Page 171 of 242
322
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the Council meetings. I must say I entirely agree to the proposal that Cantonese could also be used in the Council proceedings in future. Hong Kong has a population of over four million people, and over 90% of them are Chinese, of which the majority speak Cantonese. It is only sensible and practical therefore for the Council proceedings to be conducted alongside with English in a dialect talked and used by the great majority of the citizens. I think in this respect the Paper has made a very wise and useful recommendation.
The second point is the official membership. The Paper recommends that all Official Members will in future be removed from the Urban Council. I think this is a determined move of Government to meet public opinion, because there has been wide accusation in the past, especially from within this Council, that Official Members tend to vote in the interest of Government rather than that of the public, which personally I do not share the view. However, with the removal of Official Members from the Council, this fear of unhealthy structure as alleged will automatically disappear.
Another proposal made in the Paper is that the Council's Standing Orders should be approved by the Legislative Council. On this issue, I am all for it because the Urban Council is a statutory body and therefore it is appropriate for its Standing Orders or terms of reference to be controlled by the Legislative Council, the only law-enacting body existing. Furthermore, the chairman so elected can use his discretion to enforce or interpret the Standing Orders in the best interest of the Council.
Next comes the point of franchise, the eligibility to vote. There has been an outcry from certain sectors of the community that more people should be given the right to vote so that all quarters of the community could have a share in choosing the Councillors they like. I appreciate the spirit and principle behind a wider franchise but I am more inclined to seeing it come as a result of social necessity indicated from regular reviews of the existing franchise system. This is what the White Paper is recommending because it suggests that the franchise will be reviewed from time to time and I think this is a very sensible suggestion that deserves every support in any sense.
Let's come next to the issue of financial autonomy and the authority to assess and collect rates. This is not a simple matter to take up, though I agree this is a sure way by which the Councillors would learn the need to cut its coat according to its cloth. The Council will have to look after its own budget and will be in the position to explain every single cent it spends. It will also have to finance most of its project and development, but I certainly do expect Government will soon finance certain long-awaited projects such as the civic centre, the indoor stadium and the museum. All these will give a new life to the Council with a much elevated status. On this new phase, the Council would have to be more cautious for every move it makes and this is indeed a challenge big enough to consume much of our effort and enthusiasm. However, I am not too sure whether the Urban Council could all of a sudden put up with
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
323
such a challenge overnight. But still there is criticism that the Council has not been given with enough authority as indicated in the 1969 Urban Council Report. Personally I take this issue with a different view, and I doubt whether it's all that desirable to keep on asking for more without having first examined what we are able to take up. So let us look at what we have been given to do at present and what we have done with it. We definitely have done well in establishing our excellent public libraries to cater for the need of a wide reading public in many districts. I must congratulate the Department as well as the Council for this piece of good work.
In the provision of recreational grounds and cultural services, we have also made considerable strides ahead and this is also highly commented by the public. But have we made similar progress in other fields? On the management of resettlement estates for example, we have been far from satisfactory. Inefficiency and indifferent attitude on the part of the managing staff has led to unsolved problems such as unsanitary & poor living conditions etc. Then comes the city cleanliness issue, which has been a growing headache without a good solution. The collection of refuse for example is at present posing a serious public health problem everywhere in Hong Kong. Take for example the famous (or should I say notorious) Queen Victoria Street refuse collection point. This has been for years the centre of complaint from the public but improvement was slow-coming. Similar complaints are heard elsewhere both in Hong Kong and Kowloon and the public seem to be getting fed-up with this "rubbish" business. Yet it seems our hands are tied and cannot do much about it.
From what I have said above, much remains to be done. It is clear that we have been successful, despite our diligence and effort, only in certain fields under our direct control and therefore we should be conscious of the outcome should we keep on pressing for wider authority. It seems it is not a question of good appetite that matters; it is a question of good digestion.
While we are on the question of appetite, I think it's opportune for me to swing from here to another subject which we have not been doing well also. That is the Food and Food premises Select Committee of which I am the Chairman. There are at present over 400 outstanding applications for licences concerning Food and Food premises, and over 20% of them have been in operation unlicensed for over twelve months. From this, one begins to question the justifiability of maintaining a licensing system and the whole strength of staff that work behind it.
