from the Basic Law and the agreements between the two Governments in diplomatic exchanges, would be accepted by the Chinese Government? And if not, why is he not worried that an opposite effect would result and that we would not only lose the continuity of our political system but that democratic development might even suffer a major setback? An even more perplexing question now is why, at this stage, when the life-span of the proposed system is less than two years, the Governor is still pushing for his original proposal to pass through this Council.
Mr PATTEN has been sending different signals to different audiences. For example, he has described his proposals in an interview in the March 1993 issue of the Fortune Magazine as this:
“This argument is not really about democracy. The progress toward democracy is guaranteed in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law..... What we are talking about is whether or not the legislature in 1995 is credible. Not whether it is democratic in particular, though it would have a democratic base.”
Those were his words. But now, in an article on 26 June 1994 in a prominent local English newspaper he proposed “To rectify the faults with the existing functional constituencies by extending their franchises and bringing in a breath of democratic fresh air.”
This kind of mixed messages have not helped the people of Hong Kong nor the international community to understand what was contained in Mr PATTEN’s proposals. A recent survey carried out by the Social Scientists Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong revealed that only 7.6% of the respondents knew what the Governor wanted to achieve in his proposals in 1992.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4761
Mr President, the international community and the people of Hong Kong may not be totally aware of what our debate is all about but those of us here, in this Chamber, both government and non-government Members, should be more informed. It is our solemn duty towards those who elected or appointed us, to conduct this debate in fairness and truth. Hong Kong is not going to be independent. It will become a Special Administrative Region of China, albeit with a high degree of autonomy. Our future will be governed by the provisions of the Basic Law.
Before we proceed further we should distinguish those who accept the Basic Law and those who do not. For those who do not accept the Basic Law and demand that it be amended, then the argument should be on another level. For instance, Miss Emily LAU’s Private Members’ Bill to elect 60 directly elected Members to this Council clearly contravenes the Basic Law. The other Members who, too, want a faster pace of democratic development than was provided in the Basic Law and therefore wanted to support Mr PATTEN’s proposals. As citizens they have every right to express their opinions regarding the Basic Law. But in debating the Bill today, they should not pretend that the PATTEN proposals comply with the Basic Law. On the other hand, for those who support the Basic Law, the debate would be whether Mr PATTEN’s proposals do comply with the Basic Law and if it did not, what problems it would create for democratic development.
Not many people, especially those people outside of Hong Kong, are aware that the Basic Law does provide for democratic development to progress and does not allow democratic development to stand still. The Basic Law promulgated in 1990 provides for a process of democratization under the third term up till 1997, that is, the year 2003. It also stated in Article 68 that, “The ultimate aim is the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.” It is therefore extremely misleading and untruthful when some of our leading politicians, like Mr Martin LEE on the radio yesterday, said that not supporting the PATTEN proposal would be “to deny democracy for Hong Kong”.
As to whether Mr PATTEN’s proposals comply with the Basic Law, Mr PATTEN in his 26 June article said that, “No one has been able to point to a single instance in which they offend against either document.” And he was referring to the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. I am most surprised by this statement. As many, including myself, have pointed out in various public fora, including testimony to the Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament, that his proposals do not comply with the Basic Law and why, I shall repeat my arguments.
It is accepted that functional constituencies are not defined in the Basic Law but then it must be remembered that when the Basic Law was going through the very stages of consultation, indirect elections through functional constituencies have already been introduced and established. They have been defined in the 1984 and 1988 White Papers on representative government
4762 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
published by this Government. The 1984 White Paper defined functional constituencies as (a) in the case of economic and social constituencies, these will be based on well recognized major organizations, associations and institutions with a territory-wide coverage and (b) in the case of professional constituencies these will be based on membership of those professions with well re-established and recognized qualifications.
