136
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
autonomous government for Hong Kong thirteen years hence which is acceptable to China. We must remember that too hasty political reforms will put us at risk. I am in agreement that these indirect elections be tried for two terms before considering the possibility of direct elections in the review in 1989. Before the coming of 1997, we may have two opportunities of introducing direct elections in our system.
Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.
MRS. MARGARET LI (in English):- Mr. Chairman,
Preamble
The stated objectives of the Green Paper are to develop progressively a system of government whose authority is firmly rooted in Hong Kong, which represents authoritatively the views of the people and is more directly accountable to the community; to build this system on presumably the best features of our existing institutions and to allow for further development if the community so wishes.
Having studied the main proposals, I consider them inadequate in meeting these objectives.
It is not possible to cover all aspects of the Green Paper and in order to highlight inadequacies and suggest alternatives, my focus will be on
(a) the period of consultation and implementation
(b) the system of government authoritatively rooted in and directly accountable to the community of Hong Kong.
Period of Consultation and Implementation
Just as a good agreement over the future of Hong Kong is far better than one which merely meets with any deadline, the period of consultation and implementation of the proposals suggested by the Green Paper is in danger of acting in haste and repenting at leisure.
There are in my view at least three main arguments against the proposed schedule, namely,
(a) 1985 will be a very special year
(b) the proposals regarding indirect election highly unsatisfactory
(c) the main argument for the schedule given as presented in the Green Paper is not applied consistently.
Few people will deny that the real purpose of the Green Paper is to prepare Hong Kong for its post-1997 self-administration. The entire community has been led to believe that the Sino-British agreement will be published, finalized and possibly ratified during 1985. Hong Kong as a whole needs to absorb the impact and generally settle down. We need to think of ways to remain stable
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 86 of 233
137
and prosperous. What we do not need is to have our time, resources and energies further diluted by entering into a protracted period of pre- and post-election activities. Preparations for the district board elections have already begun, however low-keyed, and with the possibility of indirect election to the Legislative Council, I am sure, when we need them most, our best people will be preoccupied with electioneering. With our Future clearly spelt out, the people of Hong Kong will, for the first time, have all the facts with which to map out their 'future' and how to run Hong Kong for themselves. 1985 is a period for the community to ingest and digest. The election at district level in the same year will also give more pointers to the present argument as to whether the community is apathetic or has interest in running its business.
Hong Kong has a history of continuing with the past - of developing with a view to maintaining existing institutions rather than scrapping them altogether. There are some today who are prepared to accept the proposals of the Green Paper with the implicit or explicit hope that a future review will do away with the unsatisfactory arrangements presently proposed. I am referring to the highly cumbersome and convoluted election to LegCo via the electoral college and functional constituencies. It is my belief that once started, it will be almost impossible to do away with such arrangements.
In arguing for the implementation year of 1985 for indirect election to LegCo, the Green Paper refers to the 18 months of political uncertainty of candidates or incumbents. Yet in arguing for election by LegCo members to the ExCo, the Green Paper argues that this should be introduced in 1988 (rather than immediately upon indirect election to LegCo in 1985) so that LegCo members would become familiarized with the work of the Council and the Government. It is beyond comprehension why newly elected district board members (and for that matter, newly appointed members of the Regional Council) should be fully matured for immediate elevation to LegCo but not newly appointed or elected LegCo members to ExCo. There is no compelling reason for the haste in indirect election to the central organs of government, even given the 1997 deadline. A compromise could be reached surely, particularly in view of the precedent set in 1982 when different district boards came into being thus allowing for a gradated rather than a standard three years' terms of office. There is no harm in having the first batch of elected LegCo members with a reduced rather than a three-year term of office - unless of course, the government sees absolute virtue in symmetry.
Having argued at length against the proposed timetable, I would suggest a slower-paced one as follows:
(a) the Green Paper to extend its period of consultation to October or later this year until the publication of the initial Sino-British agreement over Hong Kong
(b) the White Paper to be published in mid-1985 so as to take into account the final Sino-British agreement and the community's reaction to the