Motion Debate on Facilitating communication between
the Central Government and the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong

Madam President, we have debated several hours on the Report of the Select Committee to inquire into the handling of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The atmosphere has been somewhat oppressing, so hopefully the motion I am going to move can help brighten things up what.

Madam President, the motion I am going to move is "facilitating communication between the Central Government and the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong". On the face of it, the scope of this subject is very narrow; however, I believe that if this motion can be put into practice, the governance of Hong Kong as a whole will witness significant improvement. The stability and prosperity of a society is to a great extent founded on a stable and harmonious social environment.

Madam President, many Members in this Chamber began to work in the former Legislative Council in the '80s. During that era, many Members were appointed Members when they joined the Council and this was also the case with me. At that time, as a matter of fact, little importance was attached to listening to public opinion. Down the years, we have made gradual and orderly progress from holding functional constituency elections to holding general and popular elections. In this connection, we feel that the greatest difference lies in the fact that after the introduction of elections, the Hong Kong Government, be it that under the former British Government or the present Central Government, has attached greater importance to listening to public opinions. Furthermore, for the process of communication to be successful, it is a must for the parties concerned to be on talking terms and maintain a relatively harmonious relationship.

Several years ago, in the economic realm, the financial turmoil erupted and last year, the SARS incident occurred. These issues were in fact hot potatoes. However, in spite of them, the Government and Members of all factions feel that a good work relationship and foundation should be established. Recently, our attention has been drawn to glitches that have all along existed in the relationship between the Central Government and people of the democratic camp in the past several years. We are therefore very pleased to see the recent improvements in the political sentiment. From Mr LAU Chin-shek's appeal for reconciliation to the motion moved by Mr Martin LEE on 23 June calling on Hong Kong people to join hands with the Central Authorities and co-operate, through to the positive responses from the leaders of the Central Authorities, these developments have served to defuse to a considerable extent the tense atmosphere created by the division and confrontation. The Liberal Party has always stressed rationality, pragmatism, enhancement of communication and the quest for consensus in the discussions on constitutional development. Since various sides are all talking about communication now, we in the Liberal Party will be happy to contribute to this cause.

Madam President, talking about positive communication, I think there are three things that can be done in the short term. Firstly, it is necessary to support stability and prosperity in society. Persistent political tension will definitely have an adverse effect on economic development, and the confidence of local and overseas investors will be eroded in the long run. For example, one month ago, the rating given by Standard & Poor's on the prospect of Hong Kong Dollar was negative, the reason being that should the democratic camp win more than half the seats in the next term of the Legislative Council, it will become more difficult for the Government to eliminate the fiscal deficit. However, with the political atmosphere becoming more peaceable, Standard & Poor's has immediately raised the long-term rating of Hong Kong Dollar to stable. I think this episode is an excellent illustration.

Secondly, I think that it is very much a necessity to seek a consensus on constitutional reform. Although the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) has decided not to introduce universal suffrage for the dual elections in 2007 and 2008, there is still a lot of room for discussion concerning the arrangements for future constitutional development in Hong Kong, for example, on how the electorate base can be enlarged, how many seats should be added in the legislature, the agenda of universal suffrage in the future, and so on. I also very much agree that if we remain at loggerheads with one another, at the end of the day, this would only slow down the progress of constitutional development in Hong Kong and make it stall. We will get nowhere and achieve nothing. Therefore, we think that as far as constitutional development is concerned, if it has been said we can only do so much in 2007 and 08, is it possible to strive to do better on the nine points of concern raised by the Government and the business sector, so that universal suffrage can be introduced in 2012 as soon as possible? This is the expectation of the Liberal Party. Another point that I wish to raise is that recently, the Liberal Party conducted an opinion poll from 2 to 4 July by randomly polling about 1,000 members of the public. It was found that 60% of them considered the division and confrontation in Hong Kong at present to be very serious and only 14% considered the division in Hong Kong not serious. The results of the survey also indicate that 63% of these members of the public believed that the request of the pan-democracy camp for communication and reconciliation with the Chinese side would be conducive to attenuating the division and only 20% considered that it would not be. Therefore, it is clear from the opinion poll that many members of the public hope that there can be improvement in the relationship between the Central Authorities and the pro-democracy camp.

Madam President, under these circumstances, what does the Liberal think can be done? Two weeks ago, we sought the help of a member of the Executive Committee of the Liberal Party, who is also a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, to go to Beijing and meet with officials of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office and the United Front Work Department to convey the message that all sectors in Hong Kong are appealing for communication. The response we got was most positive, therefore we proposed this motion. In fact, there are two parts in today's motion: first, to assist the Central Authorities and the pro-democracy camp to communicate; second, to issue Home Visit Permits to people in the pro-democracy camp where necessary.

