Page 63 of 185
118
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
power to rule Hong Kong. It does not only mean two types of systems as such but also the formulation of the two systems i.e. Hong Kong people and whether Hong Kong people's views would be sufficiently reflected and the decision made accordingly. And the controversy in the two systems is that when this idea gradually spread confrontation will usually arise i.e. whether the country is bigger or the two systems is bigger. If the one country is bigger, it means that the Basic Law is of paramount importance and if the two systems is bigger, it means that the political review is more important with the continuous expansion of the country concept. It would mean that the Basic Law as well as China will have confrontations with the people of Hong Kong. It can be regarded as the matter of the big versus the small because China is very big and Hong Kong is very small. Whether it is the six million people following 100 billion or vice versa is bound to cause the issue of confidence. Hong Kong people may not tell or write what they think. At many meetings and many discussions, people are worried that whatever they say will be recorded and that if they speak now they will be blacklisted after 1997. However, the facts show that people could tell what they say with their feet. And as to the question of two systems, it is said that Hong Kong people would have a greater say in decision making and even possibly rule Hong Kong. But when we overstress the two systems it would make China worry as to how sovereignty could be achieved. I think basically this should not be a problem. In international situation, it is beyond doubt that Hong Kong belongs to China. Beside, China controls on power, military forces, economic background and water supply etc. I remember once when our Basic Law Drafting Committee went to Beijing to discuss with some leaders who told us very clearly that China is not afraid of democracy confronting communism and Chinese is not afraid of people in Hong Kong opposing communism because they could not succeed. I agree totally with these leaders' view. Since Hong Kong people cannot oppose China, why are we so worried about the two system concept. The concept of one country would make Hong Kong people very worried and vote with their feet and two system is not a matter to be worried about. Therefore, I think political development of Hong Kong is not a question or whether the Basic Law would take the lead or whether the political reform would take the lead. The political review should follow the present social, economic and political situation of Hong Kong and then it should be conducted as to whether we should go one step forward and its result should be a reflection of the basic reality of life. If we insist on whether the Basic Law or the representative government should take the lead and if we insist on discussions on these various works, Hong Kong people would continue to be divergent and it would be detrimental to the political development in Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the stability of Hong Kong as a whole. In principle, I agree that the political development should converge with the future system of the SAR. If the Basic Law and political review is taken in the context of the Hong Kong social, economic and political situations and if it is kept in the similar manner or the discussion and attitude of the Joint Liaison Group and if it is done in the spirit of mutual understanding, the problem could be solved quite easily. Many
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 63 of 185
119
problems indeed have been solved including external trade, our future identity card beyond 1997.
I would now like to discuss the second point concerning public opinion. I think we should look at it from three points of view. First of all, what is the quality of public opinion. Do they have reasons to support or object direct election. After due consideration I think we should not tell others that they are right or wrong because the 1988 direct election is not a matter of right and wrong. It is only a question of personal choice. It is not a question for which people can say yes or no. Secondly, as to the quantity of public opinion which concerns the number of people's acceptance of direct election or not. Under these two circumstances, I would like to see what sort of views before us. Of the 6 proposals in the Basic Law Drafting Committee, 5 agree that direct election should be incorporated at Basic Law after 1997 and there is only one proposal which is not in favour of direct election. Also, of the 19 proposals in the Basic Law Drafting Committee, all agree that there should be direct election after 1997. The third suggestion I have in mind is that of the 76 members from the commercial and industrial sections, which also agrees that after 1997 one quarter of the members of the Legislative should be returned from direct election. Concerning the public opinion surveys conducted among doctors, lawyers, teachers and unions etc, the result showed that the majority is in favour of having Legco seats through direct election after 1997 and 60% agreed that it should start in 1988. From the public opinion point of view, direct election beyond 1997 is a matter beyond doubt and the question is whether there should be direct election in 1988 and what is the percentage. I agree that the commercial and industrial sections have to a certain extent put great efforts to maintain the prosperity and stability in Hong Kong. But the commercial and industrial sectors on the 1997 issue had transferred some of their funds overseas and some have even obtained overseas passports. I do not think we should be worried about this. So long as the place remains stable and prosperous and there is a chance to make money, they will come back. But what I worry is the middle class which includes lawyers, doctors, teachers or those in the financial sector. All along, they have been the foundation of the society and they have received a long period of education, they have worked hard to make Hong Kong prosperous today and if they obtain foreign passports and leave Hong Kong and manage to find a job overseas, will they come back just because Hong Kong is stable or prosperous. I am afraid that this will not be the case. Therefore, in considering the public opinion, I would place great emphasis on this middle class especially who have played an important part in maintaining and managing Hong Kong as it takes many years to educate these professional people and to enable them to take up a high position of responsibility. In view of the above, it is too early to conclude whether the public is for or against direct election. I would rather wait for the result of the Survey Office. I hope we should take this review as a standard to see whether the majority of Hong Kong people would accept that there should be direct election in 1988. Finally, to sum up how we are going to deal with the matter. On the question of direct election in
Page 63 of 185
118
