*******************************************************

Following is the speech by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Mr Michael Suen, at a luncheon orgainsed by the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in association with the Asian Business Consortium of the University of Toronto/ York University/ Queen's University/ Richard Ivey School of Business in Toronto today (May 24):

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for those kind words and the very warm Toronto welcome. I am delighted to be back in your great city and to have the opportunity of speaking to such a distinguished and knowledgeable audience. Today I would like to share with you my experience of what has been happening in Hong Kong since reunification and how I see events in the future, particularly in relation to our political development.

As you may be aware, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law, which is Hong Kong's constitutional document that guarantees the continuation of our capitalist way of life and lays down the framework on which Hong Kong people run Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy. It is perhaps timely, therefore, to take stock of how we have done so far in the implementation of 'one country, two systems' and to map out a plan on how we take ourselves forward for the future.

The Basic Law clearly spells out the social, economic and political systems to be practised in Hong Kong. It protects our rights and lifestyle; guarantees our freedoms of speech, assembly and the many other civil liberties which are very much the way of life in Hong Kong; and the Basic Law ensures the independence of our judiciary. Apart from foreign affairs and defence, the Basic Law gives us full responsibility to manage our own affairs, including complete financial autonomy; and the Basic Law maintains the Hong Kong as a separate customs territory.

For the first time in our history we have a written constitution to provide guiding principles for our stability and future development. A document we can rely on in times of crisis, such as the recent Asian financial turmoil, where we were able to act on our own and successfully fought off the unprecedented attack on our currency - and through it, our economy.

I'm pleased to report that over the past three years, the Central Government in Beijing has shown its total commitment to upholding the principles of 'one country, two systems'. And, drawing on my own experience, I can testify to this commitment. All central, provincial and municipal authorities, as well as offices representing departments of the Central Government in Hong Kong, have strictly adhered to the Basic Law. Even the Central Government's strongest critics would agree that the mainland authorities have not interfered in the affairs within the autonomy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

And we in the Hong Kong government have undertaken our functions and responsibilities strictly in accordance with the Basic Law - we have and will continue to exercise the high degree of autonomy given us under the Basic Law.

Those of you in the audience who have visited Hong Kong since reunification would, I am sure, agree that 'one country, two systems' is being successfully implemented. That is not to say we have not encountered problems at all. I think it would be fair to say that this is something to be expected in a system that has never been tried before.

Freedom of speech and of assembly are very much alive and well in Hong Kong. Demonstrations are an everyday occurrence. And newspapers continue to take the government to task where they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the administration is not doing its job properly. But that's how it should be. We don't always agree with their criticisms. In fact, most of the time we don't. But that's how the system works in a free society such as yours and ours.

The courts continue to exercise independent judicial power and pronounce judgements for or against individuals, corporations or I might add the government without fear or favour. Citizens continue to enjoy access to the courts no matter who the litigation is against. Many of the most high profile and controversial cases since reunification have, indeed, involved the government.

For example, the interpretation of two provisions of the Basic Law given by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in June last year, as a result of a right of abode case, has been the subject of much debate. Differing views, many of them critical, have been put forward and widely and freely argued and reported on. This is a healthy state of affairs. We welcome it. But, we remain firmly of the view that the request for an interpretation, which was supported by a clear majority of our legislature, was both lawful and constitutional.

It is important to note that the Court of Final Appeal itself accepted the interpretation of the Standing Committee in a subsequent case. But as you would expect in a free and open society, that has not necessarily ended the argument. That is why we must continue to explain the circumstances as best we can.

The Basic Law for Hong Kong was enacted by the National People's Congress. It is a national law - not a regional law. The Mainland system is based on civil law, and the ultimate authority for interpreting national laws passed by the National People's Congress is the Standing Committee. This type of legislative interpretation is certainly not familiar to people brought up in the common law system, which is based on the principle of division of power between the courts and the legislature. It is therefore understandable that some commentators in Hong Kong were highly sceptical of the request for an interpretation.

Let me reiterate here that the government's decision to seek an interpretation was taken in wholly exceptional circumstances, and we all very much hope that the need to do so will never arise in future.

Looking back, I think it is fortunate that the controversy involving the implementation of the Basic Law has arisen early. The controversy represents a real-life lesson which calls for more research and debate on the essence of 'one country, two systems'. I believe all those concerned agree that a tremendous amount of effort went into addressing the many issues it raised. At the end of the process, the community at large gained a greater mutual understanding of what the matter was about and most of all agreed that the action we took was in the best interests of the community as a whole.

Let me assure you that the Hong Kong government will continue to welcome the vigilance of the community and will carefully listen to what they have to say. These are the necessary checks and balances for all who are striving to implement our constitution. I am pleased to note that some Hong Kong lawyers have taken the initiative to develop a better understanding of the Mainland's legal system. It is being done with a view to ensuring that issues affecting both jurisdictions will be handled properly, all the while protecting the integrity of Hong Kong's separate legal and judicial systems.

