TNAG-1722-FCO40-2415-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1988 — Page 136

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 July 1988

1853

one accepts that analogy, then one would also appreciate Sir S. Y. CHUNG's view that the basis of the amount of say people should have in the running of Hong Kong must be determined by shares and not by shareholders. In other words, the extent of the power and influence on the shaping of government policies should be weighted according to contribution, so long as the funda- mental right to freedom of expression for each and everyone, including the right to question those policies of Government and action arising out of those policies without fear or favour is preserved and respected.

On this basis, the future legislature of the SAR must act as the support and not the opposition of the executive. It must function as the bridge and the buffer between the executive and the people. It must be able to explain government policies to the people, but when these are not accepted, it must be able to achieve compromises acceptable to both sides.

This is what has worked now, and we must preserve what has proved to work as far as possible. To move towards the American system where the executive and the legislature are totally separated is a fundamantal change in a style of government historically alien to Hong Kong, not to mention the price Hong Kong can ill afford to pay for such a separation is likely to be more confrontational and unproductive than anything that Hong Kong has so far experienced, and is not conducive to the social harmony that our people

treasure.

The simple way out is to retain direct elections via the districts and the functional constituencies, with the latter constituting 75 per cent, but allowing further adjustments as Hong Kong progresses further down the road of democratisation. The rest must be left to political leaders who in turn will motivate the populace.

Whatever system we are likely to end up with the in 1997, all will agree that we can do with as little disruption as possible during the changeover. Sometime ago Chinese leaders have been heard to expound on the through train theory. In the last two years, however, the tune has changed. I have been told, rightly or wrongly that the U-turn came about when some Hong Kong people resorted to physical demonstration of displeasure with some government policies. This effect is understandable. Even we ourselves in Hong Kong were nervous over some such demonstration. However the consideration of the overall advantage of the through train should not be easily derailed by odd incidents, which are, when viewed in the long term, mere manifestations of the occasional frustration of some sectors or even the broad community resulting from some unpopular policies, but are themselves not endorsed or supported as suitable or desirable acts by peace-loving population. Hong Kong in turn must convince China, by our words and conduct, that we are mature enough to resolve our problems without taking to the streets, and that we are capable of choosing the right people to lead us.