Page 192 of 194
348
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
devoted a lot of efforts to try to solve these problems. Most Councillors besides playing the role of Councillors, have a very busy life themselves. So usually they come in late or leave early. Sometimes, they might not even be able to be present at meetings because of some other engagements. There are some Members who represent the general public, but have more than once admitted openly that during the term of office, under certain circumstances, they could not influence the Urban Council sufficiently, therefore, it would appear that they are working more for other Government departments than for the Urban Council, even though they are Urban Councillors themselves. Perhaps let me give you a more simple example. There is a person who can only eat five bowls of rice and you are sure he takes five bowls a time, but all along he has been eating three and a half bowls and at most, he can only eat four bowls. It would be very difficult for him to eat five bowls of rice. But now he is presented with five bowls and he wants to consume all of them. This is a very difficult task and I am sure you will appreciate the result. I also have another viewpoint. I agree to the setting up of this council because I feel right now is the opportunity for more members of the public to directly participate, consult, monitor and understand the administrative framework of the Government as well as its overall operation. I think this is good. As to contradictions and duplications, I don't think this is necessarily bad. If we have two councils, then we can draw upon each other example and there can be a very good competition. But we have to spend more public funds. I feel that if the general public feels that the Government is doing a useful and constructive thing, then they would agree to the allocation of more public funds. From some examples, we can see that transport fees, household rental as well as indirect taxes are being paid happily by the general public if they feel that the Government is doing something right. Today, I have heard a lot of constructive views but up till now, I still would not object to the setting up of a second council. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Mr. H. M. G. FORSGATE, Vice-Chairman, Urban Council, left at this point---5.40 p.m.)
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, as the most junior Member of the Council, I think I am at a disadvantage. I spent two or three nights preparing over 10 pages of very outstanding speeches and I find at the end that my so-called 'outstanding' speeches have already been touched on by the more than 20 very senior Councillors of the Council. However, I am in a better position because I can easily control the time that you can be released to go home to rest.
I would like to raise two points for discussion today. The first point is: is it too much to have just one council to take care of the municipal services in Hong Kong? We know of the jurisdiction of the Urban Council. But if we are to add to this jurisdiction areas that are not serviced by the Urban Council at present, would that be expanding the Urban Council too much? There are a lot of senior Members in this Council and I am sure Councillors who have an in-depth understanding of more advanced countries will certainly be able to give me an affirmative answer. At present, the services provided by N.T. are threefold: firstly, environment and hygiene; secondly, recreation and culture and thirdly, recreation and sport. Now, do we really require two councils with 30 councillors to take care of these three fields of activities? The second point for discussion is, we have always heard people saying that there is a great difference between the N.T. and the urban area and the field of environmental hygiene. I don't see how the services provided in the N.T. are different from that of the urban area. Is it a difference in standard, in management or in demand? I don't see any difference at all. Mr. Chairman, in order not to delay you unduly, I will conclude my speech and say that I support your motion, (laughter)
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
349
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Ladies and gentlemen, the motion is now adjourned until Tuesday, 3 April 1984 on which day, I would propose to exercise my right of reply before the vote is taken.
MR. PETER CHAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I think I can ask for the vote to be taken now under Standing Order. I will ask the question be voted.
CHAIRMAN (in English): Is there any particular reason why you would like the vote to be taken today, Mr. CHAN?
MR. PETER CHAN (in English):—Well, everybody has expressed their views that they supported the motion and is there any reason we should not vote?
MR. YOUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to support Mr. CHAN's suggestion mainly on the grounds that next meeting we will have some Councillors that are not on the Council now and it might be unfit to ask them to vote. However, I think it would also be bad not to have the privilege of listening to your well thought out right reply and I agree that needs time. Perhaps the best thing to do was to vote on the motion, but your statement of next month could be said on the points discussed today. That would be a good compromise.
MR. LO (in English):—Mr. Chairman, you vote that the motion be adjourned to the next meeting and I would like to second that motion. (laughter)
CHAIRMAN (in English):—I would be very happy to withdraw the view if this is the views of Members.
MR. CHUNG (in English):—Some of the Members have already left because probably the time is late, they have to rush for other business, and if we should take a vote now, it may not be fair for those that have left the meeting, so we have to consider those who have left the meeting.
MR. PETER CHAN (in English):—With probably the exception of myself and one or two Members, everybody has in his speech already indicated his view.
Page 192 of 194