Page 76 of 132
155
154
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Sewage Disposal Scheme will affect everyone of us as we are all equally responsible for producing waste. This subject of sewage, although not directly within the jurisdiction of the Council, will merit our close attention in the years to come.
Although the quality of water has been improving, I am concerned that not sufficient is being done to prevent pollutant from entering the water in the first place and secondly, the effects of extensive dredging around coastal waters.
To conclude, I firmly believe the Council has made a significant stand to green Hong Kong and will continue with this commitment for the years to come. What we need to do now is to motivate the community even still further to be more aware of their environment not only on greening but on combating pollution.
With the above remarks, I support the motion.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):- Mr. Chairman, over the past year, the Sino-British dispute has shaken all social strata. The Urban Council, being an integral part of the three-tier structure, was inevitably involved and we had a heated debate on the political reform package. Whatever the outcome may be, I, as a member of the Council, hope wholeheartedly this issue can be handled in a rational manner. Although I did not agree with some of the resolutions passed by the Council, such as objecting to the abolition of appointed membership, for which the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (the Association for DPL) and myself will continue to fight, I still respect the views of the Council.
The polarization of social views brought about by the Sino-British contention is becoming more and more obvious. When the Association of DPL's line of democracy differed from that of the mainstream democratic groups, a series of queries arose and the Association was classified as a 'pro-Communist' group. During the past year, this image has increasingly intensified. As Chairman of the Association, I found dialogues among various democratic groups more and more difficult. The consequences of the lack of dialogues were irrational accusations, attacks and labelling. I am very disappointed with such a phenomenon. Therefore, I have to take the opportunity provided by the Annual Conventional Debate to talk about the beliefs of the Association and let you and the public decide whether they have departed from the ideals of democracy.
The present line pursued by the Association for DPL is still in the direction of 'promoting democracy and improving the people's livelihood'. The line of promoting democracy is beset with difficulties because in striving for democracy, we have to face China, and the Chinese Government is a polity still calling for improvements in many aspects. Thus it is almost impossible to convince China to let Hong Kong enjoy, before 1997, a greater degree of democracy than what the Basic Law prescribes. If we disregard the existence of the Bill of Rights, the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, then full direct election to the Legislative Council in 1995 is feasible in theory, but in practice, such a demand will lead to numerous crises because it entails amending the Basic Law before 1997. However, as the SAR Government is not yet established, any amendments to the Basic Law must be proposed by the Chinese NPC Standing Committee or State Council. This would mean asking the Central Government to take the initiative to make proposals to amend the Basic Law, thus wasting the efforts of the Hong Kong business sector, middle-of-the-roaders and democratic groups who in 1988 fought for the basic right that only the SAR Government has the power to propose amendments and running contrary to the spirit of 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong'. Under China's current belief that 'stability prevails over everything', if amendments are to be proposed by the Central, the Basic Law may be amended beyond recognition before our demand for full direct election materializes and Hong Kong will not be able to enjoy a high degree of autonomy. In view of this, both I and the Association for DPL are not in favour of taking this risk with unknown consequences.
In designing a political system blueprint, we sought to comply with the existing provisions of the three aforesaid documents. Thus the political system proposal presented by the Association for DPL tries to increase the degree of democracy as much as possible under the existing stipulated conditions and ensure it will last beyond 1997. It is already not an easy task to strive for the implementation of the Association's political system proposal. The proposal includes the concept that one person should have only one vote either in the functional bodies or geographically-based general election, the abolition of corporate voting in functional constituencies, and permission for the formation of the Election Committee with 4 million eligible voters participating. All these suggestions are intended to achieve fairness and democracy instead of election by small, 'imperially ordained' circles.
We admit that in the tactics of practising democracy, our views are different from other democratic groups, but we cannot agree if our proposal and line are thus regarded as undemocratic.
If the Association for DPL is labelled 'pro-Communist' not because of its proposal but because of its communication with the Chinese side, I would say this is an unfounded accusation. It is obvious that in order to achieve democracy and implement people's livelihood policies in the best interest of the people, we have to negotiate directly with those in power through proper channels. In fact all democratic groups share this view on the issue of communication. Regrettably, the Chinese side has too many misgivings and is reluctant to get in touch with certain democratic groups. Thus there is nothing wrong in dialogue with the Chinese side. What matters is what is being communicated. In the course of dialogue with the Chinese side, the Association for DPL expressed views with the interest of the Hong Kong people in mind and spoke eloquently for the preservation of the seedlings of democracy and the concept of human rights after 1997. As to the question of whether we should
Page 76 of 132
Page 76 of 132
155
154
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Sewage Disposal Scheme will affect everyone of us as we are all equally responsible for producing waste. This subject of sewage, although not directly within the jurisdiction of the Council, will merit our close attention in the years
to come.
