1983 — Page 43

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 43 of 194

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

is probably the liveliest one we had in 10 years. Meetings of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council on the contrary often become a forum for lively, informal debate. Members of the public would no doubt be interested to hear how their elected representatives vote. They might be surprised, for example, to see how Members, as candidates promising to fight for this and struggle for that, may keep their mouths shut in meetings. Accountability to the public is what democracy is all about. If everything is done in secret, how can the public see whether or not we are accountable. Public opinion has something to tell us and we should be prepared to listen. With all its faults, there is no substitute for democracy except something worse, dictatorship by power seekers. For these reasons, I support Mr. BERNACCHI's motion, which makes a very small step towards democracy and more open policy by the Urban Council and a chance to know public opinion and formulate policies for the public good. I support the motion.

MR. YOUNG (in English):—As I see it, there are two motions being discussed at the moment. One is moved by Mr. BERNACCHI that hopes that we will approve in principle now that Standing Committees be open to the public. The second one is the one raised by Miss Maria TAM under Standing Order 15(c) that suggests that the whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee, and I take it that if we agree to Miss TAM's motion, we won't have to vote on Mr. BERNACCHI's motion until a later date. Since we are also talking about Mr. BERNACCHI's motion, I would like to share my observations on that particular motion with Members.

The proposal is to have Standing Committee meetings open to the public, but in my opinion, this is only one method of doing things, and I have been thinking very hard since I saw the notice of this motion on what would be the likely result, and what are the objectives of such a motion. As I see it, one of the objectives is to let the public have a better idea of what the Council does. In other words, to use Mr. BERNACCHI's own word, the enormous amount of work done by the Urban Council, and another Councillor who just spoke also said that in a meeting just as today, the public is able to see what the Councillors stood for and how they are going to be accountable to the public. This point, I support entirely. Mrs. ELLIOTT also mentioned that today's open meeting is one of the liveliest we have had in 10 years. I cannot comment on 10 years since I have only been on the Council for 5 years, but I would say yes, I do too agree that it is lively today, not only because we have a perhaps rather controversial motion, but also because of the fact that we have on the agenda 7 questions, two of which were asked by Members who were elected to the Council and accountable to the public. I think this is a very good way of letting the public know the amount of work we do and a very good way of livening up our meetings. So, as for the objective of letting the public have an idea of what we do, I support the objective entirely, although I do have some reservations on whether that is the best way to go about it.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 43 of 194

The second point or the objective is to lessen the communication gap that supposedly exists between the Members of the Council and the members of the public. I agree that if we are seen to be doing everything in so-called secret, then, of course, there will be a communication gap, and I think that ought not to be so. We must really find out some way of trying to bridge this communication gap. Of course, the best way is to let the public know honestly what we are talking about, what we have decided, and perhaps even what each Councillor said when he was either for or against a particular issue. Now, on that score, I believe that opening the Standing Committee to the public is possibly one way, but there may be another way also; for instance, why can't we, after and before every Standing Committee, let the public know every single item on the agenda that is to be discussed and also let them know what we have discussed immediately. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Vice-Chairman of the Urban Council, in his capacity as Chairman of another advisory committee, has adopted this sort of practice that a press release goes out immediately, telling the public what it is that has been decided. So, I also agree that we ought to bridge the communication gap. I am not entirely convinced that having the Standing Committee meeting in public is the only way. It may be one way. It might be the best way; on the other hand, it might not be the best way. I am not entirely convinced at this stage.

The third point on the likely effects of the opening of the Standing Committee meetings and the objective of this exercise is that it will probably increase the publicity of the Council and also, I would imagine, the increase in most instances of the popularity of the Councillors. I am in two minds about this one, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, we do wish to have publicity on what the Urban Council does and what it does for the public. On the other hand, I don't think we ought to try and get publicity for the sake of publicity, if that is done at the expense of Councillors speaking freely, because we must bear in mind that when people speak, it is conceivable that one could be inhibited if you are for a certain measure; on the other hand, if you think you might lose votes, for instance, because you spoke that way. I think it would be unfair to Councillors if they have to impair their judgement because of that. So, I think there are virtues in having some discussions in private. In fact, I believe Mr. BERNACCHI himself has also suggested that matters of a confidential nature should not be made public anyway.

