Page 69 of 182
130
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
it to ashes. This is sufficient. There is no need to stipulate how the keeper should from taking possession of it, avert the occurrence of forest fires that can reduce
manage the forest so long it is luxuriant and survives for ages to come.
Madam Chairman, I support the motion. Please relay my views to the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law through the appropriate channels.
(Mr. Walter M. SULKE left the meeting at 4.40 p.m.)
MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, while different schools of thought are blossoming in multifarious forms, the sun is already setting and dusk is near. The 5-month consultation period of the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions' is now coming to an end. Those comrades who are concerned about the future of Hong Kong should seize this opportunity to reflect their views on the 'Draft Basic Law' to Beijing and the authorities concerned.
As from today, there are only 18 days left for the local public to express their views on the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions'. In a press release issued by the Xinhua News Agency in August, it was mentioned that according to statistics compiled by the Secretariat of the Basic Law Consultative Committee, more than 600 letters had been received from the public since the publication of the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions'; that is to say, only 1/10,000 of the public had expressed their views on it. Are the rest of the public turning a blind eye to the 'Draft'? Or are they hearing without listening?
On 8 September, Sir Jack CATER, the adviser to the Basic Law Consultative Committee, warned that there would be little chance to make substantial amendments to the Basic Law when its second draft is finalized in 1989. Therefore, the local public should make active efforts to rectify loopholes in the 'Draft' and strive for the materialization of commitments made in the 'Sino-British Joint Declaration'.
The 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions' is, undoubtedly, a lengthy and complicated constitutional document which is beyond the comprehension of the general public. It is really rather difficult for them to join the discussion, or even express their views to the authorities concerned. Hence, views have mainly been received from interest groups. The so-called 'conservatives' and 'democrats' would be the most active parties while the professionals too, would be enthusiastic in making known their views for the sake of their future practice. It is 'due to inability rather than unwillingness' that the majority of the wage earners are adopting a willing but powerless attitude towards the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions'. We still have a silent majority.
In fact, the most important role of the 'Draft Basic Law' is to carry out the 'Sino-British Joint Declaration'; to materialize the principles of 'one country, two systems', 'maintaining a high degree of autonomy' and 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong'; to safeguard individual rights and freedom; to establish a democratic system of government and to maintain a balance of power between the executive authorities, the legislature and the judicial organs. But according to my intuition, I believe that this 'offspring of mixed parentage' (the Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions) born of capitalism and socialism, really puts too much emphasis on 'one country' while neglecting the 'two systems'. This has thus created worries among the Hong Kong people over the implementation of 'a high degree of autonomy'. Many of the terms and phrases in the articles of the 'Draft' are vague and ambiguous, which would easily lead to misinterpretation or misuse. Moreover, they have deviated from the principle stated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. As a result, Hong Kong people are worrying that too much intervention in the affairs of the Hong Kong SAR would come from the Central Government in future.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 69 of 182
131
In fact, many Hong Kong members of the Basic Law Drafting and Consultative Committees have made severe criticisms on the 'Draft'. They believe that the articles contained in the 'Draft' need to be improved in many respects and must be amended or reviewed. They think that 'the Basic Law' should essentially aim at safeguarding the interests of the Hong Kong people as a whole. Therefore, I also agree that the most controversial articles in the Draft, i.e., Articles 16, 17, 18, 22 and 169, should be deleted or rewritten after review. Likewise, any other articles in the Draft which contain equivocal or abstruse terms or phrases should be carefully amended or rewritten.
With regard to the method for selecting the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR, I am in favour of Alternative 2 as outlined in Annex 1.
Regarding the method for constituting the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR, I am in favour of Alternative 2 as outlined in Annex II.
As for the method for the formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR, I agree to the adoption of what has been referred to as the 'through train' method, i.e., upon the transfer of government on 1 July 1997, there shall be no change in the serving membership of the Legislative Council at that time. All the Members should automatically become members of the First Legislature of the Hong Kong SAR. Of course, this has to be reported to the Central People's Government for appointment and the Members have to go through the formal ceremonies of swearing in to office and pledging allegiance.
Next, I would like to talk about the articles of the 'Draft' concerning labour rights and interests.
At present, there are more than 100 legislations protecting the rights and interests of the labour sector in Hong Kong in almost every respect. Nevertheless, problems relating to arrears of wages, severance pay, compensation for injuries or death, unreasonable dismissal, retirement and provident fund schemes, etc., are still being confronted by workers of different trades and professions. This shows that there are still loopholes and injustice in existing
Page 69 of 182
130
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
it to ashes. This is sufficient. There is no need to stipulate how the keeper should from taking possession of it, avert the occurrence of forest fires that can reduce
manage the forest so long it is luxuriant and survives for ages to come.
