|
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
         |
 |
| 立法會動議發言稿 | 立法會質詢問題 | 刊登報章言論 | 出席塲合演詞 | 外訪演詞 | 立法會事務
(English content only) Speech by the Hon. Mrs Anson Chan at
The Governor General’s
Canadian Leadership Conference 2008 Governor General, Mr George, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am honoured to be invited to address this most eminent gathering. When I accepted your kind invitation I expected to arrive in Canada buoyed by anticipation of the fast approaching Beijing Olympic Games – an event which is a source of immense pride to all Chinese people. Sadly, I have left a country that is in mourning for the tens of thousands of souls, many of them very young, who have perished in the recent earthquake in Sichuan. Given the theme of this conference, I think it is only fitting to begin my presentation by recognizing the exemplary leadership which has been shown by the Central People’s Government in responding so quickly and effectively to the multiple challenges of trying to rescue the trapped and bring relief and medical aid to the survivors. In stark contrast to the Burmese Government, which has stubbornly resisted the efforts of overseas humanitarian agencies to bring help to those suffering in the wake of the cyclone which devastated the Irrawaddy Delta, the Chinese Government has permitted foreign journalists to go to the heart of the affected region, facilitated outside relief work and has been publicly appreciative of the international donations and practical support received. What does this tell us about how far China has come in terms of its relationship with the rest of the world and to what extent can we see some commonalities in how nations transition to more open and effective leadership? Throughout history the world has seen how single individuals can, primarily through the force of their own personality and convictions seize the moment for change and, in some cases, completely overturn the old order. Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Kim Il-song, and Mao Tse-tung are just a few examples. Not all of these examples fall into the category of what might be called ‘born leaders’. Some people become leaders, because they are driven by an overwhelming sense of social injustice and need for change; others, Winston Churchill for example, arguably had leadership thrust upon them at a time of great national danger. However, all leaders have one thing in common: at the end of the day they will be judged not just by what they did while alive and in power, but by the legacy they leave behind in terms of sustained good governance, a stable society and the well-being of their people. In reflecting on the enormous changes which have occurred in China, since the death of Mao Tse-tung and the introduction of the ‘open door’ policy in the late 1970s, one of the most notable achievements has been the replacement of the cult of ‘the leader’ by the institution of a sound structure of leadership. Unlike so many other regimes born out of revolutionary fervour, where we see ageing and increasingly tyrannical leaders clinging desperately to power, China was blessed with a visionary leader – in the person of Deng Xiao-ping – who pragmatically set aside political dogma in the interests of achieving economic growth and starting the process of bringing millions of people out of poverty. Just as importantly, if not more so, he realized that if China was to remain stable and united there must be set in place a mechanism for the orderly transition of power every few years – no more cult of the ‘leader’ who can only be replaced by the equivalent of a palace coup. At the risk of over-generalizing, it would seem that a key imperative in the process of maturing as a nation, is to transition from a highly centralized and authoritarian mode of government to one where power is dispersed – not concentrated in the hands of one or two individuals – where there are adequate checks and balances within the system and where policies are developed through a relatively consensual or, better still, democratically based process. I believe that China is travelling steadily down the road to more open and responsive system of government, but there is of course still a very long way to go. What role can North America in general and Canada in particular play in guiding this process without appearing to be interfering in China’s internal affairs? I think the first point to be made is that the relationship between North America and China is now built on firm foundations of ever expanding economic and cultural ties. China is Canada’s second largest two-way trading partner with Canadian exports now shifting from a reliance on agricultural products and commodities towards the services sector: education, energy and the environment, information and communication technologies and financial services. Preparing for this Address, I was interested to come across a recent opinion piece in one of your leading newspapers, penned by a former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Peter Harder. The thrust of Mr. Harder’s argument is that, although trade and investment between Canada and China is continuing to grow, Canada’s market share in China is falling proportionately to those of other nations. He urges more robust engagement with China, both at a political and economic level, failing which he fears that not only will Canadian firms lose business, but that Canada will lose its ability to influence the progressive integration of China into global economic and geopolitical institutions. These struck me as interesting observations on which I would welcome your views later in this session. In addition to the importance of building strong trade ties another powerful influence going forward, will be the cross-fertilization of people and ideas, based on first-hand experience of individuals doing business, studying, working and living in each others’ countries. In this regard Canada is to be applauded for its open and transparent immigration policies. There are now one million Canadians of Chinese origin - many of whom are from Hong Kong and Canada has approximately 35,000 Chinese students studying in its