Page 94 of 132
190
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
According to the present set-up, the Urban Services Department is accountable to the Urban Council for implementing its policies. However, the Urban Services Department is in fact a government department with its staff being part of the civil service. An officer in the management level will be transferred out of the government department where he has served for a few years and even the Director of Urban Services is no exception. I have assumed office for 3 years and the present Director of Urban Services is the third one in that post. Just imagine, when an executive department with unstable staff establishment has to closely co-operate with a decision-making body, can the relationship be maintained at its best condition for a long period of time?
Somebody may explain that transfer of civil servants is a consistent arrangement of the civil service system in Hong Kong, which provides a good opportunity for civil servants to work in different departments and to broaden their experience. However, is such arrangement suitable for the Urban Council?
Since all the staff of the Urban Council Secretariat, with the exception of Mr. R. SPENCER, the Secretary of Urban Council who is employed by the Council on contract terms, are civil servants on loan from the government, they are subject to transfer by the government. As a result, not only the staff of the Urban Services Department change frequently, the Urban Council Secretariat also has a high turnover rate. Is such staff movement favourable to the Council? This gives rise to the problem of discontinuity within the framework, which has yet to be tackled. Should we allow such state of instability to continue? Or should we devise means to put both the Secretariat and the Urban Services Department under the express jurisdiction of the Urban Council, making them the real left and right arms of the Council?
Perhaps to transfer the Urban Services Department from the government framework to that of the Urban Council would involve tremendous preparation work, and it would be inappropriate to translate the idea into practice without making an in-depth study. But at least to make the Urban Council Secretariat independent of the government and directly accountable to the Council should not be such an enormous task. This will help ensure that there will be a stable working environment in the Secretariat, making it possible for the Council to work more smoothly and with a higher degree of coherence.
Another issue concerning the relationship between the Urban Council and the Urban Services Department is who actually plays the leading role?
In theory and framework, it is obvious that the Urban Council is a policy-maker. Yet in actual practice, the Council often appears to be a mere rubber stamp. The Urban Services Department can, through administrative arrangement, defer presentation to the Council of those matters which they do not want the Council to handle, and even withhold some information from the Council when the information papers are being prepared until the Councillors press for it.
Page 94 of 132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
191
The issue in fact leads to a big crisis. I think even the Director of Urban Services will be confused about whom actually he will be loyal to, the Council or the Central Government, when there are contradictions between the Council and the Government, or when there is a difference in their approach to tackle an issue?
The redevelopment of the Hong Kong Stadium is an obvious example. Under the present system, the project can go ahead provided that both the Director of Urban Services and the Chairman of the Urban Council give their consent. The Urban Councillors cannot exert much influence.
In the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council on 16 November 1993, I asked for some information about the funding of the Hong Kong Stadium, such as how did the Jockey Club account for its discontinuance of allocating $170 million towards the fitting-out cost? And under what authorization did the managing company sign 75% of the project contracts with the contractors before approval for the allocation of fund was obtained from the Standing Committee of the Whole Council?
I understand that neither the serving Director nor the incumbent Chairman should be held responsible for these issues. Nevertheless, nearly two months have elapsed and still, I receive no reply. In particular, I am eager to get some information about the future management policies of the Hong Kong Stadium, its financial arrangement, its rate of usage, and the conditions for employing the management company, which I, as an Urban Councillor, should know and get involved in. Up till now, nothing is heard of them. Thus, how could I not believe that the Urban Council is being hoodwinked and deprived of the full right to know? Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, you have the responsibility to clarify or account for this question of the right to know.
Mr. Chairman, I am raising these questions today simply because I hope people would understand that the crux of the problem lies in the confusing powers and responsibilities between the Urban Services Department and the Urban Council. One may be overjoyed with the idea that the two names 'Urban Council' and 'Urban Services Department' are almost interchangeable. However, I would like to warn that this only serves to give the public an impression that the Urban Council is degrading in value.
I am very sad to see that over the years, the Government has, in one way or another, weakened the Council's authority and instead of considering firmly establishing the Council's independent status, even dealt blows to it.
May I ask the Government a few questions? Was the Urban Council incompetent in promoting performing arts as well as recreation and sports activities so that it was necessary to set up the Council for the Performing Arts and the Sports Development Board? In what ways can they tie in their activities with those of the Urban Council so as to avoid duplication of work and waste of resources? How come the Music Office was put up for tender openly by the Government like a business while it could naturally have been taken over by the Urban Council for the purpose of providing similar services to the public?
Page 94 of 132