1969 — Page 172

Page 172 of 237

ון

I

1

320

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Commissioner himself is a man of experience, authority and judgment, and is able to publicize the functions of his office, to show what falls within its scope and what does not. My own experience in attending Ward Offices leads me to the belief that a person with a grievance knows better than one might imagine what channels are open to him, and whether it is worth pursuing his case here, there, or indeed anywhere.

The experience in all countries in which the Ombudsman system has been introduced has been favourable, to a greater or lesser degree, and I see no reason to suppose that Hong Kong would be the first exception. At worst, no greater confidence might be placed in the Commissioner than in the existing channels, and at best, very much greater confidence could be placed in the administration. It is significant in this respect that three years after the introduction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Central Government in Britain, it has already been decided that a number of similar offices should be set up in that country, for local administration as well. The Commis- sioner cannot have done so much harm in Britain, and in spite of the excellence of our Government, I cannot believe that the incidence of maladministration here is so much less than in Britain as to make any such office for us entirely unnecessary!

It is not surprising that there should be some initial reaction amongst the Civil Service against the prospect of such a Commissioner, when one is first suggested. This occurred in Britain when the pro- posal was first made, but it is interesting to see that by the time the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration reported for the session 1968-69, the Principal Officers, that is in the main the permanent heads, of eleven departments interviewed by the Select Committee (and I quote) "generally endorsed the view that an investigation carried out by the Commissioner had a salutary effect on departments, in that it provided an additional safeguard to the citizen and kept the departments on their toes. The depth and thoroughness of the Commissioner's investigation had brought to light matters which had not hitherto emerged

A number of Principal Officers were able to ascribe to the Parliamentary Commissioner specific remedial measures resulting from his investigations and reports."

+

A further fear in Britain was that the Commissioner's work would slow down the work of the Government machine. This has not been found to occur, and I quote further from the same Report:

"Your Committee note with satisfaction that the salutary effect of the Commissioner's existence continues and that departments are revising and tightening-up their procedures as a result of this activities. Your Committee are glad to learn that these beneficial

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

321

effects are being achieved without an unmanageable burden being placed on departments, and that the initial fears that work would be slowed-down are being dispelled. One of the factors which helps to allay these fears is the selection of representative cases published by the Commissioner in his Annual Reports. This selection gives a fair picture of the good deeds of the departments as well as their defects and Your Committee trust that the Commissioner will continue this practice."

I cannot help feeling that the desirability of such an institution in Hong Kong is incontrovertible, and that it must certainly come in time. It has been found necessary in Britain where the Civil Service is answerable to Political Ministers. In Sweden, where the office was originally introduced, the Civil Service was by contrast not responsible to Ministers for the administration of its departments, and the Ombudman is therefore endowed with stronger powers. The contrast is even greater in Hong Kong, since not only do we entirely lack the doubtful benefit of Political Ministers, but our Civil Service is responsible to itself. The case for a Commissioner for Administration must be correspondingly stronger.

I think we enjoy, on the whole, a Civil Service of a very high standard, and I very much admire its application and dedication. The present outstanding position of Hong Kong is a tribute to its effectiveness. But if I were to make one criticism, it would be that it has been over concerned with what it does, and insufficiently con- cerned with what it appears to the public to be doing. It could well in recent years have been more concerned to project its thinking and its image to the people, to carry the people with it, and to draw on the public's own thinking in turn. The events of the last two years have stimulated the administration to move in this direction, and I believe it is successfully doing so. But as our society becomes pro- gressively more interested in, and more questioning of its Government, I believe it could with benefit move further. This argument runs parallel with that for the Commissioner for Administration. The authorities must not only do their best, but they must also be seen to be doing it, and both these ends can be served by setting up the Commissioner's organization. I believe that it would, before long, be welcomed by the Civil Service itself, for the benefits it would give both the Service and the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Chairman, since writing these words I have been happy to learn that Government appears to be learning greater political cunning, since I find that it arranged to auction at this very moment one of the most valuable and interesting sites in the Colony, no doubt with the intention of muffling the thunder of this debate.

I support the Motion. (Applause).