Page 129 of 166
244
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
In this connection, developments like the recent appearance of the Director of Urban Services before the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Council to answer questions, demonstrates a general lack of understanding of the Council's accountability and structure.
The often overlooked fact is that the Urban Council has very wide powers and its activities do cover many facets of our everyday life.
Only after joining the Council did I realize that it has at least two important and uncommon features. Firstly, as the third tier of our political system, it is also the most democratic. We have had elected members for over a hundred years, the chairmanships of the Council and the Select Committees are by elections as well. We also practise a quasi-ministerial system in our committee structure. Secondly, the Urban Council is the only public body with its own financial autonomy. Since 1973 the Council can propose and approve expenditures without reference to the Administration. This is particularly significant when set in the context of the Council's $3.5 billion budget.
Furthermore, through increased facilities especially in the areas of culture and recreation, the Council has assumed a greater and more important role in the community. This, however, generally happens with very little public comment. The latest example is the great vote of confidence in the Council and in the USD placed by Mr. Low Chuck-tiew by donating some $450 million worth of Chinese paintings to the Council's new Museum of Art. This is a collection that any of the top art galleries of the world would have dearly loved to be given.
I believe that the image and the prestige of the Council is of great importance. It is important to its very existence today and even more, in the future. I believe there are many practical reasons for this, the key ones are:
- We need to attract quality people to stand for election and to accept appointment.
- We need to attract voters from what is lamentably a low level of interest.
- We need to attract good staff at a time when this is becoming increasingly difficult.
- We need to reassure Government which has allocated the public funds to our disposal, that we put them to good use. (We also need from Government good land allocations particularly for recreation and markets!)
- The facilities and functions of the Council need to be understood by the public in order that they are used and appreciated to the fullest extent.
None of these things can be achieved by simply doing a good job. This is a fallacy which has seen many a good old company with a fine product, end up on the rocks. We therefore need to address and we need to influence a wide spectrum of people. They range from the Government and decision-makers, to our employees, users, donors and the media who convey the messages.
Looking at our existing system, we employ about 70 people in our Public Information Unit (PIU). Any member who has taken the trouble to read the HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 245 monthly PIU Report (normally over 20 pages) will not fail to be impressed at the amount of effort spent on producing daily media releases and press cuttings, arranging interviews, producing publications, answering complaints etc. No doubt we are managing the process of public relations punctiliously.
But are we thinking about it strategically? Are we able to stand back and plan our image objectively? Do we even know what people think? Do we know what our priority communication objectives should be? I suspect we do not—notwithstanding the fact that an oft-repeated Statement of Aims is 'to promote public relations and the corporate image of the Urban Council.'
I would therefore put it to this Council that it is of vital importance that the image of the Urban Council be addressed. It should be considered objectively, planned strategically and, of course, then managed professionally. This, I believe to be in the long-term interest to do so.
I do not want to pose questions and leave them totally unanswered. So, I shall present some ideas as thought-starters.
Firstly:
Research. Like any organization charged with spending other people's money, we need to know the breadth and depth of the knowledge, or lack of it, of our facilities and services by those for whom they are provided.
We must not fall into the trap of believing that we do a good job simply because these facilities are well utilized. Neither can we make these assessments internally.
To me, the fact that we are a non-profit making organization makes this aspect more, rather than less, important.
Secondly: We need to know ourselves, how we want to be perceived; what as, and why. We also need to know how this can best work. Should, I ask, the activities of the licensing and controlling hawkers, collecting refuse, cleaning streets, managing crematoria and abattoirs go under the same public banner as the museums, libraries, cultural and recreational facilities? Surely there must be a fundamental conflict of identities here.
To demonstrate the confusion, our show-piece, the Cultural Centre, has its own logo, and virtually no Urban Council identity at all. Our refuse trucks and refuse collection points meanwhile have logos all over them. (The City Hall, on the other hand, is well-identified with this Council.)
I am not sure which is right and which is wrong. But I think if we were a commercial organization trying to attract customers and satisfy shareholders, we would study this kind of identity problem very carefully. We would ensure that we gain maximum benefit for each unit at the operational level, yet build an overall identity for the 'corporate' or parent body. I believe that we have not given sufficient thought to this issue in recent years.
245
Page 130 of 166