262
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
District, as an example, Urban Councillors often conduct surveys on social problems in the districts and submit papers to the District Boards for discussion. They also strive to safeguard the rights and interests of the local people and reflect their views.
On the other hand, both the Urban Council and the Urban Services Department have made strenuous efforts in many respects in the past few years to improve their relationship with District Boards. They also ensure that District Boards are provided with policy papers and adequate information on time. Staff of the Urban Services Department also actively participate in district affairs. Besides the District Board meetings, they also attend the meetings of Area Committees and local organizations. This shows that there has been considerable progress in the exchange of information and views on policy matters and in the relationship between the Council and the District Boards and local organizations.
According to the Report on the 1987 Review of the Developments in Representative Government published by the Government in October, 1987, of the 96 District Board members who spoke on the issue, only 44 agreed that Urban Councillors should withdraw from ex-officio membership of urban District Boards (para. 8.4). As regards the two opinion surveys, only 9% of the respondents in the first survey agreed that Urban Councillors should withdraw from ex-officio membership of urban District Boards and this percentage even fell to 7% in the second survey (para. 8.10). On the other hand, 48% of the respondents in the first survey and 44% of the respondents in the second survey were of the view that Urban Councillors should not withdraw from ex-officio membership of urban District Boards (para. 9.8) and those groups, associations, and individuals who supported the withdrawal of Urban Councillors from ex-officio membership of urban District Boards only constituted a minority (para. 8.4). It is therefore absolutely absurd for a senior government official to have said that the Government follows the views of the people in introducing this change.
Subsequent to the announcement by the Government of this change, I have spent more than 10 hours discussing with various individuals and organizations whether I should stand for District Board election. As this change is made so suddenly and the time available for preparation is so short (because the date of election is very near), I will encounter serious problems if I stand for District Board election. (I believe that other Urban Councillors will also encounter the same problems as mine.) My problems include the following:
(1) How can I organize a campaign group for myself within such a short period of time?
(2) As many friends of mine have already stood for election in various districts, will conflict arise between us if I stand for election too?
(3) Community leaders and organizations do not expect that Urban Councillors will stand for District Board election and they have already pledged their support to other candidates. This puts the Urban Councillors in a disadvantageous position.
Page 136 of 185
263
(4) If I stand for District Board election, it will certainly arouse a strong reaction from the present District Board members of the relevant constituency.
At last, I decided to stand for the election in the Shekkipmei constituency of the Shamshuipo district and the decision was announced on 6 January. In the next morning, three unnamed big-character posters of different designs were found in each and every conspicuous place in the district and at the stair entrance of every public housing block, protesting against Urban Councillors' running for District Board elections. Representatives from some organizations and mutual aid committees in the district as well as some community leaders came up to me and expressed their embarrassment about having signed up to pledge their support to another competing candidate because they have no prior inkling of my participation in the election. Some of them determined to withdraw such support, some decided to stay out of the campaign while others were so vexed and at a loss.
As declared by Mr. Donald LIAO, what is hoped to achieve in the Urban Council reform is an improvement in its relationship with the districts and the District Boards. However, competition between Urban Councillors and District Boards members as well as an internal rift among various district organizations have preluded the implementation of such policy. Those who have wished to achieve a better Urban Council/District Boards relationship through the Urban Council reform have launched ceaseless attacks on the Urban Council, accusing it of unsatisfactory performance and poor relationship with others, but no evidence or whatsoever could be shown in this regard. All in all, it is only a fabricated charge. The reform clearly divulges the malign intention of some people, that is, to weaken the political power of the Urban Councillors under the cloak of improving the Urban Council/District Boards relationship. What a nonsense!
Since Mr. Donald LIAO took the office of the Secretary for District Administration, I have heard of quite a number of rumours about such items as the abolition of the Urban Council, the withdrawal of the Urban Councillors' ex-officio membership of District Boards, the mutual election of District Board members into the Urban Council, the cutting down of the Urban Council's terms of reference, and so on and so forth.
It was not until 1986 when the former Governor Sir Edward YOUDE had confirmed the functions and status of the Urban Council and the Urban Councillors in his meeting with my colleagues did such rumours fizzle out. However, Sir Edward YOUDE's policy died out with his passing away. His words have probably become part of history.
If the Government disregards public opinion and the relationship between the Urban Council and the districts, insisting on the cancellation of Urban Councillors' membership of District Board and the gradual reduction of the