Page 66 of 233
97
96
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
chances of party conflict wide out in the open is less, and I repeat only less, in the event of indirect elections.
For the convenience of the interpreters, this bit is not in the written part. Mrs. ELLIOTT made some comments on the representativeness of direct and indirect elections and appointments which were quite interesting, in fact, I am always interested in statistics. I agree with her observations that the Government's arguments are aimed at preservation of status quo. Whether status quo is what people want or not is a matter of judgement. Being an appointed member might sometimes appear dumb to Mrs. ELLIOTT but I am certainly not wealthy and possessing a family background with social status. In fact I would be quite willing to swap the cash in my personal bank account with most, if not all, elected members. According to my count, the appointed members of the Urban Council consist of six business people; three in education, and I mean at the time of appointment because one has since turned to business; one lawyer, one doctor, one accountant, one engineer, one from the media and one worker. Now, if you recognize that doctors, lawyers, teachers, educationalists, accountants and engineers and, I might add, even social workers (because I think Mr. PAO will agree with me that at least my recollection is at my time on the Social Welfare Advisory Committee, they insisted on being called professional), are also professionals. Then the line up on the elected side is eleven professionals, three business and one worker; while the appointed side is six business, seven professionals and two others which include one worker. So I believe it is not true, at least in the Urban Council, that appointment produces mainly financiers, businessmen and a few lawyers.
Appointed System
The Green Paper mentions one possible option as the total phasing out of appointed members in Legislative Council in 1991. Another option is to retain some. I would hope that the decision on whether to retain or abolish the appointed system will rest on what sort of elected Legislative Council composition we have by 1988.
Some people see the appointment system as yet another attempt at favouring the elite. I do not agree. The appointed system should be there to help achieve a correct balance, as a supplement to the electoral system. It could be the other way round, for instance if elections threw up a lot of professionals and investors, we could well do with an appointed system that draws on grassroots level people and pressure groups to redress the balance.
One feature of the appointed system has been mentioned even by elected members previously, that is it is easier to ensure the level of quality if people with good ability are selected. There is no doubt that the ideal situation is where elections bring about a broad cross-section of able and popular people. But, also, we do not live in an ideal world. While elections are more likely to bring out popular candidates, we need to guarantee sufficient members of people with ability to shoulder the responsibility of work, especially when this work is often not popular.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
out popular candidates, we need to guarantee sufficient members of people with ability to shoulder the responsibility of work, especially when this work is often not popular.
One only needs to look at the regularly published Urban Council Ward Office statistics to see that elected members are far more popular in general than appointed members. Elected members are more popular with the press too because they do not shun away from the media like many appointed members do (wrongly, I think).
On the other hand, in the same set of statistics, if you look at things like joining Urban Council committees where most of the work is done, and look at the attendance records, you will see in most cases that the appointed members have made their mark. So they should, because they, like myself do not have to spend time on electioneering for votes, so it is a duty to do more in work.
As long as the appointed system continues to serve a purpose of supplementing and balancing the electoral system, and not controlling it, I believe there will be a need and place for appointed members, even if they are in the minority, after all, Hong Kong has and needs to have a tradition of taking into account minority views.
Mr. Chairman, having used up my time in dwelling on theoretical comments on three facets of the Green Paper, I would like to finish with one practical point--it is extremely difficult to satisfy the District Boards, Regional Council and Urban Council's aspirations by just 6 candidates indirectly elected by them. Not only do we need a quota split between District Boards, Regional and Urban Councils, we should consider at least 10 to start within 1985.
With these words I support the motion.
(Mr. Lawrence FUNG left at this point-4.38 p.m.)
THE HONOURABLE Maria W. C. TAM (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, please allow me to answer Mrs. ELLIOTT'S points which have been rather subjective. Firstly, the third paragraph mentioned that Urban Councillors once appointed will be 'by singing the Government's tune', that is for the benefit of the interpreters. Now apart from occupying a seat in the Urban Council, if that particular member has to work in the ExCo as well, then he/she would have to hold a consistent and responsible attitude, and that is why it is very difficult for an Executive Councillor to analyse matters, criticize or comment on the points made by members in the U.C., that is why Mrs. ELLIOTT and others with less experience in public affairs would feel.
Secondly, it said that 'The axiom that power corrupts has been proved over and over again on this Council' to quote and she said that there had been two elected Urban Councillors on the 18 July who did not sign their names against the public declaration on the Green Paper. As I see at the Green Paper, I think
Page 67 of 233
98
97
Page 66 of 233
97
96
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
chances of party conflict wide out in the open is less, and I repeat only less, in the
event of indirect elections.
