Page 187 of 194
338
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
being one political entity, it is better to have one territory-wide Council to take charge of the rural and urban services for the whole territory of Hong Kong.
In a small area like Hong Kong, the existence of two independent, parallel councils will most likely give rise to competition, jealousness, incoordination and contradictions.
On the other hand, a costly new 'regional' council is a waste of tax-payers' money. At present, rates for the New Territories are low and some villages do not have to pay rates at all. The huge costs of a new 'regional' council will require heavy government subsidy or substantial increase in rates levied on the New Territories. If the job is left to only one council, resources may be better used with more flexibility and large extra costs saved. Therefore, it is unwise to set up a 'regional' council in response to the demands of the traditional influence of the minority there.
For further democratization in Hong Kong, the 'Greater Hong Kong Council' in future, should also enlarge its responsibilities services significant to life of the population such as education, housing, traffic and transport and social welfare. In this way, the Council will be able to reflect popular wishes to plan, to make decisions and to supervise these services for the benefit of Hong Kong people as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, though I was born and grown up in the New Territories, I support the motion.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, in the past, the Government has not been fair to N.T. people because N.T. people do not have the right to manage and administer urban affairs, so when the Chief Secretary make this proposal, I supported his theme and spirit, i.e. to let N.T. people govern and formulate N.T. policies. But I disagree with the way in which these proposals were formulated, particularly the establishment of new council. Actually, if the Government wants to introduce a new service or a new form of Government, he must do so according to one firm principle, but I don't see any principle in the Chief Secretary's proposal, and that principle should be: how can we produce an effective and more economic way of service. I feel that the Chief Secretary's proposal does not meet the principle of providing services to the public. In fact, many members have explained the reasons, such as this would create confusion, this is uneconomical in terms of resource deployment. I don't want to repeat these. The Chief Secretary also mentioned that if not setting up two regional councils but let one council manage, he foresaw difficulties. He mentioned difficulties of having one very large council, unwieldy and ineffective. He also mentioned the difficulty in allowing the Urban Council to take over N.T. affairs, it would probably create difficulty for N.T. people. I consider these two arguments are technical ones. Other members have already proposed various arrangements to overcome these difficulties which I don't want to repeat. I want to make three proposals and hope the Government will consider them.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 187 of 194
339
Firstly, the Government, the Urban Council, relevant departments and interested parties should set up a working party to examine whether we should have one, two or more councils in order to provide the best services for Hong Kong in the interest of resources, deployment, economy and other considerations. From my own point of view, I think this working party must be fully accountable to the public.
My second proposal is that when this working party formulate its recommendations, it should issue a Green Paper for the public to debate, and then produce a White Paper. There must be a full public debate.
My third proposal is connected to the second one. The Government has indeed provided a lot of opportunities to debate on the Government proposals, but I feel the present consultative arrangements are defective. For instance, the consultation in Heung Yee Kuk and district boards are excellent, but I don't think the Government has provided sufficient materials to the district board and Heung Yee Kuk to consider these proposals. All they have is the speech of the Chief Secretary, which I think is not adequate. I don't think the people debated have the full picture. So my third proposal is that the Government must not implement the new arrangements in 1985. We must defer it to at least 1986 so as to give this working party more time to provide Green Paper and White Paper. The most important thing is, whatever decision has made, the new administrative framework will directly or indirectly affect the participation of Hong Kong people in a democratic Government of Hong Kong. So the Government must be very cautious and must not act in haste in 1985. Mr. Chairman, with these three proposals, I support your motion.
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, with regard to the proposed regional council scheme, I would like to make the following comments:
1.
2.
Basic principles
a.
b.
The existence of the Urban Council enables popular participation by way of elected representation in the decision-making process as regards the provision of services in the urban areas. In view of the lack of such an organization in the N.T., I believe the government should provide a similar channel of participation for the N.T. people.
An efficient government should maintain a simple structure and practice economy to save the tax-payers' money. I have to repeat what Mr. CHOW had said. I am afraid there could be 36 brothers dealing with 36 different matters.
Some clarifications
In response to certain public opinions, I wish to offer some clarifications so that we may have a more thorough understanding of the issues.
