4
tor
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1993
GOVERNOR: I DON'T THINK ONE COULD REGARD A TEST OF PREVIOUS OPINION AS AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. I AM NOT SURE HOW ONE COULD CONCEIVABLY WEIGH THAT FACTOR. LET'S BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHAT I HAVE ARGUED FOR AND WHAT I THINK THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL HAVE ARGUED FOR IN THE PAST. NOBODY, AND I HOPE THAT WHEN THIS SENTENCE IS REPORTED, THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES IN THE PARAGRAPH WILL BE REPORTED ALSO; NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE GUARANTEE THAT EVERYONE WHO IS ELECTED IN A GIVEN ELECTION APPEARS IN THE LEGISLATURE AFTER 1997. I SAID, HOLD ON, I SAW THE WORDS 'WHY NOT' ON THE HONOURABLE MEMBER'S LIPS. THERE ISN'T THAT GUARANTEE AT THE MOMENT. YOU COULD STAND FOR ELECTION, MEETING ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATURE, YOU COULD BE ELECTED AND THEN YOU COULD COME TO THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE AND REFUSE TO TAKE EITHER THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE OR THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OATH, AND IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO TAKE YOUR PLACE IN THIS CHAMBER AND YOU WOULDN'T EITHER BE ALLOWED TO DRAW YOUR ALLOWANCES OR OTHER ENTITLEMENTS AS A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. SO THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE TEST FOR THOSE WHO WIN THE ELECTION BEFORE THEY TAKE UP THEIR POSITION AS LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLORS. I AM NOT ARGUING, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER IS ARGUING THAT THE SITUATION SHOULD BE DIFFERENT AFTER 1997, BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT IT SHOULD BE, GIVEN THE CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. WE KNOW FROM ARTICLE 104 THAT THOSE WHO DRAFTED THE BASIC LAW, IN THEIR WISDOM, POSITED AN OBJECTIVE SET OF CRITERIA AFTER 1997 FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, FOR JUDGES, FOR SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS AND FOR LEGISLATORS. ALL I HAVE ARGUED, IS THAT IT SHOULD BE PERFECTLY POSSIBLE TO APPLY A SIMILAR OBJECTIVE SET OF CRITERIA FOR 1995/1997. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD ACTUALLY TAKE MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES THOUGHT ΤΟ BOTH AGREE AND TURN INTO SOME SENSIBLE YARDSTICK. 50 I REPEAT, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS A SIMILAR CRITERION TO THAT WHICH EXISTS AT THE MOMENT. A CRITERION AT THE MOMENT WHICH WOULD, I GUESS, BE JUSTICIABLE, IF HONOURABLE MEMBERS WISH TO TAKE IT THAT FAR. WE NEED SOMETHING WHICH IS CLEAR, WE NERD SOMETHING WHICH IS EXPLICIT AND WE NEED SOMETHING WHICH WILL GIVE THE COMMUNITY THE SORT OF CONFIDENCE THAT IT WILL NEED IN THE ELECTIONS IN 1995. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ARGUING FOR, THAT'S WHAT, IN MY JUDGMENT, THE "THROUGH TRAIN" MEANS, AND I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME SEE WHY ANYBODY SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO IT. IF THERE ARE ANY ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.
I
MR LEE WING-TAT: FROM WHAT YOU SAID JUST NOW YOU SAID THAT YOU AS WELL AS UK ADMINISTRATION INSISTED ON ONE PRINCIPLE. THAT IS THE 94/95 ELECTIONS MUST BE OPEN, FAIR AND ACCEPTARLE TO HONG KONG PEOPLE. HOPE THAT YOU ARE REALLY GOING TO INSIST ON THIS PRINCIPLE. MR GOVERNOR, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE FACING ONE CHOICE, FIRST YOU CAN CHOOSE TO INSIST ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT 94/95 ELECTIONS MUST BE FAIR, OPEN AND ACCEPTABLE TO HONG KONG PEOPLE. ANOTHER CHOICE FOR YOU IS THAT IN ORDER TO REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT IS ACCEPTABLE ΤΟ THE CHINESE SIDE, YOU MAY HAVE TO MAKE MAJOR CONCESSIONS. MR GOVERNOR, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU THIS, HOW CAN YOU THROUGH CONCRETE ACTIONS PROVE, I'M TALKING ABOUT CONCRETE ACTIONS I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LIP SERVICE, HOW CAN YOU THROUGH CONCRETE ACTIONS SHOW THAT YOUR INSISTENCE ON THE PRINCIPLE OF 94/95 ELECTIONS BEING OPEN, FAIR AND ACCEPTABLE ΤΟ HONG KONG PEOPLE? FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS,
YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT WHEN REACHING AN INITIAL AGREEMENT BUT BEFORE ACTUALLY SIGNING IT, ARE YOU GOING TO BEFORE THAT CONSULT LECCO?
THIS
/GOVERNOR