THE intention of my Legco motion on Wednesday is not to discuss the merits or demerits of Governor Mr Chris Patten's proposals for political reform. The purpose is to question the wisdom of introducing reforms which have no chance of surviving beyond June 30, 1997 - an act which has created uncertainties detrimental to the Hongkong business environment. The motion - that Mr Patten should not introduce his reform package to Legco - is not meant to be a political gesture. It is the last chance for responsible legislators to save us from disaster, considering the sensitivity the package has created in the business sector. The timing of the Governor's constitutional package was a sensitive one. If Mr Patten goes ahead and introduces it into Legco, it will be deemed an act of confrontation by the Chinese Government. The Governor has been told where his package conflicts with the Basic Law on many occasions, before and after he delivered his policy speech. When the Governor visited Beijing, he had a six-hour meeting with Mr Lu Ping, the director of the Chinese State Council's Hongkong and Macau Affairs Office. I cannot imagine that during the marathon session no one pointed out to Mr Patten where the proposal failed to comply with the Basic Law. Therefore, I am taken aback that the Governor has kept saying, even after he returned from Beijing, that if there was anywhere his package breached the Basic Law, could someone tell him. As China is telling us otherwise, the question is: ''Who do we believe?'' I think most people would say China, because the right of interpreting the Basic Law rests with China and, in particular, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. I take China for its word because it is the authority and I am not in a position to say otherwise. The community, particularly the business sector, has come out in a forceful way. It is remarkable that more than 100 advertisements from various organisations, institutions, political parties or chambers of commerce have appeared, putting on record what they think of the Governor's actions. In 150 years of British administration, it is rare for the people to come out in opposition to the government in such a way. It takes a lot of courage to speak out and reflects the do-or-die nature of the situation. They feel the need to say something asresponsible citizens of Hongkong. My intention is not to embarrass the Governor or the British Government in initiating this motion. As a legislative councillor I have sworn to defend the interests of the people. I think everyone, including members of the government, will agree that when the interests of Hongkong are at stake the face of any individual, including the Governor, should come second. I appreciate that in recent months British Prime Minister Mr John Major has twice reversed his government's position, namely the decision to close coal mines and the stance of staying in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. It must have taken the administration a lot of courage. This was done with the interests of the people in mind. I hope in this case Mr Patten can show the same degree of courage. I hope he will exercise his wisdom for the interest of Hongkong people and also put the mind of investors at ease. The business sector is always concerned and apprehensive about uncertainty. Some of my business colleagues say bad news is better than no news. There is truth in that. WHEN bad news appears you can take action, but with uncertainty you do not know what to do. It is damaging to the Hongkong economy. Since the proposed reforms were announced, the Hang Seng Index has plummeted and the property market has also dropped. I anticipate the revenue generated from stamp duty and tax for the next fiscal year will be drastically affected, due to the reduction in income from stamp duty source. This might jeopardise some important programmes the Government is about to undertake. My motion will also pave the way for the two sovereign powers to resume negotiations. It has the opposite effect as the one by Ms Christine Loh, which was amended by Mr Jimmy McGregor and subsequently carried. That motion will not get the parties to the negotiating table. I do not guarantee that my motion, if carried, will bring them together, but at least there is a chance. I do not see how else the two can be brought together. I hope those people who keep saying the best way is for both powers to talk, will support the motion. The worst-case scenario for Hongkong would be for the Governor to go ahead and introduce his package. Once that was done, the process would be irreversible. There would be no going back and Hongkong people would be helpless. There are people who think the Hongkong Government would become a lame-duck if it listened to China. I do not think China would want this. A lot of people have asked me if it is necessary for China to come out against the package so forcefully and in such an unambiguous way, without putting a more acceptable viewpoint. I think it is only appropriate for China to put the message across in the clearest way. Hongkong people should appreciate how China has handled the situation, because every time it issues a statement it is clear and to the point. By introducing his package into the Legislative Council, the Governor will be throwing away convergence, something Hongkong people have fought for during the development of the Basic Law. When we talk about convergence, it is total convergence, not just convergence for the Legislative Council, but convergence in the executive branch as well as the judicial branch. Most people think convergence is the highest priority and I am surprised the Government thinks otherwise. We have changed the terms of office from three to four years for Legco for the sake of convergence. This is how the concept of the through-train came about. This is a clear indication of the importance attached to convergence. We achieved it, but the Government appears to be throwing it away. Is this a responsible act? The best approach is to let the Joint Liaison Group work until there is a mutually agreed package and then introduce it to Legco for scrutiny. Any other approach would not be productive. Even if the two foreign ministers meet in March, the Chinese Government would refuse to talk about the constitutional package. Sino-British relationships will not turn for the better unless the Governor withdraws his constitutional package.