LG.68/14
K.221
RESTRICTED
-PA on local good. Mr. Gaymarci file. And 3.12-62
29th November, 1968
3/12
With the approval of H.E. the Governor, Mr. W.V. Dickinson very kindly sent me a copy of his report of March, 1968 on "the feasibility of improving the existing machinery of local government in Hong Kong, as an interim measure pending wider reform", and he has suggested that I should send to you any comments that I might have on this report. I had been in touch with Mr. Dickinson over the earlier draft legislation which reached my desk after the retirement of Claude Wallis, Local Government Adviser, and that indeed provided me with my only previous contact with government business in Hong Kong.
As I have no personal knowledge of the Far East, my comments are made with considerable diffidence, particularly so in view of the exceptional political circumstances of Hong Kong inhibiting an orthodox development of democratic local government.
Faced with the far from easy problem of evolving an interim measure in lieu of the major reform first intended, one that would show some degree of progress towards autonomous status for the Urban Council, which would not hamper subsequent more liberal reform, but would at the same time in no way fetter the exercise of effective control by Central Government, I think that Mr. Dickinson must be warmly commended for the able, understanding and, so it strikes me, broadly practicable proposals that he has submitted. The comments I have to make are indeed few and are restricted to the following points:
Para. 65 Functions.
To attract leading citizens to be members of a local authority, besides obtaining a greater degree of popular interest in local government, that authority, wherever it may be, must needs have interesting functions to perform not merely the regulative "dos and don'ts". It must, I believe, be given some part to play in planning. On the other hand, it should not have imposed upon it a major function which will prove so costly that its dependence on government grants therefor seriously jeopardises its autonomy. Hence I have some doubts on the recommendation that the Urban Council should have responsibility for primary and secondary education. Certainly a local authority can well accept responsibility for pre-primary schools and for adult education, perhaps a limited (but not complete) responsibility for Primary education, but unless there are special local reasons, I would have thought that secondary education could best be left as a Central Government function.
A.T. Clark, Esq.,
{
RECEIVED IN ARCHITS No.31
/Paras.75-78
Principal Assistant
Colonial Secretary (General),
The Secretariat,
Hong Kong.
RESTRICTED
-40EC 1968
нкнып