THE controversial bill on the 1995 Legislative Council election will be introduced into Legco on Wednesday after 17 months of acrimonious Sino-British wrangling and fruitless negotiations. Most Hong Kong people are totally fed up with the protracted process and would like to see the issue settled as quickly as possible.
On behalf of ''Full Democracy in 95'', I intend to move an amendment to delete all forms of limited franchise and replace it with total universal suffrage. This, I am convinced, is in the best interests of the colony and in accordance with the wishes ofmany Hong Kong people if they were given a choice.
One obstacle in achieving this is not getting enough votes. Some Legco members have said they would not support it because it would upset the Chinese Government and/or because it would tantamount to committing hara-kiri, i.e., obliterating their own functional constituencies.
Besides Legco member's support, how the Hong Kong and British governments intend to deal with my amendment is crucial. Hence I took the opportunity of the Governor's Question Time in Legco on February 24 to ask Mr Patten whether the administration wouldblock my amendment.
The Governor referred to my ''unshakeable and wholly honourable commitment to a totally democratic system in Hong Kong, well before 2007 and preferably next week'', but said he did not honestly think I was likely to secure such an outcome in the next few months. ''If she does, I will answer the question,'' he said cheekily.
Mr Patten should know it is a tall order to expect people with vested interests to vote for changes which would directly undermine those interests. It should not escape anyone that Hong Kong finds itself in the current ridiculous predicament because theBritish decided in 1985 to create archaic and undemocratic elections by limited franchise.
The disgraceful system proved so successful in entrenching vested interests and excluding popular participation it was whole-heartedly embraced by the Chinese Government and written into the Basic Law. Thus it is all very well to blame the Chinese for being intransigent on democracy, but history shows the British as more culpable.