1987 — Page 170

330

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

that there would be argument. However, that should not be employed as an excuse for not going ahead with direct elections. I think therefore, they ignored the findings of the public opinion polls and the issues of the majority of citizen for direct election in 1988. It is also wrong for them to misinterpret our reasons for asking direct elections in 1988. They rejected direct elections in 1988 because the response is rather divided. Why do they choose 1991 as the ideal year? I am very puzzled about this. In the White Paper, it is found that it would take time for us to adapt ourselves to direct elections, why don't we start in 1988 so that we can have more time to build on that system. The Government has stressed that we should not make drastic changes. Let's look at the question of big and small. When it is big, then it is beyond a certain limit and idealism. If it is small, it goes down to the bottom. If we compare some things like with like, the area or the volume which is big will be regarded as big. As far as certain issue is concerned, we do not have such concrete standards. What is big or small depends on the objectives and individual stance. In the White Paper, it is in fact very subjective to say that we should not make drastic changes. I don't think it is acceptable to me if we regard direct election in 1988 as a major change. When the Government talks about a change being major or minor, it should really take into account whether it is in the best interest of the people of Hong Kong. Once again, let us look at the word 'big' and 'small'. Now in Chinese character, you have one horizontal stroke and then we have the character 'man' and so it seems we have something to balance a person. As for the word 'small', it is a vertical stroke, but there is a band however towards the end that goes towards the left. And then on both the left and right, we have two dots, and they echo one and other. This is very clear and again it shows a balance which is very extreme on our standing. When you are talking about big and small, basically they are very much the same. You cannot say that one is very much better than the other. If you use the two words to describe the political system, it can be seen that the Government is not really wise enough to make any decisions in the wise manner. Whilst the White Paper says that it is not going to make major changes, it is in fact making major changes even with principle. In this regard, I think it is very absurd. Fourthly, the Government has deliberately changed the three different Councils into three different layers. In fact, they perform different functions, but are not really at different levels. These Councils with different functions, have in fact functioned well. Why should we make them into upper, middle and lower level or big, medium and small? Perhaps they aim as Mr. Peter CHAN had said that whole thing should be reversed or as Mr. L. H. KWAN said that it took a partriarchal system. I agree with VCUC's remarks concerning paragraph 29 of the White Paper that the Government has acted in contrary to its basic objectives with regard to the Urban Council. Since the proportion of elected members has been changed drastically, I think that it has deliberately ignored public opinion and taken a retrogressive step. As an elected member of the Urban Council, I have to express my strong objection to this. In conclusion, I think that the White Paper in rejecting direct elections in 1988 and introducing

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 170 of 185

331

direct elections in 1991 is against public aspiration and totally unconvincing. It also shows that the Government is giving up the development of representative government. Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.

(Mrs. Eleanor C. M. LING and Mr. Samuel P. W. WONG left the meeting at 3.35 p.m. and 3.38 p.m. respectively.)

MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, the content of the White Paper gives one an impression of 'bullying the weak and fearing the strong'; that it flatters Chinese officials at the cost of ignoring Hong Kong's public opinion'.

Changes are to be made mainly in 2 areas:

(a) membership of the central Legislative Council. (b) relationship among the three-tier councils.

Recommendations in relation to changes of the membership of the Legisla- tive Council include:

(a) No seats will be returned by direct election in 1988.

(b) 2 additional seats will be provided in 1988 for Members elected by

functional constituencies.

(c) provision of 10 directly elected seats from 10 district-based consti-

tuencies and the abolition of electoral college in 1991.

These 3 recommendations reflect the government's flattery of Chinese officials at the cost of disregarding Hong Kong's public opinion since:

(a) Introduction of direct election in 1988 is the majority view of the public which is estimated at a ratio of 2 to 1. Paragraph 21 of the White Paper, however, still adopts the results obtained by the Survey Office through faulty arrangement.

(b) Opinions supporting the introduction of direct election in 1991 only

make up a minority in the Report of the Survey Office. (c) Paragraphs 13.18 to 13.25 of the Report of the Survey Office expresses opinions about the election of Members from electoral college. Except a few, the great majority of the opinions express hopes of retaining the Legco seats returned by electoral college.

In this way, the White Paper's recommendations of:

(1) providing no directly elected seats in the Legislative Council in 1988; (2) providing 10 directly elected seats in 1991; and

(3) abolishing electoral college in 1991 are not taking public opinion into

consideration. It is even against the will of the people of Hong Kong.

The provision of 10 directly elected seats from 10 district-based constituencies and the abolition of electoral college in 1991 are contradictory to the principle of smooth interface with the Basic Law:

Page 170Page 171