Although the quality of water has been improving, I am concerned that not sufficient is being done to prevent pollutant from entering the water in the first place and secondly, the effects of extensive dredging around coastal waters.
To conclude, I firmly believe the Council has made a significant stand to green Hong Kong and will continue with this commitment for the years to come. What we need to do now is to motivate the community even still further to be more aware of their environment not only on greening but on combating pollution.
With the above remarks, I support the motion.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, over the past year, the Sino-British dispute has shaken all social strata. The Urban Council, being an integral part of the three-tier structure, was inevitably involved and we had a heated debate on the political reform package. Whatever the outcome may be, I, as a member of the Council, hope wholeheartedly this issue can be handled in a rational manner. Although I did not agree with some of the resolutions passed by the Council, such as objecting to the abolition of appointed membership, for which the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (the Association for DPL) and myself will continue to fight, I still respect the views of the Council.
The polarization of social views brought about by the Sino-British contention is becoming more and more obvious. When the Association of DPL's line of democracy differed from that of the mainstream democratic groups, a series of queries arose and the Association was classified as a 'pro-Communist' group. During the past year, this image has increasingly intensified. As Chairman of the Association, I found dialogues among various democratic groups more and more difficult. The consequences of the lack of dialogues were irrational accusations, attacks and labelling. I am very disappointed with such a phenomenon. Therefore, I have to take the opportunity provided by the Annual Conventional Debate to talk about the beliefs of the Association and let you and the public decide whether they have departed from the ideals of democracy.
The present line pursued by the Association for DPL is still in the direction of 'promoting democracy and improving the people's livelihood'. The line of promoting democracy is beset with difficulties because in striving for democracy, we have to face China, and the Chinese Government is a polity still calling for improvements in many aspects. Thus it is almost impossible to convince China to let Hong Kong enjoy, before 1997, a greater degree of democracy than what the Basic Law prescribes. If we disregard the existence of the Bill of Rights, the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, then
Page 76 of 132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
full direct election to the Legislative Council in 1995 is feasible in theory, but in practice, such a demand will lead to numerous crises because it entails amending the Basic Law before 1997. However, as the SAR Government is not yet established, any amendments to the Basic Law must be proposed by the Chinese NPC Standing Committee or State Council. This would mean asking the Central Government to take the initiative to make proposals to amend the Basic Law, thus wasting the efforts of the Hong Kong business sector, middle-of-the-roaders and democratic groups who in 1988 fought for the basic right that only the SAR Government has the power to propose amendments and running contrary to the spirit of 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong'. Under China's current belief that 'stability prevails over everything', if amendments are to be proposed by the Central, the Basic Law may be amended beyond recognition before our demand for full direct election materializes and Hong Kong will not be able to enjoy a high degree of autonomy. In view of this, both I and the Association for DPL are not in favour of taking this risk with unknown consequences.
In designing a political system blueprint, we sought to comply with the existing provisions of the three aforesaid documents. Thus the political system proposal presented by the Association for DPL tries to increase the degree of democracy as much as possible under the existing stipulated conditions and ensure it will last beyond 1997. It is already not an easy task to strive for the implementation of the Association's political system proposal. The proposal includes the concept that one person should have only one vote either in the functional bodies or geographically-based general election, the abolition of corporate voting in functional constituencies, and permission for the formation of the Election Comittee with 4 million eligible voters participating. All these suggestions are intended to achieve fairness and democracy instead of election by small, 'imperially ordained' circles.
We admit that in the tactics of practising democracy, our views are different from other democratic groups, but we cannot agree if our proposal and line are thus regarded as undemocratic.
If the Association for DPL is labelled 'pro-Communist' not because of its proposal but because of its communication with the Chinese side, I would say this is an unfounded accusation. It is obvious that in order to achieve democracy and implement people's livelihood policies in the best interest of the people, we have to negotiate directly with those in power through proper channels. In fact all democratic groups share this view on the issue of communication. Regrettably, the Chinese side has too many misgivings and is reluctant to get in touch with certain democratic groups. Thus there is nothing wrong in dialogue with the Chinese side. What matters is what is being communicated. In the course of dialogue with the Chinese side, the Association for DPL expressed views with the interest of the Hong Kong people in mind and spoke eloquently for the preservation of the seedlings of democracy and the concept of human rights after 1997. As to the question of whether we should
Page 76 of 132
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.