As a former member of the Basic Law Consultative Committee I can certainly say that those were the definitions that we had in mind when the draft of the Basic Law was debated. The present proposal wherein each working member of a workplace would be allowed to vote in the functional constituency has never been so interpreted by the most liberal of BLCC members, including some sitting here. Those who wanted more universal franchise would have urged for more directly elected seats rather than through this arrangement. Thus the current proposals for the nine new functional constituencies do not follow the spirit of the Basic Law when it was drafted.
The composition of the election committee in the period 1997 to 1999 has not been stipulated in the Basic Law because the Basic Law envisages that the composition and membership of the first Legislative Council in 1997 would be the one elected in 1999, provided that they were in compliance with the Basic Law. However, the composition for the Legislative Council in 1999 is clearly stipulated in Annex I of the Basic Law. In addition, in the diplomatic exchanges between the British Government and the Chinese Government in January and February 1990, just prior to the finalization of the Basic Law, the British Government has agreed to the composition of the election committee broadly in line with what is now stipulated in the Basic Law for 1999. In fact, it was the British Government who proposed the four-category structure to the Chinese Government.
The Patten proposals clearly depart from that agreement. If they were thought to be more democratic and if the Basic Law were not amended after 1997 then democratic development would be reversed. In other words, this development would not be sustainable after 1997.
Mr President, the people of Hong Kong have been promised both in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law that the social and economic systems would remain unchanged after 1997. Hong Kong people will be travelling from a region that they are familiar with to a promised land, but region unknown, and they wish to undertake this journey on a through train in comfort and security. This through train has now been removed from the train schedule entirely, simply because the engineer in charge of Hong Kong wants to construct tracks with a different set of gauge and geometry so that a much faster train can run, regardless of what happens on the other side of the control point and what jeopardy it would have on the passengers.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4763
Mr President; the people of Hong Kong desire a democratic development. Some of them may want the pace of the democratic development faster than was laid down in the Basic Law, but it would be betraying their trust if this Government and this Council were to lead them to a new height of hope, only to be brought down with a resounding thud upon transfer of sovereignty. It would be a most unkind and unjust act if promises that could not be honoured were to be offered to the people of Hong Kong.
Mr President, however appealing, no promises of democratic development which are different or faster than the pace defined in the Basic Law can be made by this Government and this Council. Those promises can only be made if there were agreements between the British Government and the Chinese Government. It is for this reason that I cannot support the Bill.
Since there is no more through train, the responsibility of Members of this Council in today’s decisions is even more heavy and solemn. Members should ensure that for the remaining transitional period under British sovereignty, a political system would be in place so that it is as close as possible to that provided for in the Basic Law. This is to ensure that our progress of democratic development can be sustained and that whatever changes that have to be made upon the transfer of sovereignty, those changes will be as little as possible so that the impact of the stability of our society would be kept to an absolute minimum.
I am reminded by the following passages from the Government’s 1988 White Paper, “The aim of the Government in the period after 1997 is that Hong Kong’s system of representative government should be able to evolve gradually and progressively from the present system, in a manner that commands the full confidence of the people of Hong Kong, ensures that government remains both responsive and effective and provides for a smooth transfer of government in 1997 and a high degree of continuity thereafter.” Those words contain all that the present government should follow.
Mr President, the amendments put forward by the Honourable Howard YOUNG on behalf of the Liberal Party have been painstakingly put together by many Members both inside and outside of the party through very extensive consultations. Those proposed amendments would give a democratic system that is open and fair. Above all, because these proposals resemble closely what was stipulated in the Basic Law, they provide a firm base upon which democracy can be further developed after 1997 with a minimum disturbance to the stability of our political system.
For all the reasons stated in my speech, I support Mr Howard YOUNG’s amendments to the Bill and for all those who genuinely treasure democracy and the interest of our community, they should do the same and they can do it with a clear conscience.
