Page 197 of 237
370
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
About six months ago a draft Bill entitled the Multi-storey Buildings (Owners Incorporation) Bill was published in the Government Gazette and widespread publicity and consultation has followed. Meetings have been organized at which owners' and tenants' representatives, Kaifong Associations and other interested parties have examined the provisions of the Bill. Their comments and those of this Council and other public bodies, together with many comments from the general public, have been collated and studied, and a final draft Bill is now being prepared. In spite of the care that has gone into this work of planning and consultation I have no doubt that many of the provisions will have to be kept under review and perhaps changed in the light of experience. I would mention in particular that the problem of finding a means whereby the tenants of flats (tenants as opposed to owners) can participate in the management of their buildings, is a particularly difficult one. It is, I understand, expected that the revised draft legislation will be ready early in 1970, and I am sorry that progress has not been more rapid.
I would like to say a final word in reply to Mr. BERNACCHI'S mention of fireworks. In my judgement there is no strong movement or desire for the removal of the present ban and I do not believe that it should be removed. My reason is the reason referred to by Mr. BERNACCHI, that is to say on the grounds of the danger to life and limb which we know the widespread uncontrolled letting-off of fireworks creates. Similar bans adopted for the same reason are in force in many countries. With regard to Mr. BERNACCHI's suggestion for large scale firework displays, perhaps during the lunar New Year season or on similar suitable occasions, I must say I am inclined to agree with him and I would myself have liked to have seen some such display, properly controlled, during the recent Festival celebrations. Against this it has been argued that the Government should consider itself bound by its own ban, and that we should not let it be said that ... (Laughter). Personally, Sir, I do not think this argument is over-riding and I will advance my views and those of Mr. BERNACCHI as opportunity offers. (Applause).
CHAIRMAN:-Ladies and gentlemen, as I listened to the speeches on the first two days of this debate, I began to wonder if my Unofficial Colleagues had perhaps taken pity on me in my so-called "hot seat"- especially after last year's roasting-to the extent that where one posed a question, another answered it for me. Or even where a point was made, it tended to disprove itself, at least to some extent.
And naturally I took this generous view rather than the one that Members by providing question and answer were seeking to confuse me!
For example, we have had an impassioned plea from Mr. BLAKER for some form of Ombudsman-but Mr. RAFEEK tells us that such a system has been with us for 20 years in the form of Kai Fongs.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
371
In addition, Mr. Peter P. F. CHAN tells me that, in a sense, we already have 20 Ombudsmen in the shape of Ward Members: while Mrs. SYMONS invites her Colleagues to become unpaid Ombudsmen. Then Mr. RAFEEK in his "boom or bang" address referred to the "stationary incomes" among the masses. On the other hand, Mr. James Wu was busy telling us that, at least in the industrial field, the demand for labour had driven wages about 250% above the 1958 level with the cost of living barely 130% higher over the same period.
On another matter, I have been taken to task for permitting the use of a language other than English in the debate, and I have even heard an unthinkable reference to "patois" in this connection. But in all honesty, I can say that, apart from a quote in Mandarin by Mr. Hu, I did not notice any foreign language being used but understood every word that was said particularly by Mr. FORSGATE. Incidentally, I think that Mr. FORSGATE must have lost part of his speech for I am sure that he intended to conclude his references to "nit-picking" with a quote from "An Address to the Unco Guid or the Rightly Righteous" (which, with his agreement and Members' tolerance, I shall now repeat):-
"O ye who are sae guid yoursels
Sae pious and sae holy
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your neighbours' fauts and folly"
Well, ladies and gentlemen, having introduced my speech in this way, I suppose I can now look forward to a further roasting next year if not even at the end of this debate, when the senior elected Member sums up!
And now to return to replying to the various points made by my Unofficial Colleagues.
Many varying views were aired by Members on the question of an Ombudsman or a Commissioner for Administration. As I said at the November meeting of this Council, the door has not been closed on this issue, but Government wishes first to evaluate the effect of the proper organization of the UMELCO Office before going any further. A motion on this important issue is to be debated later at this meeting, and I am sure that the views expressed by Members then will be of interest and of value to Government in their consideration of the matter.
On the question of the future scope of the Council, I very much regret that I am still unable to say anything. The position remains as stated by His Excellency the Governor at the opening session of the Legislative Council on 1st October.
