Page 185 of 194
334
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The statement by the Chief Secretary on proposals for the further development of local administration has generated wide interest among concerned bodies as well as the press and media.
Undoubtedly deep and careful thought must have gone into these proposals, and it is fair to say that by-and-large they have been favourably received.
By far, the most controversial part of the package of proposals is the formation of another regional council. I am disturbed not so much by the proposal to set up a new council, but by not being able to see how this piece of jigsaw fits into our entire system of government.
Undoubtedly, a void does exist in the New Territories.
In order to fill that void there are two alternatives:
1. Constitute another regional council along the same lines as the Urban Council, which is what is being proposed; and
2. Constitute a Municipal Council covering the entire territory.
There are arguments for and against both alternatives. The advantages of the first alternative are obvious. It allows the two Councils to be guided by needs which are peculiar to their respective regions. Furthermore, it provides new opportunities for the fulfilment of further political aspirations of District Board members of the New Territories.
The disadvantage is that possible discrepancies might be created as a result of having two policy-making bodies for the two different regions. The argument for the necessity of two sets of policies to cater for respective local needs might have been valid when the New Territories was strictly rural. With the urbanization programme that accompanies the development of the new towns, this line of reasoning is not quite as convincing as, say, fifteen or twenty years ago.
The Chief Secretary has mentioned in his speech that the government considers it undesirable to extend the powers of the Urban Council to cover territory presently outside its jurisdiction. There were two reasons given. One was due to existing institutions. The other was that Urban Council would become too large and unwieldy.
I accept the first reason and realize the resistance such a suggestion would encounter. However, I remain unconvinced by the second reason, which in my view is purely a technical consideration that can be resolved. I believe that it would be economically, politically, and administratively desirable to have one council for the whole of Hong Kong, with clearly defined working links with the District Boards. It would, however, be totally unwise and incorrect to call this council the Urban Council. The present Urban Council should be subsumed into this bigger Council. It should have a proportionate number of seats based on population distribution. Under this bigger Council, there can be functional as well as administrative committees that cut across the entire membership. The select committee system affords the highest degree of flexibility while ensuring consistency in both the making and implementation of policies. Through the delegation of certain district management duties to and constant consultation with the District Boards, the Council can ensure that due consideration is given to district needs and conditions.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
335
Whether Hong Kong will have one or two councils taking charge of city management remains to be seen. It is, however, absolutely essential to review the many roles that the Urban Council has played, and to ensure that none of the expertise it has acquired would be sacrificed through the redefinition of roles necessitated by the proposed change in local administration.
With these words, Sir, I support the motion.
DR. PHILIP C. K. Kwok (in English):--Mr. Chairman, it seems that the Central Government, in proposing the setting up of a regional council to cover N.T., is committed to a three-tier system of local administration, i.e., the Central Government, the Regional Councils, and the District Boards. We wish to know whether serious thoughts have gone into it.
In the urban area, we do have such a 3-tier system already. Are we happy with it? The Urban Council is in a rather peculiar position between the Central Government and the District Boards. Should an in-depth study be carried out to examine the various possible re-organization and rationalization of the structure, function, and role of the three parties? Before such a study is completed, I think it is unwise to simply create another regional council similar to that of the Urban Council. The study may point to a middle layer local government, i.e., the regional council of a rather different nature. Finally, most important of all, in such a study, one should take the viewpoint of the end-users, the ordinary citizens local administration is supposed to serve, and not that of the various interested parties whose positions may be jeopardized.
With these words, I support the motion.
MR. L. H. KWAN (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, some time ago in the Legislative Council, the Chief Secretary announced the plans for the re-organization of district administration. There are several points in his speech concerning the setting up of a regional council similar to that of the Urban Council in the N.T. Some Urban Councillors were shocked when they heard about this announcement before the Chief Secretary made this proposal. The Urban Councillors have not been consulted, and up to now, apart from the official announcement made by the Chief Secretary in the Legislative Council, the Central Government has not made any in-depth announcement concerning this particular proposal. It has just been broadly mentioned that we ought to respect the N.T. residents' interest, and that expanding the Urban Council would lead to an unwieldy situation. This is just a broad introduction, and views
Page 185
Page 186
Page 186 of 194