Page 65 of 233
94
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
endowed with professional knowledge and rich experience in international trade, with good records of service and faith in capitalism. The concept of 'one country, two systems' can only be realized in this way.
I firmly believe that it will be most appropriate to conduct a review in 1989 after two elections. With the experiences gained from these two elections, we shall be able to detect any defects of the system, and the people will then be able to make their judgment as to which councillors should or should not be re-elected, and also to review their own responsibility as voters. Radical approach would only bring about confusion and inefficiency.
The government should further consider how to render the Legislative Council open to the people, including abandoning the distinction, at an appropriate time, between official and un-official members, and eventually setting up a committee of ministerial level. Some of the administrative policies should be formulated by this committee and then passed over the government for implementation. Members of the committee should be responsible for answering queries at council meetings. This will be a good way to cultivate Hong Kong people's ability to govern themselves.
With these comments, Sir, I support your motion.
MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, the Green Paper on Further Development of Representative Government is probably the most widely discussed paper ever put out by Government, in fact it also has the honour of being the most widely discussed secret even before it was published! Over the past two months, most of the controversies have centred over the Speed of Democratization; Direct versus Indirect Elections and the Retention or Otherwise of the Appointed System, and I wish to put forward my own thoughts on these three too.
The Speed of Democratization
I would agree with most people that the Green Paper is extremely conservative and cautious, and I do not blame some of our more idealistic colleagues for saying that it does not go far enough. However, has Hong Kong not always been cautious when it comes to politics, and is not conservatism characteristic of Chinese mentality? Hong Kong has never been well known for its political successes, in fact the most likely political event we are ever going to be regarded as successful in is the achievement if we are able to make the concept of 'One Country, Two Systems' work. We are regarded as a mini economical wonder. Considering the lack of natural resources in Hong Kong, achieving the second highest standard of living in Asia is no small feat. We have heard a lot of talk recently on how democracy is supposed to achieve prosperity and stability, but it is too often ignored that even in a place like Britain where democracy has been abundant for some time, Hong Kong beats her on both counts of relative
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 65 of 233
95
growth of prosperity and stability. It is a hard fact of life that the prosperity and stability we all want to preserve has been achieved without much democracy—only freedom.
Democracy should not be treated as an end in itself, but a means to achieve a certain objective. This objective is the prosperity and stability that we all have, all still want and all are afraid of losing. Freedom is also something we are afraid of losing. With this state of mind, it is no wonder that Hong Kong people do not have a burning desire to rock the boat too much and change for the sake of change. I think democracy ought to be encouraged, but not spoon-fed. It is no good to try to plan in a vacuum and force it down people's throats unless there is ample proof to show that the majority want it. If we all do, then fine, but instead of prophesising that the majority do, we should wait for the proof of the pudding by seeing how voters react to a few elections, and see what the quality, representativeness and achievements of our first few batches of Legislative Councillors are like before we make a firm commitment on how far down the road to go. All in all, I think a conservative approach is a sensible way of testing the water.
Direct versus Indirect Elections
Any sound manager will know that what matters most is what you achieve, not how you do it. One of the rebuttals often used against the Government's arguments that direct elections are likely to produce political parties and strife is that indirect elections will also produce parties and strife. Another argument against indirect elections is that it is a system that could be more advantageous to the elite, particularly professionals rather than grassroots. It is also criticized as being favourable towards business and investment. I share the same arguments, but rather than view them as paramount criticisms against the Green paper proposals, I see them as truthful facts of life. But what is wrong with that? In these days of uncertainty, it is exactly the intentions of the elite, professionals and investors that people are watching most closely, mainly to see if they are going to stay, or whether they are going to leave. If they leave, or if a large portion leave, it will be everyone's loss, including the grassroots. If one agrees with this, then perhaps it is not too bad after all to tolerate such favouritism, if it exists, at least until such time we have overcome most of our fears of uncertainty over the future.
Regarding the development of political parties, I think Hong Kong people would rather not have them. But history tells us that where you have elections, candidates will band themselves into groupings, simply because the collective strength of a group is more likely to win elections than an individual on his own. Yet even if parties in the sense of groupings of individuals do occur, then I still think Hong Kong people would rather have low profile, non-controversial parties if at all possible. Although I agree that indirect elections can and probably will also lead to parties and political associations, I feel that the
Page 65
Page 66
Page 66 of 233