Page 98 of 185
186
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
1997 becomes clearer within the next two or three years. It cannot be denied that the composition of the Urban Council will have to fit in with any future changes to the Legislative Council, which cannot be anticipated or foreseen during this particular round in the ongoing review of the system of representative government in Hong Kong.
Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
(Mrs. Eleanor LING left the meeting at 3.35 p.m.)
MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, according to the Report of the Survey Office, 8,150 out of 144,000 submissions mention about the Urban Council and one third of them, which is equivalent to 2,719 submissions, ask for changes in the Council. For the rest who expressed nothing, they can be considered as not opposed to the existence of the Council or as approving of all its work although these submissions cannot fully represent the opinions of the Hong Kong people as a whole. Moreover, the survey conducted by the Survey Office has already given the public a feeling that their opinions can really be reflected.
Some newspapers and Councillors misunderstood my views after I had presented my speech at the last Urban Council meeting. They misinterpreted that I objected to direct elections. In my last speech, there was a sentence saying: 'Thus I object to the introduction of direct elections by universal suffrage in 1988. We should not have it until we have completed the Basic Law and achieved a higher registration rate of electors.' I would like to make clarification here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):-As per your request, Mr. Chairman, I will confine my remarks today entirely to that part of the Survey Report which refers to the Urban Council. If this were not so, I would have to make a considerably longer speech, and I hope that you will give us an opportunity at the next meeting to comment also on the parts of the Report appertaining to our colleagues in other places and how they should be elected to such places.
My first reaction to the report of the Survey Office regarding the public response to the Green Paper was one of confused resignation. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. The corollary of that is, of course, if you ask the right questions you get the right answers. The only question being in our particular situation, which is the wrong question and which is the right answer? And I can't help feeling that at least as far as the situation of the Urban Council is concerned, Government, or at least a part of Government, and let me here name the enemy, namely the CNTA, are very anxious for changes to be made in the Urban Council which, of course, became quite obvious from the fact that the right questions weren't asked but the wrong questions were. In view of
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 98 of 185
187
all this it is amazing that the answers weren't more lopsided, and I was certainly very glad to note an undercurrent of commonsense in these answers.
To document what I just said all one has to do is look at Chapter 9, paragraph 9.10 on page 38 of the Report where the Survey covering the entire adult population carried out by Survey Research Hong Kong Ltd does not even ask the question whether it would be right not to change anything in the make-up or workings of the Urban Council.
It must also, of course, be borne in mind that this was not a referendum. There were no really simple means for people to express their opinions and to do so one at least had to put pen to paper. The result of this is that out of an estimated 2 million people who could be eligible to vote on the pros and cons of three-tier Government, direct or indirect elections etc. etc., only (and here I am taking the very highest figure quoted in the Survey Report) 137,217 people responded, which means that less than 7% of possible opinions were actually expressed. And I assume that figure must be the rationale behind Government's announced policy that they need a two-thirds majority of the opinions expressed in the Survey before any serious changes can be made. The highest number of people who gave opinions on any of the questions relating to the Urban Council was 10,399. And that was in connection with the size of the Urban Council whereas for all the rest of the questions concerning the Urban Council the number of people answering were well below this 10,000 figure, i.e. less than 1% of the possible electorate concerned themselves with the questions relating to the Urban Council. So how can anyone really draw any conclusions from such low figures? Taking Government's criterion, these figures indicate that no change should be made in the size of the Urban Council, or in the way it works. The sole exception might be the provision of more opportunities for District Board members to participate directly in the work of the Urban Council and its select committees, and I don't think anyone here in this Chamber today would have any objection to this. In fact, we have over the years quite consciously tried to do just that, and tried to involve District Board members in our work. But in this connection, it must also be said that it takes two to tango. When, for instance, we tried to involve District Board members in responsibility for hawkers, we were rebuffed. I think District Board members must be quite clear in their own minds that a closer involvement in our Urban Council work does not just include the glamour, the culture, recreation and sport, it also includes the dirt, the food hygiene, the cleaning of the streets, the control of hawkers, where we often have to tread on people's toes and make ourselves unpopular because of the physical constraints of our job.
It is, unfortunately, far too easy to attack the Survey Report and shoot large holes in it, but in the end what is important is the final result, i.e. the White Paper and the actual reforms to come, and there I think this Council made its stand quite clear in the letter to the Chief Secretary, which you, Mr. Chairman, tabled earlier for general information, which is a reasoned, logical statement and which I hope will convince the powers that be, when drafting the White Paper,
Page 98 of 185
Page 98 of 185
186
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
1997 becomes clearer within the next two or three years. It cannot be denied that the composition of the Urban Council will have to fit in with any future changes to the Legislative Council, which cannot be anticipated
or foreseen during this particular round in the ongoing review of the system of representative government in Hong Kong.
Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
(Mrs. Eleanor LING left the meeting at 3.35 p.m.)
MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, according to the Report of the Survey Office, 8 150 out of 144 000 submissions mention about the Urban Council and one third of them, which is equivalent to 2719 submissions, ask for changes in the Council. For the rest who expressed nothing, they can be considered as not opposed to the existence of the Council or as approving of all its work although these submissions cannot fully repesent the opinions of the Hongkong people as a whole. Moreover the survey conducted by the Survey Office has already given the public a feeling that their opinions can really be reflected.
Some newspapers and Councillors misunderstood my views after I had presented my speech at the last Urban Council meeting. They misinterpreted that I objected to direct elections. In my last speech, there was a sentence saying: 'Thus I object to the introduction of direct elections by universal suffrage in 1988. We should not have it until we have completed the Basic Law and achieved a higher registration rate of electors.' I would like to make clarification here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):-As per your request, Mr. Chairman, I will confine my remarks today entirely to that part of the Survey Report which refers to the Urban Council. If this were not so I would have to make a considerably longer speech, and I hope that you will give us an opportunity at the next meeting to comment also on the parts of the Report appertaining to our colleagues in other places and how they should be elected to such places.
My first reaction to the report of the Survey Office regarding the public response to the Green Paper was one of confused resignation. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. The corollary of that is, of course, if you ask the right questions you get the right answers: The only question being in our particular situation, which is the wrong question and which is the right answer? And I can't help feeling that at least as far as the situation of the Urban Council is concerned, Government, or at least a part of Government, and let me here name the enemy, namely the CNTA, are very anxious for changes to be made in the Urban Council which, of course, became quite obvious from the fact that the right questions weren't asked but the wrong questions were. In view of
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 98 of 185
187
all this it is amazing that the answers weren't more lopsided, and I was certainly very glad to note an undercurrent of commonsense in these aswers.
To document what I just said all one has to do is look at Chapter 9, para- graph 9.10 on page 38 of the Report where the Survey covering the entire adult population carried out by Survey Research Hong Kong Ltd does not even ask the question whether it would be right not to change anything in the make up or workings of the Urban Council.
It must also, of course, be borne in mind that this was not a referendum. There were no really simple means for people to express their opinions and to do so one at least had to put pen to paper. The result of this is that out of an estimated 2 million people who could be eligible to vote on the pros and cons of three tier Government, direct or indirect elections etc. etc., only (and here I am taking the very highest figure quoted in the Survey Repor) 137 217 people responded, which means that less than 7% of possible opinions were actually expressed. And I assume that figure must be the rationale behind Govern- ment's announced policy that they need a two-thirds majority of the opinions expressed in the Survey before any serious changes can be made. The highest number of people who gave opinions on any of the questions relating to the Urban Council was 10 399. And that was in connection with the size of the Urban Council whereas for all the rest of the questions concerning the Urban Council the number of people answering were well below this 10 000 figure, i.e. less than 1% of the possible electorate concerned themselves with the questions relating to the Urban Council. So how can anyone really draw any conclusions from such low figures? Taking Government's criterion, these figures indicate that no change should be made in the size of the Urban Council, or in the way it works. The sole exception might be the provision of more opportunities for District Board members to participate directly in the work of the Urban Council and its select committees, and I don't think anyone here in this Chamber today would have any objection to this. In fact, we have over the years quite consciously tried to do just that, and tried to involve District Board members in our work. But in this connection it must also be said that it takes two to tango. When, for instance, we tried to involve District Board members in responsibility for hawkers, we were rebuffed. I think District Board members must be quite clear in their own minds that a closer involvement in our Urban Council work does not just include the glamour, the culture, recreation and sport, it also includes the dirt, the food hygiene, the cleaning of the streets, the control of hawkers, where we often have to tread on peoples toes and make ourselves unpopular because of the physical constraints of our job.
It is, unfortunately, far too easy to attack the Survey Report and shoot large holes in it, but in the end what is important is the final result, i.e. the white paper and the actual reforms to come, and there I think this Council made its stand quite clear in the letter to the Chief Secretary, which you, Mr. Chairman, tabled earlier for general information, which is a reasoned, logical statement and which I hope will convince the powers that be, when drafting the white paper,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.