1986 — Page 161

280

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

My own views are certainly very well known. I think that we must have direct elections and a ministerial system and I have given reasons as to why many times already, both in speeches in this chamber and elsewhere, so I am not going to repeat them now. But this occasion does give me an opportunity to put into context the opposition to political change which is being so eloquently expressed by many of my business colleagues. They are all afraid of change and they are afraid that a democracy, and especially direct elections, will result in more Government interference, free lunches, and a lessening of their own presently great influence. There may well be something to their fears, especially as regards the lessening of their own influence, but let's face it, sometimes overwhelming influence by one sector of the community can be just as bad as no influence at all, and it is fairly easy to point to many mistakes made by this Government in the last thirty years which were, in fact, due to bad advice from the business sector. But that is not the point. The point is, that apart from all their personal considerations, they do genuinely feel that Hong Kong's stability, prosperity, and especially its competitive edge will be hurt by democracy, and it is this fear which I want to put into context.

We are always very proud of Hong Kong's progress in the last thirty-five years and we think of ourselves as having achieved more than anyone else in the world. Now, we did achieve fantastic progress which I know better than most, because I will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of my arrival in Hong Kong next year, and saw it happen and maybe also contributed. But in 1947 I also visited Germany and Japan, and from that personal information I know that Hong Kong's base at that time was far higher than either of those two countries who both had suffered huge destruction. They started from a much lower platform than we did and look at where they are now as compared to us. And the situation is strictly comparable because in both Germany and Japan they started out after the war with a paternalist authoritarian Government just like our colonial Government, and then after about 10 years they converted to full democratic self-Government. They had the same advantages that we had, namely, they didn't have to spend a large part of their GNP on defence and although they had some outgoings in war reparations which we did not have, on the whole the comparison is valid. And what is especially important in this comparison is that, just like us, neither country had any real experience with democracy. The Germans did have 11 years between the wars when they attempted a democratic Government. The Japanese had no democracy whatsoever until it was forced on them by MacArthur.

Now they are democratic and are in spite of, or possibly because of this, the most successful industrial and trading nations in the world. Incidentally, the United States of America 200 years ago also converted from a paternal colonial system into a democracy and became a much greater success story than Hong Kong. If I might borrow a phrase from the Chairman up north let me say to my business colleagues: 'You can set your minds at rest': Democracy may not be an ideal form of Government but it is the best form that we have worked out so far in our 10,000 year old attempt to become civilized. And looking at the U.S., Japan, and Germany its good for business, stability, and prosperity. The only really successful trading and industrial countries today

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 161 of 201

281

are Western democracies. All those countries who use dictatorial authoritarian methods, whether these are of the right or of the left, are miserable failures. Just compare Leningrad with Helsinki. They started out exactly the same being sister cities under the Tsar and look at the difference today. So I say to my business colleagues: Instead of fighting the inevitable, make sure that you have representation in the democratic system. Like businessmen in the U.S., in Japan, in Germany, become political animals and don't underestimate the intelligence and good sense of your fellow citizens who certainly understand that trade, industry, and finance are the cornerstones of Hong Kong's quality of life.

And in this connection, it is interesting to note that a great many of my business colleagues who fear democracy somewhat perversely then ask for Government interference, and my attitude to this is expressed in a letter I wrote to the South China Morning Post, which I am tabling, which sets out why I think this to be quite wrong.

I should also like to remind my business colleagues that there is an awful lot of nitty-gritty which they should be paying close attention to. For instance, I have not seen any reference from them or from the Hong Kong Government to the urgent need for the establishment of a Hong Kong Patent Registry. At the moment, if a Hong Kong inventor wants to register a patent he has to do it in London, and the People's Republic of China is only just beginning to establish a Patent Register. Now from the point of view of a future Hong Kong SAR credibility, I think it is most important that Hong Kong does have its own Patent Register not only to protect local inventors, but especially to protect manufacturers who hold patents elsewhere and want to manufacture such protected products here.

I think it is also important that business pressure is exerted to make sure that Government allows our Stock Exchange to expand, and especially to allow a market in over-the-counter stocks so that the future SAR is ready to become China's Stock Market.

I have been under the impression that the 1987 Governmental Review Green Paper will be concerned solely with LEGCO, but it appears that it may go further than that, and so for the benefit of those who are drafting this document I want to repeat here what I have said many times elsewhere: Hong Kong, at the moment, is very badly over-governed. The divide and rule system, so cynically introduced by the Hong Kong Government, of impotent advisory District Boards in conflict with executive Municipal Councils, is counter-productive. What is needed is a two-tier system which could either be achieved, and this is what I prefer, by the merging of the Urban and Regional Councils into a single Municipal Council with 50 members, two-thirds directly elected, one-third appointed, responsible for everything the Councils are now doing plus Transport and, at a later stage, also Housing and Education; or the abolition of the Urban and Regional Councils and an amalgamation of District Boards resulting in reasonable sized Borough Councils (either two for Hong Kong