Page 907 01 QUO
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
375
incompatibility between the Government officials and the public, it will not be beneficial to the social stability of Hong Kong.
In fact, over the one and a half year after the sovereignty of Hong Kong has been handed over to China, I can see that the room in which the public can take part in politics has been diminishing. It is a big step backward as compared with the situation two years before the handover. If anybody thinks that we can truly reach a state of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" after the establishment of the SAR Government, I believe that this is only an idea that is deceiving oneself as well as others. After 1997, all I can see is that TUNG Chee-hwa Government has incessantly schemed to reduce the room in which the public can participate in politics. Perhaps we can still take to the streets and demonstrate. However, the design of the whole political system is gradually excluding the participation of the public. It is difficult for the public to reach the established political institutions through a formal channel, and it is also difficult for the voice of democracy to reach the established political institutions as well. At present, the Legislative Council adopts a voting system whereby Councillors are divided into 2 groups before they cast their votes. Under such circumstances, they encounter numerous difficulties when they put forward private bills. In addition, the District Boards have not received any undertaking as to whether their role and responsibilities will be enhanced, and whether their policy-making power will be strengthened. The dissolution of the two Municipal Councils will further hinder those people who have the intention to engage in politics from taking part in the formulation of municipal policies on the livelihood of the public.
I believe that the Central Government has given us the liberty to handle our own business. However, it would be an extremely childish thinking if one thinks that TUNG Chee-hwa's Government has not at all interfered with public opinions. Therefore, I hope all of you will come to think of it more deeply. At this stage, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" is only nominal. Was TUNG Chee-hwa elected by Hong Kong people through universal suffrage? Was his leading group elected by Hong Kong people through universal suffrage? No matter how incompetent is the Government at this moment, our political leader need not be held responsible. However his popularity plunges, he can still be loath to give up his post. This is really the crux of the matter. At present, the city is wondering whether TUNG Chee-hwa will reform the administration and institute the ministerial system. However, the proposed ministerial system is only a sham which is indeed a disguised replacement of concept and is passed off as a genuine ministerial system. Even if the Chief Executive will act on public opinions in the future and have the ministers replaced to shoulder their political responsibility, still, will the public be able to replace the Chief Executive? The answer is most obvious. The method for the selection of the Chief Executive is by no means democratic, and he need not bother about stepping down even in times of low popularity. Knowing that it has a strong backing, the Government can feel at ease ignoring public opinions.
Page 387 of 606
Page 387 of 606
Page 387 of 606