args

Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate. Here are my arguments: 1. Hong Kong would become a welfare state I quote from Ronnie Chan, chairman of the Hang Lung Group. " ... the under-educated, and those who did not pay tax would elect candidates who stood for more social welfare spending, which would turn Hong Kong into a "welfare state" ... About 1.1 million of the people have only kindergarten or no education level at all. About 82 per cent of the population does not pay tax, and 51 per cent of the people receive housing subsidies from the government. If we have a 100-per-cent directly elected LegCo (Legislative Council), only social welfare- oriented candidates will be elected. Hong Kong is a business city and we do not want to end up being a social welfare state.' Voters vote for candidates that fight for their benefit, which includes more welfare. The main functions of Legislative Council are to "enact laws; examine and approve budgets, taxation and public expenditure". They can also propose bills. So, naturally, if they want to keep their seat in the next election, they will only pass bills that increase welfare to please the voters. This is not good for long-term development. Just look at Greece. The people vote for candidates which go against cutting the budget, and now they are in serious debt. We won"t want Hong Kong to become like that, right? Secondly, Hong Kong is a business city. If the government wants to increase welfare, they have to increase the tax, which voters do not like. So, the only thing the can increase is the tax on corporations. That increase the cost of running a company, so the company will either fire workers, lower their salary or increase the price, which in return doesn"t benefit us, the voters and the customers. 2. I quote from the Second Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force, conducted by the HKSAR Government. "There are some concerns that Hong Kong has a narrow tax base, and that only 39% of the working population are paying salaries tax. The worry is that if Here are my arguments: 1. Hong Kong would become a welfare state I quote from Ronnie Chan, chairman of the Hang Lung Group. " ... the under-educated, and those who did not pay tax would elect candidates who stood for more social welfare spending, which would turn Hong Kong into a "welfare state" ... About 1.1 million of the people have only kindergarten or no education level at all. About 82 per cent of the population does not pay tax, and 51 per cent of the people receive housing subsidies from the government. If we have a 100-per-cent directly elected LegCo (Legislative Council), only social welfare- oriented candidates will be elected. Hong Kong is a business city and we do not want to end up being a social welfare state.' Voters vote for candidates that fight for their benefit, which includes more welfare. The main functions of Legislative Council are to "enact laws; examine and approve budgets, taxation and public expenditure". They can also propose bills. So, naturally, if they want to keep their seat in the next election, they will only pass bills that increase welfare to please the voters. This is not good for long-term development. Just look at Greece. The people vote for candidates which go against cutting the budget, and now they are in serious debt. We won"t want Hong Kong to become like that, right? Secondly, Hong Kong is a business city. If the government wants to increase welfare, they have to increase the tax, which voters do not like. So, the only thing the can increase is the tax on corporations. That increase the cost of running a company, so the company will either fire workers, lower their salary or increase the price, which in return doesn"t benefit us, the voters and the customers. 2. I quote from the Second Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force, conducted by the HKSAR Government. "There are some concerns that Hong Kong has a narrow tax base, and that only 39% of the working population are paying salaries tax. The worry is that if universal suffrage were implemented hastily, or if functional constituencies were abolished, Hong Kong might become a welfare state. In turn, this might affect the investment and economic environment of Hong Kong. There are views that functional constituencies and the existing electoral methods should be maintained in order to facilitate the development of the capitalist economy"to preserve the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, the previous capitalist system and way of life should remain unchanged. Constitutional development should not proceed in a direction which leads to the emergence of populism or a welfare state, thus affecting the operation of the capitalist system." If there is universal suffrage in the Legislative Council election, again, as mentioned in my first point, only candidates who strive for more benefits will get elected. The voters will only elect candidates that do what they want, so, populism will emerge, and that harms the long-term development of Hong Kong, as it is only the wishes of the people, not what benefits the city. References: "Tycoon warns on protests," The Standard, 29 April 2004. HKSAR Government, The Second Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force: Issues of Principle in the Basic Law Relating to Constitutional Development [report on-line] (April 2004, accessed 8 August 2004); available from http://www.info.gov.hk...; Internet.