Patten should practise what he preaches what he preaches
GOVERNOR Chris Patten managed to force his controversial 1992 political reform package through the Legislative Council after much arm-twisting and intimidation, and with the help of the three ex-officio members, answerable only to him.
The 29-28 vote, with two abstentions against the bid by the Liberal Party to water down the reforms, was hardly a convincing victory, and while the voting is over, the debate continues.
How different would history be if the three Sir Humphreys of Lower Albert Road had abstained? Or if Mr Patten had truly allowed the other 56 members, who are under no obligation to dance to the Governor's tune, to decide the council's destiny? I was stunned by the high-handedness of the attack which Mr Patten launched in the Sunday Morning Post (June 26) to discredit the Liberal Party's political reform package, at a time when he sensed support for his measures was in danger of waning by the minute in the days leading up to last Wednesday's vote.
Did not the Governor claim time and again that his 1992 package had received the unreserved support of the overwhelming majority of the people of Hong Kong? Yet a survey conducted by T. Y. Chung of the Hong Kong University Social Sciences Research Centre just before Wednesday showed that 92.4 per cent of residents did not have a clue what it was about.
Almost two years after the 1992 package was introduced, and notwithstanding the huge government propaganda mechanism behind it, only 2.7 per cent said they supported it.
If Mr Patten continues to mislead the public by claiming his package has widespread support in the face of these findings, I can only gravely suspect his integrity.
Some of the appointed members even rebelled against him. Does this not say something? The events in the last few days only vindicated my initial suspicion that Mr Patten never intended to give the Legislative Council a real choice over its own destiny: it was his proposal or nothing.
It was not too long ago that Mr Patten said his political reform package was merely a proposal which he intended to put on the table and he would leave it to the council, that is, the Hong Kong people, to decide whether it should be accepted, rejected or amended.
His behaviour in the last few days left us in no doubt we were rather naive to believe he genuinely intended to allow the council a free hand to decide its own destiny.
With three pairs of hands tied, how could Mr Patten claim the council decided its future of its own free will? The three ex-officio votes had been ordered to support his package regardless of the merits of the debate on Wednesday. What authority does Mr Patten have to talk about vote-rigging when he practises this art? What was he afraid of? Did he not trust the people of Hong Kong? Surely, democracy means views from the people, not views from the Sir Humphreys of Lower Albert Road! It was a great shame on him that the passage of his proposal hinged on the votes of these three ex-officio members, who could not claim to represent the people of Hong Kong.
Mr Patten talks about the credibility of an electoral process, when the process through which he secured his $3-million-plus a year tax-free job was hardly open, fair or democratic. To practise what he preaches, he should offer his post for election; then he will have more credibility in talking about democracy. MARK LIN Central
