ENG-1995 — Page 25

THE WAY WE ARE

2

unless every member of it has a fair chance to exercise that freedom, for economic or social repression limit that freedom just as much as political repression. A man who has a vote but cannot choose his occupation, a woman who cannot choose how many children she will have, a child that is deprived of education -- none of them is really free.

I think we instinctively assume that we have that sort of freedom, within a generally accepted framework of established law, under a government structure which ensures that no one person or organisation is permitted to override everyone else.

Many people around the world accept rather uncritically that freedom is impossible without democratically elected government. But democracy without the safeguard of justice under the law does not guarantee freedom. A judicial system independent of the executive arm of government and which can and does act as a restraint on the exercise of power by the executive is essential. So also are limitations on the power to make new laws. For if the power even of an elected legislature is not subject to some restraint it can easily become, under the guise of democracy, as tyrannous as any medieval tsar.

The greatest virtue of our government structure is that no one is supreme. The Governor is required to consult the Executive Council on all matters of importance. Only the Governor in Council can initiate legislation with financial implications but he cannot force the Legislative Council to pass it. Proposals involving expenditure of public funds are subject to the provision of those funds by the Legislative Council. Once a law is made no one Governor, Executive Council, Legislative Council, nor any official can disregard it. And anyone aggrieved by any action he believes to be contrary to the law can take his case to the courts, which are independent of both the executive and legislative arms of the government.

This might sound like a recipe for perpetual stalemate but everyone who lives in Hong Kong knows that it is not. However, I am not so sure that it is realised that it is this system of checks and balances that guarantees their freedom to live and work within a framework of law and justice.

We have a system of consultation for ascertaining public opinion on the matters for which the government has accepted or thinks it should accept responsibility. Most of us accept that even elected governments cannot afford to drive ahead implementing every proposal in their manifestos without any further consultation. Only thus can the administration ensure that the proposals that it puts forward have a fair chance of being endorsed by the Executive and Legislative Councils and accepted by the public.

Inevitably this process of consultation and the search for consensus take time. To those who are tempted to believe in their own infallibility it may all seem rather inefficient. But it is in fact the only efficient way. Any government that does not have the consent of the governed is inherently unstable. However sure anyone may be that he is right, he is very unlikely to be right all the time, and the less he listens to other people the more out of touch he will become and the more mistakes he will make.

It is, of course, not always possible to achieve consensus in every case. But if the essential consent of the governed is to be retained, it is necessary that all people should feel that they have had a fair chance to put their point of view forward and that it has been considered, not just brushed aside. When a shipload of Vietnamese