Page 187 of 194
Page 187 of 194
338
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
being one political entity, it is better to have one territory-wide Council to take charge of the rural and urban services for the whole territory of Hong Kong.
In a small area like Hong Kong, the existence of two independent, parallel councils will most likely give rise to competition, jealousness, incoordination and contradictions.
On the other hand, a costly new 'regional' council is a waste of tax-payers' money. At present, rates for the New Territories are low and some villages do not have to pay rates at all. The huge costs of a new 'regional' council will require heavy government subsidy or substantial increase in rates levied on the New Territories. If the job is left to only one council, resources may be better used with more flexibility and large extra costs saved. Therefore, it is unwise to set up a 'regional' council in response to the demands of the traditional influence of the minority there.
For further democratization in Hong Kong, the 'Greater Hong Kong Council' in future, should also enlarge its responsibilities services significant to life of the population such as education, housing, traffic and transport and social welfare. In this way, the Council will be able to reflect popular wishes to plan, to make decisions and to supervise these services for the benefit of Hong Kong people as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, though I was born and grown up in the New Territories, I support the motion.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, in the past, the Government has not been fair to N.T. people because N.T. people do not have the right to manage and administer urban affairs, so when the Chief Secretary make this proposal, I supported his theme and spirit, i.e. to let N.T. people govern and formulate N.T. policies. But I disagree with the way in which these proposals were formulated, particularly the establishment of new council. Actually, if the Government wants to introduce a new service or a new form of Government, he must do so according to one firm principle, but I don't see any principle in the Chief Secretary's proposal, and that principle should be: how can we produce an effective and more economic way of service. I feel that the Chief Secretary's proposal does not meet the principle of providing services to the public. In fact, many members have explained the reasons, such as this would create confusion, this is uneconomical in terms of resource deployment. I don't want to repeat these. The Chief Secretary also mentioned that if not setting up two regional councils but let one council manage, he foresaw difficulties. He mentioned difficulties of having one very large council, unwieldy and ineffective. He also mentioned the difficulty in allowing the Urban Council to take over N.T. affairs, it would probably create difficulty for N.T. people. I consider these two arguments are technical ones. Other members have already proposed various arrangements to overcome these difficulties which I don't want to repeat. I want to make three proposals and hope the Government will consider them.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 187 of 194
339
Firstly, the Government, the Urban Council, relevant departments and interested parties should set up a working party to examine whether we should have one, two or more councils in order to provide the best services for Hong Kong in the interest of resources, deployment, economy and other considera- tions. From my own point of view, I think this working party must be fully accountable to the public.
My second proposal is that when this working party formulate its recommendations, it should issue a Green Paper for the public to debate, and then produce a White Paper. There must be a full public debate.
My third proposal is connected to the second one. The Government has indeed provided a lot of opportunities to debate on the Government proposals, but I feel the present consultative arrangements are defective. For instance, the consultation in Heung Yee Kuk and district boards are excellent, but I don't think the Government has provided sufficient materials to the district board and Heung Yee Kuk to consider these proposals. All they have is the speech of the Chief Secretary, which I think is not adequate. I don't think the people debated have the full picture. So my third proposal is that the Government must not implement the new arrangements in 1985. We must defer it to at least 1986 so as to give this working party more time to provide Green Paper and White Paper. The most important thing is, whatever decision has made, the new administra- tive framework will directly or indirectly affect the participation of Hong Kong people in a democratic Government of Hong Kong. So the Government must be very cautious and must not act in haste in 1985. Mr. Chairman, with these three proposals, I support your motion.
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, with regard to the proposed regional council scheme, I would like to make the following
comments:
1.
2.
Basic principles
a.
b.
The existence of the Urban Council enables popular participation by way of elected representation in the decision-making process as regards the provision of services in the urban areas. In view of the lack of such an organization in the N.T., I believe the government should provide a similar channel of participation for the N.T. people.
An efficient government should maintain a simple structure and practice economy to save the tax-payers' money. I have to repeat what Mr. CHOW had said. I am afraid there could be 36 brothers dealing with 36 different matters.
Some clarifications
In response to certain public opinions, I wish to offer some clarifications so that we may have a more thorough understanding of the issues.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.