Page 20 of 206
20
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It means that with the consent of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council can be debated in Urban Council's Monthly Meeting. In other words, the views held by different Councillors can be aired in open on a matter which is not strictly speaking within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council if they consent to do so. In the last seven years, there were two or three motions which were debated in open in this Council Meeting which were not strictly within the jurisdiction of the Council. The result so far as I know is very encouraging. In one motion which touched on the creation of Hong Kong citizenship at a time when people in Hong Kong could have a travelling document valid for 3 months and for one trip only, I understand that since then the Government has paid a great deal of attention concerning the hardships that people had so far suffered before 1965. The Chinese inhabitants in Hong Kong can now have the travelling documents with a validity of 3 or 7 years and with multiple entries. Had there been no debate in Urban Council, I say at least the time for realization of such a right policy would be much delayed. It is also because of that motion people have started to talk about the sense of belonging and the present prosperity of Hong Kong has greatly depended on this fundamental idea in the minds of millions of citizens of Hong Kong. Another motion in 1967 which also dealt with a matter which was of public importance has aroused the people of Hong Kong to express and appreciate their own future. I should think one of the fundamental pillars of a modern democracy is the respect of public opinion. I would suggest that Urban Council with Elected Members in it is the best forum to express various opinions to enhance the democratic system in Hong Kong. We think that the Hong Kong Government so far is popular in this regard. It is regretted that Government should at this time shut up the door by introducing this motion.
I also fail to see there is any valid ground to introduce such a motion. The law once established should not easily be changed unless for a valid ground. The ground which so far, I heard, would be that if a matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council then there is no use to have a debate taken place in the Urban Council. I personally do not think that it is a valid ground for changing the law. By amending Standing Order 10(1), is tantamount to reduce an important function of Urban Council, which has been clearly established by the said Standing Order and Convention, i.e. to air public opinion in a proper channel. This is particularly desirable because another Council has failed to do so. No important motion has ever been debated in another Council which must be conditioned by Hong Kong's Colonial system. I therefore think that the Standing Order 10(1) should be maintained.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
21
There may be another argument for the amendment that the Urban Council has already enough to do within its own jurisdiction therefore there is no need to talk anything beyond that. Mr. Chairman, we certainly would do what we can within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council. But as there are elected elements in the Urban Council they should not prevent the Elected Members to talk about the matters of public concern.
It is also very interesting to note that Section (54) of Urban Council Ordinance which was mentioned in the Standing Order 10(1), is really a flexible Section which reads:
"The duties of the Council shall be to exercise control within the area allotted to it over all matter in respect of which powers are given to it by this Ordinance or any other Ordinance."
It is only a general provision. No specific powers are mentioned in the Ordinance. The word "control" needs our study. Are we actually in control of the matters which have been allotted to the Urban Council? Or some other Governmental body or bodies control the matters which are within our jurisdiction. The Urban Council in Hong Kong has suffered the double out: because of the small size of Hong Kong, there is actually the supposition of the Central Government and the Local Government. Therefore, certain matters which are usually allotted to Local Government are now handled by the Central Government in Hong Kong, e.g. matters concerning traffic or matters concerning education. Yet, on the other hand, we are not allowed to speak in our Council on matters concerning the public interest although, we are not intending to have any control of such matters.
The present Standing Order has been in existence for nearly 15 years, if I am right Mr. Chairman, yet Government now sees fit that this harmless power which was granted to us long ago should be taken away from us. It is a pity that the circumstances are such that this motion should be moved in the present manner. Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this motion, because in introducing the present amendment it is against the traditional policy of Hong Kong Government to respect and to develop public opinion. Government so far has not found any satisfactory substitute for closing such a forum in the Urban Council in airing the public opinion. It is certainly a backward move. Mr. Chairman, I therefore cannot vote for this amendment.
MR. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate Mr. BERNACCHI on the speech he made in opposing the motion this afternoon. It has re-kindled old fires which, to my disappointment, have been burning low for a long time. Mr. Henry Hu has just finished a very well-reasoned and erudite statement on the position which this particular Standing Order relates to Urban Councillors' ability to speak
Page 20
Page 21