Page 173 of 194
310
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
struggles. In other words, like it or not, the Government must accept a two-tier system of local administration, such indeed as this Council itself put forward by unanimous vote almost 20 years ago in the late 1960s. We even issued our own White Paper on this subject, but (as usual), it was turned down by the Central Government.
I now come specifically to deal with the proposal of two regional councils, the Urban Council in the present urban districts and another regional Council in the New Territories. The pros and cons about having two regional councils have been and will again be fully gone into by other speakers in this afternoon's debate. In my opinion, at present, the cons vastly exceed the pros. There is no real reason at present put forward why we should not have one council, not the Urban Council, but one council as the local executive limb to the Urban Services Department making overall policies for the whole territory of Hong Kong. However, with respect to the Chief Secretary, I think he has not really said the real reasons why the Government is obviously in favour of two (or more) regional councils. He said, to quote,
'As regards the Urban Council, it is not the Government's view that it would be desirable, nor is it proposed, to extend their powers to the rest of Hong Kong, because of existing institutions and because the Urban Council would thus become too large and unwieldy.'
The basic error he has fallen into is referring to extending the powers of the Urban Council into the New Territories, whereas, of course, it is not a question of that at all, but a question of whether it would be more convenient administratively, financially, and politically to have one or two Councils dealing with local administration. Apart from this, the reasons he gives are totally inadequate, and in some ways, incorrect. Under the present local government system in England, there are many local authorities that have to deal with a greater area and a larger number of people than the area and the 6 million people of Hong Kong.
As regards unwieldy, it would be very much more unwieldy to have two Urban Services Departments, under two regional councils, with perhaps completely different policies. In that case, perhaps large groups of the population would deliberately live in, or at least go to work in, the part of Hong Kong under that regional council whose policies they think are best able to suit their line of trade. I am indeed thinking particularly of hawkers who are a necessity and give work to large numbers of the population, particularly in times of depression, but are also a considerable nuisance because they gather together in crowded places where the business is good.
This then leaves only the point about existing institutions. Presumably, the Chief Secretary was referring to well-established bodies, like indeed the Heung Yee Kuk. Yes, they do favour two councils. There are signs of a working party being set up between themselves and ourselves, where, at least, we can exchange views, and in particular, explain to them that it is not a case of wanting to empire-build by extending the Urban Council into the New Territories, but rather a question of whether one council or two councils (or more) is better suited to control the everyday life of the citizens of Hong Kong. In effect, should the policy-making for the Urban Services Department be done by two bodies or one? If in the end, it is decided to have one council, then I imagine it would be a vastly different Council than at present. I see, looking around this Council Chamber, that the architects have already foreseen the possibility of such an increase. (laughter)
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 173 of 194
311
But of course, the Heung Yee Kuk is not by any means the only institution in the New Territories that should be consulted. In fact, by and large, they represent mainly the original people of the New Territories, which are now considerably out-numbered by people who moved into the new towns there. Indeed, that is why the Chief Secretary's main reason for the proposed reorganization. He says,
'By 1991, there will be more people living north of the Kowloon foothills than there are at present in Kowloon.'
He also speaks of the shift of population into the new towns. What then do the District Boards think of this proposal to have two regional Councils? Ask them, both those in the New Territories and those in the urban areas. Even then, it may be too early to take their opinion because they themselves are going to be reformed, in a way which I entirely approved of, by giving the elected members a large majority on them, instead of the present minority.
I say that the real reason has not been really disclosed to us in the Chief Secretary's speech. Perhaps it is such matters as a fear that one council, properly organized and not quarrelling amongst its members, would be too powerful. That is why the future of the Legislative Council is so important. Is it also to be enlarged mainly by elected members? If this is so, there is no risk. Is it perhaps outside political considerations, like a fear that Peking might be against a semi-elected regional council looking after the whole territory of Hong Kong and deciding the policies of the Urban Services Department, one of the biggest departments in man-power at least in the Government of Hong Kong?
Please, Mr. Chief Secretary, make known to the public and bodies such as we, who are directly interested in these changes in constitution, the whole of these proposed changes, including the real reason behind the Government's view to have two councils. Is it in fact a fait accompli, like Mr. Forsgate has said, or does the Government really want the views of the people of Hong Kong on the proposed constitutional changes as announced so far?
With these words, and in so far as this particular motion needs supporting, Mr. Chairman, I support it.
1
Page 173 of 194