For the convenience of the interpreters, this bit is not in the written part. Mrs. ELLIOTT made some comments on the representativeness of direct and indirect elections and appointments which were quite interesting, in fact, I am always interested in statistics. I agree with her observations that the Government's arguments are aimed at preservation of status quo. Whether status quo is what people want or not is a matter of judgement. Being an appointed member might sometimes appear dumb to Mrs. ELLIOTT but I am certainly not wealthy and possessing a family background with social status. In fact I would be quite willing to swap the cash in my personal bank account with most, if not all, elected members. According to my count, the appointed members of the Urban Council consist of six business people; three in education, and I mean at the time of appointment because one has since turned to business; one
lawyer, one doctor, one accountant, one engineer, one from the media and one worker. Now, if you recognize that doctors, lawyers, teachers, educationalists, account- ants and engineers and, I might add, even social workers (because I think Mr. PAO will agree with me that at least my recollection is at my time on the Social Welfare Advisory Committee, they insisted on being called professional), are also professionals. Then the line up on the elected side is eleven professionals, three business and one worker; while the appointed side is six business, seven professionals and two others which include one worker. So I believe it is not true, at least in the Urban Council, that appointment produces mainly financiers, businessmen and a few lawyers.
Appointed System
The Green Paper mentions one possible option as the total phasing out of appointed members in Legislative Council in 1991. Another option is to retain some. I would hope that the decision on whether to retain or abolish the appointed system will rest on what sort of elected Legislative Council composition we have by 1988.
Some people see the appointment system as yet another attempt at favouring the elite. I do not agree. The appointed system should be there to help achieve a correct balance, as a supplement to the electoral system. It could be the other way round, for instance if elections threw up a lot of professionals and investors, we could well do with an appointed system that draws on grassroots level people and pressure groups to redress the balance.
One feature of the appointed system has been mentioned even by elected members previously, that is it is easier to ensure the level of quality if people with good ability are selected. There is no doubt that the ideal situation is where elections bring about a broad cross-section of able and popular people. But, also, we do not live in an ideal world. While elections are more likely to bring
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
out popular candidates, we need to guarantee sufficient members of people with ability to shoulder the responsibility of work, especially when this work is often
not popular.
One only needs to look at the regularly published Urban Council Ward Office statistics to see that elected members are far more popular in general than appointed members. Elected members are more popular with the press too because they do not shun away from the media like many appointed members
do (wrongly, I think).
On the other hand, in the same set of statistics, if you look at things like joining Urban Council committees where most of the work is done, and look at the attendance records, you will see in most cases that the appointed members have made their mark. So they should, because they, like myself do not have to spend time on electioneering for votes, so it is a duty to do more in work.
As long as the appointed system continues to serve a purpose of supple- menting and balancing the electoral system, and not controlling it, I believe there will be a need and place for appointed members, even if they are in the minority, after all, Hong Kong has and needs to have a tradition of taking into account minority views.
Mr. Chairman, having used up my time in dwelling on theoretical comments on three facets of the Green Paper, I would like to finish with one practical point--it is extremely difficult to satisfy the District Boards, Regional Council and Urban Council's aspirations by just 6 candidates indirectly elected by them. Not only do we need a quota split between District Boards, Regional and Urban Councils, we should consider at least 10 to start within 1985.
With these words I support the motion.
(Mr. Lawrence FUNG left at this point-4.38 p.m.j
THE HONOURABLe Maria W. C. TAM (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, please allow me to answer Mrs. ELLIOTT'S points which have been rather subjective. Firstly, the third paragraph mentioned that Urban Councillors once appointed will be 'by singing the Government's tunc', that is for the benefit of the interpreters. Now apart from occupying a seat in the Urban Council, if that particular member has to work in the ExCo as well, then he/she would have to hold a consistent and responsible attitude, and that is why it is very difficult for an Executive Councillor to analyse matters, criticize or comment on the points made by members in the U.C., that is why Mrs. ELLIOTT and others with less experience in public affairs would feel.
Secondly, it said that 'The axiom that power corrupts has been proved over and over again on this Council' to quote and she said that there had been two elected Urban Councillors on the 18 July who did not sign their names against the public declaration on the Green Paper. As I see at the Green Paper, I think
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.