124
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The above provisions and cases make people doubt whether it is possible to fully implement the policy of 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong'. After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, Chinese leaders kept on publicizing this policy. Has the Basic Law Drafting Committee stuck to this policy? Or are they merely enacting such a set of law superficially or nominally, but actually making a set of policies that allows China to have the full control over Hong Kong and its internal administration?
Madam Chairman, another point that I want to discuss is that I think these provisions should be amended. They should be amended mainly in such a way that the National People's Congress should entrust the future SAR government with the powers of interpretation and amendment in respect of legislation, law enforcement, judicial matters or the constitution other than defence and diplomatic affairs. On the one hand, this arrangement reflects the principle of one country, i.e. the future SAR government still comes under China because the SAR government will only have such powers if the Central Government makes the authorization. On the other hand, this also reflects the way of Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong. This is because Hong Kong is authorized to deal with its own internal administration, legislation, law enforcement, judicial matters and the interpretation of law.
The second point I want to mention is the problem of election. Within this week, both the commercial sector and the mass media advocate the concerted alternative. It seems that anyone who does not talk about concert has no intention to build up a better Hong Kong. However, I feel that there must be a principle for concert and it should be based on some fundamental provisions in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. I believe that Hong Kong people are satisfied with these articles. I remember that it is clearly stated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration that the future chief executive shall be selected by election or through consultation. I have never heard anyone supporting the appointment of the Chief Executive through consultation. Election therefore remains the only alternative.
Actually what is election? Is the Grand Electoral College a form of election? I majored in politics when I studied at university in the past and now I major in politics again at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. In political science, there are only 2 types of election: direct election and indirect election. 'Direct election' means that persons of representative nature will be elected on a one-person-one-vote basis to be members of the legislature, executive authorities or the Chief Executive of the SAR in the future. 'Indirect election' means that some representatives will be elected through direct election and an ideal person will then be elected by these representatives.
Up to now, I have not heard of any method adopted for electing the 600, 1,000 or 2,000 members of the Grand Electoral College. Will these 600 members be elected on a one-person-one-vote basis and the Chief Executive be elected among themselves or through other methods? If these 600 members are not elected on a one-person-one-vote basis, is this way of election worthy to be called election? If it is not worthy to be called election, does this mean that some articles in the Sino-British Joint Declaration which we unanimously agree to and support are being violated? Personally, I believe that at least one principle, i.e. the principle that the Chief Executive shall be selected by means of election, should not be violated in the process of selection of the Chief Executive. What I mean by election is a direct election or indirect election recognized by all in political terms. Moreover, indirect election should be based upon direct election.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 66 of 182
125
As for the election of the members of the Legislative Council, there is the so-called 'concerted alternative' at present. This alternative allows more flexibility in the proportion of seats filled by direct election. In the past, people might not agree with the proposal that members of the Legislative Council should be elected by direct election, or they would only agree that some of the seats of the Legislative Council be filled by direct election. However, it appears that there is a tendency that now they will accept the proposal that the number of seats to be filled by direct election should be increased to 25% or 50%. To the advocates of democracy, 'proposal 190' is already a method of compromise. My friends and I agree that 100% of the members of the Legislative Council should be elected by direct election. But after discussing the problem with the members of other organizations, I have decided to make certain concessions in a spirit of cooperation and compromise. Hence, I would accept the proposal that only 50% of the members of the Legislative Council should be filled by direct election as from 1997 and regard the proposal as a preliminary step. I think that proposal 190, which states that 50% of the members of the Legislative Council should be returned by direct election, is already a concessionary proposal.
Recently, Hong Kong has been visited by some members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee in Mainland who stressed on the importance of consensus. Is everything alright if consensus is reached? Up to now, in fact, Hong Kong people have already reached consensus on a number of provisions. Some consensus have also been reached before the publication of the Basic Law, but none of them are included in the provisions. For instance, Hong Kong people have reached consensus on articles 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 38 mentioned above; on articles related to human rights as well as the formation of the First Government by election as mentioned in the Annex. Then why these consensus cannot be made the official provisions of the Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions while there is a claim that Hong Kong people should reach a consensus on the method of election to be adopted in the future? Is everything alright if consensus is reached? I have participated in the discussion and the drafting work of the Basic Law, and I am also a member of the Consultative Committee for the Basic Law. Although we have been working on it for 2 years, still no such result has been obtained. So how can we make other people of Hong Kong think that everything would be alright if consensus is reached? I believe that this has to be proved by action of China or the existing Basic Law Drafting Committee.