Page 74 of 185
4
138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
of the youngsters here. Maturity of the mind and maturity in the understanding of the political situation should be separately assessed. I suggest that even if the majority age is lowered to 18, the voting age should remain at 21 and the age of eligibility for candidature be at 25.
I support the motion, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. ELEANOR C. M. LING (in English):- Mr. Chairman, the Green Paper on 'The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government' has generated a lot of healthy discussion since its publication in May. There are almost 40 options listed, however, the focus of attention has been on the issue of direct elections to the Legislative Council.
Many arguments for or against this idea have already been presented and I do not intend to repeat them today. What indeed is apparent is that the principle of direct elections is well supported. The question therefore is not so much as to 'whether' but 'when' direct elections can be introduced.
Mindful of the need for a 'prudent and gradual' change, I would prefer to see direct elections, together with the other changes in the composition of the legislature, take place in 1991. However, I will support direct elections to a small number of the seats in LegCo in 1988, if the people of Hong Kong so wish.
This leads me to two other points. Firstly, direct elections to LegCo is not an end in itself. Secondly, the leadership for these political changes must come from this Administration.
The first point: If indeed the Government is to fulfill the objective stated in 1984 'to develop progressively a system of Government, the authority of which is firmly rooted in Hong Kong, which is able to represent authoritatively the views of the people of Hong Kong, and which is more directly accountable to the people of Hong Kong.' Then the mere election of a small number of seats in LegCo will obviously be inadequate.
Government must be prepared to address the more difficult and more fundamental issues e.g. the respective roles of the Governor/the Executive Council/the Legislative Council; the relationship between ExCo and LegCo particularly vis-a-vis greater accountability of the former to the latter; the feasibility in the absence of political parties--to involve non-government members of LegCo more directly with the Administration of this territory.
These key issues are conspicuously absent from the 1987 Green Paper. Additionally no date has even been given as to when they will be reviewed. This is unsatisfactory and there must be consultations and progress on these issues soon.
I now turn to my second point on leadership. We have been told that public opinion will be an important determinant as to what changes should be introduced, thus the silent majority is urged to make their views known. My colleague Mrs. CHOW CHEUNG Wai-Ping made the point, in this Chamber in the July debate, that despite all the efforts, the 'silent majority will only remain silent' as their interest in and understanding of the proposed changes are still limited. I tend to agree with her. Therefore, to expect a clear response from the majority so as to point the way the pace of reform is unrealistic.
For its part, the Hong Kong Government has consistently emphasized two points:
(1) all options listed in the Green Paper are in accordance with the spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
(2) it has no preconceived ideas and would not direct public opinion. One cannot fault this neutral position during the consultation period. But consultation ends in 3 weeks time, soon after it is the time for crucial decisions, when the Hong Kong Government must resume its leadership role.
It is generally recognized that how we resolve this next phase of political reforms will be a good indication of whether we are the master of our own destiny. If Hong Kong abdicates this responsibility for self-determination, then we have no one but ourselves to blame for the consequences in future.
'We' of course, represent both the people and the Government of Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong who wish to make their views known would have done so either in public or in submissions to the Survey Office by the end of this month. In the final analysis, when this formal consultation process is over and the report from the Survey Office on public response is completed, the Hong Kong Government must provide the leadership which it has, so far perhaps been, prematurely criticized for lacking, to resolve our present predicament.
I like many others in Hong Kong, do believe our Government is sincere in trying to do 'the right thing'. A task not made easy by divergent views from a vocal minority and silence from a largely apathetic majority. But it is vital that our Government should remain strong and provide leadership on this difficult issue.
If it moves firmly and decisively, I am sure the Administration will receive the co-operation and support it will need from the people of Hong Kong.
With these remarks, I support the motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. PAUL T. K. YOUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, colleagues and citizen. Much has been aired this afternoon concerning the 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government in Hong Kong. I shall comment briefly on the Review and if I may be allowed, in specific the role and composition of District Board.
People is the foundation of a society big or small. Adaptation and transfer of a Government and its administrative structure that gave rise to the fast pace society such as ours while preserving its best features resting on high degree of
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 74 of 185
139