At this point, I must say a few words on the impression I have about the general attitude of some U.S.D. staff towards the Select Committee. Many are very conscientious and helpful, like Mr. TINSON, the Senior Executive Officer and some others. With due respect to many others, I can't say they are all that co-operative, and in fact, there is indication that being unco-operative had
Page 171 of 242
322
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the Council meetings. I must say I entirely agree to the proposal that Cantonese could also be used in the Council proceedings in future. Hong Kong has a population of over four million people, and over 90% of them are Chinese, of which the majority speak Cantonese. It is only sensible and practical therefore for the Council proceedings to be conducted alongside with English in a dialect talked and used by the great majority of the citizens. I think in this respect the Paper has made a very wise and useful recommendation. The second point is the official membership. The Paper recommends that all Official Members will in future be removed from the Urban Council. I think this is a determined move of Government to meet public opinion, because there has been wide accusation in the past, especially from within this Council, that Official Members tend to vote in the interest of Government rather than that of the public, which personally I do not share the view. However, with the removal of Official Members from the Council, this fear of unhealthy structure as alleged will auto- matically disappear. Another proposal made in the Paper is that the Council's Standing Orders should be approved by the Legislative Council. On this issue, I am all for it because the Urban Council is a statutory body and therefore it is appropriate for its Standing Orders or terms of reference to be controlled by the Legislative Council, the only law-enacting body existing. Furthermore, the chairman so elected can use his discretion to enforce or interpret the Standing Orders in the best interest of the Council. Next comes the point of franchise the eligibility to vote. There has been an outcry from certain sectors of the community that more people should be given the right to vote so that all quarters of the community could have a share in choosing the Councillors they like. I appreciate the spirit and principle behind a wider franchise but I am more inclined to seeing it come as a result of social necessity indicated from regular reviews of the existing franchise system. This is what the White Paper is recommending because it suggests that the franchise will be reviewed from time to time and I think this is a very sensible suggestion that deserves every support in any sense. Let's come next to the issue of financial autonomy and the authority to assess and collect rates. This is not a simple matter to take up, though I agree this is a sure way by which the Councillors would learn the need to cut its coat according to its cloth. The Council will have to look after its own budget and will be in the position to explain every single cent it spends. It will also have to finance most of its project and development, but I certainly do expect Government will soon finance certain long-awaited projects such as the civic centre, the indoor stadium and the museum. All these will give a new life to the Council with a much elevated status. On this new phase, the Council would have to be more cautious for every move it makes and this is indeed a challenge big enough to consume much of our effort and enthusiasm. However, I am not too sure whether the Urban Council could all of a sudden put up with
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
323
such a challenge overnight. But still there is criticism that the Council has not been given with enough authority as indicated in the 1969 Urban Council Report. Personally I take this issue with a different view, and I doubt whether it's all that desirable to keep on asking for more without having first examined what we are able to take up. So let us look at what we have been given to do at present and what we have done with it. We definitely have done well in establishing our excellent public libraries to cater for the need of a wide reading public in many district. I must congratulate the Depart- ment as well as the Council for this piece of good work. In the provision of recreational grounds and cultural services, we have also made considerable strides ahead and this is also highly commented by the public. But have we made similar progress in other fields? On the management of resettlement estates for example we have been far from satisfactory. Inefficiency and indefferent attitude on the part of the managing staff has let to unsolved problems such as unsanitation & poor living conditions etc. Then comes the city cleanliness issue, which has been a growing headache without a good solution. The collection of refuse for example is at present posing a serious public health problem everywhere in Hong Kong. Take for example the famous (or should I say notorious) Queen Victoria Street refuse collec- tion point. This has been for years the centre of complaint from the public but improvement was slow-coming. Similar complaints are heard elsewhere both in Hong Kong and Kowloon and the public seem Yet it seems our to be getting fed-up with this "rubbish" business. hands are tied and cannot do much about it. From what I have said above much remains to be done. It is clear that we have been success- ful, despite our diligence and effort, only in certain fields under our direct control and therefore we should be conscious of the outcome should we keep on pressing for wider authority. It seems it is not a question of good appetite that matters; it is a question of good digestion. While we are on the question of appetite, I think it's opportune for me to swing from here to another subject which we have not been doing well also. That is the Food and Food premises Select Committee of which I am the Chairman. There are at present over 400 outstanding applications for licences concerning Food and Food premises, and over 20% of them have been in operation unlicenced for over twelve months. From this, one begins to question the justifi- ability of maintaining a licencing system and the whole strength of staff that work behind it. At this point, I must say a few words on the impression I have about the general attitude of some U.S.D. staff towards the Select Committee. Many are very conscientious and helpful, like Mr. TINSON, the Senior Executive Officer and some others. With due respect to many others, I can't say they are all that co- operative, and in fact there is indication that being unco-operative had
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.