Page 124 of 135
Page 124 of 155
210
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Ladies and gentlemen, it is just 4 o'clock and I will proceed with the business of to-day's meeting.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 11th January, 1977 were confirmed.
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):- -The revaluation of property for rate assessment has caused deep concern in the community. In the ensuing public discussion there is sometimes a misunderstanding of the Council's actual position, perhaps through its own fault.
Confusion seems to arise in part from the Government's intention to use the same revaluation to calculate the property tax as well. That is of course their business. But there is the impression in some quarters that the Council also benefits in some way from this form of taxation which is levied on property owners and not on ratepayers. So, let me say emphatically that the Council gets nothing from it at all. For the Government keeps it all as it should do. In effect, the Council as such can properly take no part in any argument on property tax.
On the other hand, the consequence of using the same assessment to determine the actual rates to be collected from householders is a different matter. In the recent Annual Conventional Debate, it was right that Members should have freely expressed their personal views on this important issue. Their opinions varied on what to do. Never- theless, there was one sentiment in common. All were sincerely con- cerned with the burden it would impose on most local families. All wanted to fend off the hard blow to the mass of the people. Indeed, the steep and sudden reassessment of rateable values would hit the ratepayer very hard if followed through without relief. True, the remedial approach might have differed; still, genuine disquiet was shared by all. And so, in reality, the Council spoke with one voice to make known its earnest wish to help the people all it could.
There was close examination of the problem and its grave implica- tions. Full discussion in successive meetings to determine what the Council could do led to its position being defined in clear terms. The Council's own responsibility to the ratepayer in this critical situation crystallized. And, the direction that it ought to take emerged as a result.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Simply stated, the position is:
211
(1) The Council did not ask for an increase of its rate revenue. (2) It had no part in the reassessment of rateable values. Nor
was it ever consulted on such revaluations.
(3) And, for that matter, it has no power, as a body, to demand
another reassessment to replace this one.
(4) Nevertheless, with the intention of mitigating the impact on the community, its Members suggested among other things the possible selective application of the new rateable values and also even staggering the introduction of the whole revaluation. (5) Finally, to render assistance to the ratepayer in the only way within its powers, the Council is voluntarily cutting its percent- age from six to four, if the new rateable values are applied by the Government, presumably from 1st April, 1977.
Yet, in this excitement over the revaluations, let none forget at the same time that the Council has also a clear public duty to do-day in, day out. Its statutory functions entail heavy financial commitments. They are many and mostly taken for granted, commonplace perhaps but essential for the well-being of all nevertheless. Also, costs rise inexorably. All the same, the streets must be swept several times a day; refuse collected and disposed of; animals slaughtered for food; markets kept open in hygienic conditions; restaurants inspected regularly; street- traders controlled reasonably; open spaces maintained for rest and recreation; and numerous other prime functions properly performed for the orderly life of a major city. In addition, there is the capital cost of many hundreds of community facilities which has to be paid in due time when ready. For example, Hong Kong needs more refuse collection points, public toilets, bath-houses, markets, district libraries, children's playgrounds, just to name some from a long backlog. The Council's many services are thus basic and vital. They cannot be with- drawn or reduced without risk to public health or deterioration of living conditions, which would probably be unacceptable to a dynamic and successful community. Of course, they all cost money too. And, the community must be ready to pay for what it gets just as it has the right to demand them.
Much play has also been made about the Council's surplus funds. All along it has been said that it does not reflect the real position. True, money has been accumulating. But, this is mainly because many building projects and other service programmes have not been executed in the time that the Council might have expected with reason.
Page 125 of 135
Page 125 of 155
212
Page 124 of 135
Page 124 of 155
210
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Ladies and gentlemen, it is just 4 o'clock and I will proceed with the business of to-day's meeting.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 11th January, 1977 were confirmed.
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):- -The revaluation of property for rate assessment has caused deep concern in the community. In the ensuing public discussion there is sometimes a misunderstanding of the Council's actual position, perhaps through its own fault.
Confusion seems to arise in part from the Government's intention to use the same revaluation to calculate the property tax as well. That is of course their business. But there is the impression in some quarters that the Council also benefits in some way from this form of taxation which is levied on property owners and not on ratepayers. So, let me say emphatically that the Council gets nothing from it at all. For the Government keeps it all as it should do. In effect, the Council as such can properly take no part in any argument on property tax.
On the other hand, the consequence of using the same assessment to determine the actual rates to be collected from householders is a different matter. In the recent Annual Conventional Debate, it was right that Members should have freely expressed their personal views on this important issue. Their opinions varied on what to do. Never- theless, there was one sentiment in common. All were sincerely con- cerned with the burden it would impose on most local families. All wanted to fend off the hard blow to the mass of the people. Indeed, the steep and sudden reassessment of rateable values would hit the ratepayer very hard if followed through without relief. True, the remedial approach might have differed; still, genuine disquiet was shared by all. And so, in reality, the Council spoke with one voice to make known its earnest wish to help the people all it could.
There was close examination of the problem and its grave implica- tions. Full discussion in successive meetings to determine what the Council could do led to its position being defined in clear terms. The Council's own responsibility to the ratepayer in this critical situation crystallized. And, the direction that it ought to take emerged as a result.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Simply stated, the position is:
211
(1) The Council did not ask for an increase of its rate revenue. (2) It had no part in the reassessment of rateable values. Nor
was it ever consulted on such revaluations.
(3) And, for that matter, it has no power, as a body, to demand
another reassessment to replace this one.
(4) Nevertheless, with the intention of mitigating the impact on the community, its Members suggested among other things the possible selective application of the new rateable values and also even staggering the introduction of the whole revaluation. (5) Finally, to render assistance to the ratepayer in the only way within its powers, the Council is voluntarily cutting its percent- age from six to four, if the new rateable values are applied by the Government, presumably from 1st April, 1977.
Yet, in this excitement over the revaluations, let none forget at the same time that the Council has also a clear public duty to do-day in, day out. Its statutory functions entail heavy financial commitments. They are many and mostly taken for granted, commonplace perhaps but essential for the well-being of all nevertheless. Also, costs rise inexorably. All the same, the streets must be swept several times a day; refuse collected and disposed of; animals slaughtered for food; markets kept open in hygienic conditions; restaurants inspected regularly; street- traders controlled reasonably; open spaces maintained for rest and recreation; and numerous other prime functions properly performed for the orderly life of a major city. In addition, there is the capital cost of many hundreds of community facilities which has to be paid in due time when ready. For example, Hong Kong needs more refuse collection points, public toilets, bath-houses, markets, district libraries, children's playgrounds, just to name some from a long backlog. The Council's many services are thus basic and vital. They cannot be with- drawn or reduced without risk to public health or deterioration of living conditions, which would probably be unacceptable to a dynamic and successful community. Of course, they all cost money too. And, the community must be ready to pay for what it gets just as it has the right to demand them.
Much play has also been made about the Council's surplus funds. All along it has been said that it does not reflect the real position. True, money has been accumulating. But, this is mainly because many building projects and other service programmes have not been executed in the time that the Council might have expected with reason.
H
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.