Page 92 of 136
150
Ward Offices
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Let us look at another area of contention, the Ward Office system established in 1965.
Although the Urban Services Department was re-structured in 1973 into 10 (now increased to 11) Districts, the Council continues to operate 14 Ward Offices. Undoubtedly, the Urban Council pioneered a system of communication for Government through its Ward Offices. Unfortunately, we have been over-taken by events and have failed to adapt to changing circumstances. The communication spread of Central Government today reaches through:
· 24 City District Offices and Sub-offices, dealing with nearly 1 million enquiries last year,
100 or more offices of the Housing Authority with capacity to handle all housing enquiries,
Social Welfare Department operating through 26 field units and 17 family services centres,
Police Information and Reporting Centres dealing with 300 to 400 cases per day, and
UMELCO Office operating a centralized complaints and enquiries service on a weekly basis.
How does the Ward Office fit into this communications infra-structure? It doesn't!
The facts show that of 10,000 cases dealt with through Ward Offices in 1979, over 9,000 or 90% concerned matters outside the jurisdiction of the Urban Council, where official channels of communication are already available, viz:-
about 60% on housing
10% on social welfare matters
15% on legal, police and immigration enquiries, and 15% on other non-council affairs.
Of the 1,000 enquiries within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council nearly all concerned hawkers and markets and could be dealt with effectively through Departmental machinery.
It can be clearly shown that the majority of enquiries received through Ward Offices represent appeals against the policies of other departments of Government, are not the concern of the Council and, generally, produce no beneficial results.
Will we now seek to remove the inefficiencies of the system, and improve the Council's complaints and enquiries machinery? I doubt it while some Elected Members feel that presiding in a Ward domain is an important function in campaigning for re-election!
(Cries of shame, shame.)
Appointed Members
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
151
Appointed Members need make no apologies. I am fed up being told by this militant few that Appointed Members 'must go'.
Appointed Members are selected on merit on the basis of their records of performance in community service. It used to be the practice of certain Members to denounce their Appointed colleagues as 'Government Yes-men' and 'Big-business agents'. They still do.
These members then went on to pose the question, 'why should you people be members of the Urban Council?' They do that no longer. Not since the first issue of the Urban Council Handbook was published in 1973 which demonstrated clearly that in terms of community service in extent, intensity and duration-the Appointed Members have a contribution and record which is measurably greater than most Elected Members and of which each one can be justifiably proud.
And that dedication and sense of responsibility continues to be evident on this mixed Council. Dr. HUANG honestly acknowledged (in 1976) the superior dedication of the Appointed Members of this Council. Let me quote him in full, 'I admit that my Appointed colleagues' performance on the Council in regard to attending meetings, and their sense of responsibility, is higher than that of Elected Members on average.'
It continues a fact, since 1976 as before, that Appointed Members take their duties more seriously, are more attentive to their duties and attend more meetings than their Elected brethren. It is a fact that the combined attendances of the Appointed Members (from April to December 1979) is 31.4% better than the Elected camp. Since autonomy in 1973, Appointed Members have set the pace in this Council and can take credit for most of its progress and achievements. Their performance is better, by virtue of training, experience and sense of duty. Their interest in joining the local hustings, and projecting themselves as neighbourhood Napoleons, is NIL. The loss of their services--freely given and not sufficiently appreciated—would be an immeasurable loss to this Council and the community.
In the geo-political context of Hong Kong, in a community which has to pull together in one direction for survival, a system of Selection rather than Election must continue because it is sensible, pragmatic and serves the community well.
But do not feel that I criticise all Elected Members. On the whole they have my sympathy and understanding. Many of them, and particularly younger members, are sincerely anxious to co-operate in the Council interest. Unfortunately, they are too often influenced and over-awed by the arrogance and conceit of their senior colleagues who take delight in dissension.
Page 92 of 136