60
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I think the three alternatives set out in your speech (1), (2) and (3) have been discussed in various committees and I do not think the Government would accept any of those, that is to say, eventually, it will come back to this Council to decide to suggest to Government to increase the rate from 4% and upwards to anything, either 5, 6, 7 or even up to 8%. That is the main idea and let us not waste any more time and quoting various expenditure, how much we have saved and how much we cannot save now. If the day has to come, it will come. But I think one point we have to make clear is that we did cut the percentage of rate some years ago from 6% to 4%. In those days, the Government revised the rateable value and caused a certain amount of concern from the general public and then we cut the rate, but there was still an increase in money, but that was enough to cover our expenses for those years, but if the Government decided to have a revision of the rateable value, I think 4% will be more than enough, or probably, we could have for another cut. But the Government is not going to have a revision of the rateable value, that is to say, the rateable value is still standing in a few years ago, while the actual value of those properties has jumped 3, 4 or 5 times. I think the public should be made aware that it is because the rateable value has been staying at a few years' back level that this 4% from that level of rateable value is not sufficient to cover the expenses of the Council. I think that should be made clear that this Council would not support any idea of just increasing the burden of the ratepayers for the sake of increasing it, either the Government re-adjust their rateable value or stay at their value and then we should get enough to pay our expenses. I end by saying that there is a Chinese saying that in order to manage the Council's affairs we have to have money and the Chinese saying is that ...
MR. AUGUSTINE S. K. CHUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, in many of the select committees, we have discussed in length about how to cut down expenses and we have tried to reduce as much capital projects as well as other expenses as possible, but we have now cut to the minimum which we cannot try to cut further. I mean if we try to cut further probably we will make the existence of the Council meaningless, and then we have lost our function to that extent that also the existence of a great proportion of our staff in the department will also become superfluous and meaningless because they cannot operate the function and perform the function the Council is intended to. In the circumstances, the only way is either to increase the rate or to ask Government to do what we have asked them to do. To be fair, while we have to pay out, increase our expenses because of the inflation, we cannot be benefitted for in terms of income. The inflation measure, as Government has enjoyed, like the selling of land where they can still catch up with inflation, whereas Council cannot enjoy because of the delay in the assessment of the rateable value of the properties. So in the circumstances, I support your appeal to Government to consider the Council's request in
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 46 of 120
61
the various methods to avoid undue increase or a sudden heavy increase in the rate where, with the Council, share the rate. Thank you.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I am almost repeating what our Members have already said. When I say the choice is apparently with the Government and not really with this Council, i.e. the Executive, Legislative Councils and above, or else the Finance Branch, either it accepts one of the three alternatives you have mentioned or we will have to double our share of the rates, from 4% to 8%, in order to perform our statutory duties.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Thank you, does any other Member wish to take part in the debate? Is it your wish that I call the question? I thank Members for the remarks they have made in support of the motion and for pointing out to the public the seriousness of the position and the difficulties now facing the Council. So I will now ask Members to vote on the motion.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 19 votes for and 1 abstention. (The Chairman did not vote.)
2. THE CHAIRMAN, URBAN COUNCIL, moved the following motion:—
'RESOLVED that the Urban Council Annual Report for the year 1979-80 be approved.'
He said (in English):—A public authority anywhere must be seen to work for the betterment of the community. The importance of communications to achieve this purpose is accepted without demur. All means are used to let the citizens know what is happening. Such should also be the case with Hong Kong. Perhaps even more so.
The Annual Report tells the Council's story. It must be concise if it is to be read in a busy city. So it can only bring out the salient features of its work. It does so with good effect.
In addition, there are the monthly reports and statistics where there is a wealth of information. Also issued are many pamphlets and booklets, brochures and fact-sheets, posters and catalogues—indeed, a whole range of publications covering many aspects of the Council's work. Besides, there are radio and television programmes and the bilingual monthly 'City News'.
The Council does what it is expected to do and much more. Hence, the pervasive activities to the community's advantage. The statutory functions are basic to cities everywhere. They vary only in dimension and circumstances. They are what a well-ordered city cannot do without, if public health and the environment are not to suffer. The additional permissive functions are vital too. Indeed, they make all the difference to the quality of life. They are directly related to living standards and enhance the people's
Page 46 of 120