HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
9. CHAIRMAN (in English):-There is one additional question which I allowed under Standing Order 12(4) on a matter which I consider required immediate clarification.
MR. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following question (in English):---It has been drawn to my attention that the Independent Commission Against Corruption received 105 complaints against Urban Services Department staff in the first six months of the year. The relevant newspaper item went on to say that this was the second highest number of complaints against staff of any Government Department. I suspect, however, that this bald figure of 105 presents a distorted picture. Therefore may I know how many of these complaints turned out to be justified, how many prosecutions were actually taken out, and any other relevant details? Also, what steps are being taken by the Department to try to cut down the number of U.S.D.-related complaints to I.C.A.C.?
DR. THE HONOURABLE KIM Y. S. CHAM, CHAIRMAN OF THE ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to Mr. SULKE who chances to clarify a point which is of very great importance to Council staff.
Mr. SULKE said that publicity indicated that the Independent Commission Against Corruption had received 105 complaints against Urban Services Department staff in the first six months of this year; and that this was the second highest number of complaints against staff of any Government department. Mr. SULKE asked how many of these complaints were justified, what prosecutions had been taken out, and any other relevant details; and finally Mr. SULKE added a rider to his questions by saying that he suspected that this bald figure of 105 might be very misleading. I am indeed grateful to Mr. SULKE for a chance to clarify these figures.
I confirm that, as Mr. SULKE suspected, the situation is less alarming than the figure of 105 would suggest. Of the 105 complaints, 57 were not pursued by the I.C.A.C. while the remaining 48 were classified as containing sufficient substance to warrant investigation. Following such investigations, prosecution action was taken against two U.S.D. officers which resulted in convictions, while one investigation is still in progress. The remaining 45 investigated cases were placed before the Operations Review Committee of the I.C.A.C., which decided that no further investigative action was warranted.
This, however, is not the complete picture. Seventeen U.S.D. officers are now under disciplinary investigation as a result of complaints; speaking generally, it appears that these are mainly cases reported before 1985.
The Urban Services Department has a staff of about 18,000, the large majority of whom are in constant contact with the public as part of their everyday duties, and therefore far more visible in the public eye than the staff of many other Government departments. Furthermore, their duties frequently bring them into conflict with some members of the public, giving causes for grievance. This possibly accounts for the fact that of the 105 complaints, all but three were dropped.
Nevertheless, this is no cause for complacency, and the Department will continue to work with the Council and I.C.A.C. to do its best to totally eradicate corruption, however low level it might be.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT RELATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE
MR. EDMUND W. H. CHOW (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Fellow Councilors: We all know that the District Relations Select Committee, as well as the 12 other select committees, has its terms of reference and must carry out the functions assigned to it under these terms to the best of its ability. Sometimes there may be misunderstanding that it is interfering in the affairs of another select committee on certain matters, and on some occasions, other Committees have neglected to consult our Committee on matters which wholly or to some extent involve us. We neither wish to interfere in the business of other committees nor to be 'neglected'. The Council's select committees are all equal and none is subordinate to the other. All members of the District Relations Select Committee are loyal and hard-working and we only act within the Committee's terms of reference with which, I believe, all councilors are well familiar. It is worth mentioning here that one of the terms is 'to produce, and keep under review, an overall Urban Council policy on relations with District Boards; to promote good relations between the Urban Council and the district residents'. The district boards are of course closely connected with the district residents.
In the light of our terms of reference, the District Relations Select Committee is much concerned with 'the boycott of Urban Council's briefing on its hawker policy by district board chairman'. The Committee therefore held a meeting yesterday morning lasting more than an hour, discussing the issue in all its aspects.
Certainly hawker policy does not concern the District Relations Select Committee, but the boycott will affect 'good relations'. I do regret the incident which, I think, was caused by misunderstanding, or possible suspicion. Such misunderstanding should disappear once the situation is clarified.
I have been informed this morning by the Urban Services Department that after the District Relations Select Committee meeting yesterday, both sides have been in contact with each other and the misunderstanding is cleared up. I take great pleasure to note that the majority of the district board chairman have pledged to co-operate with the Council.
Page 83 of 195