76
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
To safeguard stability in Hong Kong, no one has ever demanded that the colonial system be democratized overnight. A step-by-step approach is therefore acceptable to all. However, the proposals in the Green Paper scarcely open the door to democracy. In less than 13 years, we shall have to administer a modern city of several millions all by ourselves and the pace of political reforms is evidently too slow.
As a matter of fact, for over 30 years the people of Hong Kong have been demanding some directly elected representation in the Legislative Council. In the past 18 years since joining the Urban Council, I, together with some colleagues, have time and again striven after this goal, and we have even organized delegations to London to present our demands, all to no avail. I guess, Britain did not originally intend to hand back Hong Kong in 1997. When things took a sudden turn at the Sino-British negotiation, the British government then hastily prepared the Green Paper and rushed into publishing the White Paper in two months' time so that the reforms may be implemented in March next year.
It appears that the Green Paper aims to preserve 'British rule' after 1997.
The main theme of the Green Paper is on the future structure of the Legislative Council, the highest organ of authority in which the people may play a role.
It is proposed in the Green Paper that there will be 16 appointed and 10 Official Members in the Legislative Council by 1988. These seats will all be in the hands of government and democracy does not come into being. The remaining 24 seats will be elected, 12 each, by an electoral college and the functional constituencies, forming only a minority of the total of 50 seats. Moreover, the so-called 'election' of members from the last two categories will also be influenced, more or less, by the government. So, what the government offers is 'guided democracy' similar to that adopted by the late President Soekarno of Indonesia.
Even by 1991, only 6 years from 1997, there is still no directly elected representation in the Legislature.
Under such arrangements, Britain is not only able to firmly control the highest organ of Hong Kong without returning the administrative powers to the people, but may also exercise her influence over the selection of local people to the new Legislative Council so that her best interests may be safeguarded. From the long-term point of view, these arrangements will benefit neither Britain nor Hong Kong. The reason is simple. If we accept this system of government mainly by appointment or 'guided democracy', then by 1997 when Britain no longer holds any power over Hong Kong, the People's Republic in Beijing could easily and naturally replace Britain as the ruler and authority for making the appointment, thus giving rise to the phenomenon of 'Hong Kong governed by Beijing' which is said to be worried by the people of Hong Kong as expressed by the delegation of the Executive and Legislative Councils in their visit to Beijing. If the people of Hong Kong wish to enjoy a high degree of self-rule as promised by the Chinese government, we must forget our preconceived ideas and personal interests, and strive for a genuine government of Hong Kong by Hong Kong people, i.e., over half of the Legislative Councillors to be directly elected.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 56 of 233
77
I should stress the point of direct election because councillors so elected have their powers conferred on them directly by the electorate and not by anyone else and they must therefore be accountable to the people. Also, the elected may thus be spared the insinuation of not measuring up to their office. What is more important is that direct election will attract people of larger calibre to politics and boost the quality of the Legislative Councillors.
The arguments against direct election in the Green Paper are all illogical and untenable. I would like to refute them one by one as follows:
(1) The political preparation for direct elections has been inadequate and '(their form) did not allow them (direct elections) to take root in the... society.'
The political apathy of the people is caused by the colonial system in force in Hong Kong for over a hundred years. In spite of this, Urban Council elections have been held for more than 30 years, and, with government's vigorous encouragement, elections of district boards too, for several years. Even if we start to elect directly a number of Legislative Councillors next year, it would not be considered premature. There should be no problems in the process if we step up civic education to inculcate the idea of democracy in the people and gradually increase the directly elected seats in the Legislative Council.
(2) ‘... they (direct elections) have not endured or have failed to receive adequate support from the population at large.'
These are all excuses and conjectures which underestimate the political potentiality of the people of Hong Kong who are well educated, experienced, and no half-wits. We also understand that if we desire self-rule in some ten years' time, we must concern ourselves with and play a role in politics. There is no reason that direct elections are not acceptable.
(3) '(Direct elections) would run the risk of swift introduction of adversarial politics and would introduce an element of instability', and '... (Such a system would) run the risk of introducing direct election prematurely.'
These are menacing words and should not have been used. Everyone knows that any democratic country will have opposition parties which serve as watch-dogs over the ruling power. Even the ruling party in Singapore that has exercised dictatorship for years is going to...