Let me give you this assurance : the rule of law is not at risk in Hong Kong. We are very much aware that it is the cornerstone of our social and economic well being. As for the independence of the Judiciary, the very idea that some individuals or institutions might put pressure on a judge - much less that any of our judges would be susceptible to such pressure - is as unthinkable in Hong Kong as it is here in Canada.

The right of abode cases, as well as other legal proceedings relating to the Basic Law, also tell one fact : Hong Kong people have full confidence in the independence of the Judiciary. If they had no confidence that their cases would be heard impartially by the courts, why would they bother to take them for adjudication?

Let me now turn to another subject - the political development of Hong Kong. The Basic Law lays down a road map for Hong Kong's democratic development. The timetable, spanning a 10-year period from reunification, is specifically written into the constitution. So, for example, the number of directly elected seats in the legislature will increase from the current one-third, to 40 per cent, or 24, in the forthcoming Legislative Council elections this September. And, by the year 2004, half of the 60 seats in the legislature will be directly elected with the other half being elected through functional constituencies. Beyond 2007, the people of Hong Kong can decide on their own how quickly to move towards universal suffrage which is the ultimate aim as provided for in the Basic Law.

The Basic Law provides for gradual and orderly progress in our democratisation process. The relevant provisions in the Basic Law are very clear. And, in a pluralistic society like Hong Kong, it should come as no surprise that concern has been expressed by some in the community that the pace at which we are progressing is too slow. Those who speak out on this issue do so, loudly and eloquently. But there are others who take the opposite view. Opinion surveys conducted over the past few years show that the people's main concern is naturally about their own economic well-being, particularly in the aftermath of the Asian financial turmoil. The question of speeding up the pace of democratisation has not figured high amongst their concerns.

I believe the issue should be considered in its proper historical context. Prior to 1985, we did not have elections of any kind to the Legislative Council - all the seats were either filled by government officials or by appointment. And it was not until 1995 - just five years ago - that we finally saw the demise of the appointed seats in the Legislative Council.

The point I am making here is that our history of elections to the legislature in Hong Kong does not go back a very long way. We are just starting to build up a tradition of participating in public affairs through elections. Nevertheless, I think we have made a reasonable start. In the 1995 elections, the voter turnout was some 36 per cent. But, barely 10 months after reunification, in the elections to the first legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in May 1998, we had a record voter turnout of 53¡@per cent. It was unprecedented in Hong Kong's electoral history. We were of course most encouraged by this result, but we would like to have seen an even higher turnout.

Rather than pushing for development of our political system at a much faster pace than the timetable stipulated in the Basic Law, I believe it would be more productive for advocates to use their energy and skills to broaden the political horizon and vision of our community, to prepare them for the period that runs up to 2007, and in particular to encourage more people to exercise their political rights through voting in the series of elections over the next few years. The government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is certainly working vigorously in this direction and we will further intensify our campaigns to encourage people to vote in the lead up to the September poll for the second term Legislative Council.

On the long term political development of Hong Kong, my view is that if eventually our legislature is to be wholly returned by universal suffrage, the question of how it is to be formed cannot be considered in isolation. We need to consider that question in the wider picture of the governance of Hong Kong as a whole. Under the Basic Law, we have an executive-led government which is not formed by a majority party or by a coalition of parties. As a matter of fact, it is not formed by any party at all.

The Chief Executive is elected by an election committee, but he does not belong to any political party and the Hong Kong government does not have a single vote at its command in the legislature. Senior officials like me are all civil servants and not political appointees. In fact, we are not members of the legislature. We have to consider very carefully how progression to electing the legislature by universal suffrage will impact on the effective governance of Hong Kong by a government with no vote in the legislature and led by a Chief Executive who does not belong to any political party. Given this rather unique and unprecedented political structure, this will be a challenge of the highest order.

I have no doubt that the long term goal of the community of Hong Kong is to have a stable political structure providing a constructive and workable relationship between our executive-led government and a legislature elected through universal suffrage. Many stakeholders are involved. The administration will be expected to take a lead in coming up with alternative proposals. In this exercise, the views across the political spectrum of the man-in-the-street, the political parties, the media, academia and the professionals will have to be carefully canvassed. We need to develop a broad consensus as to how elections to the legislature should be organised after the year 2007 in accordance with the Basic Law.

I believe time is an important element in terms of a solution to effectively manage our political landscape after the year 2007. We need time to get more voters to participate in the electoral process. We need time to prepare them for taking the important decision. The administration will need time for informed debate, for analysis of different views, for working out options, for mapping out the way forward and ultimately, for building a consensus. This is a very complex process, putting the resilience of our community under test, yet again. I am sure that, in due course, we will come out of it, richer by the experience, more confident of our own abilities to rise to any challenge and more united as a community.

Thank you.

End/Wednesday, May 24, 2000

NNNN