Page 159 of 233
278
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
11 December 1984
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):---Mr. Chairman, one of the most hotly debated subjects in the White Paper on the Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong is the issue regarding direct election into Legislative Council. The White Paper has correctly summarized public reaction on this matter with the statement: 'There was strong public support for the idea of direct elections but little support for such elections in the immediate future'. It is evident that both the Hong Kong Government and the Hong Kong people are in consensus that more representative government will have to be introduced in Hong Kong, however they only differ concerning the speed and the extent in its implementation. It is useful to emphasize that the Hong Kong Government does not rule out direct elections. Indeed, the Hong Kong Government's intention is plainly evident by its advancing to 1985 some of the changes originally proposed for 1988, meaning that the pace is to be speeded up in time and extent in introducing elected elements into the Legislative Council. This is indicative that the Hong Kong Government is a responsible government. Furthermore, it is a government that will only promise what it can be in a position to fulfill. Thus, it is both pragmatic and realistic.
The pressure for democratization in Hong Kong was mildly launched by the introduction of the district administration scheme in 1981. The quest for democracy gathered momentum after Mrs. THATCHER'S visit to China in 1982 to hold discussions on the future of Hong Kong after the lease expires in 1997. It was again brought to the forefront by the announcement of the concept of Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong as formulated by China as the solution for the future administration of Hong Kong. Amidst the cry for status quo in our political and economic systems in the discussions for post-1997 arrangements, some people have advocated a completely directly elected Legislative Council before 1997. They further argued that unless such could be achieved before 1997, Hong Kong would be in a political vacuum and ruled by anarchy and confusion. They are impatient about the speed with which our process of democratization is being implemented. This political awareness among Hong Kong people is encouraging, but calls for caution in its approach. I would like to outline some of the grounds for this need for a cautious start and a gradually progressive approach. The speed for further development hinges on several factors, as follows:
Firstly, we need a steady approach so that our social stability and economic prosperity will not be affected adversely.
Secondly, Hong Kong people have in the past been apathetic to political matters, and only through gradual introduction will they gain experience in participation in the administration of government.
Thirdly, the political reality after 1997 must be considered when Hong Kong will revert to China and become a Special Administrative Region. The future political system in Hong Kong must be compatible with that of China, or at least one that will have the consent and the blessing of understanding cooperation of China. There must be a continuous progression and development of our political framework in Hong Kong to tally with that of China. It would be highly naive to assume that any system could be forced upon China to ratify as a 'Fait Accompli'. We must be sure that any forward steps we take do not have to be retraced in retreat when China resumes sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997.
Finally, from now leading up to 1997, there will be more exchanges of ideas between China and the United Kingdom and at the Liaison Committee level. Experience gained over the next three-years' term of the District Boards will also cast light on our future further development.
Taking into account all of the above factors, the date for the next review in 1987 is wisely chosen. 1987 would be an opportune time to look at such matters as direct elections and other important issues which can then be studied in the light of information and experience gained in the meantime.
Mr. Chairman, with these words, I support the motion.
MRS. MARGARET LI (in English):—
Preamble
On the day the White Paper (on Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong) was published and I realized that I belong very definitely to the politically privileged segment of the community, I feel not joy, pleasure nor relief, but shame. Why should I have no less than four votes to select candidates to the Legislative Council when the vast majority of people in Hong Kong has only one vote and then only indirectly?
Hong Kong is a unique place. Admittedly, its problems and fate cannot be decided by mathematical equations nor by quantitative analysis carefully hedged by well-posed assumptions, valid statistical instruments and methodological procedures. It is only expected that the public discussion of the Green and White Papers consists at best, of conjectures, hearsays, allegations, folk-theories and statements of personal beliefs and values. As it is not possible to rely on any scientific studies (indeed the findings of social science studies have at best been inconclusive about the relationships between political participation and economic development), I venture to take this opportunity to state my personal beliefs, which are:
Page 159 of 233
279
Page 159 of 233
t
278
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
11 December 1984
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):---Mr. Chairman, one of the most
holly debated subjects in the White Paper on the Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong is the issue regarding direct election into Legislative Council. The White Paper has correctly summarized public reaction on this matter with the statment: 'There was strong public support for the idea of direct elections but little support for such elections in the immediate future'. It is evident that both the Hong Kong Government and the Hong Kong people are in consensus that more representative government will have to be introduced in Hong Kong, however they only differ concerning the speed and the extent in its implementation. It is useful to emphasize that the Hong Kong Government does not rule out direct elections. Indeed, the Hong Kong Government's intention is plainly evident by its advancing to 1985 some of the changes originally proposed for 1988, meaning that the pace is to be speeded up in time and extent in introducing elected elements into the Legislative Council. This is indicative that the Hong Kong Government is a responsible government. Furthermore it is a government that will only promise what it can be in a position to fulfill. Thus it is both pragmatic and realistic.
