Page 182 of 194
328
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
providing in the Urban areas. Therefore, it is not true that the Urban Council and Heung Yee Kuk have totally opposite views on this aspect, in fact both agree entirely that it is a need that has to be fulfilled.
Secondly, the matter of having New Territories people looking after affairs in the New Territories is sensible too, on the grounds that those who live or have an interest in a locality probably know what they need. But why confine it to New Territories only and make it look artificially like a conflict between 'city slickers' and 'country side dwellers'? How far do you extend the concept, to say, Kwun Tong people looking after Kwun Tong or Lamma Island people looking after Lamma Island? How valid is the argument that someone living in Tuen Mun necessarily knows Hebe Haven better than someone from Kowloon? I would add that a rough count indicates that out of the current 30 Urban Councillors, at least 6 originate or currently live in the N.T. too. A further point to consider is that the Urban Council collects two and a half times as much rates as the Government in N.T. From an N.T. resident's point of view, it can be argued too that half of a large cake in this instance is bigger than a whole small cookie.
I think we should try and get away from parochial arguments of defining who belongs to where and represents whom, and focus on the more important subject of how to obtain input from people both in the N.T. and Urban areas to the best advantage of people in both areas in a reasonably balanced way. If we simply confine the decision to 'one or two', we could lose sight of the opportunity to have a look at all aspects of administration in general, both local and central, ranging from District Boards to Executive Council, and see how each bit fits in with the others to provide the full range of services our people need while balancing the requirements of cost effectiveness on the one hand and genuine participation on the other hand.
If you excuse me for going back to the apparently polarized stances of the Heung Yee Kuk and Urbco, I would like to explain why I think it is not surprising at all why the former should show apparent thrill at being recognized as special and separate, while the latter should raise considerable concern at costs and duplication.
Firstly, the Heung Yee Kuk, which represents the special interests of the original inhabitants of the New Territories has seen over the last decade or so a large influx of newcomers from the urban area move into the New Territories, to the extent that of the 1.5 million people in N.T. today, less than one third (some say only one fifth) are really original inhabitants. In seven years' time, original inhabitants will be not much more than one tenth when the population north of the Kowloon foothills reaches 3 million. The cultural shock to traditional villagers used to living in tranquil villages must be quite enormous. Under such pressures, it is quite natural not to want to have the running of affairs be taken over by city people, especially if they don't even live in or know about the New Territories at all. If you look at the 'New Population' of ex-city people living in the N.T., you will also find them facing just as many changes as the original residents. These changes are such as commuting to their workplaces, finding new jobs in factories that they don't know well, or coping with schooling for their children in a new environment, or being away from the more dazzling areas of entertainment and commerce more readily available in the city, etc., etc. It is quite natural for these people who have been 'uprooted from the city', so to say, to want to develop their own sense of belonging, to want to run their own show and ensure they are not neglected. There is nothing wrong with that, for the better the New Territories is developed, the better it is for both New Territories residents and city residents alike, not only in that it makes way for a much stabler society, it also eases over-concentration of population which doesn't benefit either.
Secondly, while not denying that many problems in the N.T. are different (so are things different between Kwun Tong, Central, and Repulse Bay, by the way), Urban Councillors' arguments have mainly been on cost and duplication of resources. The reason Urban Councillors, whether appointed or elected, have focused on this is probably because the Urban Council for the last 11 years has had financial autonomy; therefore, Councillors instinctively tend to ask 'how much?' and 'what do we get for it?' more than other people in public service who do not control the same amount of money. The Urban Services Department under the control of the Urban Council over the last 11 years has been one of the government departments to register one of the lowest growth rates in numbers of people despite a vast increase in services and facilities provided, and this is partially due to cost effectiveness being the order of the day. This mentality, rather than power struggling, is the root of concern for the idea of a separate council. After all, the money ultimately comes from the rate-payer, and particularly at this time when all of you present have probably just received your rates bill showing an increase of up to 20%, we cannot pretend that increasing rates does not matter, whether you live in N.T. or Urban areas.
Up to now, no one has actually calculated the cost of having one council versus two, and I assure you it is no easy task. Therefore, to say now whether you agree to two or one Council or not is like making a decision first and then finding out the cost later. Most of you are intelligent businessmen here, and I am sure you would not make a business decision like this, but I am sure you would agree that in most circumstances, running two or more parallel set-ups costs more than one.
Why do I think running two councils will cost more?
Firstly: There are more government staff looking after Councillors than there are Councillors themselves. The Secretariat at the Urban Council Chambers at Edinburgh Place has 44 full-time staff involved in taking minutes of meetings, distributing papers for councillors, and preparing for meetings, etc. This costs close to $7 million per annum, excluding rent. In addition, there are other staff in the Council Administration Section of Urban Services Department Headquarters, such as translators, clerical staff whose work is related to the fact
Page 182 of 194
329
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL