Page 90 of 126
156
"
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the investors' confidence in Hong Kong. Does the Chinese government not react irrationally to the proposed political reforms? Or, does it overreact?
I think I can continue to raise more questions along the line. What then is my main objective of putting forward these questions? Do I ask for answers? I believe we can never know the concrete answers. My real objective is to reflect the views of a Hong Kong resident on the Sino-British row. We, Hong Kong people have no alternative. In fact, we are passive. We are a pawn in the Sino-British row, the ultimate victims. Such being the case, I cherish two hopes. Firstly, I hope that Hong Kong people will consider all the issues carefully before they express their opinions. I believe the right thing to do is to fight for something where we think our interests lie. Secondly, since the Hong Kong, British and Chinese governments all assert that they have the responsibility to safeguard the interests of Hong Kong people, I would like to reiterate that this responsibility can never be realized in confrontation. Confrontation only ruins the interests of the people of Hong Kong. Thus, I hope that both the British and Chinese governments will make some concessions and return to the conference table, to prudently resolve this problem. Only then the well-being of China, Britain and Hong Kong will be safeguarded.
With these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
MR. FUNG KWONG-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman and fellow Councillors, Hong Kong is presently faced with numerous severe challenges, in particular the row between China and Britain which has cast shadows on both our economic and political fronts. Quite a number of people even describe the present situation of Hong Kong as worse than that in the aftermath of the June 4 incident in 1989 or in the early 1980s when China and the U.K. were negotiating over the future of Hong Kong.
Politics aside, I, as a person engaged in district services, would like to talk about the Government's proposal to abolish the appointed seats in the District Boards and the two Municipal Councils. Many district personalities and fellow Councillors have put forth their profound views on the subject. However, I would still like to take this opportunity to express my personal feelings over the matter.
Actually, whether the appointed seats of the District Boards should be abolished or not is not a well-defined question of basic principle to which you can simply answer yes or no. Whether you agree to that or not, you can always put forward some argument. But in discussing the issue, we must inquire what was the original purpose of setting up the various district councils and whether there is a need to make any change in their roles and functions in the future.
Let us start with the District Boards. As we all know, the District Boards were established as statutory bodies in 1982. The purpose of setting up such statutory bodies was to provide an effective channel for seeking public opinion and to enable local residents to participate in district affairs so as to assist the Government in district administration and in the improvement of local environment. In the past decade, with the concerted efforts of appointed and elected members, the various District Boards have effectively performed their advisory functions and reflected the feelings of the grassroots to the Government. As a result, territory-wide facilities as well as facilities in local communities have been greatly improved. Such achievements are obvious to all.
Page 90 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 90 of 126
157
However, according to the constitutional reform package put forward by the Governor, Mr. PATTEN, the appointed seats in the District Boards and the two Municipal Councils will be abolished to tie in with the proposal that the 1995 Election Committee of LegCo should have all or most of its members drawn from the directly elected District Board Members. In other words, the Governor is going to transform the District Boards from district advisory bodies into organizations with political powers.
At this moment it is hard to say whether such a change is good for the District Boards or not, but the nature of their role will change for sure as a result. Here I would like to point out that since representative government was extended to the central policy-making level in the mid 1980s, many people have used the District Boards as a stepping-stone to the councils at higher levels. This has politicized the District Boards. I am convinced that once their functions are changed in the way as designed by Mr. PATTEN, their politicization is bound to speed up. It is very likely that the District Boards will become a battlefield for their members, who may no longer co-operate with one another. This is unfavourable to district administration.
I will now like to turn to the question of whether or not there is a need to make changes in the nature of the District Boards. One can say that before Mr. PATTEN put forth his proposals for political reforms, no one had called for an end to the present system under which both appointed and directly elected members work together in the District Boards and the Municipal Councils. Furthermore, since the proposal to abolish the appointment system was made known, it has met with objections from an overwhelming majority of the District Boards, and quite a number of elected members have expressed their disapproval. Public opinion has already made everything clear.
For a long time, both the District Boards and the Municipal Councils have adopted a system of membership consisting of appointed and directly elected members. The two types of members complement each other, thus ensuring a balanced participation of people from all walks of life. Through the appointment system, many professionals and experts with experience from various sectors have been drawn into community services. This is also the original intention of setting up the appointment system.
Indeed, appointed members have played an important role in the district councils at various levels. This is particularly true for the Urban Council which has a number of select committees. Here professionals from different sectors such as engineering, medicine, culture, etc. have really made significant contributions with their professional knowledge and expertise, thus greatly facilitating the development of district administration. The voices against the abolition of the appointment system speak volumes for the fact that both elected and appointed members recognize the positive role of appointed members.
Page 90 of 126
Page 91 of 126
158
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
However, the Governor, Mr. PATTEN, claims to speed up democratization in the territory, and unlike in the past, no Green Paper on such important political reforms has been issued to seek the views of the public and spell out the reasons for the reforms. However, even if Mr. PATTEN had sought public opinion before delivering his Policy Address, the result would have been very similar. The speech by Dr. the Honourable Elsie Tu at the Urban Council debate on 4 November 1992 has aroused deep feelings in me.
With regard to democracy, any person with an independent mind would not like to have his personal freedom and way of thinking controlled by others or to be treated unfairly. So I believe that basically, everyone yearns for democracy. But the question is in what way and at what pace should we carry forward democracy. I am convinced that a step-by-step mode of development is more suited to the situation of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is different from western countries. Let us take the United States as an example. It has taken more than 200 years for democratization in that country to develop into its present mode. Under the British colonial rule for more than one century, Hong Kong has enjoyed very limited democracy. Civic awareness among the public is still in the embryonic stage. If radical democratic reforms are introduced, they may not necessarily benefit Hong Kong. Instead, they may have some undesirable impact on the territory.
Those who favour the abolition of the appointment system criticize those holding opposite views for having no trust in the electors' civic awareness. As a citizen, I doubt whether civic education at present can keep up to the radical political reforms. As such, I suggest that the Government, instead of taking pains to advocate the controversial and radical reform package, should throw extra efforts into improving civic education in Hong Kong and formulate an overall implementation plan to tie in with future direct elections.
As mentioned above, the purpose of the Governor's proposed abolition of the appointment system in the District Boards is to tie in with the proposal that the future Election Committee should have its members drawn from directly elected District Board Members. But what kind of political arrangement is the abolition of the appointment system in the two Municipal Councils to tie in with? If this involves conspiracy, one will easily feel that the scrapping of the appointment system in the two Municipal Councils is a sacrifice made for the sake of the Governor's political arrangements, because it will not be justifiable for the two Municipal Councils to have appointed members if the District Boards have none.
In fact, the current debate on whether the appointed seats in the two Municipal Councils should be abolished is similar in nature to the controversy over...
Page 91 of 126