Page 211 of 242
402
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
logically, it is for the paid officials of the Urban Services Department to recommend policies and procedures and to plan how these policies and procedures may be followed in practice. This is how preparation for effective and progressive government works. When these officially drafted policies and procedures are put forward to the Select Committee concerned or to the Whole Council for discussion and possible approval, Members are quite free to change them. In many instances (but not by any means all, as everyone round this table knows only too well), the departmental recommendations are approved, though very often with improvements and amendments suggested by Members. In the majority of cases (as in the case of this motion), it is Mrs. ELLIOTT alone who objects. In other cases, there may be a number of objectors, but majority rule carries the day. Unfortunately, despite her fulsome protestations about the need for democracy, Mrs. ELLIOTT steadfastly refuses to accept many of the majority decisions and ploughs her lone furrow to the detriment, on many occasions, of the Council's and the Department's work, and of the interest of the members of the public involved, who are led into false hopes.
There is among many members of the Council a great desire to get on with the job, but nowhere is this desire stronger than among the Urban Services Department's staff. We are paid to do the job, and once the policies and procedures are clearly laid down by the Council, then we would like to think that we can be free to get on with it. (But then this Councillor does not accept the view put forward by one of her colleagues long ago (and quoted by me last year) that Committees' (and members') time should not be taken up on matters of detail for which there are paid staff.) Naturally, this does not mean that I cannot be called to account for my own or my officials' actions, or the latter to account to me or to my own superiors. Far from it! And I and my staff are always willing to take advice and accept constructive criticism which can lead to the better management of our affairs.
Mrs. ELLIOTT made some remarks about inefficiency in my Department. With an establishment of over 15,000, things may very well on occasion go wrong, and I am sure that she herself would be the first to admit that things go wrong in her own office too, but I reject categorically her allegation of general inefficiency.
As to corruption, a subject which means as much to my conscience and to my service's good name as to any private person, I have told Mrs. ELLIOTT repeatedly that I am more than willing to forward to the appropriate authority any information (however flimsy) which might enable me to get rid of any wrong-doer among my staff as, in fact, I have done many times. The opportunities for corruption undoubtedly are there in the Department, and I would be foolish to say that corruption does not exist. It exists wherever people place money above good manners, brotherly love and moral honesty. I and my senior staff have made strenuous efforts to eradicate this evil, but I would be equally foolish to say that we have been 100% successful. Our problem lies mainly in the unwillingness of outsiders to come forward and give evidence and, of course, the willingness of others to give bribes. I know that the majority of my staff are honest, conscientious and hard-working—doing their best, in many instances, in very difficult circumstances, and subjected to sweeping and ignorant generalizations and abuse. The more we all beat our breasts in public about the black sheep, the more soiled the good majority feel, and the less confident and willing to serve on they become. I refuse to accept the generalities which Mrs. ELLIOTT continues to thrust upon us.
We have a job of work to do, and we badly need help, guidance, counsel and goodwill to do it properly. Not hindrance and illwill.
As to the remarks that the man-in-the-street is unknown to most Members of the Council, I can only say that, on the other hand, some of us were right there in the street and among the hawkers and in the midst of squatters and the great squatter fires long before Mrs. ELLIOTT had been heard of in Hong Kong. And over the years, we have not failed to keep in touch.
Mr. P. K. NG referred to the unco-operative attitude of some of the professional health staff, referring in particular to the staff's proposed requirements and conditions for cold-stores. I must first point out that all the requirements and conditions suggested were based on recognized principles of public health, and I think that Mr. NG might perhaps have confused a conscientious approach by the health staff to be an unco-operative one. Mr. NG, nevertheless, affords me the opportunity of stating that the very fact that the sub-committee (two-thirds of the members of which are unofficials) was able to delete 16 of the 39 requirements and conditions proposed by the Department, would give a lie to any accusation that the Council serves as a "rubber stamp".
In the course of this debate, Unofficial Members have put forward many points which will require further consideration. Obviously, a lot of effort has been put into the debate by Unofficial Members, but this does not reflect by a long chalk the amount of work which is done behind the scene and out of the public eye. Again, I would like to state publicly that Unofficial Members of this Council give up a considerable time to serve on this Council and, in turn, the people of Hong Kong. They do so willingly. For this I would like to thank them and place on record my sincere appreciation for the help and advice they have given me and my Department throughout the year.
I now call upon Mr. BERNACCHI, the mover of the Motion, to exercise his right of reply. (Loud Applause).
403
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 212 of 242