Page 190 of 194
345
344
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Legislative Council. If that is just an initial suggestion, then I think it should be made by the drafter of the proposal, but the department drafting this proposal is the C. & N.T.A. (H.Q.), why can't C. & N.T.A. (H.Q.) make this announcement and consult widely through the media and why is it that the Chief Secretary has to raise this at the Legislative Council? This would mean that the Government is going to do it regardless of the consultative result. Secondly, whenever we have district board discussions, we always consult district board members, however, whenever the district boards discuss this, either the Regional Secretary of the Secretary for District Administration will be present and every time, he will be explaining the proposals of the Chief Secretary and emphasize the goodness of this proposal. Is this consultation or sale? Thirdly, we have three very important persons, the Secretary for District Administration, the Regional Secretary (Hong Kong and Kowloon) and the Regional Secretary (N.T.) who have repeatedly rebutted the proposals put forward by the Urban Councillors, and stated that there should be two councils. Are they consulting us or just making up their minds and telling us what to do? Fourthly, there had been rumours that the Government has set up six committees to look into the possibility of re-organization. Why there are six committees and why there is such a rumour? Fifthly, H.E. the Governor prepared a month ago to have an appointment with Urban Councillors. Of course, the purpose of the appointment was not made clear, but later the appointment was cancelled. However, one week ago, he had a meeting with N.T. residents to consult them on their views about having two councils. Why have the views of N.T. residents been sought and not the Urban Councillors? Why are they being asked about setting up of two councils instead of one? Why are there differences in treatment? From the above five facts, I really doubt whether the Government has made up its mind of having one council or two councils. Is the Government trying to sell or consult? Finally, I would like to make a suggestion. Actually, whether we have one council or two, this would be a political change for the Hong Kong Government framework, and if we have this change, it would directly have a bearing on the 1997 situation. I would think that if we are going to have a change at all, it should tend towards simplicity, representation and democracy and that we should be progressing by stages. Under these principles, there could be two possibilities which we could deal with this reform. The first possibility is: we solely develop the Urban Council to make it into a Greater Hong Kong Council and we expand the powers and authority of the Urban Council. Later on, we should have a wholly elected Greater Hong Kong Council and if that could be achieved, then we could do away with the Legislative Council altogether. The second possibility is that for the next 13 years, we will solely have an elected element in the Legislative Council so that by 1997, we have a totally elected Legislative Council which means that we could abolish the Urban Council as well as the so-called 'Regional Council'. Under the present circumstances, I think it is out of political motivation that the Government decide to have two councils and I think such a decision would impede the development of Hong Kong into a simple representative and
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
legislative Government. Unless at the same time, the Government can decide and announce the fact that the Central Government would become more and more open, otherwise, I will object to the setting up of two councils.
MR. LEE CHIK-YUET (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I want to state clear my position. I am absolutely opposed to the setting up of an additional regional council resulting in Hong Kong having two councils to deal with urban affairs. Rationally, there are analyses made by Members of this Council. I want to make four points: firstly, our objection to the creation of an additional council is not that we want to resist a new one because we offend our own interest. It is not that Urban Council incorporating the interest of N.T., but we should propose arrangement whereby N.T. people can participate in having a say in Hong Kong affairs. It is not the big eating the small, but rather the Urban Council is a reasonable forum. We do not want to over-power the others because we are numerous in size. Another principle is that we do not want to rule rural by urban people. I do not want Hong Kong to create two categories of people, the urban people or the rural people. There is only one type of people in Hong Kong, i.e., Hong Kong people. Of course, because of its historical reason, the N.T. people have certain privileges but these should not, especially under such political circumstances be over-emphasized, otherwise, we will be making additional treaties for Hong Kong. So we must regard Hong Kong people, there should be no 'urban' people or 'N.T.' people, and we must not emphasize our parochial interest, otherwise, we will say that Wan Chai people should govern Wan Chai, Western people should govern Western, and so on. My third principle is that it is not a conflict of interest indeed in the Chief Secretary's proposal. The role of Urban Council has been enhanced. It is said that we are going to take over the Recreation and Culture Department. From that point of view, our response will increase. So we are not asking for additional powers. Members of this Council have also argued from economic and political points of view. I don't want to repeat these arguments. We are not making an emotional statement in our opposition whether or not, the proposal for two councils be accepted. I am quite sure as a forum we would welcome the situation whereby N.T. people will have a say in the way in which N.T. are run, but I hope that we should sit together in one forum to discuss how best we should conduct Hong Kong affairs. I am sure you all agree that if our opposition is not valid or our proposal is not accepted, we will sit together with the N.T. people and see how we can apportion our rates in such a way that we do not have to spend all the urban rates on urban area. In other words, we are not being emotional. We are absolutely rational.
