Page 103 of 185
196
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
accepted by the so-called professional survey firm. I feel that the Government should be responsible for this mistake. Before this incident happened, some people had asked the Government to publish the questionnaire prepared by this company so that those interested could study it and express their views on it. At that time, the Government claimed that a lot of problems would arise if the questionnaire was made open. For instance, some people would teach others how to reply beforehand or compile similar questionnaires and make up answers, thus causing confusion. At that time, I was convinced that the Government was right. However the Government should be responsible for the scrutiny of the questionnaire. Now that problems have arisen, the Government should bear the responsibility.
The second point concerns the presentation of the Report. I believe that everybody would agree that by having a look at the Report one would know the chance of introducing direct elections in 1988 is rather slim. But if we take the signature campaigns into account and express the findings of the surveys in terms of percentage, we would probably find the ratio of people in favour of introducing direct elections in 1988 very much greater. The Survey Office chose to present in terms of percentage the results of those public opinion surveys that it considered representative. For the remaining public surveys that totalled over 120, the results were expressed in the form of the number of interviewees and respondents. Thus, we cannot see clearly the actual percentage as in the major surveys set out in the Report. I do not understand why the Survey Office adopted this method and would like to remind Exco members, who are going to decide the political reform of Hong Kong, of the need to study the relationship between the figures and rationale. On the surface, if the rationale I have just mentioned can be established, the Survey Office's Report was not impartially compiled. These questions make people feel the majority are not in favour of introducing direct elections in 1988. Actually the Survey Office can present the result in another way but should account for its choice.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the present problem remains that there exists much controversy in deciding any political reform. But owing to the time factor, we have to make the decision. If we agree that it is very difficult to make the option and the consequence will lead to much controversy, I still insist on holding a referendum on the proposal that direct elections should/should not be introduced in 1988. It is because if there is no valid basis on which we take any step, it will be difficult to make a decision that all the people are satisfied with.
Having talked so much about the introduction of direct elections in 1988, I think that I have the responsibility to mention some of the proposals concerning the Urban Council. The proposed changes to the Urban Council stated in the Green Paper is rather unfair to the Council. In designing the questionnaire, the survey firm concerned just used all the wordings in the Green Paper. Though many people may not understand the operation of the whole Council when giving the reply, the conclusions shows that many of them still hope that the Council remains unchanged. Of course, what I have said has nothing to do with
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 103 of 185
197
my personal liking. Therefore, the acceptability of the same survey conducted by the same firm varies accordingly. In fact, this questionnaire asks the complicated questions of the Green Paper in such a straightforward manner. Changes to the Urban Council are completely illogical. And it is without common sense to consult people's views on the organization of the Urban Council.
Mr. Chairman, I support your motion.
MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I think I cannot make a better speech than Mr. FUNG, so today I do not intend to make any analyses on the Report of the Survey Office, instead I would like to express my two thoughts on it.
Having read the whole text of the Green Paper and the Report, I feel that the 'caretaker government' has its own grievances for not disclosing the fact. It gives one a feeling that it has the intention but not the power to do something, but that it would endeavour to cater to the aspirations of the future boss. Secondly, it is felt that the 'sunset government' has no intention to continue with the fight, thinking that it is better to avoid trouble. On the understanding of these two embarrassing points, the government can be forgiven for the entire matter. Finally, I agree with Mr. SULKE on the point that the Urban Council should depend on its own. If the Urban Council is really independent in respects of finance and administration, we no longer have to rely too much on the views of the central government. What we want to do should be done without delay. In this regard, we do not have to be moved to anger and can still do the things we have to do. The Chinese saying of 'The splendour is the setting sun, but the pity is the approach of the dusk' is not applicable to the Urban Council.
Mr. Chairman, I support your motion.
MRS. CHOW CHEUNG WAI-PING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, quite a number of points have just now been made by several speakers, including Mr. Chairman, so it is better for me to be as brief as possible. There are, however, some response I would like to make. It is reflected from both the Green Paper and the Report that the government is paying great attention to the so-called middle level structure of the Urban Council, hoping that the public would express their views on changes in the Council. As a result, proportionally a large number of pages are devoted to the Urban Council in these two publications, but unfortunately, the silent majority continues to keep silent as predicted. As Mr. Chairman has just pointed out, only 0.2% of the adult population have expressed some views on the Urban Council. It is believed that such kind of silence should not be attributed to the fact that the Urban Council is not doing its job, but to the fact that it is a working Council with a low rate of exposure instead of being a Council crowded with politicians who know well and care about publicity. There are only 3 points which I would like to mention. Firstly, it is pointed out in paragraph 9.7(b) of Chapter 9 that a change in the Urban Council 'would ensure that District Board advice was accepted by the Urban
Page 103 of 185
Page 103 of 185
196
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
accepted by the so-called professional survey firm. I feel that the Government should be responsible for this mistake. Before this incident happened, some people had asked the Government to publish the questionnaire prepared by this company so that those interested could study it and express their views on it. At that time, the Government claimed that a lot of problems would arise if the questionnaire was made open. For instance, some people would teach others how to reply beforehand or compile similar questionnaires and make up answers, thus causing confusion. At that time, I was convinced that the Government was right. However the Government should be responsible for the scrutiny of the questionnaire. Now that problems have arisen, the Government should bear the responsibility.
