1987 — Page 101

192

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

The third problem relates to the questionnaire of the survey, i.e. whether there should be a change in the structure of the Urban Council? Paragraph 11.7 reflects a divergence of views on the problem. People who support making a change, making no change or claiming that they don't know each make up one-third of the respondents, so it is difficult to figure out the general disposition. It is, however, discovered in paragraph 11.3 that over 60% of the views are for making no change. Therefore, it is the public's disposition to maintain the present status of the Urban Council.

The final point relates to the structure of the two Councils on which very few citizens express their views. It reflects that the public do not know much about our internal structure as well as our relationship with the Regional Council. And for those who did express their views, they are for the idea of making no changes.

1.

4 points can be concluded from the various public opinion mentioned above: The majority of the people are for the idea that Urban Councillors should continue to participate in District Boards and become ex-officio DB members.

2.

3.

4.

Very few people are for the idea that District Board members should join the Urban Council by means of election from among themselves, while majority of the people agree that we should improve our present relationship with District Boards. I feel that there are many ways of improvement, and it is not necessary to use the method of electing representatives to join the Urban Council from among District Board members.

At present, many people are for the maintenance of the structure of the Urban Council.

The operation of the two Councils should be maintained.

In conclusion, in accordance with the results of the entire public opinion survey, all opinions regarding the Urban Council are conservative, believing that it is better to make less changes. I would like to conclude my speech by quoting Mr. SULLKE's statement that 'Wrong question will have the wrong answer,' but for the government, I think they have set a right question but got the wrong answer.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEE CHIK-YUET (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, The 'Green Paper on the 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government', in my opinion, is very 'difficult to understand' and the 'Report of the Survey Office' is very 'unnatural' to the readers. After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the work of our Government in the present process of development lies in solving the problems of the central government system, the power and composition of the Executive and Legislative Councils, the reforms and co-ordination of the four-hundred-odd advisory boards/committees and fifty-odd governmental departments. Nevertheless, the Green Paper talks not much on this aspect whereas discussion on district administration dominates nearly the whole Paper. This is simply to put the cart before the horse and beyond understanding. It is too 'difficult to understand' why the Government made such an arrangement.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 101 of 185

193

governmental departments. Nevertheless, the Green Paper talks not much on this aspect whereas discussion on district administration dominates nearly the whole Paper. This is simply to put the cart before the horse and beyond understanding. It is too 'difficult to understand' why the Government made such an arrangement.

Once the Green Paper was released, a clear majority of the public indicated their concern about how the members of the Legislative Council be elected. Their opinions on this important aspect (98% of the submissions) should be valued. However, the Survey Office just turned a deaf ear to this in the public opinion survey which costs several hundred thousand dollars. This key issue is not treated as a single item in the report. On the contrary, the 'direct elections to the Legislative Council in 1988' is included in another option and as a supplementary one. The clear wording of 'for' and 'against' direct election is not given. The survey is so biased and unjust that the report is very 'unnaturally' presented. The results differ greatly from what are obtained by most large and independent research companies. In my opinion, before the Executive Council decides how to handle the two survey results released by the Survey Office, the Government should invite some statisticians or research experts from academic institutes to study the results and then submit their views together with the results to the Executive Council for reference. If the Hong Kong Government has already decided not to have direct elections to the Legislative Council in 1988, neither the Green Paper nor the public opinion survey is necessary. As the Green Paper has been published and the survey completed, it will be a big spot in the history of decolonization of the United Kingdom if the public opinions are really twisted deliberately for any reasons (whether they are political ones that cannot be disclosed) and handled improperly.

Furthermore, I think it makes the 'readers uneasy' when they see that individual opinions gathered in some signature campaigns are not included in the category of individuals in the Report.

Mr. Chairman, since there are doubts in the way the Survey Office handles public opinions, and in the survey commissioned by the Government, I cannot accept any part of the report. However, I would like to make a note here. Opinions contained in this unacceptable report also indicates that the structure of the Urban Council is satisfactory and no structural change is needed. Moreover, I still maintain my views which I have put forward in the Council debate on 8 September regarding our present government system (including our Council).

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal to the general public to air their views on the Report of the Survey Office. Also, I would like to ask those statisticians and research experts, for conscience's sake, not to forget their commitments to the community, but to give us their professional and just assessments of the Report.