Page 119 of 142
194
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):- Mr. Chairman, in supporting the motion, I know it is a tradition at this Annual Debate for Urban Councillors to sound off on all and sundry subjects regardless whether they are relevant to our Urban Council work or not. I have now been a member of the Council for 18 months and am still the new boy here but I feel strongly that Councillors should concentrate on the Urban Council's problems, of which there are a great many, rather than use this meeting as a platform for views on matters which are largely irrelevant to our work and about which we, as Councillors, can do very little.
But I don't think I am contradicting myself when I comment quickly on some of the speeches I have heard during this debate by gently reminding my colleagues here of the 15 times arithmetic table: 97 minus 15 = 82. 82 minus 15 = 67. 1967 was a year none of us are likely to forget and which one of us in 1967 could have forecast correctly the world in 1982. 67 minus 15 = 52. That was the middle of the Korean war, remember? Who would have dared forecast in 1952 what the world would be like in 1967. 52 minus 15 = 37. 1937 was the year Hitler was just starting to take the world apart. 37 minus 15 = 22. In 1922 the Germans were just about to teach the world the meaning of the word 'inflation' and who would have forecast a Hitler or even a Mussolini at the height of their powers 15 years hence? So none of us can have any ideas what the world will look like in 15 years time. We can only be certain of one thing, namely, that every forecast made now for 1997 will be wrong and that it is far too early now to plan for 1997. So let me get back to what is important for us here and now.
Our most urgent problem is obviously money. The world slump has affected Hong Kong and our recent political situation has not improved matters. Government's income is shrinking and I see no real possibility of increasing taxes or rates to pay for some of our more ambitious schemes. I think it is essential that Government keeps building up our infrastructure and does not repeat the mistake made some years ago when, because of inflationary pressures, the building of roads was stopped. If we have to save money, and we do have to save money, then let us make sure that such money is saved on reasonably inessential projects. In my first speech at an Annual Debate, last year, I suggested studies should be made of all the latest techniques for everything we do to see whether we can import more modern technology in order to save manpower. I don't believe that this suggestion has so far been acted upon in a systematic manner, and it is wrong to tackle this problem in a piecemeal fashion, especially as our biggest financial problem in this Council are the salary and wages of the U.S.D. staff and the on-cost which is charged to us by Government. It is not our staff's fault that, in many cases, their wage and salary levels have out-stripped the private sector, and, in any case, they all work hard and deserve their emoluments. It would be impractical to advocate a cutting of wages and salaries or even a cutting of perks, what we have to do and do very fast is to cut back on the number of personnel we employ.
I advocated last year, and have been advocating right through this year and haven't changed my mind, a thorough investigation of the efficiency of our operations, and I want to emphasize again that I am not criticising or complaining, I am simply saying that in every large organization, be it Governmental or private, an inertial bureaucracy evolves which makes for inefficiency and which has to be looked at by independent observers very carefully every few years to see where efficiency and productivity can be improved. If, for instance, under present circumstances, we could cut our personnel by 5% surely not an impossible figure, we would save HK$40 million, which, assuming that we will be able to finance the same budget as last year, would enable us to carry on with our main work which consists of keeping the city clean and improving amenities and especially encouraging recreation and cultural activities all of which costs considerable amounts of money.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 119 of 142
In this connection, I feel it is time for this Council to become more involved with the managerial aspects of the work it is charged to do and I suggest that the best way of doing this would be to set up inside the Department and independent very strong managerial audit unit which should consist of Civil Servants who have either retired from the Department or are on extension. This should be led by a man senior enough to exercise real authority. It is most important that such a unit does not fear to tread on collegiate toes, hence my suggestion to use retired, or just about to retire, personnel who have no promotion expectations but are familiar with the problems of the Department.
Two members of this unit should be members of a very small council committee solely concerned with the study of the efficiency of the Department. Membership of this Committee should be confined to Councillors who have managerial experience, and it is important that the Department representatives are actual members of the Committee and have a vote in the Committee. Ideally such a committee should consist of not more than 5 members, i.e. two Councillors and three Departmental members or vice versa.
This committee should be given a relatively free hand and a lot of time to investigate the efficiency of systems operating within the U.S.D. Recommendations from the Committee should first of all go to the Director of Urban Services with a copy to C.U.C. and the official Departmental reaction should then be discussed before a final report is made to the Council. In fact, it would probably be advisable to report only once yearly to the Council.
I believe that this approach would be very much more beneficial than the present system of having small internal management audit units which are obviously handicapped because after they have made their report, they have to go back to their units and have to live with their colleagues on whom they have reported.
I want to emphasize again that I am making these suggestions with scientific detachment and that they are based on experience of similar problems in the private sector where this type of independent management counselling has been beneficial and, in some cases, has turned up the most unbelievable inefficiencies happening right under the noses of first class and successful managers. It's the old adage about the wood and the trees and I hope, Sir, that this Council and