1969 — Page 171

Page 171 of 237

I

14

318

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

action taken by the Crown will only affect the owner concerned without involving other regrantees as long as they pay the apportioned premia in the way stipulated in the conditions of regrant. The public is most anxious to see something done before the situation is thrown into utter confusion and I urge therefore that in the interest of both Government and the public immediate consideration should be given to the matter and the proposal which I have outlined in my speech to-day.

With these remarks, I support the Motion before this Council. (Applause).

MR. D. J. R. BLAKER:--Mr. Chairman, I propose to confine myself on this occasion to one subject, which I feel to be of importance, namely, a form of Ombudsman, or Commissioner for Administration. I believe that the recent publicity on the matter shows that the public is aware that a need of some sort exists. The question appears more to be how this need should be answered. I think that I should at this point sound a note of warning. It would be a misconception to imagine that a Commissioner for Administration would cure all our ills. I prefer to think that a Commissioner would serve more to strengthen the present processes of investigation, than to add a new and entirely different organ to our administration. A lot of the work that he would handle passes at present through the hands of the head of the Government department concerned, or of the Umelco or the Urban Council Ward Offices. The head of the department might with the best of motives, be less than impartial in considering a complaint against his own staff. The Unofficial Member of a Council is engaged only part-time, and does not have the power, and more particularly, does not appear to the public to have the power, to dig deep into Government files.

I believe that the office of a Commissioner for Administration, together with the supporting staff that he would require, is needed since we have at present only these rather blunt instruments, which can indeed be used over a wide field, but with less than complete penetration. What we need is a sharper instrument with the right to carry out a searching investigation by virtue of its powers, that is engaged full-time on this pursuit, and that is seen by the public to be independent and impartial. I believe that most of those who have a grievance in our society are not initially anxious to take legal remedies. What they want is to be assured that their grievance has been carefully and independently considered, to be given a full answer and explanation as to why a certain decision has been made, and where there is a perfectly legitimate explanation, to receive it from an impartial source.

We must assume that there are a number of persons in Hong Kong with grievances. Some 800 cases a month (other than Statutory Declarations) were handled by the City District Offices during the early months of this year. Some 200 cases a month were handled by the Urban Council Ward Offices. The newspapers tell us that some 15 cases a month were handled by the Umelco Office. Not all of these by any means can be considered as grievances, but a certain proportion of them must fall into this category, and be the sort of case that would be referred to a Commissioner. There are, for instance, many hundreds, if not thousands of persons each month, who must fail to attain their purpose over a question of resettlement rights, the granting of a licence or a site to hawk, the award of a driving licence or perhaps a mini-bus licence, or possibly an application to the Immigration Department. Amongst these persons, some must undoubtedly feel aggrieved, and if they were able to obtain a further, and an independent judgment from a Commissioner, surely some of them would remain more contented with the explanation given them, even if it were not favourable to them.

It is suggested that we do not need a Commissioner for Administration because our existing channels for redress of grievances are adequate for the purpose. With the growing complexity of Government, and its increasing effect on the life of the individual, there is a corresponding need to strengthen the channels that we already have. In Britain and elsewhere, full-time Members of Parliament are engaged largely in this pursuit. There are, moreover, many tribunals where appeals can be lodged. In Hong Kong we have in a similar capacity virtually only the part-time Unofficial Members of Councils, and in the eyes of the public at least, it must be a question as to whether the first allegiance of the appointed unofficial is to the member of the public or to the Government.

The Colonial Secretary pointed out recently that a Commissioner's office would come to have an appellate flavour. This seems inevitable in that appeals would be made to it. But does this not already occur in the case of the existing Umelco and Urban Council Ward Offices? It is further questioned whether such appeals might not create a gap between the Government and the people. But does this happen in the case of appeals to the existing offices and Government departments? If not, why it should occur in the case of appeals to a Commissioner? The appeals that would be rejected by the Commissioner as being outside his jurisdiction, could still be raised with the existing offices, and would therefore not go entirely unheard. I believe, on the contrary, that the opinions given by the Commissioner's office, some of which would certainly be favourable to the applicant, would serve to narrow any gap rather than to widen it.

It is further questioned whether too many frivolous complaints might not be made to a Commissioner. One must assume that the

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

319

Page 172 of 237

...

...

...