Motion Debate on Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms

Madam President, the topic of this motion debate is "Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms". The positions of the original motion and the two amendments are neutral, for they deal only with public consultation. But today, some Members have questioned whether all the functional constituency seats should be abolished and even demanded the introduction of universal suffrage.

On the same occasion on 12 January 2000, the Liberal Party said, "The Liberal Party is of the view that we should conduct an extensive consultation at an appropriate time, but we do not think that this stage — the year 2000 or the end of this year after the Legislative Council Election — is the right time." I then went on to say, "I think that it will be more appropriate to conduct a comprehensive and extensive consultation in 2003 so that Members who intend to run for the seats of the Legislative Council 2004 will have a clearer stance and know what they will support. They will know if they will support a full direct election in 2008 or if they have any views on a certain functional constituency."

Madam President, 2000 was three years back. The Liberal Party already started to consult the constituents of our respective functional sectors last year on the question of whether or not we should stop running in functional constituency elections should we decide to stand in the election of 2004. The consultation is still in progress. Therefore, when Ms Emily LAU first sought my views on the original motion, on its request for public consultation as soon as possible, I thought, "The Liberal Party has already started the relevant work, so why does the Government not do that also?"

The motion subsequently aroused the concern of the Government. Some Members think that since I have joined the Executive Council, the Liberal Party will definitely support the Government. I do not think this way. On 1 July last year, the Government launched the Accountability System for Principal Officials. In 2000, the System was not yet implemented. Under the Accountability System, if the Principal Official concerned thinks that sufficient preparations cannot be made for the prompt conduct of public consultation on constitutional reforms this year, and if he thinks that studies should be conducted before the launching of public consultation, the Liberal Party will be caught in a rather difficult situation. The Liberal Party itself is conducting a public consultation now, but because of many other more pressing problems, such as the recession, unemployment, the fiscal deficit and our integration with the Pearl River Delta — problems also mentioned by many Members just now, the Government thinks that there is a shortage of both time and resources, and so, no public consultation should be conducted for the time being. I cannot subscribe to such a view entirely.

Since the Liberal Party is constrained by a shortage of resources, we can only consult the sectors to which its Legislative Council Members belong. The Government possesses more resources, with different Bureau Directors sharing the responsibilities for different policy areas. Secretary Stephen LAM is responsible for constitutional affairs; his main job is not connected with improving the economy and the employment situation. These jobs belong to Secretary Stephen IP and Secretary Frederick MA. But this motion topic after all falls within the portfolio of Secretary Stephen LAM. Since he thinks that he cannot make it, the Liberal Party must consider his views in the interest of supporting the Accountability System.

Just now, many Members said specifically that Members returned by functional constituencies lacked representativeness or were not very representative. They therefore argued that all functional constituency seats should be abolished. I believe that given the current recession, if the 6 million people in Hong Kong were asked whether they would support the introduction of full direct elections, they would probably answer in the affirmative. But on the other hand, if they were also asked whether the existing functional constituency Members were entirely unable to make any contribution to Hong Kong, both in regard to improving the economy and the employment situation, I feel they may not necessarily think that all the functional constituency Members are entirely useless. That is why I think that an extensive consultation should be conducted. We also think that it is more appropriate to start the relevant studies now and then launch a public consultation some time before the Legislative Council elections next year, for this can enable Members who intend to run in the elections to tell their constituents exactly what they support.

For the reasons stated above, the Liberal Party has eventually decided to oppose Mr LAU Ping-cheung's amendment. We initially supported Dr Philip WONG's amendment. But then he said that he would rather have us support Mr LAU Ping-cheung's amendment. This made things very difficult for us. Therefore, we decided to abstain from voting on Dr Philip WONG's amendment. In regard to Ms Emily LAU's motion, as I mentioned just now, we have to respect the view of the principal official concerned, and so, the Liberal Party will abstain from voting on the motion.