336
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
goes against the views of Government, not merely Hong Kong Government but rather the Beijing Government, it will be regarded as useless. I hope that the public need not coincide with Government's opinion. If that is the case I will be sympathetic to the Government and consider it rather a tragic situation. It is said in 1991 only ten directly elected members which make up only 18 per cent of the legislature will be introduced. According to some conservative commercial intelligentsia that by 1991 there should be 25 per cent directly elected seats in Legco. They will be very disappointed just like democratic people. Finally, I clearly understand that the 3-tier system refers to three different kinds of boards and councils with different functions. But now the 3-tier system is now turned into upper, middle and lower levels. I think therefore that the basic spirit of the 3-tier system has been distorted and it is very disappointing to people of Hong Kong and the district board members because district board members feel they are primary students. They have to compete with others in order to go into the UC or RC and even compete further to go to a higher level to the Legislative Council among the Municipal Councillors. I think that if we really implement the policy, we must consider the consequences first and should not accept this hastily. To put it simply, I think the White Paper is a very empty one. It seems to me that the Government has got some difficulties to voicing. It frequently uses double standard and is totally contradictory hoping to be able to get a way with the people of HK. I believe Hong Kong people are perceptive and at the same time those who wish Hong Kong Government to be good will be extremely sad and they will not accept the White Paper. I support the motion.
MRS. CHOW CHEUNG WAI-PING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I support your motion but reject the White Paper. Of course there is no use in rejecting it but I must give my reasons for doing so. The first reason I object has been mentioned by several other Members. I am against the whole concept of the 3-tier system. The Legislative Council, Urban Council and the District Boards have different roles to play and they are not on top of the others. Although the Government can make some legislations to change the structure and role of the Council, the influence of the Legislative Council on the Government is only limited. Secondly, since the Urban Council does not manage District Boards, why is it to be on top of the District Boards? It is difficult to see how the first layer is on top of the other and so on. The new suggestions that the District Boards send representatives to the Urban Council and the Urban Council send representatives to the Legislative Council is very arbitrary and unconvincing. There is no real basis in communication among the Councils. As regards relationship between the Urban Council and District Boards, elected members can serve a role as bridge. If they cannot fully communicate between the two bodies neither will any representatives elected from the district boards be. It is not a case who is isolating the other but it simply is not practical. As VCUC has pointed out that the policy maker is obviously ignorant of what is happening in the world. My second reason for rejecting the White Paper is a democratic government is a form of government participated by people. The objectives set
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 173 of 185
337
forth in White Paper indicate that the government follows the public opinion. However, it seems to me it is only a slogan and a deceive for tactics. I cannot accept any papers which are deceivable. As far as democratic participation is concerned, direct elections in 1991 seem to be in line with public opinion but there are only ten seats which replace the electoral college. In the development of representative government, we cannot say that there is entirely no progress but the progress is so little that counts for only 18 per cent of the total number of seats. I don't know what is the progress of the representative government. I don't understand why the ten official members have to be retained with voting rights. I think there should be 22 directly elected seats. The ten ex-officio members can be in attendance but they should not have the right to vote. This arrangement is more in line with public opinion and will definitely not give rise to any confusion. As far as the composition of the Urban Council is concerned, we have only elected and appointed members. In the present political climate when public opinion should be respected, why should the Government introduce a new sort of animal by way of indirect elections? If the Council is to be expanded, I think it should be done by way of direct elections. That is quite logical and in line with public opinion. I am therefore opposed in this respect to the White Paper. If direct elected members cannot help strengthen the links between the Council and the District Boards, I am sure neither can the indirect elected members. If these were to be done, I don't know how long the facilities will be available because repeated consultation with their respective District Boards have to be made. These are the points I wish to reiterate. Lastly, the third reason against the White Paper concerns my own interest. I am speaking on behalf of the Councillors elected in 1986 who were born at the wrong time. Had we served the Council for several years, then we would still have had the basis of serving the district boards. But now within five years, we have to run for three elections before we can achieve the aim of serving Councils/Boards. These are the reasons which I reject the White Paper.
MISS FOK PUI-YEE (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, after reading this White Paper, I think it is really a great pity because publishing it now or half year ago or even long before that will give the same results because they have not taken into consideration the findings of the Survey Report. The Survey Office and the Green Paper only gave a false gesture to seek the views of the community. This exercise is a waste of public fund. In view of this, the Hong Kong Government now is not a responsible one and is not worthy of our trust. In para. 40, we all agree that we should introduce direct elections and the argument is only on the timing. Since all favour direct election, in other words, appointed members will be reduced gradually and direct elected members will replace all appointed members eventually. However, the introduction of indirect members from DBS will reduce the percentage of the directly elected members. Does it mean that since the Legislative Council as the top level does not have direct elections for the time being, and Urban Council at the second level should not have 50 per cent elected members? In para. 52 of the White Paper, it says that there is no