HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
and one cannot help wondering just what it is trying to prove. Certain-ly it seems unlikely, apart from other considerations, to foster the sense of common purpose that is surely essential to the effective functioning of any Council. And who knows where this discrimination between different categories of members might lead? The underlying principle that all are equal but some are more equal than others could be applied in various interesting ways—shall we say a whole vote for elected members and perhaps half a vote for nominated members (or even the other way round) or perhaps no vote for Kowloon members when dealing with Kowloon affairs or for the Chairmen of Select Committees in relation to matters for which they are responsible?
I referred earlier to the risks of over-adventurousness and per-haps I might exemplify this. In the first place we have in these pro-posals an apparent link with the new Greater London Council. Not only does the name recall that Council, but specific reference is made in the Report to it. But the Greater London Council is a new and hardly tested experiment. It has only been in existence for a very short time, and I wonder if anybody really knows how it will work out. Is this then really the best model to follow? Is there not some risk that in following it we may be applying an experiment, untried even in its own environment, in circumstances that may in important respects be quite different.
A further point arises too. The Report speaks of local Govern-ment and sets out what looks like an ambitious project for a two-tier administration covering a wide range of departments. But how truly local is this proposed administration? Does this new superstructure really bring administration obviously nearer to the grassroots than the system that it sets out to replace? Is the citizen of Shau Kei Wan or Mong Kok going to be noticeably closer to the administration than he now is?
How actively is he really going to be concerned with the management of the things that affect him? How much better a service is he going to get? Is it going to be more speedy and efficient? Is it going to be more economical? Will the streets be cleaner and the parks greener? What solid practical advantages will result from adoption of a two-tier system of the kind proposed?
Now, I have to confess that I do not know the answers to these questions. I don't know if any of us do. I would hasten to add that I make no assumption that the answers to all or any of these questions are negative; but I do suggest that questions of this kind do arise, and that all who read the Report or any other report of the kind should not make up their minds without a critical examination of the benefits claimed in it.
I should like to conclude with a few remarks more specifically from the viewpoint of my own Department. I have already noted the generous gift of a substantial part of the S.C.A. that Father Christmas has in store for me. I note too that social welfare is to be a concern of the Greater Hong Kong Council, and that it should delegate to District Councils (with the right to intervene and co-ordinate) welfare services and children's services. In fact my Department is already moving in the direction of regionalization and decentralization of certain services. We have established regional offices in Hong Kong East and Hong Kong West to bring together the various types of casework in such a way that the total casework needs of a family can be met in one place, instead of in several different places. It is our intention to do the same in Kowloon. Thus we are moving towards properly decentralized and co-ordinated casework services. But the basic policies remain and surely can only remain—centralized, and must they not be settled at Central Government level as they are indeed in Britain? What the Report means in relation to social welfare seems to me to need some clarification. What are the proposed responsibilities of the Greater Council and the District Councils—in relation to Social Wel-fare? It is presumably not suggested that the work of caseworkers should be subject to scrutiny by a District Council, because this would be as impracticable and unacceptable as seeking to supervise the pro-fessional decisions of the medical practitioner. Again, I would suggest that any decision on the place of social welfare in relation to Councils of the kind proposed will have to take into account the fact that so substantial a part of our welfare services is provided by voluntary agencies, sometimes with subvention and very often not. If District Councils are to be responsible for welfare services, thought will have to be given to the relationship that should exist between the various Councils, the many voluntary agencies, the Department, the Social Welfare Advisory Committee and, last but by no means least, the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, which I notice, incidentally, was not approached for its views by the Committee.
Sir, I hope that members will not misconstrue the intention of this speech. It is not intended to and I hope does not—reflect a mind closed to reform in local administration. If it seems to, I have ex-pressed myself very badly. It is not intended to condemn but to question (a practice for which there is good precedent in this Council), and to suggest that all who have an interest in this subject, whether in this Council or elsewhere, should likewise question the advantages claimed for this or any other scheme of reform, and not simply accept them at their stated value.
MR. WILFRED WONG:-In debating the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future Scope and Operation of the Urban Council I must say that it is a masterpiece of achievement behind closed doors. It is indeed remarkable that this hush-hush committee which met 14 times stretching through a period of almost 3 months managed to
Page 149 of 279
272
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
273
f
Page 149 of 2.