4764 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, recently I told my friends of the press that it is most important for the democrats to keep calm and healthy. They thought I was joking. In fact, I said that mainly because the policy adopted by the Chinese Government towards Hong Kong has become more and more leftist. Today, we are facing a very grim situation, that is, whether the proposals of the democrats can be carried in this Council if not, whether Governor PATTEN’s package, which is more democratic than the Liberal Party’s proposals, can be carried. Many colleagues have very correctly said that today is a historic occasion. If a very conservative package is passed today, we are in fact telling the world that, very unfortunately, Hong Kong does not have the ability to develop any proposal which is more democratic. Some people said that since the Chinese Government will reconstitute the three-tier boards and councils on 1 July 1997 anyway, it does not matter which package of political reform Hong Kong adopts and hence we do not need any change. Alternatively, these people said that our political reform should conform as much with the Basic Law as possible in order to minimize any possible change that we shall have to face in the future. This view is most often expressed by the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, no matter how good one’s intentions are, the Chinese Government will eventually reconstitute the three-tier boards and councils. No matter how closely a political reform package sticks to the Basic Law, shock will be unavoidable.
As we need change, how should we go about it? We the people of Hong Kong have to plead for our own blessings. We have to try our best to make the most of the situation with the given constraints, make progress in the development of our political system and not regress to the 1991 path. I therefore take this opportunity to urge Members, the press and the public to remain calm and be cautious in the face of this grim situation. We have to progress in stability; plead for our own blessings and do our part. We should not be too pessimistic, we should not say that something will definitely happen for it may not occur. We have to hold on to the realities, make use of our opportunities and make the most of the present.
Hong Kong has the potential to develop democracy. When Britain leaves the Colony after ruling it for over a century, the only asset which will be left to the people of Hong Kong will be the rule of law. The rule of law is very important to Hong Kong. Everyone is equal before the law in Hong Kong. The Bill of Rights Ordinance has been enacted in Hong Kong and even the Chinese Government has agreed that it is acceptable. We not only have a good legal system, we also have a rather universal education system. Since the 1980s, about 14% of our students of the right age have had the chance to enter a university. Our economy is not only stable, it is also constantly growing. There may be growth in other economies as well, but these economies often experience extreme ups and downs. We do not have racial confrontation, nor do we have religious antagonism. Those of us who were born after the War
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4765
have grown up and are now playing major roles in various trades. A large sector of our society is comprised of the middle class and the professionals. In fact, some political scientists told us that if one says that Hong Kong does not have the potential to develop democracy, one is actually saying that we lack the most basic political knowledge. Hence, Hong Kong really has the potential to develop further on the 1991 basis.
The proposals of the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK) are basically amendments of Mr PATTEN’s package. We shall explain our proposals point by point when we move the amendments later. Basically, we are developing further on Mr PATTEN’s package. However, if our proposals are not accepted, we will support the Patten proposals because they are basically more democratic than the Liberal Party’s proposals. This is mainly because in relation to the Election Committee, the Patten proposal is far better than that of the Liberal Party in that some 300 district board members who are elected by popular election will form an electoral college which will return 10 seats to the Legislative Council. As these 300 district board members are directly elected from different geographical constituencies, they are accountable to their constituents and so it is impossible to manipulate the results of the election. Although the electoral college is a kind of indirect election, it has the basis of universal suffrage. In comparison with the Liberal Party’s proposal in which very few people are involved in the election and where the Election Committee is formed by four sectors, the Patten proposal is certainly better. The Liberal Party will certainly say that the four-sector Election Committee will also be formed by election. However, we must not forget that the delegates to the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference are not elected by the people of Hong Kong. Hence, although elected, these delegates are actually elected “behind closed doors” and they are not elected by the people of Hong Kong. Besides, why should the Election Committee be comprised of these four sectors and not other members of the public? Hence, an Election Committee formed by district board members who are elected by popular election is far better than the proposal by the Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party proposes to add nine new functional constituencies. That will not be sufficient because they do not include retirees, housewives and students who are over 18 years old. The UDHK will therefore amend the model of election through functional constituencies. In fact, the UDHK and the Meeting Point have all along objected to an election through functional constituencies because it has a more limited franchise. But since the Basic Law provides that this method of election can continue until 2007, we have to expand the franchise of this conservative system to enable all who are working, housewives, adult students and retirees alike to vote. Would that not be fairer? We have to amend the proposals because we have to make progress within the constraints. The proposals of the Liberal Party allow only some 100 000 to 200 000 people to vote, some of whom are even company representatives. It would be a pity if the Liberal Party’s proposals are to be carried.