Madam President, I wish to talk about the remarks made by the Central Authorities of late. Recently, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the SAR ("the Liaison Office") made a statement through the Xinhua News Agency, "We suggest that communication be enhanced, that we sit down and talk face to face and this is more conducive to harmony and stability. To communicate rationally, to seek consensus and create a peaceable environment is the common wish of the Hong Kong public and this is also our wish." The Liaison Office also stressed that the major common ground of "one country" should be sought and the differences between the "two systems" should be allowed to exist. The Vice-President of State, Mr ZENG Qinghong, also said that more communication can reduce misunderstanding. As long as all of us support the principle of "one country, two systems" and stability and prosperity in Hong Kong, he would be happy to communicate with people in any sector and any stratum. The Liaison Office also said that it was a positive move that the motion moved by Mr Martin LEE had passed without any hiccup and stressed that the doorway of communication between the Central Authorities and people who uphold "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, including those holding different views, remains open.

The Liberal Party believes that the swift, positive and friendly response of the Central Authorities to the appeals of the pro-democracy camp demonstrates a high degree of sincerity on the part of the Central Authorities. Since both sides are willing to communicate, the SAR Government, being a natural bridge between Hong Kong people and the Central Authorities, should provide more proactive assistance and serve as a go-between to promote communication between both sides.

We suggest that meetings between more moderate members of the pro-democracy camp and officials from the Central Authorities, for example, officials of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, can first be arranged. I cannot emphasize too much that we are not trying to sow division among the ranks of the pro-democracy camp. We only feel that it will be better to start with the easier part than with the difficult part or than to do everything in one stroke. Regarding the manner of communication, we think it is feasible to adopt either a closed-door or open approach. However, we think that it is not desirable for both sides to lay down any precondition because if everyone does so, we are worried that the first contact will fall through.

Madam President, concerning the issue of Home Visit Permits, we feel that there has to be a process in communication. The first step is to enable people in the pro-democracy camp who cannot visit the country at present to do so. Therefore, we think that they should be given their permits as soon as possible. The survey conducted by the Liberal Party, which I have mentioned earlier on, also touched on this matter. Among the general public, 40% of the respondents also considered that the pan-democracy camp does not have an adequate understanding of the conditions in China nowadays and many of them believed it is necessary for them to gain an adequate understanding of the general state of our country. We also found that one sixth of the members of the public polled considered that if the Central Authorities can allow people of the pan-democracy camp to visit the country, that is, to get their Home Visit Permits, this will be conducive to communication between the two sides.

We also understand that it has been many years since people of the pro-democracy camp last visited the country (they could do so in the past). In the past few years, our country has undergone the most rapid development in modern history. We think that if we have the opportunity to go back and witness the developments in the economy, infrastructure and politics of China, we will better appreciate why China commands such a high evaluation in the international community nowadays. There are reasons for this.

We also noticed that after meeting with the Chief Executive earlier on, the pro-democracy camp also praised the Chief Executive for his much more proactive attitude with regard to their request to get back their Home Visit Permits. From this, it can be seen that both sides can find further co-operation. Of course, in terms of strengthening the governance and administration of Hong Kong, we have always been of the view that after the Central Authorities and the pro-democracy camp have established mutual trust and the Central Authorities have given recognition to the pro-democracy camp, and in addition, after the Legislative Council elections and after the pro-democracy camp has gained approval and established communication with the Central Authorities, the Chief Executive can consider inviting them to join the Executive Council. Should this be realized, we think that the administration of Hong Kong will see real improvement.

Madam President, finally, I wish to talk about my motion and Mr SZETO Wah's amendment. First, why does my motion talk about "facilitating" better communication between the Central Government and the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong, instead of "striving for"? In fact, we think that if the words "strive for" are used, it would appear as though the Central Authorities and the pro-democracy camp were not inclined to talk to one another and that is why it would be necessary to "strive" to make them talk. However, we believe the Central Authorities and Honourable colleagues in the pro-democracy camp are both apparently very much inclined to talk to one another. This is why we think it would only be necessary to "facilitate" them a little, that is, the SAR Government should facilitate this a little and things should then fall in place. That is why the words "strive for" were not used. Of course, Mr SZETO Wah thinks that the words "strive for" are better and that is why he has used these two words instead. I do not have any view on this and I support using these two words to amend the motion.

Secondly, concerning the part in which I mention assisting the democrats, where necessary, in obtaining Home Visit Permit for Hong Kong and Macao Residents, Mr SZETO Wah has deleted the words "where necessary". In fact, as far as I understand it, of the nearly 7 million people in Hong Kong, only a small minority do not have Home Visit Permits. I think they are only in the order of a few dozen or slightly more than a hundred people (this is my own conjecture). Many people in the pro-democracy camp in fact have Home Visit Permits, therefore, what I propose is "to assist the democrats, where necessary", since it is not necessary for us to assist those who have already obtained Home Visit Permits. If Mr SZETO Wah wants to delete "where necessary" so that "all democrats" are involved, I do not have any particular view on this. Regarding the last sentence in the amendment, namely, "in order to safeguard the right of Chinese nationals in Hong Kong to return to their home places", the word "in" has been added. I wish to wait until Mr SZETO Wah has moved his amendment and expressed his views, thus enabling us to understand more before I make further comments.

Madam President, I beg to move my motion. Thank you.