Motion Debate on "Constitutional reform proposal" (9 November 2005)

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, after the Government published the Fifth Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force, we have expressed our views on it. We think that as the 60 Members of this Council are responsible for handling a great many issues in Hong Kong and they have to take part in various panels and scrutinize bills, a shortage of manpower has, therefore, existed. So, we support the part about increasing the number of Members to 70 in the proposal. Certainly, on the premise of increasing the number of Members to 70, the interpretation of the National People's Congress considered that the number of Members returned by direct elections and those by functional constituency elections should be the same and so, we support that 35 Members shall be returned by direct elections and the other 35 Members by functional constituency elections.

In respect of functional constituencies, the Liberal Party has already expressed its views. From the perspective of balanced participation, we consider that one or two seats should be allocated to the industrial and business sector, one or two seats to professionals, and one or two seats to the locals. However, the Government now thinks that the traditional functional constituencies are in conflict with the direction of gradual and orderly progress. If we look at it from the direction of gradual and orderly progress, we should enable more people who are returned by democratic elections to join the Legislative Council. The Government also mentioned that of those 500 DC members, 100 are appointed DC members, close to 100 come from the industrial and business sector and 80 are professionals. So, I think from the perspectives of balanced participation, gradual and orderly progress and the actual situation, this proposal is desirable. Certainly, we still have to explain to the functional constituencies representing the industrial and business sector the initial expectations and the changes made by the Government in its proposal. Since we consider balanced participation and gradual and orderly progress necessary, we think that this proposal is more democratic and more in line with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. It also gives us room for achieving balanced participation and so, it merits our support. As far as I understand it, so far, most Members returned by functional constituency elections, including Members of the Liberal Party who have affiliations with the industrial and business sector, think that this proposal is still acceptable although it may not be our first choice. So, we will actively take part in it and throw weight behind it.

Mr Ronny TONG pointed out in the motion that appointed DC members should not be given the right to select the Chief Executive. In this respect, many opinion polls have been conducted in the community, and the Liberal Party has also conducted opinion polls in this connection. As at 31 October - my apology, Madam President, it should be as at yesterday, that is, 8 November, we have conducted an opinion survey for nine days. Let me read out the first question in it to preclude people from querying the questions asked by us and alleging that we had put across a wrong message to the interviewees. Our question is: Do you agree that the Government should allow all DC members, whether they be elected or appointed members, to join the Election Committee in 2007, so that they can take part in the selection of the Chief Executive? Results showed that 1 540 people agreed and 730 disagreed, or 53.2% agreed and 25.1% disagreed. The ratio of people who agreed with it to those who disagreed is 2:1.

Incidentally, let me also read out the second question in the opinion survey conducted by us: Do you agree that appointed DC members be allowed to contest the five newly added functional constituency seats in the Legislative Council? The result was that 1 281 people (44%) agreed and 760 people (26%) disagreed. While the figures are slightly lower than those cited earlier, we can see clearly that it was 44% against 26%. As to whether appointed DC members can vote in the selection of the Chief Executive and in the election of those five seats for the DC functional constituency in the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008 respectively, we think that members of the public have, in fact, explicitly expressed their supportive views on these proposals. I hope that Mr Ronny TONG, sponsor of this motion, as well as Members of the democratic camp will listen to members of the community. They are, in fact, concerned about this issue, but they think that the rights of appointed DC members to select the Chief Executive and elect Members of the Legislative Council may not necessarily have to be taken away.

Moreover, in respect of the timetable, the Liberal Party has already expressed its views. We think that we must do our part properly. We consider that the Chief Executive shall be returned by universal suffrage in 2012 subject to nominations by a nomination committee, but we think that the Legislative Council should not abolish in 2012 all the 30 seats, or 35 seats by then, of traditional functional constituencies in one go and turn them into directly-elected seats. I think there are some difference between the Legislative Council election and the selection of the Chief Executive. It is because there are, after all, so many Members in the Legislative Council and under the principle of gradual and orderly progress, we should gradually cut the traditional functional constituency seats and increase directly-elected seats. Even if it is decided then that the number of seats will be increased without cutting the seats of traditional functional constituencies, we can still increase the number of DC seats using the existing approach of including elements of universal suffrage in the functional constituency. We think that we should not put into the proposal everything in very specific terms. Of course, we need to understand that the Government does have difficulties, and the Central Government has their view on the timetable too. I think the Central Government may not necessarily refuse to name a timetable, but if we ask that they must tell us their timetable today, this is not what they plan to do.

I personally have some worries too. Will it be in the best interest of Hong Kong people if they really tell us their timetable? If the timetable which is provided under coercion sets out a date later than that as demanded by us, would the people be even more disappointed? Now, we should first do our job properly and perhaps by 2010, the Central Government will think that the actual situation in Hong Kong is already mature. We do have this expectation. The Liberal Party will take part in the DC elections in 2007 by all means, so that in the 2008 Legislative Council elections, there can be more participation by people from political parties representing the convictions of the industrial and business sector, thereby balancing the views of the community on various aspects and hence achieving balanced participation. I hope that the Central Government will support the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2012. Thank you, Madam President.