Page 42 of 120
52
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, Council is called to order.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 1980 were confirmed.
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Much has been said on what pattern of district administration Hong Kong should have in the next stage of its political evolution.
Opinions heard vary and are mostly from the usual articulate sources. This is to be expected. The mass of the people are indifferent by outlook and tradition. However, the interest of the whole community is involved in the far-reaching consequences of any measure intended to change the existing pattern. So, whether they like it or not, community leaders in business and industry, civic bodies and neighbourhood organizations, among others, have a vital stake in the issue. They should thus form and guide public opinion on the making of the local administration. All sides should be heard in the discussion; the pros and cons of every suggestion carefully weighed. The people's well-being must be the only concern of a good government and their way of life should not be a ploy in any power game.
Of course, local public institutions have been evolving in the years since the war and must keep pace with changing social and economic circumstances. Public aspirations need to be satisfied if they are genuine and serve the collective interest. Likewise, the public administration must support the people in their struggle for a better life and help them get increasing benefits from an affluent situation.
At the same time, this kite-flying by means of a Green Paper must be analysed objectively. Is it a genuine effort to seek public opinion? Or is it just going through the motion when the actual shape of things to come has already been fixed? Will the ultimate decision reflect the wish of the people here? Or is it merely to be handed down by some authority far removed from the scene? The advancement of the community should be the one and only concern. Is it so or is it a question of fitting in cynically with a pre-conceived political doctrine brushing aside the will of the people and all other practical considerations?
Assuming that the real objective is to determine in earnest how best to widen and intensify local participation in the government, then is it not the direct involvement of neighbourhood leadership the target to be aimed at all the time? How may this be achieved: perhaps by appointment of proven leaders from defined functional constituencies together with the direct election of genuine representatives from population-based constituencies?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 42 of 120
53
direct involvement of neighbourhood leadership the target to be aimed at all the time? How may this be achieved: perhaps by appointment of proven leaders from defined functional constituencies together with the direct election of genuine representatives from population-based constituencies?
Taking the governmental initiative at its face value, there are again varying points of view bearing on each and every aspect of the Green Paper. It is a question of finding the course of action likely to attract most support and commitment by the right local people. There is the need to settle for what the people will understand and can identify with as being clearly to their advantage in practice. Otherwise, no new scheme would work here, however admirable in theory. In the event, local customs and traditions cannot be ignored. Neither can the historical experience of the people be set aside. Consequently, whether it be the franchise that has to be agreed on or the eligibility of the people who will be given the vote or even the qualifications of the candidates for office, the heart of the matter is still the new administra-tion structure to be set up and its composition.
Simplicity should be the aim. A complicated system is likely to confuse the people and make the whole plan less workable and very costly to boot. Fully qualified manpower will be required to back up the devolution of even limited authority to the people, but it cannot be said to be abundant here, so which way will the authorities turn? Have the financial consequences of such a venture been considered in a community where pragmatism prevails? Will Hong Kong get value for money? Are the people aware of the cost and ready to underwrite it? There are many matters of policy and practice to be gone into maturely well in advance of taking a final decision. There is no retreat after burning the boats.
Still, if genuine, the objective must be to draw the local people into the government. Community participation is essential. Any new scheme is doomed to failure without securing the people's approval first. How to achieve it in the way that they will want is in fact the only question that matters at this juncture. Otherwise, the purpose of the whole exercise would be set at naught. But, first of all, who sets the seal?
(Mr. Edmund W. H. CHOW and Mr. Augustine S. K. CHUNG arrived during the Chairman's address.)
PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table:--
(1) Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the months of July and August, 1980.
Page 42 of 120
Page 42 of 12
Page 42 of 120
52
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, Council is called to order.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 1980 were confirmed.
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Much has been said on what pattern of district administration Hong Kong should have in the next stage of its political evolution.
Opinions heard vary and are mostly from the usual articulate sources. This is to be expected. The mass of the people are indifferent by outlook and tradition. However, the interest of the whole community is involved in the far-reaching consequences of any measure intended to change the existing pattern. So, whether they like it or not, community leaders in business and industry, civic bodies and neighbourhood organizations, among others, have a vital stake in the issue. They should thus form and guide public opinion on the making of the local administration. All sides should be heard in the discussion; the pros and cons of every suggestion carefully weighed. The people's well-being must be the only concern of a good government and their way of life should not be a ploy in any power game.
Of course, local public institutions have been evolving in the years since the war and must keep pace with changing social and economic circumstances. Public aspirations need to be satisfied if they are genuine and serve the collective interest. Likewise, the public administration must support the people in their struggle for a better life and help them get increasing benefits from an affluent situation.
At the same time, this kite-flying by means of a Green Paper must be analysed objectively. Is it a genuine effort to seek public opinion? Or is it just going through the motion when the actual shape of things to come has already been fixed? Will the ultimate decision reflect the wish of the people here? Or is it merely to be handed down by some authority far removed from the scene? The advancement of the community should be the one and only concern. Is it so or is it a question of fitting in cynically with a pre-conceived political doctrine brushing aside the will of the people and all other practical considerations?
Assuming that the real objective is to determine in earnest how best to widen and intensify local participation in the government, then is it not the
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 42 of 120
53
direct involvement of neighbourhood leadership the target to be aimed at all the time? How may this be achieved: perhaps by appointment of proven leaders from defined functional constituencies together with the direct election of genuine representatives from population-based constituencies?
Taking the governmental initiative at its face value, there are again varying points of view bearing on each and every aspect of the Green Paper. It is a question of finding the course of action likely to attract most support and commitment by the right local people. There is the need to settle for what the people will understand and can identify with as being clearly to their advantage in practice. Otherwise, no new scheme would work here, however admirable in theory. In the event, local customs and traditions cannot be ignored. Neither can the historical experience of the people be set aside. Consequently, whether it be the franchise that has to be agreed on or the eligibility of the people who will be given the vote or even the qualifications of the candidates for office, the heart of the matter is still the new administra- tion structure to be set up and its composition.
Simplicity should be the aim. A complicated system is likely to confuse the people and make the whole plan less workable and very costly to boot. Fully qualified manpower will be required to back up the devolution of even limited authority to the people, but it cannot be said to be abundant here, so which way will the authorities turn? Have the financial consequences of such a venture been considered in a community where pragmatism prevails? Will Hong Kong get value for money? Are the people aware of the cost and ready to underwrite it? There are many matters of policy and practice to be gone into maturely well in advance of taking a final decision. There is no retreat after burning the boats.
Still, if genuine, the objective must be to draw the local people into the government. Community participation is essential. Any new scheme is doomed to failure without securing the people's approval first. How to achieve it in the way that they will want is in fact the only question that matters at this juncture. Otherwise, the purpose of the whole exercise would be set at naught. But, first of all, who sets the seal?
(Mr. Edmund W. H. CHOW and Mr. Augustine S. K. CHUNG arrived during the Chairman's address.)
PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table:--
(1) Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the months of July and August, 1980.
Page 42 of 120
Page 42 of 12
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.