HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 193 of 241
366
of plans for implementing the policy of providing 3 years of education for the 12 to 14 age group. The difficulty was that the proposal would have meant radical changes for the established good quality secondary schools. Mr. Henry WONG expressed concern over the provision of educational television in private schools. Government intends to make educational television programmes available to all types of schools and, indeed, to all homes. Such programmes will also be repeated which will enable a larger number of classes to benefit from them. The preparation and presentation of these programmes will represent a large investment by Government in the education of our young people and should do much to improve standards of education in primary school. The Director of Education has suggested that Mr. WONG might be exaggerating the difficulty of private schools obtaining television receivers. Government is preparing to buy receivers by means of a bulk purchasing order and this facility will be made available to private schools, though subsidy will not, of course, be available.
Mr. James Wu spoke at length on technical education. He will, of course, be aware that it is the Government's aim to achieve a balanced, progressive and realistic expansion of the necessary facilities for vocational education and industrial training in partnership with industry.
Mr. Woo Po-shing had a few things to say about the Committee system and compared official members on the Council with those of "the ruling party" with elected members as "the opposition". The fact is, of course, that this Council is part of the Central Government and from the very first, I have repeatedly reminded Members that to me they are all "Councillors". Neither official, nor elected nor appointed—just "Councillors". We are here to work together as a Council for the good of the people, and, while it may be true that members from the various sectors making up the Council may view matters differently, there is no reason whatever for categorizing some as "the Government" and others as "the opposition". And as for the Officials "choosing to ignore criticism", this also is completely wrong. As I have already said, the views of officials may not coincide with those of other members, but it just cannot be said that they "ignore" the views of their colleagues. I am sure that constructive criticism always gets the attention it deserves. And, on the appointed side, the question as to where their loyalty lies just does not need to be put. Their loyalty—just as the loyalty of the official and elected members—lies to the Council. Anything discreditable or inept that can be attributed to the Council by persons outside touches each one of us corporately, even if our consciences tell us individually that we "didn't know" or "weren't there" or "were voted down". Nobody asks for his or her dissent to be recorded when we as a Council are publicly praised for something we have done, after all; and why should they?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
367
Mr. Woo also claims that there is a gap between officials and unofficials. This, I would say centres on many occasions largely round the question of tactics rather than policy, while Mr. Woo cautiously omits reference to the gap which sometimes exists among unofficials themselves. If there is distrust between officials and unofficials then I would see it arising directly, on the one hand, from unofficials' desire to ensure that officials do not overstep their authority, and, on the other, from officials doing their best to further the Council's aim by carrying out their duties strictly in accordance with Council's agreed policies and procedures only to find they are interfered with by some Councillor who has either previously agreed to the policy or procedure being followed, or who has refused to accept the policy or procedure laid down either by the relevant Select Committee of which he may be a member or even by the Whole Council. Interference of this kind, even though motivated by the best of intentions, can only impede progress in the field and because of lack of results bring the Council's name as well as the Urban Services Department's into disrepute. Not to mention the increasing frustration not only of the staff entrusted with the job of executing Council's policies but also of the many other Government Departments involved in assisting the Urban Services Department in their field work. One eminent Councillor got it right some time ago when he said:
"Surely, Mr. Chairman, we must assume that there are reasonably intelligent men in both the U.S.D. and R.D. who would co-ordinate a programme at their level and it should not be for the Select Committee to be concerned with the implementation of policy which the Select Committee has decided. All the Select Committee should be concerned with is for progress reports to be submitted to the Select Committee as to how policy matters have been put into practice. This is strictly a business principle and say that my Select Committee has a very heavy programme and I would not like to see the Committee's time taken up in matters of detail for which there are paid staff."
If other Councillors could see their way to adopt this helpful attitude, it would assist the Department tremendously. And it certainly does not stop Members calling us to account after the event!
I would like to close today by referring to Mr. Woo's remarks about Select Committees. There is always room for improvement, and I would agree with Mr. Woo that the time is probably ripe for us to re-examine the position. In fact, we had already given some thought to the matter some months ago. I personally think the number of Select Committees could be advantageously reduced and it is possible, with a little streamlining, that Members will not in future have to devote the amount of time they do to the work of this Council.
366
Page 193 of 241