328
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Government. We shouldn't be too pessimistic because of the fact that we cannot have the direct elections in 1988. I appeal to those people and parties who have different views should set aside the issue and should not argue too much on the timing. They should sit down and think as to how to develop the system when we have direct elections in 1991. This is the problem with which we should be concerned. It is no use to argue about the timing any more. Moreover, it will weaken the foundation for the promotion of a representative Government. On the other hand, in the coming few years, the Government has to do something to promote civic education. My second point on direct elections is that there will be ten directly elected seats in 1991 which is relatively small and only represents 18 per cent of the total seats. I hope that in 1991 at least we can have 25 per cent of directly elected seats which will suit the real spirit of a representative government.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on Chapter 5 concerning the two municipal councils and district boards. The main change will be that after 1989, UC Members will cease to be ex-officio members of DBs and on the contrary, DB members will sit on Urban Council. This change is quite contradictory to the general spirit of the paper. Let us refer to paragraph 29 of the paper which says quite clearly that there is no advantage in having two parallel systems of geographical representative in the Legislative Council, operating both directly and through D.B. as it will upset its overall balance. Although it refers to Legco, I think it can also apply to UC. This contradictory and impractical proposal will be introduced arbitrarily in the UC. In paragraph 54, the Government says that the proposal of sending representatives elected from DBs to UC will strengthen the link.
Mr. Chairman, in our present system, in fact we have representatives at the lower tier i.e. Urban Councillors sitting on the district boards. In the past, DB members and some other people felt that this was not workable. Thirdly, the Government intends to rationalize our working arrangement with the RC. It appears that the rationalization is logical in view of the similar structure of the two Municipal Councils. However, two historical facts have told that this arrangement is not workable or even unnecessary. When the Regional Council was established, the Government had repeatedly emphasized that the structure of the RC was different from UC in that it had different circumstances and needs. Now what the Government is proposing that UC should follow RC is totally contradictory.
It is stated in the Green Paper that it is too early to review on the composition and functioning of the Regional Council because of its relatively new establishment. It is rather illogical for the UC to follow the composition of RC after a lapse of only 6 months. On the one hand, the Government says that it is too early to comment on whether this change is good or not. But on the other hand, the UC is forced to follow the working pattern of RC. The Government has emphasized that public interests have been taken into account when the White Paper is drawn up. However, with regard to the composition of UC public opinion is apparently ignored. In the Survey Report, except the views expressed by some DB members, there is no evidence that there should be any change to the composition of UC. I think it is a wrong step taken by the Government and I am opposed to it.
Since the White Paper is now published, we should be concerned with the future UC's composition. In view of the future participation of 10 DB members, we should seriously consider how UC should take into account district interest bearing in mind that we are providing territory-wide services to the public. This is a test and a subject which should be discussed thoroughly by the Council.
Lastly, I would like to point out that one point is missing in the White Paper which is of paramount importance to the development of representative Government. It has not been spelt out clearly that a review will be conducted after direct election to Legco in 1991. I think the review should not only touch on the element of direct elections, but also the development of the foundation of the representative Government. I hope that there will be a review in 1991. In that review, a particular chapter highlighting how the convergence can be arranged between 1991 and 1997 should be set out. If that can be done, it will be extremely useful to the development of a representative and democratic government.
(Mr. Frederick K. K. FUNG arrived at 3:25 p.m.)
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, in fact every time when it comes to my turn, my points have already been covered by my colleagues. Despite this fact, I agree with one point made by Mr. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN that we must continue to be accountable to Hong Kong people and should express our views known on the White Paper released yesterday. I have four points to make. Firstly, I am disappointed. Secondly, I am not convinced. Thirdly, I think it is absurd. Fourthly, I will be against it.
A couple of days before, when I went to To Kwa Wan to have my hair-cut in a barber shop, somebody talked to me saying that the Government was always talking about 'white pigs' and 'green pigs'. When I read the White Paper yesterday I felt rather uncomfortable. In the White Paper, the Government's objectives have been divided into a number of groups: (a) the representative government in Hong Kong should continue to evolve to suit Hong Kong's circumstances; (b) its development should be prudent and gradual; (c) any reforms should have the widest possible support so as to command the confidence of communities as a whole; and (d) the system in place before 1997 should permit a smooth transition in 1997 and a high degree of continuity thereafter.
These objectives are only things that we would have to take note in future. When we compare the 1984 White Paper with the present one, I don't think there is any objective at all. I have a lot of reservations on the review. It is in fact a change, not a review. I am sure my colleagues and I are fully disappointed about the objective and commitment made in the 1984 White Paper.
