Page 89 of 126
154
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the fruit of the strenuous efforts of its people and the high efficiency of the Hong Kong Government. However, this 'megaphone' diplomacy adopted by the Chinese side has escalated the political struggle and made many members of the judiciary, barristers, legal officers, civil servants and people engaged in politics in Hong Kong worry about their future. This action by the Chinese side is far from helping Hong Kong achieve a smooth transition. Such being the case, even if the LegCo comes up with an amended version of Mr. PATTEN'S package, which accommodates 'convergence with the Basic Law', the Chinese side will, as it has declared, still consider the reforms unacceptable and will start a new system on their own. In the circumstances, what should we, Hong Kong people, do? Should we start to keep quiet from now on until 1997 and let China hold talks with Britain entirely on our behalf? Is it that we should not voice our opinions until after 1997 when we become the subjects of the SAR where 'one country, two systems', 'a high degree of autonomy' will really be put into practice? However, things should not be so, for Hong Kong people's confidence is continuously being eroded by actions of their biological mother. I fail to see how China can win over the confidence of the people of Hong Kong in the post-1997 years. This is indeed a very regrettable development. So, like many Hong Kong people who are concerned about the political future of Hong Kong, I, as an ordinary member of the community, earnestly appeal to the Chinese side to refrain from taking any manoeuvre of the British side as a form of conspiracy. Instead, they should actively review their own strategies with a view to winning the confidence of Hong Kong people, most of whom will definitely remain in Hong Kong after 1997. If things do not develop this way, I really do not know when the dispute will be over.
With the above remarks, Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Today I am going to talk about a new form of international contest. Although the Urban Council has spared no efforts in the promotion of various sports and contests, I dare say it has never organized the kind of contest I am going to discuss with you. And I believe that the Council has not taken any interest in the promotion of this contest nor will it do so in the future. The contest requires not only physical strength but also more of latent force. It is known as 'Sino-British Wrestling'. My aim today is not to find out which side is right and which side is wrong. Nor do I want to state my stance to support one or oppose the other. Neither do I have the ability to propose any resolutions acceptable to both sides. I am one of the Hongkongers born and bred here, and have decided to remain in Hong Kong. Such being my status, I would like to examine the controversy over the political reforms, to reflect the general feeling and their psychology in the course of events, their perplexity, anxiety, predicament and misgivings about their future. In my mind there are many questions which have no answers and, I believe, will never have answers. Nevertheless, I still hope to take this opportunity to raise some questions. Broadly speaking, one group of questions is for the British and Hong Kong governments and the other for the Chinese government.
Page 89 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 89 of 126
155
First of all, I would put up the questions for the British and Hong Kong governments. Why does the British government change its China policy so drastically in the latter transition period? What are the ultimate aims of its proposals for political reforms? Does it really want to grant more democracy to the people of Hong Kong? If the answer is affirmative, when has Britain, a self-proclaimed democratic country, ever granted democracy to them during its colonial rule in the past century? Why does it suddenly want to speed up democracy in Hong Kong at all cost when it is bound to leave Hong Kong in 4 years' time? Is it attempting to prolong its colonial rule and protect its vested interests through the political reforms? Is it attempting to take advantage of the gradual fusion of the two economic entities of Hong Kong and China to accelerate China's political evolution through political reforms in Hong Kong? The government repeatedly asserts that the reforms will be carried out in the interests of Hong Kong people. But what are these interests? Stability and prosperity? Peaceful transition? Basic necessities of life? Good social order? Democratic political system? I believe they are all Hong Kong people's interests. But how are the priorities set? The government also asserts that the political reforms have enlisted the support of the Hong Kong people. For this complicated and significant issue, why did the government forsake its usual practice of explaining its proposals for political reforms in a consultation paper so as to seek public opinions? Why did it forsake this practice through which public opinions could be ascertained accurately? Has the government employed any systemic, scientific and comprehensive method to collect public opinions? Are the consultation targets chosen by the government too selective and limited? Should the government not chart its policies with reference to the public opinions collected by different organizations and research companies with varying criteria, objectives and survey methods? Why does the government consider it worthwhile to insist on political reforms at the expense of smooth transition and convergence? Are 1995 and 1997 the deadline for striving for democracy? Is non-convergence only confined to the political level? In what way will the government ensure the smooth transition of the present economic, financial, judicial, social and other systems? The above questions are for the British and Hong Kong governments. Next, I would like to explore how the Chinese government thinks of the proposed political reforms.