4766 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
Finally, I would appeal to those independent Members of this Council, for example, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Roger LUK and Mr Marvin CHEUNG, whom I respect, to think carefully whether Hong Kong has the potential to develop a more democratic package. Since the Chinese authorities have often talked of reconstituting the three-tier boards and councils, and since this package is accepted by the people of Hong Kong, why do we not give this package a chance? I understand that Mr Vincent CHENG, being an employee of the Hongkong Bank, may be concerned with the possible effect on his relationship with the industrial and commercial sectors. But I would still urge him to support this proposal. Mr Allen LEE has criticized the proposal of the UDHK and the Meeting Point to raise the public assistance payment from $1,550 to $2,100 as being a socialist welfare policy. I guess Mr LEE has expressed such a ridiculous view because he does not understand much about political science and social policies. The Basic Law has clearly stipulated a “one country, two systems” model. Then how can we develop socialism? If Mr LEE says an increase of a few hundred dollars in public assistance payment will amount to socialism, I urge him to refer to the welfare systems of Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom before discussing this question with us.
I hope that Honourable Members of this Council will give Hong Kong people a chance. We are not fighting for anything, we are merely hoping to get what has been promised to the people of Hong Kong by the British and the Chinese Governments in the Joint Declaration. These are merely things that the people of Hong Kong should get.
Thank you, Mr President.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the political reform package introduced by Governor PATTEN has contained 14 amendments. I think this is unprecedented. The strong objection to it and the number of amendments put forward are also unheard of. Why such furore? Why do the general public say that they are still at a loss as to what the Patten package is about after a lapse of more than two years? Frankly speaking, it is not that the public do not know what the Governor’s package is all about but, in fact, they are unable to accept Governor PATTEN’s political package. They find it unacceptable because this political package is in breach of the Basic Law, the Sino-British Joint Declaration as well as the agreements reached between the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs and the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs. What has been put forward in the Basic Law is an evolutionary democratic system. The Basic Law, which is the product of five years’ hard work, has had the participation and support of many Hong Kong people. A breach of the Basic Law is what many Hong Kong people would be loath to see. That explains why the general public find the package unacceptable.
In February this year when the Administration submitted the first part of the political reform package to the Legislative Council, many Members, including myself, already made it clear to the Administration that it should be
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994 4767
withdrawn before it was too late, since this was a political reform package about which China and the United Kingdom had not yet come to a consensus. However, the United Kingdom eventually failed to grab this opportunity to resume the Sino-British co-operation, thus creating a situation under which China had no alternative but to decide to restructure upon the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997. The subject of today’s debate, as it is clear to all of us, is on the structure of our Legislative Council which will have a life span of less than two years. I believe Members present in this Chamber will agree that today’s debate and today’s voting results are a milestone in the history of Hong Kong. For this reason, I earnestly hope that we can, given the present conditions, successfully ensure that the composition of the 1995 Legislative Council will follow as closely as possible the spirit and letters of the Basic Law so that Hong Kong people will not be subjected to the future uncertainties in 20 months’ time. I support a political reform package which is consistent with the Basic Law because this would help maintain a harmonious political climate and ensure Hong Kong people a peaceful life. This is definitely not a fantasy as described by Governor PATTEN. If one does not want to be given to fantasy, one must face reality. The political reality now faced by Hong Kong people is the restructuring of the three tiers of representative government on 1 July 1997. Yet, I hasten to add that Hong Kong people have already had the Chinese side’s words that it will take all necessary positive arrangements to maintain Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. The absence of a political through train may not necessarily bring about devastating impacts. Meanwhile, the British Hong Kong Administration has blown a colourful bubble which is indeed a fantasy divorced from the reality in Hong Kong. The Administration which claims to aspire to be open, fair and just has overturned policies it previously worked so hard to maintain, simply because of the changes in the United Kingdom’s foreign policies towards China. It has been hypocritical, has it not?