The pressure for democratization in Hong Kong was mildly launched by the introduction of the district administration scheme in 1981. The quest for democracy gathered momentum after Mrs. THATCHER'S visist to China in 1982 to hold discussions on the future of Hong Kong after the lease expires in 1997. It was again brought to the forefront by the announcement of the concept of Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong as formulated by China as the solution for the future administration of Hong Kong. Amidst the cry for status quo in our political and economic systems in the discussions for post-1997 arrangements, some people have advocated a completely directly elected Legislative Council before 1997. They further argued that unless such could be achieved before 1997, Hong Kong would be in a political vacuum and ruled by anarchy and confusion. They are impatient about the speed with which our process of democratization is being implemented. This political awareness among Hong Kong people is encouraging, but calls for caution in its approach. I would like to outline some of the grounds for this need for a cautious start and a gradually progressive approach. The speed for further development hinges on several factors, as follows:
Firstly, we need a steady approach so that our social stability and economic prosperity will not be affected adversely.
Secondly, Hong Kong people have in the past been apathetic to political matters, and only through gradual introduction will they gain experience in partication in the administration of government.
Thirdly, the political reality after 1997 must be considered when Hong Kong will revert to China and become a Special Administrative Region. The future political system in Hong Kong must be compatible with that of China, or at least one that will have the consent and the blessing of understanding
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
11 December 1984
Page 159 of 233
279
cooperation of China. There must be a continuous progression and develop- ment of our political framework in Hong Kong to tally with that of China. It would be highly naive to assume that any system could be forced upon China to ratify as a 'Fat Accompli'. We must be sure that any forward steps we take do not have to be retraced in retreat when China resumes sovereignty over Hong
Kong in 1997.
Finally, from now leading up to 1997, there will be more exchanges of ideas between China and the United Kingdom and at the Liaison Committee level. Experience gained over the next three-years' term of the District Boards will also cast light on our future further development.
Taking into account all of the above factors, the date for the next review in 1987 is wisely chosen. 1987 would be an opportune time to look at such matters as direct elections and other important issues which can then be studied in the light of information and experience gained in the meantime.
Mr. Chairman, with these words, I support the motion.
MRS. MARGARET LI (in English):—
Preamble
On the day the White Paper (on Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong) was published and I realized that I belong very definitely to the politically privileged segment of the community, I feel not joy, pleaure nor relief, but shame. Why should I have no less than four votes to select candidates to the Legislative Council when the vast majority of people in Hong Kong has only one vote and then only indirectly?
Hong Kong is a unique place. Admittedly, its problems and fate cannot be decided by mathematical equations nor by quantitative analysis carefully hedged by well-posed assumptions, valid statistical instruments and method- ological procedures. It is only expected that the public discussion of the Green and White Papers consists at best, of conjectures, heresays, allegations, folk- theories and statements of personal beliefs and values. As it is not possible to rely on any scientific studies (indeed the findings of social science studies have at best been inconclusive about the relationships between political participation and economic development), I venture to take this opportunity to state my personal beliefs, which are:
⚫material well-being and up-grading of the people and the availability of free and equal choices and participation in othe spheres of communal life are part and parcel of progress
the economy exists to serve the people and not the other way round. Against such a background. I accept the White Paper as an interim trial-out but at the same time, I regret its compulsion to over represent some segment of the community, however important, and its timidity in not allowing for some directly elected element for symbolic as well as for practical purposes.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.