TNAG-1397-FCO40-1869-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1985 — Page 74

3

remaining some 40 people did not organise themselves together, this group of 20 people might possibly have the upper hand. But these 40 people of course would not want to be controlled by others, so they would also organise themselves into three or four groups. Each of these groups might not be able to do much if their strength was more or less the same. In view of this, these groups might seek further compromises and comradeship until a party which became the great majority was formed. This was only a natural development.

Q: What would be the effects of direct elections on this development?

A: If there were political parties, they would openly publicise their objectives and platforms long before the elections were held. They would be ousted by electors in the next elections if they have failed to fulfil their promises. If there were no political parties, councillors would unite themselves into groups only after the elections had taken place. On the other hand, direct elections would, of course, better benefit the development of political parties than indirect elections. Elections through functional constituencies and electoral colleges do not have much to do with political groups.

Sub-headlines: The one man,

one vote" direct election system might have its shortcomings in implementation

Q:

Direct elections would benefit the development of political parties. Then would the development of political parties be equally beneficial to direct elections?

A:

one

The "one man, one vote" direct election system is a real problem. Probably no one could provide a satisfactory answer to the question. Take the election of a company director as an example.

"One man, vote" means that every shareholder would have one vote irrespective of the amount of shares he holds. This election system could not reflect the different interests of shareholders who hold a huge stake in the company and those who hold only one share. Let's come back to the question of "one man, one vote" in Legco elections. Under the system, a millionaire holds one vote, while a man who is penniless also has one vote. The interests of these people are basically different, but this difference could not be reflected in this system. This is a major shortcoming in the modern democratic "one man, one vote" direct election system.

Q:

A:

#

Are you suggesting that millionaires should have two votes?

k

I do not mean that. I think democracy could have different definitions. Democracy in the case of company elections could be based on the number of shares held rather than shareholders. We could not say that this system is not democratic. People of different interests may face different losses. Let's take the consultation on the Green Paper on Housing Subsidy to Tenants of Public Housing as an example.