HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-The Council will come to order and the debate will now resume. The first speaker, Mr Edmund CHOW, please.
MR EDMUND W. H. CHOW (in Cantonese): -Mr Chairman, today I feel very sorry because there are only so few Councillors present for this debate. Of course, we know the reason behind this. However, we hope from now on after we have spoken, that the misunderstanding between both sides can be eliminated and next year, for the Annual Conventional Debate, all Councillors will be present.
I consider the Urban Council is an official body which provides service to the community and the people of Hong Kong, all Urban Councillors should be always ready to serve the people of Hong Kong and that all policies should be made and measures taken with the interests of the people in mind. Only after we have done this can we say that we have fulfilled our duties as Councillors and have lived up to the expectation of the people. Especially in the case of elected Councillors, they are not only answerable to the people of Hong Kong but are also responsible to the registered electors. Although some people have said that registered electors are only a minority group, don't forget that they are vital to 'democratic election' and are the only main pillar to democratic election. Without them, there will be no election in Hong Kong. And, without election, the only showcase of democracy will not exist. The importance of the electors' democratic role in Hong Kong is likened to an oasis in the desert. Although they form a minority, they are more important than anything else.
Indeed, the policies and measures of the Council are not wholly satisfactory. There are countless places where improvement can be made. But as I have pointed out many times, there is no perfect government in the world, just as there is no flawless system and no faultless man. To fulfil our duties well and to be responsible to the people, the only way is to seek the co-operation of all Members and to strive for improvement. We should put up constructive proposals for or amendments to any unsatisfactory measures but not take negative actions which would make our friends wince and our enemies rejoice. I would now like to take the opportunity of the Annual Conventional Debate to voice the dissatisfaction I have over the measures of the Council as follows:
First of all, I would like to talk about the Council's intention to raise 'the percentage of rates'. I recall that in 1977 when the re-valuation of properties had resulted in a sharp rise in rates, I proposed, first in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council and later in the monthly public meeting, that the Council should reduce its rate percentage so as to lessen the burden of the public. I also pointed out in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council that, under the existing legislation, it was the Legislative Council and not the Urban Council itself which had the final decision on 'the percentage of rates levied'. And, for this reason, I strongly insisted that 'the rate percentage must be reduced'. The public were much satisfied with my proposal and the Council's decision to reduce the rate percentage, and their anger soon died down.
Yet, less than 2 years since then, the Council has now hinted twice the possibility of raising the percentage of rates, using the excuses that there is deficit in this year's budget and that the public have to pay more if they want better living conditions. In my opinion, these excuses cannot justify any increase in the rate percentage. My arguments are as follows:- (a) A budget having a small deficit is in fact a budget in healthy state. And, a budget having a deficit does not necessarily imply actual deficit in future expenditures. The most obvious proof is that although Government and the Council's budgets had a deficit last year, with unexpected increase in the income of rates, both ended with surpluses. Thus, small deficit in this year's budget should not be used as an excuse to 'increase the percentage'.
(b) By force of circumstances, the various projects of the Council very often could not be completed in time and have to be deferred to the budget of the following year or that two years later. This is by no means a rare example. Even though there is no great increase in this year's rates income, the budget could still be kept in balance if one or two projects have to be postponed or suspended by force of circumstances. (From previous experience, this would surely happen.) Perhaps we may review our projects and postpone one or two items so as to help balancing the small deficit in our budget. Thus, this again could not be used as an excuse for 'increasing the percentage'.
(c) I agree absolutely that we should continuously improve the people's living conditions. This is also the responsibility of the Council. What I oppose is not this matter of principle, but the question of 'reasonable measure' and 'time'. When genuine need arises for 'a reasonable increase of rate percentage' in order to achieve the goal of improving the general living conditions, I believe the public will give their consent to it. As for me, I then would not only agree to it, but also urge the Council to carry it out.
In view of the major factors mentioned above, I firmly object to any proposal for 'increase of rate percentage' put forward or suggested by the Council at the moment.
My second point of dissatisfaction towards Council measures concerns that of 'suspending licences' as a form of penalty in food business. I fully agree to a policy aimed at maintaining a high standard of food hygiene in Hong Kong because this is our statutory duty and we are responsible to the people of Hong Kong. But it is the existing measures that I am dissatisfied with. Since people engaged in food business are members of our community, we should also take into account their difficulties before making a decision
Page 102 of 135
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 102 of 135
165