1984 — Page 71

106

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

realistic, to leave a system in place for 1997 which will give a certain amount of democracy, a certain amount of consensus, but at the same time will allow Beijing to appoint their own men to the corridors of power. Because if this is not done, the danger that the whole system will be scrapped, to allow Beijing to do whatever they need to do, is much greater than if the system in fact already allows a certain amount of non-democratic direction. It is not an ideal situation but then life never is and it is better to have just one slice of the cake than by trying to get the whole cake not getting any of it. Please note that Beijing's representatives in Hong Kong said immediately the Green Paper was published that it had nothing whatsoever to do with China, that China would disclaim responsibility for it, that whatever decisions are taken regarding the form of local Government between now and 1997, nothing done would put China under any obligation to keep it going in future.

Let me give you one solid example of what we are in fact facing. In a seminal speech I made outside this Chamber, the speech that really set all the public debates about the future of Hong Kong going, I suggested that the only fair way of finding out what people think in Hong Kong would be a referendum in which everyone over 21 would be allowed to vote. The speech was not popular with either the British or the Chinese sides. The British thought that under certain circumstances a referendum might possibly be used to find out people's views on 1997 if the right kind of questions could be asked, but on the whole the attitude was negative. The Chinese reaction was really quite disconcerting and there was no doubt left that a referendum under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter what questions would be asked, would be unacceptable. So now we have a hotch-potch of many pressure groups and many different opinions and an office appointed by the Government which will simply say what it's British and Chinese masters expect them to say. And why? Because both the British and the Chinese are fully aware that if there were a real democratic direct election type referendum, the answer to any kind of agreement between Britain and China would be a resounding No. Because what people here want and what unfortunately they have no hope of ever getting, is an entirely independent Hong Kong. Having flown my trial balloon and having seen it shot down in flames, I personally have now decided that one must be realistic and accept the limitations and I therefore no longer advocate a referendum, and for the same reasons I also no longer advocate full democracy for Hong Kong. I would rather eat that small slice of cake than lose the lot. So let me say again to all my elected colleagues and to all the pressure groups outside this chamber: Don't try for the impossible, accept the possible and go along with the Government's suggestions for indirect elections.

Having said all that I must also say that unfortunately the critics are right. The Green Paper is in fact in line with the sham type of democracy the Hong Kong Government has been introducing here based on the old Roman political maxim of divide and rule. It is in line with having a Regional Council which will be at odds with the Urban Council and at odds with the District Boards instead of having one Council which would have real power in the Territory and make the Civil Servants properly servants rather than masters of the political process. It is in line with the impotence of District Boards where Chairmen and Secretaries actually edit Minutes to make them conform with Government policies and where Chairmen cut off real discussion as soon as it tends to be anti-Government and where, in any case, whatever is decided cannot be enforced. And this is not really surprising, as asking Civil Servants to draw up plans for a transfer of power by democratization is rather like asking a condemned man whether he would prefer poison, the rope, or a firing squad.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 71 of 233

107

having one Council which would have real power in the Territory and make the Civil Servants properly servants rather than masters of the political process. It is in line with the impotence of District Boards where Chairmen and Secretaries actually edit Minutes to make them conform with Government policies and where Chairmen cut off real discussion as soon as it tends to be anti-Government and where, in any case, whatever is decided cannot be enforced. And this is not really surprising, as asking Civil Servants to draw up plans for a transfer of power by democratization is rather like asking a condemned man whether he would prefer poison, the rope, or a firing squad.

For instance, I can really see no reason why officials should remain as members of LEGCO. We in the Urban Council for years now have had the system where the official side takes part in our meetings, other than this one, but has no vote. I would suggest that LEGCO could very usefully copy the Urban Council and put in the same system and that this could be done right now. I would like to see all officials other than the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Attorney General be removed from LEGCO, but secretaries and heads of departments allowed to participate in meetings, and especially in Select Committee meetings, without having a vote. This would allow immediately an increase in elected members by 15, i.e. in the year 1985 the electoral college and the functional constituencies, if these were still to go ahead in spite of what I will have to say later on this subject, would elect a total of 27 members to LEGCO. However, so as not to upset the balance of LEGCO too quickly, I would suggest to cut this down to 20 allowing 10 to be elected by the electoral college, 10 by the functional constituencies (of course I would much prefer 20 to be elected by the electoral college and none by the functional constituencies), 23 appointed by the Governor, 3 official members, the total of LEGCO then in 1985 would be 46 members as compared to the 47 at present. By 1988 the withdrawal of official members would allow 30 members to be elected leaving 16 to be appointed and 3 official members for a total of 49 members.

A great deal has been said about the necessity of passing power from the Civil Service to the Legislative Council and suggestions have been made for a ministerial system. I believe that there exists a perfect model for the necessary process in this Urban Council and this particular process of passing responsibility is relatively so simple that it could be exercised immediately in certain branches of the Civil Service as a trial. The obvious functional service where power should be passed over from the Civil Service to the Legislative Council in 1985 is the Medical and Health Department. This department is not politically sensitive to the outside, i.e. decisions made regarding Medical and Health Services, although they affect every citizen of Hong Kong immediately, do not affect China or Britain.

While I am talking on this subject, could I again make a plea to Government that on the same basis, and also in 1985, Housing and Transport should be...