XN000022-1994-02-24 — Page 14

13

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1994

GOVERNOR:

OF

NEW

LET ME, ONCE AGAIN, PREFACE AN ANSWER TO THAT PERFECTLY FAIR QUESTION BY SAYING THAT WE ARE NOT PUTTING THESE PROPOSALS FORWARD HOPING IN DOING SO THAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO THROW THEM OUT OR SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THEM. THAT WOULD BE AN ECCENTRIC WAY OF BEHAVING AND A DISHONOURABLE WAY OF BEHAVING AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE ABOUT. WE PUT THESE PROPOSALS FORWARD BECAUSE WE THINK THEY ARE THE BEST PROPOSALS AND THEY ARE THE BEST WAY, IN OUR JUDGMENT, DEALING WITH AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ISSUR. DEVISING NINE FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES, AS HONOURABLE MEMBERS WILL SEE WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE WHITE PAPER, IS NOT A VERY EASY BUSINESS. THOUGH WE TRIED TO DEVISE A NEW SET OF NINE FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS, TAKING AT FACE VALUE THE CHINESE ARGUMENT THAT THEIR OBJECTION ΤΟ OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSALS WAS THAT THE FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES WEREN'T ORGANISATION BASED. WE THEN TRIED TO DEVISE NINE ORGANISATION BASED FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES BUT THAT STILL DIDN'T, ALAS, SATISFY CHINESE OFFICIALS. SO I PREFACE MY REMARKS BY MAKING THAT POINT THAT WE ARE NOT SIMPLY GOING TO COME DOWN TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, PUT THE BILL ON THE TABLE AND THEN SCARPER. THAT IS NOT OUR INTENTION AND IT WOULD NOT BE HONOURABLE FOR US TO BEHAVE IN THAT WAY.

THE

THE

TRUB

BUT THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HAS AN IMPORTANT FUNCTION. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HAS TO CONSIDER LEGISLATION AND IF NECESSARY, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HAS THE POWER TO AMEND LEGISLATION. THAT IS TODAY AND IT WILL BE TRUE, ACCORDING TO THE BASIC LAW, AFTER 1997. IF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CHANGE THE PROPOSALS WHICH ARE PUT TO THEM, THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT IS A REALITY WHICH WE HAVE TO ACCEPT.

80

I JUST ADD THIS ONE POINT, THAT I WOULD BE PUT IN A DIFFICULT POSITION, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE PUT IN A DIFFICULT POSITION, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD BE PUT IN A DIFFICULT POSITION, IF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL APPEARED TO HAVE AGREED ARRANGEMENTS WHICH WERK NOT FAIR AND WHICH WERE NOT OPEN AND WHICH DIDN'T SEEM то BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS A REMOTELY LIKELY POSSIBILITY, SINCE I THINK THE COMMUNITY'S VIEWS ARE EXTREMELY WELL REPRESENTED IN THIS COUNCIL. SO IN GOOD FAITH, IF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CHANGE THE PROPOSALS, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ACCEPT

THEM.

MR JIMMY MCGREGOR:

-

CAN I ASK A MATTER OF ELUCIDATION: IN REGARD ΤΟ THE 21 MODIFIED FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES WHICH YOU HAVE ACTUALLY PROPOSED IN YOUR PACKAGE, DO YOU CONSIDER THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES ARE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF THE BROAD INTENTION TO INCREASINGLY DEMOCRATISE HONG KONG SYSTEM? IN OTHER WORDS WHAT I AM REALLY GETTING AT IS THAT THE NINE FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES, IF THEY MET THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS, WOULD NOT BE UNACCEPTABLE IF THIS COUNCIL CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION?

—

—

BUT

AND WE'RE PRINCIPLE,

IS. CLEAR AS I CHANGE THE

FUNCTIONAL

GOVERNOR:

WELL, IT IS ALWAYS RATHER DANGEROUS STARTING ΤΟ STRAY IN THAT DIRECTION

TO ACCEPT IN OUTCOMES, WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING WHAT THE DETAIL OF THEM LET ME MAKE THE POINT ABOUT FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES AS CAN. OUR LEGISLATION HAS TWO PURPOSES. THE FIRST IS TO SYSTEM IN SOME, THOUGH NOT ALL, OF THE EXISTING CONSTITUENCIES SO THAT IN ALL FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES THERE IS INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN CORPORATE VOTING. AND WE ARE TRYING BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THE EXISTING SYSTEM IS A GOOD DEAL DESIRABLE, FOR REASONS WHICH MANY HONOURABLE MEMBERS HAVE PUT. SO THAT IS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE, THAT WE THINK THE SHOULD HAVE INDIVIDUAL VOTING.

TO DO THAT LESS THAN

THEMSELVES

EXISTING 21

/THE SECOND