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
power to rule Hong Kong. It does not only mean two types of systems as such but also the formulation of the two systems i.e. Hong Kong people and whether Hong Kong people's views would be sufficiently reflected and the decision made accordingly. And the controversy in the two systems is that when this idea gradually spread confrontation will usually arise i.e. whether the country is bigger or the two systems is bigger. If the one country is bigger, it means that the Basic Law is of paramount importance and if the two systems is bigger, it means that the political review is more important with the continuous expansion of the country concept. It would mean that the Basic Law as well as China will have confrontations with the people of Hong Kong. It can be regarded as the matter of the big versus the small because China is very big and Hong Kong is very small. Whether it is the six million people following 100 billion or vice versa is bound to cause the issue of confidence. Hong Kong people may not tell or write what they think. At many meetings and many discussions, people are worried that whatever they say will be recorded and that if they speak now they will be blacklisted after 1997. However, the facts show that people could tell what they say with their feet. And as to the question of two systems, it is said that Hong Kong people would have a greater say in decision making and even possibly rule Hong Kong. But when we overstress the two systems it would make China worry as to how sovereignty could be achieved. I think basically this should not be a problem. In international situation, it is beyond doubt that Hong Kong belongs to China. Beside, China controls on power, military forces, economic background and water supply etc. I remember once when our Basic Law Drafting Committee went to Beijing to discuss with some leaders who told us very clearly that China is not afraid of democracy confronting communism and Chinese is not afraid of people in Hong Kong opposing communism because they could not succeed. I agree totally with these leaders' view. Since Hong Kong people cannot oppose China, why are we so worried about the two system concept. The concept of one country would make Hong Kong people very worried and vote with their feet and two system is not a matter to be worried about. Therefore, I think political development of Hong Kong is not a question or whether the Basic Law would take the lead or whether the political reform would take the lead. The political review should follow the present social, economic and political situation of Hong Kong and then it should be conducted as to whether we should go one step forward and its result should be a reflection of the basic reality of life. If we insist on whether the Basic Law or the representative government should take the lead and if we insist on discussions on these various works, Hong Kong people would continue to be divergent and it would be detrimental to the political development in Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the stability of Hong Kong as a whole. In principle, I agree that the political development should converge with the future system of the SAR. If the Basic Law and political review is taken in the context of the Hong Kong social, economic and political situations and if it is kept in the similar manner or the discussion and attitude of the Joint Liaison Group and if it is done in the spirit of mutual understanding, the problem could be solved quite easily. Many
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 63 of 185
119
problems indeed have been solved incluidng external trade, our future identity card beyond 1997.
I would now like to discuss the second point concerning public opinion. I think we should look at it from three points of view. First of all, what is the quality of public opinion. Do they have reasons to support or object direct election. After due consideration I think we should not tell others that they are right or wrong because the 1988 direct election is not a matter of right and wrong. It is only a question of personal choice. It is not a question for which people can say yes or no. Secondly, as to the quantity of public opinion which concerns the number of people's acceptance of direct election or not. Under these two circumstances, I would like to see what sort of views before us. Of the 6 proposals in the Basic Law Drafting Committee, 5 agree that direct election should be incorporated at Basic Law after 1997 and there is only one proposal which is not in favour of direct election. Also, of the 19 proposals in the Basic Law Drafting Committee, all agree that there should be direct election after 1997. The third suggestion I have in mind is that of the 76 members from the commercial and industrial sections, which also agrees that after 1997 one quarter of the members of the Legislative should be returned from direct election. Concerning the public opinion surveys conducted among doctors, lawyers, teachers and unions etc, the result showed that the majority is in favour of having Legco seats through direct election after 1997 and 60% agreed that it should start in 1988. From the public opinion point of view, direct election beyond 1997 is a matter beyond doubt and the question is whether there should be direct election in 1988 and what is the percentage. I agree that the commercial and industrial sections have to a certain extent put great efforts to maintain the prosperity and stability in Hong Kong. But the commercial and industrial sectors on the 1997 issue had transferred some of their funds overseas and some have even obtained overseas passports. I do not think we should be worried about this. So long as the place remains stable and prosperous and there is a chance to make money, they will come back. But what I worry is the middle class which includes lawyers, doctors, teachers or those in the financial sector. All along, they have been the foundation of the society and they have received a long period of education, they have worked hard to make Hong Kong prosperous today and if they obtain foreign passports and leave Hong Kong and manage to find a job overseas, will they come back just because Hong Kong is stable or prosperous. I am afraid that this will not be the case. Therefore, in considering the public opinion, I would place great emphasis on this middle class especially who have played an important part in maintaining and managing Hong Kong as it takes many years to educate these professional people and to enable them to take up a high position of responsibility. In view of the above, it is too early to conclude whether the public is for or against direct election. I would rather wait for the result of the Survey Office. I hope we should take this review as a standard to see whether the majority of Hong Kong people would accept that there should be direct election in 1988. Finally, to sum up how we are going to deal with the matter. On the question of direct election in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.