1979 — Page 91

148

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Sir, when we contemplate rising standards of living over these years, the full employment and growth in real wages, the high per capita consumption

of consumer products, may we not wonder:

Are we all living in the same City?

In the past two years, frustration has reached boiling point with the Debate dismissed by Mrs. ELLIOTT as an ‘Annual Farce' (12/77). Last year, a less frequent visitor to our Chambers, Mr. BERNACCHI, railed against this 'silenced and stagnated Council' and, with a final blast against 'this farcical ritual mis-named a Debate', led his four followers from the Chamber.

Is it any wonder that the image of the Council is so confused in the minds of those who judge our proceedings from what they read in the popular press? Or that the serious-minded and busy voters of Hong Kong stay away in droves from elections? Indeed, it is only the steady performance and high sense of responsibility of the Appointed Members and I thank Dr. HUANG for the honesty of his remarks in the 1976 Debate which maintain the progress and credibility of the Council.

May I also remind Mr. BERNACCHI that in 1971 he called publicly for the election of 'a strong-willed Chairman to put the new Urban Council on its feet'. So why should he now complain when he has got not only a strong Chairman but one who has shown him a strong sense of fair-play.

Secure in the inevitability that the headline-seekers will continue to hammer the Government, ridicule the Council and promote out-dated fantasies, let me make a few brief remarks on some of our pet foibles and sacred cows:

Hawkers

A word, first, about street trading.

For many years, our hawker policy has been confounded by Elected Members who insisted on treating street traders as an extension of social welfare activities. When we finally acknowledged hawking for what it is- profitable, untaxed, publicly-subsidized commerce-these members jettisoned their Select Committee responsibilities. Today, the Council is able to put hawker management on a systematic basis under Mr. SHUM Choi-sang.

However, I must express concern over the growing cost of hawker control to the Ratepayer. In 1975, the recurrent cost of hawker services was around $20 million per annum. In September, 1979 the cost of staff and administra- tion services was calculated at $45 million for 1979/80, and $51 million for 1980/81. This does not include cost incurred by Police, Housing Authority, Transport and other departments of Government; nor does it take account of the excessive burden placed on our cleansing resources in hawker areas. With licence revenue of possibly $10 million per annum, it is not exaggerated to claim that, one way or another, the Ratepayer's subsidy of street traders has now risen to a massive $50 million per year.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 91 of 136

149

I would enter a warning, also, that the situation could get worse. If Government fails to bring sanity into the levels of commercial rents, it is inevitable that many small shop-keepers may be forced to close down and join the street parade; adding to the already unacceptable levels of pollution

and obstruction on our streets and pavements.

There is urgent need for hard solutions to the hawker situation in the 1980's. The Council cannot enforce these without full co-operation from many Government agencies. It is the responsibility of Central Government to co-ordinate a comprehensive plan for the containment of the problem and for gradual removal of hawkers from our streets and pavements on a systematic basis over several years.

Administration

Some members share my misgivings about the large number of Council committees and the resources needed to service these, including heavy involve- ment by senior departmental officers. Currently, we have 13 Select Com- mittees and 23 Sub-Committees. Last year (1978-79), we had 30 meetings of the whole Council and 296 meetings of committees (an average of 27 per month!) involving over 400 hours of discussion. A total of 3,446 Papers were issued for Committee discussion, a production equivalent of 13 Papers for each working day.

Are all these committees and meetings, time and paper-work, really necessary? I do not think so. We are required to have only a Standing Committee of the Council and a Finance Select Committee. The Urban Services Department has operational responsibility in 4 main areas:

- public cleansing and hygiene

cultural affairs, museums and library services parks, recreation and sports amenities, and markets, hawkers and abattoirs.

To meet our administration and planning needs we might maintain an Administration (or General Purposes) Select Committee, and a Planning & Development Select Committee.

Therefore, in terms of management efficiency the Council could readily be stream-lined to 7 or 8 Select Committees or perhaps even 5 as you, Sir, have suggested.

The savings in man-power, time and materials would be substantial; efficiency would be increased.

So, the incredulous observor may ask; why have 13 Select Committees when 7 could do? The fact is that Select Committees are looked upon as 'political' vehicles! Certain Councillors feel that chairing a Select Committee carries an electoral advantage! Indicative, I believe, of a greater preoccupa- tion with 'face' than with the working realities of the Council.