64
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
with matters of immediate concern to them and not be required to sit for an interminable period of time listening to various Members reading out prepared statements which are often solely for the benefit of the box.
The Urban Services Department is strongly represented on all Urban District Boards, hence this Council which pays for these officers is interested that value for money is achieved by their attendance, and not simply there to be part of the audience to listen to our budding politicians sounding forth.
With these few words, I throw the Motion open to my seconder, the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Elsie Tu.
MRS. ELSIE TU, VICE-CHAIRMAN, URBAN COUNCIL, seconded the motion (in English): Mr. Chairman, the 1981 White Paper made two decisions which Urban Councillors at that time opposed. One was that Urban Councillors would be elected on a district instead of a territory-wide constituency basis; the other was that each Urban Councillor would sit on a District Board. These two decisions have been the cause of many misunderstandings and confusion of roles.
Then the 1984 White Paper ruled that District Boards and Municipal Councils would elect members indirectly to the Legislative Council, creating even more mixing of roles.
I believe that these decisions made in the 1981 and 1984 White Papers have created confusion and conflict in the roles of these three tiers of representation in the Government.
Chapter III of this 1987 Green Paper repeats very clearly the distinct roles of the three tiers. They are:
District Boards are primarily local advisory bodies; their advice has a significant impact on the man in the street;
Municipal Councils have a role in that they provide services essential to public health and the well-being of the community;
The Legislative Council is to enact laws, control public expenditure, and advise the Government on policy matters.
These three roles so clearly defined are also complementary. The advice of District Boards has been accepted on many occasions, and as far as the Urban Council is concerned, advice from the District Boards has provided good guidelines, so long as it is understood that the Council must retain the right to give equal priority to the interests of rate-payers in all districts in making its final decisions.
If each of the three tiers, the District Boards, the Municipal Councils and the Legislative Council act within their own roles, heed public opinion, and keep a balance between the interests of all districts, all is well, but if the borderline between District Boards and Councils becomes blurred and each encroaches upon the responsibilities of the others, then conflict begins.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 36 of 185
65
When the District Boards give their views on Legislative Council matters, they usually speak with one voice because usually these issues concern the whole territory. But when the District Boards express their opinions on Municipal Council issues, they are primarily, and rightly, concerned with their own districts. The Municipal Councils, for their part, have the duty to balance the interests of all districts within their jurisdiction. This need to balance interests is essential for the Municipal Councils, but it may cause discontent among District Board Members if they feel that the interests of their own districts are paramount.
Bearing this in mind, I believe that to put District Board Members on the Urban Council to represent their Boards would be a formula for confusion and delays in the Urban Council, as well as rivalry and conflict in the District Boards themselves. Would one representative from each district be able to convince the Urban Council to give priority to his particular district? If Urban Councillors are doing their duty, they would continue to make decisions with the whole region in view. If the Urban Council succeeded in persuading the District Board representative against the aspirations of his District Board, would the District Board Members be satisfied with his explanation? Indeed, a District Board representative on the Urban Council would soon find himself in the same position as Urban Councillors find themselves now, that they cannot press only for their own districts, but have to balance the interests of all.
Then there is the question of time. None of us are paid to be full-time Members of any Board or Council—nor are we asking for that. If we pull our full weight with the Urban Council, we cannot take part in all the work of District Boards. There are sometimes conflicts of time. Any District Board Member elected to the Urban Council would face an even bigger problem, because to keep his Board fully informed on all matters concerning his district, he would have to attend all the 13 functional committees and most if not all 20 or so sub-committees of the Urban Council. In addition, he would have to attend all his own District Board Committees. And as District Boards are not confined to Urban Council matters alone but also advise on transport, housing, medical facilities and other departmental matters, the representative, to be fair, should also be a member of the Housing Authority, the Transport Advisory Committee, and all other Boards and Committees that advise the Government. Obviously, no person could manage such a task.
Indeed, it was because of their wide advisory role that the Government in 1981 ruled that District Management Committees should be set up. Officials of all departments, including the USD, which is the executive arm of the Urban Council, are members of the District Management Committees, and this is where liaison in districts takes place. To keep in touch with all issues discussed by District Boards, it would make sense for each District Board to have a representative on the District Management Committee of his district, rather than have the representative running around to all functional committees of the Urban Council and other Departments of the Government one by one.