The second point concerns the presentation of the Report. I believe that everybody would agree that by having a look at the Report one would know the chance of introducing direct elections in 1988 is rather slim. But if we take the signature campaigns into account and express the findings of the surveys in terms of percentage, we would probably find the ratio of people in favour of introducing direct elections in 1988 very much greater. The Survey Office chose to present in terms of percentage the results of those public opinion surveys that it considered representative. For the remaining public surveys that totalled over 120, the results were expressed in the form of the number of interviewees and respondents. Thus, we cannot see clearly the actual percentage as in the major surveys set out in the Report. I do not understand why the Survey Office adopted this method and would like to remind Exco members, who are going to decide the political reform of Hong Kong, of the need to study the relationship between the figures and rationale. On the surface, if the rationale I have just mentioned can be established, the Survey Office's Report was not impartially compiled. These questions make people feel the majority are not in favour of introducing direct elections in 1988. Actually the Survey Office can present the result in another way but should account for its choice.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the present problem remains that there exists much controversy in deciding any political reform. But owing to the time factor, we have to make the decision. If we agree that it is very difficult to make the option and the consequence will lead to much controversy, I still insist on holding a referendum on the proposal that direct elections should/should not be introduced in 1988. It is because if there is no valid basis on which we take any step, it will be difficult to make a decision that all the people are satisfied with.
Having talked so much about the introduction of direct elections in 1988, I think that I have the responsibility to mention some of the proposals concerning the Urban Council. The proposed changes to the Urban Council stated in the Green Paper is rather unfair to the Council. In designing the questionnaire, the survey firm concerned just used all the wordings in the Green Paper. Though many people may not understand the operation of the whole Council when giving the reply, the conclusions shows that many of them still hope that the Council remains unchanged. Of course, what I have said has nothing to do with
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 103 of 185
197
my personal liking. Therefore, the acceptability of the same survey conducted by the same firm varies accordingly. In fact, this questionnaire asks the complicated questions of the Green Paper in such a straightforward manner. Changes to the Urban Council are completely illogical. And it is without common sense to consult people's views on the organization of the Urban Council.
Mr. Chairman, I support your motion.
MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I think I cannot make a better speech than Mr. FUNG, so today I do not intend to make any analyses on the Report of the Survey Office, instead I would like to express my two thoughts on it.
Having read the whole text of the Green Paper and the Report, I feel that the 'caretaker government' has its own grievances for not disclosing the fact. It gives one a feeling that it has the intention but not the power to do something, but that it would endeavour to cater to the aspirations of the future boss. Secondly, it is felt that the 'sunset government' has no intention to continue with the fight, thinking that it is better to avoid trouble. On the understanding of these two embarrassing points, the government can be forgiven for the entire matter. Finally, I agree with Mr. SULKE on the point that the Urban Council should depend on its own. If the Urban Council is really independent in respects of finance and administration, we no longer have to rely too much on the views of the central government. What we want to do should be done without delay. In this regard, we do not have to be moved to anger and can still do the things we have to do. The Chinese saying of 'The splendour is the setting sun, but the pity is the approach of the dusk' is not applicable to the Urban Council.
Mr. Chairman, I support your motion.
MRS. CHOW CHEUNG WAI-PING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, quite a number of points have just now been made by several speakers, including Mr. Chairman, so it is better for me to be as brief as possible. There are, however, some response I would like to make. It is reflected from both the Green Paper and the Report that the government is paying great attention to the so-called middle level structure of the Urban Council, hoping that the public would express their views on changes in the Council. As a result, proportionally a large number of pages are devoted to the Urban Council in these two publications, but unfortunately, the silent majority continues to keep silent as predicted. As Mr. Chairman has just pointed out, only 0.2% of the adult population have expressed some views on the Urban Council. It is believed that such kind of silence should not be attributed to the fact that the Urban Council is not doing its job, but to the fact that it is a working Council with a low rate of exposure instead of being a Council crowded with politicians who know well and care about publicity. There are only 3 points which I would like to mention. Firstly, it is pointed out in paragraph 9.7(b) of Chapter 9 that a change in the Urban Council 'would ensure that District Board advice was accepted by the Urban
Page 103 of 18
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.