I am dissatisfied with two things. (laughter) The first is: (I am sorry for using colloquialisms in my speech.) As what Mr. FUNG had said, the way the matter is handled is rather extraordinary and very subjective. It is somebody with considerable political status making a statement. There is considerable personal influence in what he said. If this is a proposal made by Director, head of a department, I am quite sure the influence will be less strong. But on the other
Page 190
Page 191
Page
Page 190 of 194
345
344
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Legislative Council. If that is just an initial suggestion, then I think it should be made by the drafter of the proposal, but the department drafting this proposal is the C. & N.T.A. (H.Q.), why can't C. & N.T.A. (H.Q.) make this announcement and consult widely through the media and why is it that the Chief Secretary has to raise this at the Legislative Council? This would mean that the Government is going to do it regardless of the consultative result. Secondly, whenever we have district board discussions, we always consult district board members, however, whenever the district boards discuss this, either the Regional Secretary of the Secretary for District Administration will be present and every time, he will be explaining the proposals of the Chief Secretary and emphasize the goodness of this proposal. Is this consultation or sale? Thirdly, we have three very important persons, the Secretary for District Administration, the Regional Secretary (Hong Kong and Kowloon) and the Regional Secretary (N.T.) who have repeatedly rebutted the proposals put forward by the Urban Councillors, and stated that there should be two councils. Are they consulting us or just making up their minds and telling us what to do? Fourthly, there had been remours that the Government has set up six committees to look into the possibility of re-organization. Why there are six committees and why there is such a rumour? Fifthly, H.E. the Governor prepared a month ago to have an appointment with Urban Councillors. Of course, the purpose of the appointment was not made clear, but later the appointment was cancelled. However, one week ago, he had a meeting with N.T. residents to consult them on their views about having two councils. Why have the views of N.T. residents been sought and not the Urban Councillors? Why are they being asked about setting up of two councils instead of one? Why are there difference in treatment? From the above five facts, I really doubt whether the Government has made up its mind of having one council or two councils. Is the Government trying to sell or consult? Finally, I would like to make a suggestion. Actually, whether we have one council or two, this would be a political change for the Hong Kong Government framework, and if we have this change, it would directly have a bearing on the 1997 situation. I would think that if we are going to have a change at all, it should tend towards simplicity, representation and democracy and that we should be progressing by stages. Under these principles, there could be two possibilities which we could deal with this reform. The first possibility is: we solely develop the Urban Council to make it into a Greater Hong Kong Council and we expand the powers and authority of the Urban Council. Later on, we should have a wholly elected Greater Hong Kong Council and if that could be achieved, then we could do away with the Legislative Council altogether. The second possibility is that for the next 13 years, we will solely have an elected element in the Legislative Council so that by 1997, we have a totally elected Legislative Council which means that we could abolish the Urban Council as well as the so called 'Regional Council'. Under the present circumstances. I think it is out of political motivation that the Government decide to have two councils and I think such a decision would impede the development of Hong Kong into a simple representative and
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
legitimative Government. Unless at the same time, the Government can decide and announce the fact that the Central Government would become more and more open, otherwise, I will object the setting up of two councils.
MR. LEE CHIK-YUET (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I want to state clear of my position. I am absolutely oppose the setting up of an additional regional council resulting in Hong Kong having two councils to deal with urban affairs. Rationally, there are analysis made by Members of this Council. I want to make four points: firstly, our objection to the creation of an additional council is not that we want to resist a new one because we offence our own interest. It is not that Urban Council incorporating the interesting of N.T., but we should propose arrangement whereby N.T. people can participate in having a say in Hong Kong affairs. It is not the big eating the small, but rather the Urban Council is a reasonable forum. We do not want to over-power the others because we are numerous in size. Another principle is that we do not want to rule rural by urban people. I do not want Hong Kong to create two categories of people, the urban people or the rural people. There is only one type of people in Hong Kong, i.e. Hong Kong people. Of course, because of its historical reason, the N.T. people have certain privileges but these should not, especially under such political circumstances be over-emphasized, otherwise, we will be making additional treaties for Hong Kong. So we must regard Hong Kong people, there should be no 'urban' people or 'N.T.' people, and we must not emphasize our parochial interest, otherwise, we will say that Wan Chai people should govern Wan Chai, Western people should govern Western, and so on. My third principle is that it is not a conflict of interest indeed in the Chief Secretary's proposal. The role of Urban Council has been enhanced. It is said that we are going to take over the Recreation and Culture Department. From that point of view, our response will increase. So we are not asking for additional powers. Members of this Council have also argued from economic and political point of view. I don't want to repeat these arguments. We are not making an emotional statement in our opposition whether or not, the proposal for two councils be accepted. I am quite sure as a forum we would welcome the situation whereby N.T. people will have a say in the way in which N.T. are run, but I hope that we should sit together in one forum to discuss how best we should conduct Hong Kong affairs. I am sure you all agree that if our opposition is not valid or our proposal is not accepted, we will sit together with the N.T. people and see how we can apportion our rates in such a way that we do not have to spend all the urban rates on urban area. In other words, we are not being emotional. We are absolutely rational.
I am dissatisfied with two things. (laughter) The first is: (I am sorry for using colloquialisms in my speech.) As what Mr. FUNG had said, the way the matter is handled is rather extra-ordinary and very subjective. It is somebody with considerable political status making a statement. There is considerable personal influence in what he said. If this is a proposal made by Director, head of a department, I am quite sure the influence will be less strong. But on the other
Page 190Page 191
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.