Madam Chairman, I support the motion. Please relay my views to the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law through the appropriate channels.
(Mr. Walter M. SULKE left the meeting at 4.40 p.m.)
MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, while different schools of thought are blossoming in multifarious forms, the sun is already setting and dusk is near. The 5-month consultation period of the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions' is now coming to an end. Those comrades who are concerned about the future of Hong Kong should seize this oppor tunity to reflect their views on the 'Draft Basic Law' to Beijing and the authorities concerned.
As from today, there are only 18 days left for the local public to express their views on the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions'. In a press release issued by the Xinhua News Agency in August, it was mentioned that according to statistics compiled by the Secretariat of the Basic Law Consultative Com- mittee, more then 600 letters had been received from the public since the publication of the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions'; that is to say, only 1/10 000 of the public had expressed their views on it. Are the rest of the public turning a blind eye to the 'Draft”? Or are they hearing without listening?
On 8 September, Sir Jack CATER, the adviser to the Basic Law Consultative Committee, warned that there would be little chance to make substantial amendments to the Basic Law when its second draft is finalized in 1989. Therefore, the local public should make active efforts to rectify loopholes in the 'Draft' and strive for the materialization of commitments made in the 'Sino- British Joint Declaration'.
The 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions' is, undoubtedly, a lenghty and complicated constitutional document which is beyond the comprehension of the general public. It is really rather difficult for them to joint the discussion, or even express their views to the authorities concerned. Hence, views have mainly been received from interest groups. The so-called 'conservatives' and 'democrats' would be the most active parties while the professionals too, would be enthusiastic in making known their views for the sake of their future practice. It is 'due to inability rather then unwillingness' that the majority of the wage carners are adopting a willing but powerless attitude towards the 'Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions'. We still have a silent majority.
In fact, the most important role of the 'Draft Basic Law' is to carry out the 'Sino-British Joint Declaration'; to materialize the principles of 'one country, two systems', 'maintaining a high degree of autonomy' and 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong'; to safeguard individual rights and freedom; to
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 69 of 182
131
establish a democratic system of government and to maintain a balance of power between the executive authorities, the legislature and the judicial organs. But according to my intuition, I believe that this 'offspring of mixed parentage' (the Draft Basic Law for Solicitation of Opinions) born of capitalism and socialism, really puts too much emphasis on 'one country' while neglecting the two systems'. This has thus created worries among the Hong Kong people over the implementation of 'a high degree of autonomy'. Many of the terms and phrases in the articles of the 'Draft' are vague and ambiguous, which would easily lead to misinterpretation or misuse. Moreover, they have deviated from the principle stated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. As a result, Hong Kong people are worrying that too much intervention in the affairs of the Hong Kong SAR would come from the Central Government in future.
In fact, many Hong Kong members of the Basic Law Drafting and Con- sultative Committees have made severe criticisms on the 'Draft'. They believe that the articles contained in the 'Draft' need to be improved in many respects and must be amended or reviewed. They think that 'the Basic Law' should essentially aim at safeguarding the interests of the Hong Kong people as a whole. Therefore, I also agree that the most controversial articles in the Draft, i.e., Articles 16, 17, 18, 22 and 169, should be deleted or rewritten after review. Likewise, any other articles in the Draft which contain equivocal or abstruse terms or phrases should be carefully amended or rewritten.
With regard to the method for selecting the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR, I am in favour of Alternative 2 as outlined in Annex 1.
Regarding the method for constituting the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR, I am in favour of Alternative 2 as outlined in Annex II.
As for the method for the formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR, I agree to the adoption of what has been referred to as the 'through train' method, i.e., upon the transfer of government on 1 July 1997, there shall be no change in the serving membership of the Legislative Council at that time. All the Members should automatically become members of the First Legislature of the Hong Kong SAR. Of course, this has to be reported to the Central People's Government for appointment and the Members have to go through the formal ceremonies of swearing in to office and pledging allegiance.
Next, I would like to talk about the articles of the 'Draft' concerning labour rights and interests.
At present, there are more than 100 legislations protecting the rights and interests of the labour sector in Hong Kong in almost every respect. Never- theless, problems relating to arrears of wages, severance pay, compensation for injuries or death, unreasonable dismissal, retirement and provident fund schemes, etc., are still being confronted by workers of different trades and professions. This shows that there are still loopholes and injustice in existing
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.