Page 79 of 126
Page 79 of 126
135
134
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
facilities occupy free-standing premises, which apparently do not make the maximum use of land. Allowing joint venture developments will enable better utilization of prime sites such as the Central Market. I hope that Government will review the terms of the Memorandum before too long with an aim to give the Council more flexibility and discretion in developing sites currently occupied by Council facilities.
My speech would not be complete without any reference to the subject matter in vogue, that is, the Governor's proposals for political reforms. Before I plunge into the subject straight, I should like to congratulate Mr. PATTEN for introducing the concept of 'performance pledges' to public service delivery. This new measure makes the civil service more accountable and responsive to the public it serves and will definitely help improve the quality of public services. It is a pity that this useful movement has been overshadowed by the controversial constitutional proposals.
On political reforms, I think some of the contents are not as offensive as the way in which they were brought out. In fact, a number of proposals inherent in the package are subjects of popular speculations even before Mr. PATTEN's assumed Governorship. However, Government has adopted a rather confrontational approach in its dealings with China. Hong Kong politics has always been consensual and consultational. Power and influence have always been quite evenly spread among the bureaucrats, the politicians, the grassroot and the functional sectors. It is through a nice balance of these various interests that Hong Kong has made its miracle and I would hate to see that this balance is upset with Government leaning on a single power centre in pushing forward its proposals and policies.
With the above remarks, I support the motion.
(The Hon. Frederick K. K. FUNG, Dr. the Hon. Samuel WONG, The Hon. Marvin CHEUNG, The Hon. MAN Sai-cheong and Mr. WONG Shui-lai arrived at 3.41 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN (in English): Thank you. Welcome back to all the Legislative Councillors after their session. So may I now go back on the list to call upon the Hon. Frederick FUNG Kin-kee to speak.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman and colleagues, whenever the name 'Urban Council' is mentioned, the public will think of such matters as rubbish, parks, libraries, the City Hall, Arts Festivals and sports activities. Of course, people have become more aware of the relationship between 'liquor' and the Urban Council since the Lan Kwai Fong incident.
There is no need to go into detail about the functions of the Urban Council as we all know very well what they are and so do the majority of the public. The Urban Council has money, power, jobs to do, an element of democracy and an established status in society. What does the Urban Council lack? When we come to think about it, the Urban Council lacks:
'Merit of existence'
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
During the last 10-odd years when the so-called three-tier administration system has been in practice, there has always been a problem of duplication of roles, functions and consumption of resources.
The Urban Council, constrained by its jurisdiction, has since its establishment never played an active and constructive role in matters of greatest concern to the public. On the question of housing, it is within the jurisdiction of the Housing Authority. For medical care, we now have the Hospital Authority. As for issues such as education policy, transport policy and social welfare policy, all having a close bearing on people's livelihood, none of these are within the ambit of the Urban Council. Except during the Annual Conventional Debate, it is not even appropriate to discuss these matters in the Council. In other words, it is not even the duty of the Urban Council to monitor the implementation of such policies.
Even for matters relating to environmental hygiene or cultural and recreational activities which the Urban Council traditionally specializes in, they are also within either the areas of interest of the District Boards or local districts to which DB Members belong. As a result, there is extensive duplication in the provision of services and organization of activities which means a waste of social resources.
Why must Hong Kong have two municipal councils? What adverse effects will there be on people's livelihood if the municipal councils are abolished?
Of course, we are not wiping out merits of the expert contributions made by the municipal councillors towards the community. However, if we can revamp, streamline and improve the existing structure while sustaining our contributions to society, it will be a very good thing indeed, both to ourselves and to others.
In short, I think the government should review and streamline the existing three-tier structure, and simplify it to a two-tier one. Apart from the Legislative Council which is to handle and monitor central administrative affairs, district affairs should be taken up by a number of Municipal Councils which will replace the two municipal councils and the 19 District Boards.
I would like to suggest that four Municipal Councils be created in Hong Kong to deal with district affairs and advise on territory-wide affairs. The whole territory should be geographically divided into four Municipal Council regions: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, New Territories East and New Territories West. Each Council should be made up of 100 members elected by its constituency on the basis of one-man-one-vote. These four Municipal Councils should take up the work of the existing municipal councils and District Boards, so that the existing overlapping of structures and functions will no longer exist.
A Central Municipal Committee can be set up in between the four Municipal Councils and the Government to co-ordinate all territory-wide municipal work. Its members can be drawn from representatives elected by members of the four Municipal Councils from among themselves.
Page 79 of 126