Page 198 of 237
372
37
Page 197 of 237
370
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
About six months ago a draft Bill entitled the Multi-storey Buildings (Owners Incorporation) Bill was published in the Government Gazette and widespread publicity and consultation has followed. Meetings have been organized at which owners' and tenants' repre- sentatives, Kaifong Associations and other interested parties have examined the provisions of the Bill. Their comments and those of this Council and other public bodies, together with many comments from the general public, have been collated and studied, and a final draft Bill is now being prepared. In spite of the care that has gone into this work of planning and consultation I have no doubt that many of the provisions will have to be kept under review and perhaps changed in the light of experience. I would mention in particular that the problem of finding a means whereby the tenants of flats (tenants as opposed to owners) can participate in the management of their buildings, is a particularly difficult one. It is, I understand, expected that the revised draft legislation will be ready early in 1970, and I am sorry that progress has not been more rapid.
I would like to say a final word in reply to Mr. BERNACCHI'S mention of fireworks. In my judgement there is no strong movement or desire for the removal of the present ban and I do not believe that it should to be removed. My reason is the reason referred to by Mr. BERNACCHI, that is to say on the grounds of the danger to life and limb which we know the widespread uncontrolled letting-off of fireworks creates. Similar bans adopted for the same reason are in force in many countries. With regard to Mr. BERNACCHI's suggestion for large scale firework displays, perhaps during the lunar New Year season or on similar suitable occasions, I must say I am inclined to agree with him and I would myself have liked to have seen some such display, properly controlled, during the recent Festival celebrations. Against this it has been argued that the Government should consider itself bound by its own ban, and that we should not let it be said that ATX, THELLO. (Laughter). Personally, Sir, I do not think this argument is over-riding and I will advance my views and those of Mr. BERNACCHI as opportunity offers. (Applause).
CHAIRMAN:-Ladies and gentlemen, as I listened to the speeches on the first two days of this debate, I began to wonder if my Unofficial Colleagues had perhaps taken pity on me in my so-called "hot scat"- especially after last year's roasting-to the extent that where one posed a question, another answered it for me. Or even where a point was made, it tended to disprove itself, at least to some extent.
And naturally I took this generous view rather than the one that Members by providing question and answer were seeking to confuse me!
For example, we have had an impassioned plea from Mr. BLAKER for some form of Ombudsman-but Mr. RAFEEK tells us that such a system has been with us for 20 years in the form of Kai Fongs.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
371
In addition, Mr. Peter P. F. CHAN tells me that, in a sense, we already have 20 Ombudsmen in the shape of Ward Members: while Mrs. SYMONS invites her Colleagues to become unpaid Ombudsmen. Then Mr. RAFEEK in his "boom or bang" address referred to the "stationary incomes" among the masses. On the other hand, Mr. James Wu was busy telling us that, at least in the industrial field, the demand for labour had driven wages about 250% above the 1958 level with the cost of living barely 130% higher over the same period.
On another matter, I have been taken to task for permitting the use of a language other than English in the debate, and I have even heard an unthinkable reference to "patois" in this connection. But in all honesty, I can say that, apart from a quote in Mandarin by Mr. Hu, I did not notice any foreign language being used but under- stood every word that was said particularly by Mr. FORSGATE. Incidentally, I think that Mr. FORSGATE must have lost part of his speech for I am sure that he intended to conclude his references to "nit-picking" with a quote from "An Address to the Unco Guid or the Rightly Righteous" (which, with his agreement and Members' toler- ance, I shall now repeat):-
"O ye who are sae guid yoursels
Sae pious and sae holy
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your neighbours fauts and folly"
Well, ladies and gentlemen, having introduced my speech in this way, I suppose I can now look forward to a further roasting next year if not even at the end of this debate, when the senior elected Member sums up!
And now to return to replying to the various points made by my Unofficial Colleagues.
Many varying views were aired by Members on the question of an Ombudsman or a Commissioner for Administration. As I said at the November meeting of this Council, the door has not been closed on this issue, but Government wishes first to evaluate the effect of the proper organization of the UMELCO Office before going any further. A motion on this important issue is to be debated later at this meeting, and I am sure that the views expressed by Members then will be of interest and of value to Government in their considera- tion of the matter.
On the question of the future scope of the Council, I very much regret that I am still unable to say anything. The position remains as stated by His Excellency the Governor at the opening session of the Legislative Council on 1st October.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.