1987 — Page 55

Page 55 of 185

102

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

THE HON. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN, seconded the motion (in English):----Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.

The question was put.

The motion was carried unanimously.

7. THE CHAIRMAN, URBAN COUNCIL moved the following motion:-

'RESOLVED that this Council presents its views on the Green Paper: The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government.'

He said (in English):—I rise to move the Motion standing in my name, namely: 'RESOLVED that this Council presents its views on the Green Paper: The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government.'

The Council two months ago gave its general views on Chapter 3 of the Green Paper which mainly concerns the future of this Council and, with one exception, members were most concerned that the working efficiency of the Council should not be affected by measures designed to cater for the political aspirations of a few District Board members.

Today, I understand, members will be generally expressing views on the wider issues in the Green Paper and I am sure that with our wide diversity of background and experience, there will be views encompassing a wide variety of possibilities.

As the Chairman of the Council, I think it would be inappropriate for me to publicly give my own views at this particular time lest they detract from the views of the other members of the Council. I will of course make my own views to the Survey Office in due course as, I hope, will all other responsible citizens. I so move.

MRS. ELSIE TU seconded the motion (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to second the motion.

MRS. ELSIE TU (in English):-For 140 years, that is from 1843 until 1984, the word 'democracy' was ruled out of our vocabulary by the Government of Hong Kong. The excuses were that there were troubles in China, and later, in post-war years, that China wouldn't like it if we had a democratic form of Government.

It was therefore something of a shock, to me at any rate, when in 1984, just before the signing of the Joint Declaration, the Hong Kong Government suddenly came up with the notion of 24 elected seats—or at least the Government keeps calling the members sitting in those seats 'the elected members.' None of them were elected to represent the general public, and quite a number of them were totally unknown to the constituencies in which they were supposed to have been elected. Some were, in fact, handpicked by the Government and its appointees, and their presence in the Legislative Council has no connection with the people.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 55 of 185

103

to have been elected. Some were, in fact, handpicked by the Government and its appointees, and their presence in the Legislative Council has no connection with the people.

As far as the public is concerned, the 1984 reforms were a step backward in democracy, and I believe that we need to go back in time now, in 1987, to eliminate the trend towards an indirectly elected legislature which represents only a handful of people, and which is largely pro-colonial.

I would like to give my views on the various sectors of the Legislative Council set-up, but I must ignore the options, because multi-choice questions can only be applied when there is an absolutely correct answer. In politics there are no absolute answers.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Concerning the 10 officials on the Council, I have no objection in principle, though the quality of some could be improved on. They should be persons who have reached their positions because of know-how and ability and not necessarily because of their length of service in the hierarchy.

As to the 22 Appointed Members, I scarcely need to point out that I do not agree with an appointed system, because it represents the Government, and not the people. Anyone who really represented the people would never have been appointed to the Legco in the first place. (I am informed on good authority that that is why I have never been appointed.) However, Hong Kong has had to put up with these influential people of uncertain ability for 140 years.

I would therefore not find too much hardship in leaving them there for another year or two. If we give them a little more rope they may succeed in hanging themselves. Some of them have already come very near to accomplishing this self-elimination.

The Functional Constituencies with 12 members have only been in existence for a short time and in my estimation should never have been set up, as they are elitist (a word I despise). Since they are already there, however, I would leave them for a few years until the next step of development in representative government. Their number should certainly not be increased, but the voting base should be widened, in my estimation to include, for example, nurses, dentists, and other medical personnel in the Medical Constituency, auditors, accountants, and other quasi-legal personnel in the Legal Constituency, social workers as well as organizations in the Social Welfare Constituency, all teachers, lecturers, and adult students in the Education Constituency, and so on, provided no one is awarded more than one vote. This is only a temporary measure, to undo some of the damage of the 1985 election.

To come to the Electoral Colleges (12 members) I would say that this is the greatest error of the 1984 White Paper. If any of those members are doing a good job in representing the people of their districts, it is by mere chance. Some were appointed by the Government to the District Boards in 1985 with the sole intention of being pushed forward as candidates for the District Board indirect elections to the Legislative Council that year, and

Page 55

Page 56

Page 56 of 185