My second point is, the Government has refused to introduce direct election in 1988 for the reasons that the views on the timing are divided in this particular issue. Let me ask a question. There will be divergent views on any suggestions in view of the different levels and background of our population. The Chinese and British Governments should know
Page 169 of 185
329
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
328
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Government. We shouldn't be too pessimistic because of the fact that we cannot have the direct elections in 1988. I appeal to those people and parties who have different views should set aside the issue and should not argue too much on the timing. They should sit down and think as to how to develop the system when we have direct elections in 1991. This is the problem with which we should be concerned. It is no use to argue about the timing any more. Moreover, it will weaken the foundation for the promotion of a representative Government. On the other hand, in the coming few years, the Government has to do something to promote civic education. My second point on direct elections is that there will be ten directly elected seats in 1991 which is relatively small and only represents 18 per cent of the total seats. I hope that in 1991 at least we can have 25 per cent of directly elected seats which will suit the real spirit of a representative govern- ment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on Chapter 5 concerning the two municipal councils and district boards. The main change will be that after 1989, UC Members will cease to be ex-officio members of DBs and on the contrary, DB members will sit on Urban Council. This change is quite contradictory to the general spirit of the paper. Let us refer to paragraph 29 of the paper which says quite clearly that there is no advantage in having two parallel systems of geographical representative in the Legislative Council, operating both directly and through D.B. as it will upset its overall balance. Although it refers to Legco, I think it can also apply to UC. This contradictory and impractical proposal will be introduced arbitrarily in the UC. In paragraph 54, the Government says that the proposal of sending representatives elected from DBs to UC will strengthen the link. Mr. Chairman, in our present system, in fact we have representatives at the lower tier i.e. Urban Councillors sitting on the district boards. In the past, DB members and some other people felt that this was not workable. Thirdly, the Government intends to rationalize our working arrrangement with the RC. It appears that the rationalization is logical in view of the similar structure of the two Municipal Councils. However, two historical facts have told that this arrangement is not workable or even unnecessary. When the Regional Council was established, the Government had repeatedly emphasized that the structure of the RC was different from UC in that it had different circumstances and needs. Now what the Government is proposing that UC should follow RC is totally contradictory. It is stated in the Green Paper that it is too early to review on the composition and functioning of the Regional Council because of its relatively new establishment. It is rather illogical for the UC to follow the composition of RC after a lapse of only 6 months. On the one hand, the Government says that it is too early to comment on whether this change is good or not. But on the other hand, the UC is forced to follow the working pattern of RC. The Government has emphasized that public interests have been taken into account when the White Paper is drawn up. However, with regard the composition of UC public opinion is apparently ignored. In the Survey Report, except the views expressed by some DB members, there is no evidence that there should be any change to the composition of UC. I think it is a wrong step taken
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 169 of 185
329
by the Government and I am opposed to it. Since the White Paper is now published, we should be concerned with the future UC's composition. In view of the future participation of 10 DB members, we should seriously consider how UC should take into account district interest bearing in mind that we are providing territory-wide services to the public. This is a test and a subject which should be discussed thoroughly by the Council. Lastly, I would like to point out that one point is missing in the White Paper which is of paramount importance to the development of representative Government. It has not been spelt out clearly that a review will be conducted after direct election to Legco in 1991. I think the review should not only touch on the element of direct elections, but also the development of the foundation of the representative Government. I hope that there will be a review in 1991. In that review, a particular chapter highlighting how the convergence can be arranged between 1991 and 1997 should be set out. If that can be done, it will be extremely useful to the development of a representative and democratic government.
(Mr. Frederick K, K. FUNG arrived at 3.25 p.m.)
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in fact every time when it comes to my turn, my points have already been covered by my colleagues. Despite this fact, I agree with one point made by Mr. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN that we must continue to be accountable to Hong Kong people and should express our views known on the White Paper released yesterday. I have four points to make. Firstly, I am disappointed. Secondly, I am not convinced. Thirdly, I think it is absurd. Fourthly, I will be against it. A couple of days before, when I went to To Kwa Wan to have my hair-cut in a barbar shop, somebody talked to me saying that the Government was always talking about 'white pigs' and 'green pigs'. When I read the White Paper yesterday I felt rather uncomfortable. In the White Paper, the Government's objectives have been divided into a number of groups: (a) the representative government in Hong Kong should continue to evolve to suit Hong Kong's circumstances; (b) its development should be prudent and gradual; (c) any reforms should have the widest possible support so as to command the confidence of communities as a whole; and (d) the system in place before 1997 should permit a smooth transition in 1997 and a high degree of continuity thereafter. These objectives are only things that we would have to take note in future. When we compare the 1984 White Paper with the present one, I don't think there is any objective at all. I have a lot of reservations on the review. It is in fact a change, not a review. I am sure my colleagues and I are fully disappointed about the objective and commitment made in the 1984 White Paper. My second point is, the Government has refused to introduce direct election in 1988 for the reasons that the views on the timing are divided in this particular issue. Let me ask a question. There will be divergent views on any suggestions in view of the different levels and back- ground of our population. The Chinese and British Governments should know
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.