Page 359 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
347
If fifteen years ago, we can find that similar structures as proposed by the Government at present had been put forward by the Council at that time. The only difference is that the present proposal of the Government is to substitute the popularly-based representative Municipal Councils with a non-representative bureaucratic structure not rooted in public views. This is indeed unfortunate. In terms of functions and technical arrangements, the new structure presently proposed by the Government is basically the same as that proposed by us fifteen years ago. If the Government acts willfully on this issue, it is bound to make another blunder. As a member of the community, I really don't want to see our Government taking another fifteen years to prove itself wrong again.
I originally intended to take this opportunity to give more comments on the review of district organizations and to state more reasons to rebut the Government's assertion. However, I have decided not to do so. I believe we have already said too much on this issue. Why do I choose not to voice the views I am holding? The reasons are very simple. Firstly, the Hong Kong Government has no intention to reason with us. Secondly, it does not listen to public opinions. Lastly, the Government does not attach importance to the motions formally carried by the Council, be it the Urban Council, the Regional Council or the Legislative Council. Hence it is a waste of our time to reason with the Government. I am not going to give reasons now. Nor will I discuss who is right and who is wrong. I trust that all of you have already made your judgements. It is crystal clear. One does not need to listen to what we are saying at this Annual Conventional Debate. By retrieving our speeches fifteen years ago, one will realize what a glaring blunder the Government has made.
What I want to talk about today is: what can we do in the future? We have at most or at worst not more than one year. What can we do? Some of my colleagues or some of the committees within the Council have made a very good decision not to bother about the fact that our term of office will terminate at the end of 1999. We will continue to formulate plans that are macroscopic, long-term and effective. These are perfectly right. In reality, I can tell you that what we are doing now is inadequate because there is only one year left for us. No matter how macroscopic our plans are and whatever reality we have disregarded in making our plans, the problem is how to materialize these plans. If we no longer exist, how can we complete these wonderful plans? This is where the deficiency lies. How can we strive to do more? How can we try our best to implement the plans? Whichever government structure that will take over, these are matters that cannot be left undone.
In the coming year, the only thing we can do under the ambit of our committees is to lay good foundations for those services favored and needed by the public. Let me cite a simple example. The Culture Select Committee is now considering a proposal on the corporatization of the Council's performing companies so that they can have space for independent development and have
Page 359 of 606
Page 359 of 606
Page 359 of 606