Motion Debate on "Democratic political system" (7 December 2005)

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am going to speak on the subject of Dr YEUNG Sum's motion. Dr YEUNG Sum, first of all, I would like to offer my apology to you because I had gone out for a lunch appointment - the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr LEE Kuan-yew, has come to Hong Kong and I had agreed to have lunch with him. That was why I was late in coming to this motion debate. I have not intended to be disrespectful to you.

I would like to focus my discussion on the main points of Dr YEUNG's motion. The first part of the motion mentions that many Hong Kong people have taken to the streets to strive for the dual elections by universal suffrage. Regarding this part, we are totally agreeable. We also have great respect for the several tens of thousands people who took to the streets. Regardless of the number of people who had joined the demonstration, they were all striving for the dual elections by universal suffrage. Next, the motion says,"......this Council urges the Hong Kong SAR Government to seriously consider submitting a report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to reflect to it Hong Kong people's strong aspirations for universal suffrage, and to propose in the report a timetable and a roadmap for universal suffrage that are acceptable to Hong Kong people", then next, it goes on to say, "so that the Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council can be elected by universal suffrage as soon as possible." I shall respond to these two points on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Regarding a timetable and a roadmap for universal suffrage that are acceptable to Hong Kong people, the Liberal Party has conducted many public opinion polls. We can see that there are people supporting the implementation of universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008, but there are also people supporting such in 2012, or even 2018 and 2017. If Dr YEUNG thinks that, in view of the large number of people participating in the demonstration to strive for dual elections by universal suffrage, he has to request the Government to mention specifically in the report a timetable and a roadmap for universal suffrage that are acceptable to Hong Kong people, I think the Government may need more time to consult and discuss with people from different sectors of the community, so as to achieve a greater consensus.

Here, I would like to reiterate the support of the Liberal Party for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2012. With regard to the work involved, such as the development of political parties and the grooming of political talents, and so on, we shall actively engage ourselves in the promotion of such work. With regard to a timetable for universal suffrage that is acceptable to Hong Kong people, I think what they will accept is "the sooner the better". However, the answer may not be "the sooner the better". The time they may find acceptable may include 2012 or 2017; it all depends. I cannot see any explicit view. For example, they may find 2012 the most acceptable time for implementing universal suffrage. If not, then Hong Kong people will also accept 2017 as the time for implementing universal suffrage. We have not seen any data in this regard. Therefore, with this sentence in the motion, it will put the Government in a most difficult position. According to the findings of the public opinion poll conducted by the Government, there are several timetables that are acceptable to Hong Kong people for implementing universal suffrage, that is, some people support 2007, some support 2012, and some even support 2017. So, this has made it impossible for the Government to convey the public opinions in this regard in specific details to the Central Government.

With regard to the second point: To ensure that the Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council can be elected by universal suffrage as soon as possible. Dr YEUNG may also know that the Liberal Party holds very different viewpoints on this issue. Regarding the election of the Chief Executive, basing on the public aspiration and the fact that there is only one Chief Executive, who is either elected by universal suffrage or by the Election Committee, so no half-way compromise can be made between the two; therefore, a decision must be made. As such, the Liberal Party also supports the election of the Chief Executive in 2012 by universal suffrage.

However, with regard to the suggestion of abolishing all the 30 functional constituency seats in the Legislative Council in one sweeping stroke, the Liberal Party holds a divergent view. I would like to respond to the earlier remark made by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. He said the representativeness of functional constituency elections is more "small-circle" than direct elections. Of course, the representativeness of Members returned by functional constituency elections may not be as great as that of those Members returned by direct elections. But on the contrary, I notice that, functional constituency Members have made contribution in this Council in the deliberation of many laws and the formulation of policies, especially in the financial, commercial and industrial aspects. So purely from the perspective of representativeness, they may be inadequate. But they have helped improve the laws in the legislative processes. Therefore, I feel that Members from functional constituencies really have made great contribution in this Council. If someone suggests to abolish all the functional constituency seats in the Legislative Council in one sweeping stroke in 2012, the Liberal Party will certainly disagree. In my opinion, since 30 Members have been elected to the Legislative Council through the functional constituencies, we may abolish these seats in a gradual and orderly manner. Of course, I do not mean to say that we should wait until 2047 before we can finish abolishing all these seats.

However, on the other hand, it is also not necessary to abolish all the functional constituency seats in 2012 in one go. We can adopt a gradual and orderly approach in addressing this issue. In other words, abolishing some seats in each Legislative Council election is a more acceptable proposal to the Liberal Party. Of course, such issues as how many seats should be abolished and which seats should be abolished in each Legislative Council election may prove to be even more controversial. The Liberal Party thinks that we may first abolish those seats which can easily be converted into directly elected ones. Of course, with regard to such suggestions, some may say that they would not work; so instead, the abolition of seats should be proceeded on a proportional basis. That is, if a certain number of seats are to be removed from the commercial and industrial constituency, then the same number of seats should be removed from the professional constituencies as well as the grass-roots constituencies. On this issue, we shall not support the motion. In other words, on the point of implementing universal suffrage in the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council, we do have some reservations.

Deputy President, for the two above reasons, the Liberal Party opposes the motion. Thank you, Deputy President.