TNAG-2325-FCO40-3369-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-policy-1991 — Page 108

ONG

which impair divided into e powers of

Boards, the host govern- In practice d of depart- The commit- artment and tee's work. members of ave a close committee The profes-

s should be of the com- in is in fact many top hy of these real estate ts, and it is e class, the either by with their of commit- epartments they may e and self- n of some proposals ige associ- to further

in impor- Commerce olicy have mple the

e a strong nmittee's be able to d to their ntain the views to are very ir profes- asked to

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

113

discuss a technical subject would be even more liable to manipulation by government than some of the present members are alleged to be.

What could be done to meet these criticisms? One obvious remedy is that government should broaden its list of potential committee mem- bers. After prodding by unofficials in the Legislative Council, a commit- tee of civil servants was set up in the Secretariat in 1978 to consider ways in which this could be done. If government is not to select the committee members, the only alternatives are to specify that members should be nominated by various organizations, or to provide that they should be elected from a special constituency. This happens at present in the case of the Labour Advisory Board where three of the employee representa- tives are elected by the registered trade unions, with each union having one vote, and four of the employers' representatives are nominated by the Employers Federation, the General Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Industries, and the Chinese Manufacturers Association. There are a few other Boards, such as the Trade Facilitation Council and the Airport Operations Committee, where the right to nominate committee members is given to a particular company or association. However, it would be difficult to extend this practice since this would mean that government would be forced to make invidious choices as to which organizations should nominate members.

Other criticisms centre on the committees' coverage and procedures. A number of departments have no advisory committees attached to them, such as the Fire Service, the Immigration Department, the Post Office, and the Correctional Services Department. 18 A majority of the important committees are chaired by a Head of department or official member who controls the agenda, and some still have an official major- ity. Discussion normally takes place on the basis of papers prepared by the department, which allows the possibility of biasing the decision to be reached by selective presentation of the relevant facts.19 Committees have no research assistance independent of government except what members can provide from their own business or professional sources. Committees meet infrequently, normally at intervals of several months, and are then faced with an overloaded agenda which cannot be ade- quately absorbed or discussed in the time available. The interval be- tween meetings gives a convenient excuse for bypassing the committee on allegedly urgent decisions. Committees usually meet during office hours instead of after the business day is over. This may make it im- possible for some people to accept an invitation to become members, or prevent their attendance at every meeting. Membership and meetings of committees are little publicized; so an ordinary member of the public with a complaint or suggestion would require some tenacity to discover which was the relevant committee and find a member willing to pursue his problem. It is possible for a persistent unofficial member of a com- mittee to raise a subject which is not on the agenda, but the committee may never have a chance to air its views on projects which have been considered and rejected by the department. Other proposals which are