CONFIDENTIAL
the Governor said "By next year I would like to feel that this (UMELCO) and similar mechanisms have everything needed to make them work as effectively as possible, and that we are, by that
much at least, clearer on the need for a Commissioner".
4.
The Governor probably shares these doubts and appears
disposed to let matters rest on this basis. In any event
further progress will not be possible until unofficials are
brought round to a favourable view and it is unlikely that they
could be converted to this frame of mind before they had had an
opportunity of assessing for themselves whether the existing arrangements (and in particular the UMELCO office), after being
improved to the maximum extent, provided an equally effective
and publicly acceptable substitute. With these considerations in mind the Minister might continue to argue the case for a Commissioner; possible lines of argument are
(i)
(ii)
Administrative machinery for the redress of
grievances may well be impartial and effective but is it, and will it continue to be, publicly seen and accepted as such (e.g. by dissatisfied complainants)?
In the U.K. Members of Parliament have access to Ministers in charge of departments against whose actions complaints are made and often this channel is very effective in airing and/or redressing grievances. But there have been some classic cases in which M.Ps. representing the interests of members of the public have not been successful in getting to the root of the matter and ensuring that justice is done (e.g. the Crichel Down case). It is against this eventuality that provision should be made.
(iii) On the U.K. analogy see (ii) above there
could be a place in Hong Kong both for UMELCO action and a Commissioner, the former shielding the Commissioner from obviously trivial or
CONFIDENTIAL
/ straight-