1983 — Page 174

Page 174 of 194

312

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, it is ironical that a step which the Government claims to be a democratic one has been taken without consulting any of the people concerned in the scheme. To state, after announcing the scheme, that the Chief Secretary is prepared to listen to public comment, is sheer paternalism. Father will never change his mind, and I offer the following reasons for saying so:

1.

2.

3.

4.

First, the Chief Secretary is now consulting a limited number of public bodies, but they are being fed only with his side of the argument; Second, the Chief Secretary has already instructed the Departments concerned to go ahead with planning for the implementation of the scheme, as a fait accompli; Third, he has included in his scheme a bait to mislead and win the support of District Boards; and Fourth, he has not allowed sufficient time to make any changes practicable.

What the Chief Secretary's statement of 15 February does not make clear is, if and how he will consult the people of the New Territories about the scheme, which affects them most. There should be consultation with the villagers, and with the residents of the new towns who already make up about two-thirds of the population.

The Chief Secretary has also failed to explain at all the financial implications, either to the taxpayers in general, or to the New Territories ratepayers in particular. He has failed to clarify the almost certain fact that policies in the two proposed councils would sometimes vary, and how the administration would cope with these differing policies.

The Chief Secretary has given two reasons for his chaotic scheme:

1.

His first argument is based on the existence of traditional institutions. He does not clarify, though one may easily guess, which institution in particular he is pandering to. A progressive democracy does not pander to traditional institutions which may have their origins in a feudalism maintained for the self-interest of elite groups. Feudalism, as a political system, is dead, and has no place in the modern world or in any democratic system. If that traditional system is truly supported by the New Territories people, perhaps the Chief Secretary can explain why one fifth of all complaints dealt with by Urban Councillors (at least this one, and others too I understand) come from the New Territories. One fifth represents roughly the proportion of the New Territories population compared with that of the urban area. This means therefore that almost all New Territories residents with complaints seek help from Councillors in the urban area, in spite of the fact that Urban Councillors are not, and never have been, authorized to deal with New Territories affairs. In fact, some old residents of the New Territories have expressed the hope that the plan for two councils will not materialize, although they are certain

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 174 of 194

313

that it will because it has already been decided. I feel reasonably sure that if given all the facts, the people of the New Territories would opt for a single council.

Is the scheme therefore intended for the good of the New Territories people, or is it intended only for the elite with vested interests there? Or is there some political implication of which we have not been informed?

2. The second reason given by the Chief Secretary for the scheme is that one council would become too large and unwieldy. I am sure that Scotland and Wales could give the same reason for having two separate parliaments in Britain, instead of over 600 members in London. Or the same argument could be used in Hong Kong for having two Legislative Councils, two Governors, two Housing Authorities, two Fire Services Departments, two Police Forces in fact, two all round. What expense! What chaos! In fact, it is not an argument, it is simply a lame excuse for putting through an unreasonable scheme, perhaps to satisfy the interests of certain groups.

Let me make it clear that I am not one of those who might hope for an enhancement of the Urban Council by expanding into the New Territories. I do not mind what name it is given. I do not mind where its meetings are held--here, or in Kowloon, or in one of the new towns. I do not care which of the three areas its Chairman comes from, but its members should come from all districts. I hope its official language will be Chinese, even though that would make life slightly more difficult for myself. I hope its franchise will automatically include all eligible adults, to avoid vote-rigging.

Any scheme which pinpoints the interests of any particular group must be suspect. The sole purpose must be the welfare of the whole population.

My main concern in supporting one council to cover all areas is that I have found inequalities and injustices existing to a higher degree in the New Territories than in the urban areas. With a united council by any name you would like to call it, and with genuinely concerned members such as some of our young and newly elected members on this Council and on some District Boards, I am convinced that we could make a step forward in democracy. But two councils would, in my opinion, be a backward step that would be contrary to the interests of the public, especially of the people of the New Territories.

In these words, Mr. Chairman, I express my views on the desirability of having only one policy making body according to the terms described in the Motion.

(The Honourable Maria Tam arrived at this point—3.25 p.m.)

MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo (in English):-Mr. Chairman, in rising to support the motion before the Council, I am very conscious of the fact that the views I am about to express will not find favour with the majority of Urban Councillors.

Page 174 of 194

Page 174 of 194