educational institutions. I very much hope that the Chinese immigrants and students, whom Canada has welcomed will make every effort to integrate into the lifestyle and value systems of their new home, both in the interests of building and sustaining a healthy, harmonious society and of propagating the core values which the western democracies have espoused and which are of universal relevance. What are these values and how can western democracies build constructively on their current network of relationships with Greater China to spread them more widely? In my view, first and foremost, is respect for the rights of the individual. I place this first, even although I know it is one of the biggest challenges for China, as it strives to balance meeting the needs of its huge population against the growing pressure for greater personal freedoms. The Chinese leadership has, up till now, generally taken the view that the interests of maintaining a stable society and promoting economic growth must take priority over the rights of the individual. A case in point is the sometimes harsh enforcement of the one-child policy which has caused unease in the west. I would argue that this understandable concern has to be tempered by appreciation of how vital it has seemed, to successive Chinese leaderships, to come to grips with the problem of unchecked population growth, in order to begin to eliminate the extreme poverty and starvation that plagued the early decades following the Communist Revolution. It is absolutely right for the western democracies to continue to lobby China on human rights issues and on the other universal values that are so vital to creation of a just, humane and compassionate society. China is still deficient in areas which are fundamental to the creation of a free and fair society such as: the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom of expression, fairness and accountability on the part of the institutions of government. I believe, however, that such lobbying will be most effective if it is done with a certain degree of humility and respect for the enormity of the challenges China has faced and still faces, and the determination with which the leadership of the past 30 years or so has gone about tackling them. Unfortunately, the posture of the west is all too often perceived within China as arrogant, sometimes confrontational and not a little hypocritical. Chinese leaders know very well that some countries that criticize China are far from immune to the same problems and failings: an ever growing wealth gap between rich and poor, ethnic tensions, corrupt and unethical business practices, reaching to the highest levels, inequality of opportunity for education, medical and other social services. Rather than taking the moral high ground, I think western leaders should pick their causes carefully and consciously recognize the commonality of many of the problems their respective societies face, rather than implying that everything in their garden is rosy, while China’s garden is full of weeds. Let’s take just one example: the environment and climate change. It is an open secret that the United States is the biggest per capita contributor to the production of global greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of unproductive bickering between the developed and developing nations, as to who should be prepared to make the biggest sacrifices in lifestyle, GDP growth or whatever, would it not be so much better - as you in Canada have done - to strengthen technical cooperation on energy efficiency, climate change and clean development. In recent years, with growing trust in China’s intentions, western nations have become much less sensitive on the issue of technology transfer. So is a pity that one lingering fall-out of 9/11 and the so-called ‘war on terror’ has been much tighter restrictions on the issue of US study and work visas to Mainland Chinese applicants. This is not only depriving bright young Chinese graduates of the opportunity to experience life in an advanced western culture but, on a practical basis, is apparently having adverse impacts on research work in a wide range of technological and academic institutions in North America that had come to rely heavily on their contribution. Can China - or indeed any authoritarian regime espouse the values that the western democracies hold so dear, without espousing fully democratic government? In my view probably not, but China can and I am sure will continue to move to narrow the gaps between our value systems and possibly much faster than any of us expect. At this point I would say that the reactions of the Chinese Government to western lobbying and criticism are still fundamentally driven by two strong and closely linked impulses: national pride and avoidance of shame. Unlike the Burmese junta, the Chinese Government does care what the rest of the world thinks and it does not want to be shamed, whether by defective manufactured goods, or by the rampant cheating on building codes which has undoubtedly contributed to the shocking death toll of school children trapped under collapsed schools in Sichuan. National pride dictates that, every so often, the Central Government authorities will deem it necessary to draw a firm line in the sand, particularly in the face of perceived threats to national integrity and stability. In my view, this is what prompted the sort of knee-jerk response we saw in the aftermath of the social unrest in Tibet. It is in situations such as this, when feelings are inevitably running high on both sides that quiet, sensitive diplomacy and dialogue on the part of the west is likely to achieve so much more than rhetorical tub-thumping. I would now like to turn to focus more closely on Hong Kong and the issues of leadership – or in some cases the lack of it – that we currently face and which are contributing to the very slow progress we are making towards achievement of full universal suffrage and democratically based governance. First, let me say that I feel extremely privileged to have been able to serve the Hong Kong community, at the senior levels of government, both before and after the return of sovereignty to China, and