Page 74 of 233
112
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
by 1997. On the one hand we cannot afford to have power in the hands of a small coterie of people by 1997. On the other, unfortunately, we also cannot afford to have power splintered away in the divisiveness of many parties and pressure groups. And we have to be very careful not to be confused by the babble of voices arising from pressure groups. There are a lot of different pressure groups in town but none of them are really incipient political parties. They make a lot of noise so it is very easy to forget that these pressure groups represent very small minorities of the population. I doubt whether any pressure group here represents more than 10,000 people, and even that is a high figure. We have to take care that we do not forget the silent majority where out of the nearly 6 million of us (based on the 7 year rule) probably a million will have no voice at all no matter what new electoral system is adopted, and the great majority of the rest are completely apolitical. They want to be left alone and allowed to get on with their lives. They want a certain modicum of comfort, they want a certain modicum of quality of life and they want to be able to have the opportunity to get right to the top. It is the business of Government to make sure that they are allowed the opportunity to live in a clean, well-regulated, orderly environment and to be allowed to get on with their lives.
This is why it is so terribly important that we get the balance between representation, consensus, and political necessity just right. I don't believe the Green Paper has got it right and I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to its critics.
So let me sum up this critic's main points of disagreement.
1. The relationship between LEGCO and the Civil Service requires much more attention than it is given in the Green Paper and some transfer of power should take place now.
2. Functional constituencies are 'Mandarin style democracy' and will not work in practice. They should therefore be abandoned and instead a minority appointed membership should be retained.
3. It is vital that the electorate is offered a serious choice of candidates (a curious omission from the Green Paper) and we must make sure that the White Paper makes the proper provisions to allow for this. More time must be allowed for discussion and the timing of elections should be altered accordingly.
4. Lastly, let me repeat: It is not wise for Hong Kong to strive for the impossible because the perfect solution would neither be acceptable to the incoming Chinese nor would it be in the tradition of the pragmatic Hong Kong consensus operating hitherto. I therefore believe that indirect democracy is preferable to direct elections.
Sir, with these words I support the motion.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 74 of 233
113
MR. L. H. KWAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the Green Paper on Representative Government merely proposes to carry on and develop the present representative system in Hong Kong and its established policies. As the title clearly suggests, the Green Paper simply proposes to further develop our representative government, not to reform it.
If one expects that government is to effect significant reforms, he will be greatly disappointed because there is no mention in the Green Paper of reforms in the Legislative Council. It will remain as a consultative body and the number of indirectly elected members is small when compared with that of official and appointed members.
I do not wish to speculate on the reasons why government decides to wind up consultation of the public on the Green Paper before the Sino-British agreement is initialled. As the Green Paper is concerned with further development of the system of government, why does government choose to publish it just before the initialling of the agreement, and not earlier or later? Anyway, government is only prepared to make available some of the seats (12) in the Legislative Council for election. The parliamentary system is not a highly profound concept and very difficult to be understood by the people of Hong Kong. If government is sincere in transferring powers to the people, it should put forward the idea in September 1983 after the District Board elections held in March and September 1982 and the Urban Council elections in March 1983. The general public then had already gained sufficient knowledge about the holding of elections. If my guess is correct, the decision to transfer powers to the people was only made after Sir Geoffrey Howe announced that Britain would give up both sovereignty and administrative authority in Hong Kong.
If the 'open policy' is connected with the Sino-British negotiations, or at least there is a time link with the negotiations, then the terms in the Sino-British draft agreement should be of greater importance to the people of Hong Kong who must understand the whole situation before they can comment on the matter. Everyone knows that there is going to be the enactment of Basic Laws after the conclusion of the Sino-British negotiations and the Basic Laws are a deciding factor in the new government structure of Hong Kong in 1997 and beyond. The development of representative government should therefore be compatible with the development of future government system in Hong Kong, so as to ensure its continuity in order that the public can adapt to and understand its operation and finally accept the system. I consider that political development of a society should be planned with far-sight, in the interests of all circles and also with the next generations in mind. The Green Paper only serves to consult public opinions and its main proposals are to change some of the Legislative Council seats from appointed by the Governor to indirectly elected.
The Green Paper also explains in detail the advantages and disadvantages of open, democratic elections. However, it does not state who will be responsible