TNAG-0316-FCO40-352-Reform-of-local-government-of-Hong-Kong-1971 — Page 13

South China Morning Post 22/10

White Paper on URBCO of 'limited vision'

The Civic Association yesterday attacked Government's White Paper on the Urban Council as "a document of limited vision, lacking in appreciation of the prevailing feelings of Hongkong people."

It described the White Paper, tabled at last week's Legislative Council meeting, as an "unwise attempt" to downgrade the stature and scope of the Council.

a

Government, the Association claimed in

an Executive Committee memorandum, sought to "cut down to size" the Council's image as representative public body by withdrawing all six Official Members by April 1, 1973, and by requiring the Council's Starling Orders to be approved by the Legislative Council.

Government, it said, also intended to further whittle down the Council's scope by later on taking away all its responsibilities on public housing. And, by requiring all the Urban Services Department staff to be employees of the Central Government and not of the Council, Government would be able to exercise close control of Council activities.

The Association further criticised the White Paper on the way the Council is allocated funds.

The so-called financial autonomy proposed for the Council was counter-balanced by equally stringent financial controls, it said.

The Council's annual budget and building and works programme, for example, must be screened by the Colonial Secretariat and were subject to Legislative Council approval.

The Council could not borrow or change the percentage of rates without Legislative Council permission. It must still rely on the Colonial Secretariat and the Legislative Council for special annual and capital grants.

The Association claimed the proposal to withdraw all official members from the Council in the first stage of reform was "premature and hasty" and could easily lead to a sharp

divisive tendency between the elected and appointed members (12 elected and 12 appointed under the new constitution).

A realistic step would be for Government to keep the existing six official members on the Council in the initial phase. The Director of Urban Services must remain as Chairman of the Council for the time being, and should continue to speak up for the Urban Council within the Legislative Council.

There should also be more elected members 15 by 1973 while the nominated membership should remain at 10.

Democratic

Only when smooth progress in the development of the Council had been made would it be practicable for Government to withdraw all

official members say, by

1975.

The Association also suggested Government give some of its budget surpluses to the Council to build major capital projects, instead of using the Council as a front to raise the rates.

Government, in its White Paper, appeared "more interested in creating additional advisory committees rather than expanding the Urban Council into a more democratic and representative institution."

It claimed Government regarded the Urban Council as a "training ground" in public administration for appointed members who would later on be nominated to the Legislative and Executive

Councils. For elected members, the Urban Council was the place where Government could keep them "at arm's length."

If Government forced through the proposals outlined in the White Paper, there could develop a strong body of responsible opinion in favour of disbanding the Urban Council altogether. There would then be stronger support for direct elections to the Legislative Council.