to have been able to play a part in achieving a smooth and, in most respects, highly successful transition for Hong Kong from British dependent territory to Special Administrative Region of China in 1997. When I decided, some two years ago, to voice publicly my concern at the slow rate of progress towards democratization in the years since the Handover, I made clear that I had no wish to be seen to confront former colleagues in the Hong Kong SAR Government, let alone the Central Government authorities. So why did I decide it was time, as it were, to step out of retirement and assume a higher public profile on this issue? Quite simply, Hong Kong is my home and my family’s home. When I left Government service in 2001, I certainly did not put aside the principles and aspirations which had guided me during my career. I am also conscious of the fact that I have enjoyed – and continue to enjoy – widespread respect and support in the Hong Kong community, a fact that I believe carries with it obligations. I have said, on a number of occasions, that ordinary citizens should be prepared to stand up and be counted, if they are to attain the sort of government they want. In consequence, I feel I have a duty to practice what I preach! Of course the question is often asked – and rightly so – why didn’t the former British colonial administration ensure that democratic institutions of government were firmly in place in Hong Kong in good time before the return of sovereignty to China? Indeed, as a former senior member of that administration, I am often asked why I didn’t give this higher priority. Part of the answer is that, for most of the ‘70s ad ‘80s, there were higher priorities. Following successive waves of immigrants from Mainland China, we were grappling with very practical challenges, such as the need to build new towns to house hundreds of thousands of new arrivals, to expand road and rail infrastructure, to provide enough school and university places, hospitals and clinics, and to expand and improve welfare services. In the midst of all this, it also became apparent that the question of what was to happen on expiry, in 1997, of the British lease of the northern part of the Kowloon peninsula and the New Territories could no longer be put on hold. The early 1980s saw a period of intense diplomatic negotiation between Britain and China, culminating in the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in December 1984. Another part of the answer is that there really was very little grass roots pressure for constitutional reform. Government did a tolerably good job of reaching out to community leaders and establishing an extensive network of advisory boards and committees which helped to ensure that government policy-makers were in touch with the mood and sentiments of ordinary citizens. Another crucial factor in the equation was the role played by the civil service. In the absence of political leadership, senior civil servants, like myself, had to be politicians as well as bureaucrats. Members of the Administrative Service, to which I belonged, were and still are required to stand up and publicly defend the government policies that they have been instrumental in helping to formulate and implement. This high degree of visible public accountability, on the part of senior civil servants, combined with a recognition that some of the checks and balances which exist in a more democratic form of governance are absent, inspired a culture of intellectual rigour, discipline and dedication which, over the years, has groomed senior officials with outstanding leadership qualities. In the last decade and a half, before the Handover, some real progress was made with the introduction into the Legislature of a small number of members directly elected on the basis of one-man-one vote. Directly elected members now make up 50% of seats. But, while the outgoing British Administration left behind a first class civil service and some modest success at moving towards a more representative form of government – over 150 years of colonial government had inevitably placed something of a dead hand on the spontaneous emergence of a home-grown political leadership. For citizens to become politically energised, to aspire to leadership roles, they need a sense that they can make a real difference to the way they are being governed. If that impetus is lacking – and sadly in Hong Kong to a large extent it still is – it is always going to be very difficult to persuade able, talented individuals, who have vision, integrity and commitment to step up to the plate. The return of sovereignty to China could and should have changed all this. The promise of ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong’ under the far-sighted principle of ‘one country two systems’ was a golden opportunity to make a fresh start on constitutional reform, unencumbered by previous political baggage. This is all the more so because the terms of the SAR’s constitution, known as the Basic Law, specifically provide for the Chief Executive (our head of government) and all members of the Legislature to be elected by universal suffrage in or after 2007, a giant leap forward that the former British administration could probably never have achieved. The problem is that, here we are, nearly eleven years on from the Handover, with next to no progress having been made towards the goal of universal suffrage. An important reason why I chose to rejoin the political fray two years ago, and to go on to stand for popular election to the Legislature last December, was a growing sense of exasperation with this lack of progress towards achievement of a goal which has been promised to Hong Kong people for so long. No one would pretend that the pathway to democracy for a Special Administrative Region of a communist country was ever going to be straightforward. Inevitably the Central Government authorities in Beijing are nervous at the prospect of, as it were, letting the genie of democracy out of the bottle. In Hong Kong there are also powerful vested interests, particularly in big business circles, who want to delay full universal suffrage for as long as possible and who, quite shamelessly, raise