Page 95 of 195
159
158
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
this topic include very senior members of important organizations or well known people of our community. People have also raised the question of the committee system which is in practice in Switzerland and in a modified form in other countries. I am confident that with more and more public discussion, will be able to evolve an appropriate governmental system.
we
Now may I turn to the role of elected Councillors of whom I am one of 15 on this Council. Elected Councillors have always contributed to the work of this Council and have cooperated towards this end, towards upgrading the quality of the municipal services and civic facilities of Hong Kong. In 1969 when I was first elected to the Urban Council it was for a term of four years and every two years there would be an election, in which half of the elected members had to stand for re-election, some were returned and some were not. This was a good system to ensure the smooth running of the Urban Council because at any one time there would always be half of the elected Councillors remaining on the Council to educate the new members and to ensure continuity, and that system of progressive turnover was an excellent one. Three years ago, the system was changed and one could ask whether this change was really for the better? In my own personal view, I have reservations about it. Since three years ago, all elected Councillors have to stand for re-election at the same time, for instance, in two months' time all 15 of us will have to stand for re-election and I feel that this possibility of replacing all elected members could deprive the Council of continuity of experience on the part of the elected; of course, it is most unlikely that all 15 of us might not be re-elected, but this is not entirely out of question. If this did take place, i.c. if all 15 of us were not re-elected, a lot of them including a lot of very hardworking members will not be elected, then I am afraid it is likely that a large measure of valuable experience would be lost. In the past, at least half of the elected members would remain, on the Council and this will help continuity. It is only under the British parliamentary system that all elected members have to stand for re-election at the same time and this could affect stability. As I have said in my other paper, under the American system, the Senate have elections once every two years replacing only one-third of the senators whereas the Congress or the House of Representatives have elections once every two years during which time half of the members were replaced and this was a great help to continuity and interface of experience.
I personally stand by what I said last year and the year before that the LegCo of Hong Kong should have directly elected members in 1988. As to the exact number, I have no hard and fast views yet, I feel that there is yet plenty of time for us to consider this. Regardless of the number of direct elected members or indirectly elected members, if all of them have to stand for re-election at the same time, this could be inimical to stability so I feel that progressive replacing one-third or one-half is better, just as the case with Urban Council until three years ago replacing only part of the elected members. So my last point is that I hope that the authorities concerned or members of the public interested in this issue would re-consider whether it is appropriate to have all elected members
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
stand for re-election at the same time. Personally I believe in progress but I also believe in gradual progress in order not to affect our stability and prosperity.
With these words, Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
## APPENDIX A
Looking at the pros and cons of the suggested ministerial forms of Government There has been a lot of discussion on the topic of a suggested ministerial system of government for Hong Kong and this is probably an appropriate time to stimulate more considered views to be expressed and discussed openly on the subject.
Most former British Colonies were inherited with the Parliamentary system of government which normally included the Ministerial system with a Cabinet consisting of all the senior Ministers with so-called collective responsibilities. In theory, the Prime Minister ranks first among the Cabinet, but in practise, it varies from government to government, even within the Commonwealth.
Whether such a ministerial system would work in a place like Hong Kong is a very debatable issue, but so far this seems to be the only system that people have been discussing.
However, I believe that now is the time to look at some other systems before the first and only proposal yet made public becomes fact.
When the United States of America's Constitution was being drafted, it was intended to have the President being indirectly elected by the voters while members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives are to be directly and separately elected.
As it turned out, of course, George WASHINGTON would have been elected America's First President, whether by direct or indirect election. However, as the electoral system developed, the indirect election was merely a theory, and voters are in fact electing the Presidents directly.
The U.S. Constitution is a good example to compare with the British type of Ministerial System. All members of the U.S. Cabinet are appointed by the President, as are many other important posts such as Ambassadors etc. This provides a strong contrast with the Ministerial system and for the United States of America, it works quite well. Let us for convenience call it the presidential system.
The main difference between the Parliamentary and presidential systems is the high executive power of the President who is elected independent of the legislature.
Looking at it from many angles, the Governmental system of today's Hong Kong is more similar to the presidential system than the Parliamentary system
Page 95 of 195
Page 95
Page 96
Page 96 of 195