Page 70 of 185
130
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Everyone is born with a strong instinct for survival. If possible, one would keep on making improvements to one's own living conditions, for instance, seeking a larger flat for living, better education, a job with security and stable income, but the most important of all is that, when making the above choices, one can decide one's own fate and go one's favourite way without hindering others.
I believe that all of you will share the feeling of not willing to have your own life style being arranged, dominated and controlled by other people.
Many of the friends I often meet do not talk about politics. They just talk about life. They work hard every day to earn a living and are easily satisfied with just enough clothing and food. Yet throughout the ages, life and politics are as inseparable as the two sides of a coin. We are living in a society in which, the distribution of every item of living resources is directly dominated by government departments and the consortia in the industrial and commercial fields. Therefore, how can life be not related to politics? No matter how you put that you would not talk about politics, still the government would decide on the way to levy a salary tax on you next year, your eligibility for public housing, your wife's entitlement to maternity leave when she is pregnant, and even the number of public examinations your children have to partake in their lives and the chances for them to enter a university.
All along the distribution of such daily-life resources in Hong Kong has always been controlled by an 'elit' minority and the representatives of industrial and commercial consortia in our society. The Legislative Council is responsible for enacting law, governing the expenditure of public funds, monitoring the operation of government departments and discussing major social issues which affect the livelihood of the people, yet none of its Members in the past was elected by the public and was therefore able to speak for them and be accountable to them. It was not until 1985 that the public were given the chance to elect Legislative Council Members indirectly through the functional constituencies and the electoral college of District Boards, Urban Council and Regional Council.
Such a way of indirect election is mostly denounced for its inability to cast off the flavour of elitism previously existed. The classification of functional constituencies if determined by needs, thus it is not much different from the previous system of appointment of Legislative Council Members from certain professions and trades by the Governor. As for the Members elected by the electoral college of District Boards, Urban Council and Regional Council, since they are representing the interests of District Boards and the two Councils respectively, they can, strictly speaking, be taken as being elected by functional constituencies, which is a way similar to the method of appointing District Board Members and Urban Councillors to the Legislative Council.
Under such 'improved system of appointment', only less than 70,000 people out of a total of 5.6 million in Hong Kong are endowed with the special political right of electing Legislative Council Members. The remaining powerless common people, not attached to any established functional constituency, are totally deprived of the right of electing and being elected. Their fate is determined by people of a different class.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 70 of 185
131
totally deprived of the right of electing and being elected. Their fate is determined by people of a different class.
Should this kind of election continue for a long time, disparities in political and even allocation of resources will surely arise, conflicts and disputes among different classes will be created, wrecking the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
Apart from indirect election by functional constituencies and electoral college, the only way out for the political development in Hong Kong, therefore, is election of Legco members by the system of one man one vote.
Actually, as pointed out in the 'Omelco Standing Panel on Constitutional Affairs First Report', very few people object to direct election in 1997. The public has already reached the consensus that by 1997, not less than 25% of the total seats in the Legislative Council should be filled by direct election. The problem that needs to be discussed is therefore the pace of development of direct election.
Before 1997, there are still 3 elections for the Legislative Council, to be held separately in 1988, 1991 and 1994. In order to achieve the goal that not less than 25% of the total seats in the Legislative Council should be filled by direct election by 1997, it is sensible to have some directly elected members in 1988 initially and have their number increased gradually. It is a silly idea to increase the number of directly elected members suddenly in 1991 or 1994.
The conservatives who object to direct election for the Legislative Council in 1988 think that it may be too hasty to introduce directly elected members in 1988 as indirect election to the Legislative Council was only first introduced in 1985. They suggest that decision should be made after the finalization of the Basic Law in 1990.
Perhaps they have failed to observe that the voice of support from the public for direct election did not emerge only recently. As early as the 60's and 70's, the public had already cast doubt on the representativeness of the appointed members in the Legco every now and then, and there had already been striving for direct election in Hong Kong. If people think that it is still premature to introduce direct election after so many years' discussion, then which year will be mature enough?
As regards the problem of convergence between the future political structure and the Basic Law, I think that the time for convergence, instead of in 1997, should be at present. As the drafting of the Basic Law is based on public opinion, how would the members of Drafting Committee for the Basic Law (DCBL) and Consultative Committee for the Basic Law (CCBL) be ignorant of the fact that people in Hong Kong wish to have at least 25% of the total seats be filled by direct election by 1997? The DCBL has earlier formulated 6 plans in relation to the political structure, of which 5 support the inclusion of directly elected members in the legislature. Since it is the general view that the Basic Law should provide for an element of direct election in the legislature, then
Page 70
Page 71
Page 71 of 185
Page 70 of 185
130
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Everyone is born with a strong instinct for survival. If possible, one would keep on making improvements to one's own living conditions, for instance, seeking a larger flat for living, better education, a job with security and stable income, but the most important of all is that, when making the above choices, one can decide one's own fate and go one's favourite way without hindering others.
