of 241
Page 187 of 241
354
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Perhaps the least contribution to the good name of this Council was made during the earlier days of this debate by some of the wilder statements about the quality of Government in Hong Kong. Unfortunately this sensational rubbish caught the public eye and detracted from the more thoughtful points other Members made.
Every place gets the quality of Government its people deserve. Fortunately Hong Kong people deserve, and have, one of the best Governments in Asia. It has a liberal, far-sighted and efficient public service which has, in co-operation with the people themselves, turned the war-wrecked tumble-down entrepot of twenty-five years ago into the thriving industrial city of today. Social progress has been as striking as material progress and the story is well known. Why else did people come here? Why do they stay? Why is the Immigration Department under such pressure from people all over South East Asia trying to get in through our immigration restrictions?
The town that used to be a godown for trade with South China is today a city whose industrial output has an impact in all the great countries of the world. We are not standing still. Much remains to be done and it is being done faster here than in any other city within thousands of miles. The past gives us good ground to face the future with confidence in Hong Kong people—Hong Kong people inside and outside the Government. (Applause).
CHAIRMAN: - Ladies and gentlemen. Unofficial members are permitted, by convention, to speak, if they so wish, for a total of 400 minutes so perhaps six Officials in reply should be allowed to speak for some 66 minutes each. If, this afternoon, I myself am to attempt to cover the many points raised by Unofficials I would certainly need, with your permission, more than the conventional 20 minutes. However, I shall do my best to keep to below 66 minutes.
As I listened to the unofficial speeches on previous debate days, I noted that at least some of my comments at last year's debate had been heeded. Unfortunately, I think that all my comments at the 1968 debate appeared to have been forgotten! I do not propose to repeat the forgotten comments, but I feel that I must say that while, by convention, unofficial Members' speeches may be directed towards any subject, "convention" still does not bring those subjects within the jurisdiction of the Council (if that is what one member meant by saying that, on the occasion of this debate, there "is a comprehensive range of subjects within one's legitimate grasp"). Nor does it mean that Standing Orders go completely out of the window and, in this respect, I must say, that during this debate, I found one or two members pushing their luck with me as they spoke. My advice therefore this year is that, before the next annual conventional debate, Members would be wise to re-read not only Standing Orders (particularly those dealing with such matters as improper imputations and personal charges) but also Section 62 of the Urban Council Ordinance, which has general relevance but is particularly important at this time of debate, when Members are wont to stray into fields not within their jurisdiction.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
355
Many Members' remarks have, in spite of my previous exhortations, again been directed against Government Departments whose duties and responsibilities are not the concern of this Council. But nevertheless I must concede that, at least in one instance, they have been made with some justification.
I have also noticed one or two attacks on my Department—which could be interpreted as attacks upon the Council itself or at least on its Committees. Or they might merely indicate some undeclared interest! or that next year is an election year! It is perhaps unnecessary for me to add that some Members' criticisms or minor expressions of dissatisfaction with the Hong Kong Government's achievements were, as usual, couched with the restraint and in the constructive manner for which these Members are renowned!
My official Colleagues have already covered many of the points raised at the beginning of the debate, including some of those not within the jurisdiction of this Council. I shall now do what I can to cover the remaining points, although Members will appreciate that my main concern will be with those affecting the Council. Where no mention has been made by any of my colleagues or myself of matters outside the Council's purview, I can assure the Members who made the points that their remarks have been drawn to the attention of the appropriate authority.
The instance to which I have referred and on which, in my opinion, justifiable comments were made is, of course, Mr. BERNACCHI'S reference to item 23 of the Statement of Aims. The repetition of this statement, which concerns the Council's future scope, has not gone unnoticed by unofficial Members alone. I, too, would like to see a conclusion to this matter, but as I said at the October meeting, I have been assured that active consideration has been and is still being given to this complex issue and I hope it will not be too long before a decision is reached.
Among the various criticisms voiced by Members, I was grateful to hear a favourable literary critique from Mr. FORSGATE, who is unfortunately not with us today, of our Annual Departmental Report. The book columns of our daily papers don't often give it a notice. As his Northern perspicacity well recognized, such official publications are corporate efforts and tend to bear the stamp of a committee or a number of contributors; but all my scribes who contributed to this one are pleased to share his bouquet. As to getting to work on
■Page 187 of 24