TNAG-1310-FCO40-1667-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 230

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 14 March 1984

49

Your Excellency, I welcome the opportunity which this motion has given for attention to be focused on our future, and for the interest and even controversy which it has generated. Public awareness of the issues must be in Hong Kong's best interests. I have pleasure therefore in supporting the motion.

MR. STEPHEN CHEONG: Sir, the issue of Hong Kong's future is very complex. It will not be possible to cover comprehensively all the intricacies of this many faceted issue in one single debate. I will confine myself only to two areas. First I wish to share my thoughts with my colleagues on some public reactions to this motion. Secondly I will make some suggestions hopefully ‘useful and constructive' for consideration by all parties involved in this issue.

This motion indeed aptly termed the 'Lobo' motion, has attracted a great deal of interest. It has attracted open support from a wide cross section of our community but it has also provoked some 'off the cuff' criticisms reportedly from four or five so called authoritative and vocal members of our community. Our critics whose qualifications and expertise rather unfortunately are not within the field of constitutiona law told us that the 'Lobo' motion was unconstitutional. We were told by the same group of people that behind this motion there must be some sinister motive and warned us not to revive the 'Three legged stool' concept and not to play the 'Opinion card'. We were accused of rocking the boat simply through seeking to debate the issue in this Chamber. We were further told that because we have not been elected, we cannot claim to represent the people of Hong Kong, hence implying that there is no need for anyone to listen to whatever we have to say.

Sir, we should and we do accept with humility all constructive criticisms. Yet, on this major issue, such ‘off the cuff" criticisms without foundation, in my view, can be dangerously misleading. Not only are they unhelpful to any party who wishes Hong Kong well. They are also liable to generate detrimental effects towards the attainment of the agreed common objective. Already, ever since the barrage of such criticisms descended upon us, I have heard quite a few people from all walks of life misinterpreting, unfairly perhaps, that such critical comments were prompted. To me, personally, prompted or otherwise is not the issue, what is more important must be to try to avoid further unnecessary misunderstandings. As a responsible member of the Community, therefore, I feel dutybound to clarify, as I understand it, how this motion has evolved; and to comment on the motive behind its introduction.

The idea of introducing a motion for debate in this Council had been carefully considered by Unofficials of the Legislative Council for a long time. Every single one of us, as responsible as well as responsive members of this community has taken much to heart the concerns of the community over the future of Hong Kong.

We have already declared from time to time our wholehearted support for the agreed common objective of the current Sino-British negotiations. Despite