Is it appropriate for the Chinese government to view the political reform package in terms of the 'sovereignty' and 'conspiracy' theories? Does it mean that the Hong Kong people are pro-Britain and anti-China when they make a demand for speeding up democracy in the territory? Does it mean that they conspire to make Hong Kong a subversion base? Does it mean that they show no respect for China's sovereignty and challenge China's authority? Does the speeding up of democracy in Hong Kong mean a revolt against China? Will it encourage the people in other parts of China to demand for democracy? Will it threaten the Chinese regime? China's suspension of talks on Hong Kong's New Airport and threats to invalidate all contracts spanning 1997 including the building of the Container Terminal Number 9 have already greatly undermined
Page 89 of 126
Page 89 of 126
154
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the fruit of the strenuous efforts of its people and the high efficiency of the Hong Kong Government. However, this 'megaphone' diplomacy adopted by the Chinese side has escalated the political struggle and made many members of the judiciary, barristers, legal officers, civil servants and people engaged in politics in Hong Kong worry about their future. This action by the Chinese side is far from helping Hong Kong achieve a smooth transition. Such being the case, even if the LegCo comes up with an amended version of Mr. PATTEN'S package, which accomodates 'convergence with the Basic Law', the Chinese side will, as it has declared, still consider the reforms unacceptable and will start a new system on their own. In the circumstances, what should we, Hong Kong people, do? Should we start to keep quiet from now on until 1997 and let China hold talks with Britain entirely on our behalf? Is it that we should not voice our opinions until after 1997 when we become the subjects of the SAR where 'one country, two systems', 'a high degree of autonomy' will really be put into practice? However, things should not be so, for Hong Kong people's confidence is continuously being eroded by actions of their biological mother. I fail to see how China can win over the confidence of the people of Hong Kong in the post-1997 years. This is indeed a very regrettable development. So, like many Hong Kong people who are concerned about the political future of Hong Kong, I, as an ordinary member of the community, earnestly appeal to the Chinese side to refrain from taking any manoeuvre of the British side as a form of conspiracy. Instead, they should actively review their own strategies with a view to winning the confidence of Hong Kong people, most of whom will definitely remain in Hong Kong after 1997. If things do not develop this way, I really do not know when the dispute will be over.
With the above remarks, Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Today I am going to talk about a new form of international contest. Although the Urban Council has spared no efforts in the promotion of various sports and contests, I dare say it has never organized the kind of contest I am going to discuss with you. And I believe that the Council has not taken any interest in the promotion of this contest nor will it do so in the future. The contest requires not only physical strength but also more of latent force. It is known as 'Sino-British Wrestling'. My aim today is not to find out which side is right and which side is wrong. Nor do I want to state my stance to support one or oppose the other. Neither do I have the ability to propose any resolutions acceptable to both sides. I am one of the Hongkongers born and bred here, and have decided to remain in Hong Kong. Such being my status, I would like to examine the controversy over the political reforms, to reflect the general feeling and their psychology in the course of events, their perplexity, anxiety, predicament and misgivings about their future. In my mind there are many questions which have no answers and, I believe, will never have answers. Nevertheless, I still hope to take this opportunity to raise some questions. Broadly speaking, one group of questions is for the British and Hong Kong governments and the other for the Chinese government.
Page 89 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 89 of 126
155
First of all, I would put up the questions for the British and Hong Kong governments. Why does the British government change its China policy so drastically in the latter transition period? What are the ultimate aims of its proposals for political reforms? Does it really want to grant more democracy to the people of Hong Kong? If the answer is affirmative, when has Britain, a self-proclaimed democratic country, ever granted democracy to them during its colonial rule in the past century? Why does it suddenly want to speed up democracy in Hong Kong at all cost when it is bound to leave Hong Kong in 4 years' time? Is it attempting to prolong its colonial rule and protect its vested interests through the political reforms? Is it attempting to take advantage of the gradual fusion of the two economic entities of Hong Kong and China to accelerate China's political evolution through political reforms in Hong Kong? The government repeatedly asserts that the reforms will be carried out in the interests of Hong Kong people. But what are these interests? Stability and prosperity? Peaceful transition? Basic necessities of life? Good social order? Democratic political system? I believe they are all Hong Kong people's interests. But how are the priorities set? The government also asserts that the political reforms have enlisted the support of the Hong Kong people. For this complicated and significant issue, why did the government forsake its usual practice of explaining its proposals for politcal reforms in a consultation paper so as to seek public opinions? Why did it forsake this practice through which public opinions could be ascertained accurately? Has the government employed any systemic, scientific and comprehensive method to collect public opinions? Are the consultation targets chosen by the government too selective and limited? Should the government not chart its policies with reference to the public opinions collected by different organizations and research companies with varying criteria, objectives and survey methods? Why does the government consider it worth-while to insist on political reforms at the expense of smooth transition and convergence? Are 1995 and 1997 the deadline for striving for democracy? Is non-convergence only confined to the political level? In what way will the government ensure the smooth transition of the present economic, financial, judicial, social and other systems? The above questions are for the British and Hong Kong governments. Next, I would like to explore how the Chinese government thinks of the proposed political reforms.
Is it appropriate for the Chinese government to view the political reform package in terms of the 'sovereignty' and 'conspiracy' theories? Does it mean that the Hong Kong people are pro-Britain and anti-China when they make a demand for speeding up democracy in the territory? Does it mean that they conspire to make Hong Kong a subversion base? Does it mean that they show no respect for China's sovereignty and challenge China's authority? Does the speeding up of democracy in Hong Kong mean a revolt against China? Will it encourage the people in other parts of China to demand for democracy? Will it threaten the Chinese regime? China's suspension of talks on Hong Kong's New Airport and threats to invalidate all contracts spanning 1997 including the building of the Container Terminal Number 9 have already greatly undermined
Page 89 of 126
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.