Page 42 of 194
34
54
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
fact that I can sit here, not because I am anything special, but rather due to the support given to me by the citizens in my work at the Urban Council, therefore I have both the responsibilities and the duty to answer to my electors. From the point of view of the Urban Council, since half of the Members are elected by the public, then all these Elected Members should answer to their electors on what they have done in the Urban Council. Under this set up, we do have the necessity to open up the Standing Committee meeting, and I think that this is an indispensable step towards open Government.
(b) Apart from this monthly open meeting, which is open to the public, the things discussed in the monthly meeting are different from those discussed in select committees as you all know. Many things we discuss in the select committees are not mentioned at the monthly meeting. So what are the things said in the select committees? What are the things done in the select committees? We can open up the Standing Committee to let public see whether we have done anything. Have we, the Elected Members representing them, said anything? So I think it is necessary to open the Standing Committee to the public.
(c) If we open the Standing Committee, it is a good test for the Urban Council. We have now an election process. Now what are we going to do? Do we still close our doors and discuss matters amongst the 30 of us. Why can't we adopt a more open attitude to let the public be aware of the procedures by which we reach a conclusion. This would also be a challenge to the Hong Kong public. We always say that the public are apolitical. Actually this is because they lack the chance of participation. If we can open up the Urban Council, we can give it a real test to see whether we are really approaching a new era, whether we are adopting a more open attitude towards the public, and whether the public would be less apolitical and more enthusiastic in their participation in public affairs. Only by doing this can we assess the position.
(d) Only if we open the Standing Committee, will the Hong Kong public become aware how the Urban Council runs and see its procedures. This is very important because when I was running my campaign, everywhere I went, I received a lot of questions from the public, and most of the questions were unconnected with the Council. I did not even know there were 12 Select Committees in the Urban Council until I worked here. Why was that? Because most of the things were held in secret and if the public were aware of that, they would not raise so many questions un-connected with the Urban Council.
(e) A lot of points raised regarding administrative and technical difficulties or even confidentiality. Well, we can discuss these things under certain circumstances. Some of those things will touch on and cause speculation, such as the licensing policy or the reclamation of public land, things like these do not have to be discussed in open meetings. In the U.K. Parliament except for matters connected with national security, all other matters can be discussed openly in the Parliament. If a nation can do that, why can't we do it. Is the Urban Council more sensitive than a whole nation?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 42 of 194
55
be discussed openly in the Parliament. If a nation can do that, why can't we do it. Is the Urban Council more sensitive than a whole nation?
MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Secretary to give us an information on a very long debate on 24 September 1974. The topic we discussed then was whether more matters should be discussed in the U.C. Open Meeting. Actually, that motion was rather technical and was not as easily comprehensible as the one moved today. At that time, the Standing Committee took quite a lot of time in discussing it, and the monthly meeting spent even more time on further discussion. However, not much came out of it. If we look at the debate held at that time, my personal view is that we should bring more matters to the U.C. Open Meeting for discussion and let the public know more. However, it would be time consuming if we bring up all matters for discussion in the Open Meeting. Many examples were listed out in the Secretary's Report at that time. I think in principle, most of the Members, especially the Elected Members, would like to let the public know what we have done and how far we have gone. Then after a few years, the public can decide who should continue to be a Councillor. So in principle, we should look into more detail on what circumstances more matters should be brought up for discussion at the Open Meeting. If we simply move the motion today, we may have many points not being clarified, just like last time, we have many things that need to be discussed in detail.
I agree that more matters should be discussed openly here. If we think that it is too formal to discuss the matter by standing up, then we can, according to the Standing Order No. 15(d), change this meeting into committee meeting. I agree that this motion be discussed further and in more detail so as to make our meeting more open with more public participation and awareness, therefore, I support the motion moved by Miss TAM and seconded by Dr. CHAM to pass this motion to the Standing Committee for further discussion. We can disclose anything that discussed in the Standing Committee, if we want to. There is nothing that can prevent us from doing so.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the motion proposed by Mr. BERNACCHI. Though personally, I should have preferred to revert to the situation prior to the motion on the 14 August 1973. Soon after the Council became financially autonomous and more divided than ever before in its history, that motion was set as a trap to keep discussion by the Council secret from the public and unfortunately, we all fell into the trap because we never imagined such treachery. Before August 1973, many lively discussions took place in these public meetings and electors had the opportunity of seeing how their elected representatives dealt with policies affecting the public. The 1973 motion effectively silenced debate in public meetings and caused all decisions to be made behind close doors until it became a fait accompli. As a result of the changes made in 1973, public meetings of this Council have become extremely dull formalities of little or no interest to the public. In fact, today's meeting
Page 42 of 194
34
54
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
fact that I can sit here, not because I am anything special, but rather due to the support given to me by the citizens in my work at the Urban Council, therefore I have both the responsibilities and the duty to answer to my electors. From the point of view of the Urban Council, since half of the Members are elected by the public, then all these Elected Members should answer to their electors on what they have done in the Urban Council. Under this set up, we do have the necessity to open up the Standing Committee meeting, and I think that this is an indispensable step towards open Government.