the spectre of rampant welfarism and free lunches for all, once full democracy is achieved. This is where leadership comes in and where government leadership in particular is so important because, in practice, only government can ultimately resolve these sorts of conflicts and build the widest possible consensus. As universal suffrage is a solemn promise made to Hong Kong people in the Basic Law many people, including myself, feel that our government should have pressed the Central Government harder to attain what a clear majority of Hong Kong people have said they want – namely full universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive and all members of the Legislature in 2012. I believe the situation we find ourselves in calls for respectful, but determined persuasion of the Central Government that they can place their trust in the innate patriotism and good sense of the Hong Kong community to elect competent, sensible leaders and that there is therefore nothing to fear from the implementation of one-man-one-vote. Unfortunately this was not to be. Following the Decisions handed down by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, last December, we do now at last have firm dates to work towards: namely 2017 for election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage and 2020 for election of all members of the Legislature. But the bottom line is that Hong Kong people must wait a whole 23 years after the return of sovereignty to see the promise of universal suffrage fulfilled. I am concerned that this long delay in achievement of full universal suffrage will have very negative effects on the emergence of the political leaders which Hong Kong now so badly needs. We have to accept that one legacy of colonial rule has been a lack of stimulus to community involvement and civic engagement. It is really only in the last 20 years that political parties have begun to emerge as an important force on the local political scene and in the legislature. The Government, in my view, should now be actively promoting their role and contribution because we must look primarily to political parties to groom our future leaders. What we have instead is a system under which the Chief Executive hand picks his team of ‘ministers’ and deputy ministers under something called the Political Appointment System. In my view this system is a futile attempt to create political leaders artificially and I have publicly opposed it both in principle and for practical reasons. My objection, in principle, is that the system is leading to more and more power being concentrated in the hands of a head of government who - at present - is not democratically elected. Importing relatively inexperienced outsiders, straight into positions of considerable political power, will also have a detrimental effect on morale at the senior levels of the civil service. It seems to me that, as in other jurisdictions which aspire to democracy, Hong Kong must look primarily to political parties and independent policy think-tanks to groom future political leaders. One problem is that the political party system in Hong Kong is developing too slowly. This is partly because of the lack of recognition and respect for political parties on the part of Government, to which I have already referred and partly because, under Hong Kong’s current constitutional arrangements, there is no mechanism for the party that gains the most votes in an election to assume executive power and run the government. Added to this, local Hong Kong legislation actually requires that a candidate for the post of Chief Executive have no political party affiliation. In short, we have some formidable challenges to overcome in Hong Kong before we are able to see, let alone achieve, a model of sustainable, democratically based good governance. Nevertheless, despite my current concerns, I remain fundamentally optimistic. In my view good leadership calls for: vision, courage, good judgement and integrity. Above all, a good leader must be guided by a very strong ethical sense and by moral values that will not be eroded under pressure, or sacrificed to expediency. While politics may be the art of the possible and pragmatism is important, leadership carries with it obligations and responsibilities to uphold the rights and freedoms which the community hold dear. This means that, every so often, a good leader must be prepared to nail his or her colours firmly to the mast, to make clear that certain values cannot and will not be compromised, no matter what the pressures. In addition to the above qualities, good leadership also calls for some very special characteristics. I have in mind creativity, an ability to be proactive – to think out of the box as they say – a willingness to push the envelope just enough to get the desired results and not simply accept that this or that outcome is inevitable. A good leader must lead from the front, not wait behind the lines until the battle has essentially been won by others on his behalf. Last but not least I would add that, in my experience, the most effective leaders are those who nurture a strong sense of team spirit, who give credit where credit is due and who do not seek to keep all the glory to themselves. To sum up, I believe the Hong Kong people want and deserve:
It is because I also hold these values so close to my heart that I will continue to play as constructive a role as I can in helping move Hong Kong forwards, not just to full universal suffrage, but to achievement of a model of democratic government which can truly nurture these leadership qualities. Governor General, thank you once again most warmly for honouring me with this invitation. Your interest in and desire to engage constructively and meaningfully both with Hong Kong and with Greater China is deeply welcomed and appreciated. Canada and Hong Kong share a common legacy of respect for the rule of law, human rights and the desire to maintain a just, fair and compassionate society. I am confident that the economic, cultural and family ties between us will continue to go from strength to strength, rooted in the values we share. Thank you. I am now happy to take questions. |
 |