As Members of the Legislative Council, we are willing to and, as what Governor PATTEN said in a published article recently, have to make a decision on behalf of the whole community. Precisely for this reason, I, as a Member of this Council, will be resolved to have Hong Kong’s long-term interests in the foremost of my mind and ensure that Hong Kong will be able to make all necessary preparations for its future developments beyond 1997. However, we know very well that we have to rely on ourselves, not the United Kingdom any more, for making such preparations. Mr PATTEN is right in saying that the relevant electoral arrangements entail new legislation, and it is, after all, incumbent on the Legislative Council to make the necessary legislation. Yet, the Governor should understand that it is also the Legislative Council’s duty to control public expenditure. Then why did the Governor make an arbitrary decision on the rates issue? Please do not divert Hong Kong people’s attention again. Hong Kong people are perceptive enough to see through the situation.
Mr President, after witnessing the two years’ row over our political system, Hong Kong people are generally clear about their own position even though they may not be vocal about their own concerns about it. We have to play our part as legislators and work hard for Hong Kong’s future prosperity
4768 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 June 1994
and stability. For this reason, I will press for the formulation of a political package in light of the spirit and letters of the Basic Law, which will enable Hong Kong to move steadily forward.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Government has been facing a major challenge these past few days. The Governor has led all the senior officials in lobbying Members incessantly. He is afraid that his constitutional package may be successfully amended by the Liberal Party and some colleagues of the “Breakfast Faction”. The Government is in a very difficult and embarrassing dilemma. But it has indeed only itself to blame.
When the British Hong Kong Government introduced the first indirect elections into the Legislative Council in 1985, it did not promote fair elections by universal suffrage. Instead, it designed the privileged functional constituencies and indirect elections to protect its own interests and that of the business community and some groups of professionals. Such an electoral system in fact bears little difference from the dictatorial appointment system. Even more unfortunately, Mr President, it played into China’s hands in that it was written into the Basic Law which obliges us to continue using it after 1 July 1997. Thus Hong Kong will be stuck with an infamous electoral system condemned by posterity.
After the Beijing massacre of 1989, the British Government somewhat changed its attitude towards Hong Kong’s political parties. It wanted an honourable retreat from Hong Kong facilitated by a pretentious promotion of democracy. It therefore attempted to expand the electorates of the functional constituencies by way of an euphemized form of direct election which is indeed neither fish nor fowl. To its regret, the British Hong Kong Government’s wish probably will not come true. The principal resistance to this comes from the business community and the prefessionals, the very groups that it has promoted and to which it has given special political privileges. One can say that the Government has only itself to blame for the difficult situation it now faces. The amendment to be moved by the Liberal Party is in fact cast in the same mould of the system put forth by the British Hong Kong Government in 1985. The British Hong Kong Government used to rely on these appointed Members. But these same people may now turn out to be the worst renegades.
Mr President, given the frickleness of human nature, some colleagues may have today given the impression that “whoever suckles them is their mother”. If the Council today passes the amendment by the Liberal Party and the “Breakfast Faction”, Hong Kong will then have an undemocratic system and the British Government can then hardly absolve itself of the blame. As the saying goes, “it is a disagrace out of one’s own making”. But getting the blame is not the crux of the problem. The crux is the harm done to the six million people of Hong Kong, many of whom are feeling very indignant at this. Some say that