(b) Apart from this monthly open meeting, which is open to the public, the things discussed in the monthly meeting are different from those discussed in select committees as you all know. Many things we discuss in the select committees are not mentioned at the monthly meeting. So what are the things said in the select committees? What are the things done in the select committees? We can open up the Standing Committee to let public see whether we have done anything. Have we, the Elected Members representing them, said anything? So I think it is necessary to open the Standing Committee to the public.
(c) If we open the Standing Committee, it is a good test for the Urban Council. We have now an election process. Now what are we going to do? Do we still close our doors and discuss matters amongst the 30 of us. Why can't we adopt a more open attitude to let the public be aware of the procedures by which we reach a conclusion. This would also be a challenge to the Hong Kong public. We always say that the public are apolitical. Actually this is because they lack the chance of participation. If we can open up the Urban Council, we can give it a real test to see whether we are really approaching a new era, whether we are adopting a more open attitude towards the public, and whether the public would be less apolitical and more enthusiastic in their participation in public affairs. Only by doing this can we assess the position.
(d) Only if we open the Standing Committee, will the Hong Kong public become aware how the Urban Council runs and see its procedures. This is very important because when I was running my campaign, everywhere I went, I received a lot of questions from the public, and most of the questions were unconnected with the Council. I did not even know there were 12 Select Committees in the Urban Council until I worked here. Why was that? Because most of the things were held in secret and if the public were aware of that, they would not raise so many questions un-connected with the Urban Council.
(e) A lot of points raised regarding administrative and technical difficulties or even confidentiality. Well, we can discuss these things under certain cir- cumstances. Some of those things will touch on and cause speculation, such as the licensing policy or the reclamation of public land, things like these do not have to be discussed in open meetings. In the U.K. Parliament except for matters connected with national security, all other matters can
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 42 of 194
55
be discussed openly in the Parliament. If a nation can do that, why can't we do it. Is the Urban Council more sensitive than a whole nation?
MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Secretary to give us an information on a very long debate on 24 September 1974. The topic we discussed then was whether more matters should be discussed in the U.C. Open Meeting. Actually, that motion was rather technical and was not as easily comprehensible as the one moved today. At that time, the Standing Committee took quite a lot of time in discussing it, and the monthly meeting spent even more time on further discussion. However, not much came out of it. If we look at the debate held at that time, my personal view is that we should bring more matters to the U.C. Open Meeting for discussion and let the public know more. However, it would be time consuming if we bring up all matters for discussion in the Open Meeting. Many examples were listed out in the Secretary's Report at that time. I think in principle, most of the Members, especially the Elected Members, would like to let the public know what we have done and how far we have gone. Then after a few years, the public can decide who should continue to be a Councillor. So in principle, we should look into more detail on what circumstances more matters should be brought up for discussion at the Open Meeting. If we simply move the motion today, we may have many points not being clarified, just like last time, we have many things that need to be discussed in detail.
I agree that more matters should be discussed openly here. If we think that it is too formal to discuss the matter by standing up, then we can, according to the Standing Order No. 15(d), change this meeting into committee meeting. I agree that this motion be discussed further and in more detail so as to make our meeting more open with more public participation and awareness, therefore, I support the motion moved by Miss TAM and seconded by Dr. CHAM to pass this motion to the Standing Committee for further discussion. We can disclose anything that discussed in the Standing Committee, if we want to. There is nothing that can prevent us from doing so.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the motion proposed by Mr. BERNACCHI. Though personally, I should have preferred to revert to the situation prior to the motion on the 14 August 1973. Soon after the Council became financially autonomous and more divided than ever before in its history, that motion was set as a trap to keep discussion by the Council secret from the public and unfortunately, we all fell into the trap because we never imagined such treachery. Before August 1973, many lively discussions took place in these public meetings and electors had the opportunity of seeing how their elected representatives dealt with policies affecting the public. The 1973 motion effectively silenced debate in public meetings and caused all decisions to be made behind close doors until it became a fait accompli. As a result of the changes made in 1973, public meetings of this Council have become extremely dull formalities of little or no interest to the public. In fact, today's meeting
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.