1971 — Page 165

42

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 165 of 242

311

310

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

In Hong Kong, there have always been two schools of thought. One school considers that colonial rule in Hong Kong should be continued without slightest change. The other school of thought is that the local people should gradually be encouraged to manage their own affairs. The latter is the British traditional policy towards the dependent territories. We had therefore the elected representatives in the Urban Council in 1952.

The achievements of the Urban Council in the past two decades, e.g. we have pressed the Government in providing more recreational facilities, playgrounds, swimming pools, etc. and also caused the Government to start the projects of public housing including resettle- ment estates, has been viewed with some envy. Furthermore, the adoption of Chinese language and the idea of H.K. Chinese or H.K. citizenship were originated in this Council. Rightly or wrongly, it may be thought that too pupular an Urban Council might steal the whole show of the Government. Gradually the old school of thought got the upper hand and we are now asked to go back to the pre-1952 days.

It is not my intention today to criticize or comment item by item about the White Paper of 1971 because Government owes an explana- tion to us why certain items in the White Paper should be so adopted. There was no Explanatory Note published together with the said White Paper. It needs not to be an expert to say that whole approach of White Paper may need further consideration, because:

(a) It shuts the door to any decent people who wish to devote themselves to the good of local society. It leaves no way for our younger generation to participate in local affairs.

(b) People may be dissatisfied with one or two things the elected members have done but generally speaking people still rely on elected members to express their views.

(c) The franchise is too limited. It can breed the feelings of apathy among the local inhabitants. Government has turned a deaf ear to what I have pleaded in the last 4 or 5 years. I have always held the view that to widen the franchise of electorate is a most important step which should be taken. (d) Urban Council is a younger Council. Both appointed and elected members are younger and thus more energetic. It is a loss to the community if their potentiality is not to be exploited to its fullest.

(e) Government overlooks the role of the elected Councillors as the bridge between the Government and the people. This role cannot be satisfactorily fulfilled by C.D.O. or UMELCO Office.

(f) The political organization to which I belong always advocate the participation of directly Elected Members in the Legisla- tive Council while maintaining the status quo of the Urban Council. There is lack of evidence that such a measure can- not be taken in H.K. due to its special geographical position. It is disappointing that we have very little to say in our daily business.

There is only one advantage in the White Paper and that is, if the principle of the White Paper is to be adopted, the Urban Council will be put on the proper perspective. The Council will have a statutory backing and can work on a definite line. I only hope that Government would treat the present White Paper as a start if every thing goes on well our jurisdiction would gradually be expanded. I would urge all the Council members to be united together to prepare ourselves well and to fulfil the Council's work entrusted to us by law. The ball has now been kicked into our court, it is for us to kick it back. I also hope that since the Government does not enlarge the franchise of the Urban Council election, it would be logical that the Appointed Members should represent and cover different walks of life. I wish the Council best of luck.

With these remarks, Mr. Chairman I support the motion. (Applause).

MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo:-Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by making a few comments on the recently issued White Paper concerning the Urban Council. This contains few surprises. It is a cautious step forward and I think that in principle, the proposals will be acceptable to those connected with the Urban Council.

There are a few specific proposals on which I would like to com- ment. The first concerns the removal of all Official Members from the Council. At one time, the Chairman of Select Committees were Official Members. The Unofficial Members took over these chairmanships and in general, Official Members have played a diminishing part in the deliberations and decisions of the Urban Council, and ceasing formally to be Members would seem to be the logical development. However, I hope they will play as active a part in future, as they have done in the past, on the various Select Committees. By reason of their train- ing, experience and close connection with the matters in question, their advice in Committees if invaluable, and I trust we will not loss the benefit of such advice as a result of any impending changes.

One of the most important, if not the most important, changes proposed is that the Urban Council should be granted substantial financial autonomy. Hitherto, we have been in the position of being able to demand what we want to spend without the responsibility of

Page 165Page 166