Page 54 of 233
72
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
not in conflict with the idea of the single party State of China. One that can be handed over to that State intact, now in less than 13 years' time. So, I say, get on with it, in particular, arrange now for some directly elected seats on the Legislative Council at least some time in the 1980s, not just a nebulous reference to consideration being given to direct elections sometime in the 1990s. The Government does not have that time to waste!
Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):- Mr. Chairman, perhaps this will be one of the hardest hitting speeches I have made in my life. If so, it can only reflect my disgust with the colonial thinking that has gone into this undemocratic and therefore un-British-like proposal by the Hong Kong Government.
I have never agreed with colonialism as a way of Government, but I despise most those who use colonialism for their own self-aggrandizement. This paper is full of praise for the present unrepresentative system, and it proposes to continue the intrigue as long as possible into the future, under a new camouflage which it calls indirect election. Its purpose is to deprive our young intelligentsia and workers of the opportunity to learn to govern themselves by 1997, and to keep power in the hands of neo-colonials, following the pattern of other colonies which have eventually ended up in power struggles.
The Green Paper seems to claim that District Boards are representative government, but in fact they are only a forum for discussion, without powers or jurisdiction. It also falsely claims that by appointing elected Urban Councillors to the Legislative and Executive Councils, the Government has already introduced an elected element into the central ruling bodies. In fact, the reverse is the case. The appointment of elected members has weakened the elected side in the Urban Council. Once appointed, these elected councillors are muffled in the Council, and they cut themselves off from the electorate by singing the Government's tune. The axiom that power corrupts has been proved over and over again on this Council. Is it not significant that the only two elected members of this Council who failed to sign our statement on the Green Paper on 18 July 1984, were both appointees from this Council to the Legislative Council, one past, one present? Could this be mere coincidence? I think not. By taking an oath of allegiance to a colonial Government, appointees must, under an undemocratic system, represent the Government and not the people. It is impossible, in a colonial situation, to serve two masters, the colonial power and the colonized people. I am sad and disappointed that some Chinese are prepared to betray their own nation in order to rise high in the colonial aristocracy.
The Green Paper declares that it will make the Government more directly accountable to the people', but in contradiction to this stated purpose, it proposes to do so by indirect election.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 54 of 233
73
Two weak excuses are given for the call to indirect elections, and I will deal with them separately:
1.
2.
The first is, and I quote: 'It (the Government) is not a system based on parties, factions and adversarial policies, but one of broad agreements.' That can only mean that the Government chooses only people who never oppose its policies but are simply yes-men. A government without opposition at all is a government without social justice.
There is no basis for suggesting that direct elections will lead to political factions. Hong Kong people are known to vote for individuals rather than parties, and this has been clearly shown in Urban Council elections. There is more danger of political factions if the electoral college consists of only 430 members, some of whom are pushed forward by Government officials and henceforth become henchmen of the Government. Territory-wide elections with an automatic vote for every adult Hong Kong belonger is the safest way to cut out corruption and Government interference. It would also be preferable to have one electoral newspaper giving the platforms of all candidates, instead of individual canvassing of voters, which is expensive and in the past has led to malpractices. Each candidate could be given an equal time-slot on TV and radio, to make his/her impact on the widest possible audience. I consider this approach not only safer but more dignified than begging or cajoling individual voters.
The second excuse given in the Green Paper for indirect elections is that the Legislative Council should be 'representative of the economic and professional sectors'. This is another way of saying that government must be kept in the hands of the wealthy. It presumes that the Hong Kong people are uneducated and stupid. Some incumbent legislative appointees have even had the impudence to say this openly. If there are any uneducated people in Hong Kong, we have only past government policies to blame for lateness in introducing free education. Education is not the yardstick of intelligence where education is not provided. In the past, until 1978, the yardstick of education was wealth, not intelligence. The wealthy still enjoy privileged education. Consequently, there have been some pretty dumb people among Government appointees who are chosen for their social status and family background, not for any superior savvy. An important qualification for appointment is sub-ordination to the colonial system.