I believe that all of you will share the feeling of not willing to have your own life style being arranged, dominated and controlled by other people.
Many of the friends I often meet do not talk about politics. They just talk about life. They work hard every day to earn a living and are easily satisfied with just enough clothing and food. Yet throughout the ages, life and politics are as inseparable as the two sides of a coin. We are living in a society in which, the distribution of every item of living resources is directly dominated by government departments and the consortia in the industrial and commercial fields. Therefore, how can life be not related to politics? No matter how you put that you would not talk about politics, still the government would decide on the way to levy a salary tax on you next year, your eligibility for public housing, your wife's entitlement to maternity leave when she is pregnant, and even the number of public examinations your children have to partake in their lives and the chances for them to enter a university.
All along the distribution of such daily-life resources in Hong Kong has always been controlled by an 'elit' minority and the representatives of industrial and commercial consortia in our society. The Legislative Council is responsible for enacting law, governing the expenditure of public funds, monitoring the operation of government departments and discussion major social issues which affect the livelihood of the people, yet none of its Members in the past was elected by the public and was therefore able to speak for them and be account- able to them. It was not until 1985 that the public were given the chance to elect Legislative Council Members indirectly through the functional constituencies and the electoral college of District Boards, Urban Council and Regional Council.
Such a way of indirect election is mostly denounced for its inability to cast off the flavour of elitism previously existed. The classification of functional constituencies if determined by needs, thus it is not much different from the previous system of appointment of Legislative Council Members from certain professions and trades by the Governor. As for the Members elected by the electoral college of Distric Boards, Urban Council and Regional Council, since they are representing the interests of District Boards and the two Councils respectively, they can, strictly speaking, be taken as being elected by functional constituencies, which is a way similar to the method of appointing District Board Members and Urban Councillors to the Legislative Council.
Under such 'improved system of appointment', only less than 70 000 people out of a total of 5.6 million in Hong Kong are endowed with the special political right of electing Legislative Council Members. The remaining powerless common people, not attached to any established functional constituency, are
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 70 of 185
131
totally deprived of the right of electing and being elected. Their fate is determined by people of a different class.
Should this kind of election continue for a long time, disparities in political and even allocation of resources will surely arise, conflicts and disputes among different classes will be created, wrecking the prosperity and stability of
power
Hong Kong.
Apart from indirect election by functional constituencies and electoral college, the only way out for the political development in Hong Kong, therefore, is election of Legco members by the system of one man one vote.
Actually, as pointed out in the 'Omelco Standing Panel on Constitutional Affairs First Report', very few people object to direct election in 1997. The public has already reached the consensus that by 1997, not less than 25% of the total seats in the Legislative Council should be filled by direct election. The problem that need to be discussed is therefore the pace of development of direct election.
Before 1997, there are still 3 elections for the Legislative Council, to be held separately in 1988, 1991 and 1994. In order to achieve the goal that not less than 25% of the total seats in the Legislative Council should be filled by direct election by 1997, it is sensible to have some directly elected members in 1988 initially and have their number increased gradually. It is a silly idea to increase the number of directly elected members suddely in 1991 or 1994.
The conservative who object to direct election for the Legislative Council in 1988 think that it may be too hasty to introduce directly elected members in 1988 as indirect election to the Legislative Council was only first introduced in 1985. They suggest that decision should be made after the finalization of the Basic Law in 1990.
Perhaps they have failed to observe that the voice of support from the public for direct election did not emerge only recently. As early as the 60's and 70's, the public had already cast doubt on the representativeness of the appointed members in the Legco every now and then, and there had already been striving for direct election in Hong Kong. If people think that it is still premature to introduce direct election after so many years' discussion, then which year will be mature enough?
As regards the problem of convergence between the future political structure and the Basic Law, I think that the time for convergence, instead of in 1997, should be at present. As the drafting of the Basic Law is based on public opinion, how would the members of Drafting Committee for the Basic law (DCBL) and Consultative Committee for the Basic Law (CCBL) be ignorant of the fact that people in Hong Kong wish to have at least 25% of the total seats be filled by direct election by 1997? The DCBL has earlier formulated 6 plans in relation to the political structure, of which 5 support the inclusion of directly elected members in the legislature. Since it is the general view that the Basic Law should provide for an element of direct election in the legislature, then
Page 70Page 71
Page 71 of 185
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.