Even under the present system of election to the Urban Council, it is clear that the people are no fools about voting. The present Urban Council consists of 15 directly elected members, including 5 lawyers, 3 social workers, 3 business people, 2 teachers, 1 doctor and 1 manual worker. What better mix could be achieved by appointment? In contrast, the wholly appointed Legislative Council at present is made up mainly of
Page 54 of 233
72
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
not in conflict with the idea of the single party State of China. One that can be handed over to that State intact, now in less than 13 years' time. So, I say, get on with it, in particular, arrange now for some directly elected seats on the Legislative Council at least some time in the 1980s, not just a nebulous reference to consideration being given to direct elections sometime in the 1990s. The
Government does not have that time to waste!
Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, perhaps this will be one of the hardest hitting speeches I have made in my life. If so, it can only reflect my disgust with the colonial thinking that has gone into this undemocratic and therefore un-British-like proposal by the Hong Kong Government.
I have never agreed with colonialism as a way of Government, but I despise most those who use colonialism for their own self-aggrandizement. This paper is full of praise for the present unrepresentative system, and it proposes to continue the intrigue as long as possible into the future, under a new camouflage which it calls indirect election. Its purpose is to deprive our young intelligentsia and workers of the opportunity to learn to govern themselves by 1997, and to keep power in the hands of neo-colonials, following the pattern of other colonies which have eventually ended up in power struggles.
The Green Paper seems to claim that District Boards are representative government, but in fact they are only a forum for discussion, without powers or jurisdiction. It also falsely claims that by appointing elected Urban Councillors to the Legislative and Executive Councils, the Government has already introduced an elected element into the central ruling bodies. In fact, the reverse is the case. The appointment of elected members has weakened the elected side in the Urban Council. Once appointed, these elected councillors are muffled in the Council, and they cut themselves off from the electorate by singing the Government's tune. The axiom that power corrupts has been proved over and over again on this Council. Is it not significant that the only two elected members of this Council who failed to sign our statement on the Green Paper on 18 July 1984, were both appointees from this Council to the Legislative Council, one past, one present? Could this be mere coincidence? I think not. By taking an oath of allegiance to a colonial Government, appointees must, under an undemocratic system, represent the Government and not the people. It is impossible, in a colonial situation, to serve two masters, the colonial power and the colonized people. I am sad and disappointed that some Chinese are prepared to betray their own nation in order to rise high in the colonial aristocracy.
The Green Paper declares that it will make the Government more directly accountable to the people', but in contradiction to this stated purpose, it proposes to do so by indirect election.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 54 of 233
73
Two weak excuses are given for the call to indirect elections, and I will deal
with them separately:
1.
2.
The first is, and I quote: 'It (the Government) is not a system based on parties, factions and adversarial policies, but one of broad agreements.' That can only mean that the Government chooses only people who never oppose its policies but are simply yes-men. A government without opposition at all is a government without social justice.
There is no basis for suggesting that direct elections will lead to political factions. Hong Kong people are known to vote for individuals rather than parties, and this has been clearly shown in Urban Council elections. There is more danger of political factions if the electoral college consists of only 430 members, some of whom are pushed forward by Government officials and henceforth become henchmen of the Government. Territory-wide elections with an automatic vote for every adult Hong Kong belonger is the safest way to cut out corruption and Government interference. It would also be preferable to have one electoral newspaper giving the platforms of all candidates, instead of individual canvassing of voters, which is expensive and in the past has led to malpractices. Each candidate could be given an equal time-slot on TV and radio, to make his/her impact on the widest possible audience. I consider this approach not only safer but more dignified than begging or cajoling individual voters.
The second excuse given in the Green Paper for indirect elections is that the Legislative Council should be 'representative of the economic and professional sectors'. This is another way of saying that government must be kept in the hands of the wealthy. It presumes that the Hong Kong people are uneducated and stupid. Some incumbent legislative appointees have even had the impudence to say this openly. If there are any uneducated people in Hong Kong, we have only past government policies to blame for lateness in introducing free education. Education is not the yardstick of intelligence where education is not provided. In the past, until 1978, the yardstick of education was wealth, not intelligence. The wealthy still enjoy privileged education. Consequently, there have been some pretty dumb people among Government appointees who are chosen for their social status and family background, not for any superior savvy. An important qualification for appointment is sub- ordination to the colonial system.
Even under the present system of election to the Urban Council, it is clear that the people are no fools about voting. The present Urban Council consists of 15 directly elected members, including 5 lawyers, 3 social workers, 3 business people, 2 teachers, 1 doctor and 1 manual worker. What better mix could be achieved by appointment? In contrast, the wholly appointed Legislative Council at present is made up mainly of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.