The fourth point or objective, as I see it from listening to Mr. BERNACCHI's speech, is there appears to be an attempt to claw back or perhaps even steal some limelight from the district boards; in other words, let the limelight shine back on the Urban Council. Now, I am not convinced that we ought to try and do that. I agree that in the past, there was no such thing as District Boards, but surely we must not become jealous of the District Boards and say just because they have open meetings and all the press publicity that we, as the Urban Council, ought to try and steal the limelight and get more publicity. I don't think that is a very good objective. We should not be thinking along these lines, and I am quite sure that the District Boards would not like that to happen.

Edit History

2026-05-15 11:07:34 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 43 of 194 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL is probably the liveliest one we had in 10 years. Meetings of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council on the contrary often become a forum for lively, informal debate. Members of the public would no doubt be interested to hear how their elected representatives vote. They might be surprised, for example, to see how Members, as candidates promising to fight for this and struggle for that, may keep their mouths shut in meetings. Accountability to the public is what democracy is all about. If everything is done in secret, how can the public see whether or not we are accountable. Public opinion has something to tell us and we should be prepared to listen. With all its faults, there is no substitute for democracy except something worse, dictatorship by power seekers. For these reasons, I support Mr. BERNACCHI's motion, which makes a very small step towards democracy and more open policy by the Urban Council and a chance to know public opinion and formulate policies for the public good. I support the motion. MR. YOUNG (in English):—As I see it, there are two motions being discussed at the moment. One is moved by Mr. BERNACCHI that hopes that we will approve in principle now that Standing Committees be open to the public. The second one is the one raised by Miss Maria TAM under Standing Order 15(c) that suggests that the whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee, and I take it that if we agree to Miss TAM's motion, we won't have to vote on Mr. BERNACCHI's motion until a later date. Since we are also talking about Mr. BERNACCHI's motion, I would like to share my observations on that particular motion with Members. The proposal is to have Standing Committee meetings open to the public, but in my opinion, this is only one method of doing things, and I have been thinking very hard since I saw the notice of this motion on what would be the likely result, and what are the objectives of such a motion. As I see it, one of the objectives is to let the public have a better idea of what the Council does. In other words, to use Mr. BERNACCHI's own word, the enormous amount of work done by the Urban Council, and another Councillor who just spoke also said that in a meeting just as today, the public is able to see what the Councillors stood for and how they are going to be accountable to the public. This point, I support entirely. Mrs. ELLIOTT also mentioned that today's open meeting is one of the liveliest we have had in 10 years. I cannot comment on 10 years since I have only been on the Council for 5 years, but I would say yes, I do too agree that it is lively today, not only because we have a perhaps rather controversial motion, but also because of the fact that we have on the agenda 7 questions, two of which were asked by Members who were elected to the Council and accountable to the public. I think this is a very good way of letting the public know the amount of work we do and a very good way of livening up our meetings. So, as for the objective of letting the public have an idea of what we do, I support the objective entirely, although I do have some reservations on whether that is the best way to go about it. HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 43 of 194 The second point or the objective is to lessen the communication gap that supposedly exists between the Members of the Council and the members of the public. I agree that if we are seen to be doing everything in so-called secret, then, of course, there will be a communication gap, and I think that ought not to be so. We must really find out some way of trying to bridge this communication gap. Of course, the best way is to let the public know honestly what we are talking about, what we have decided, and perhaps even what each Councillor said when he was either for or against a particular issue. Now, on that score, I believe that opening the Standing Committee to the public is possibly one way, but there may be another way also; for instance, why can't we, after and before every Standing Committee, let the public know every single item on the agenda that is to be discussed and also let them know what we have discussed immediately. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Vice-Chairman of the Urban Council, in his capacity as Chairman of another advisory committee, has adopted this sort of practice that a press release goes out immediately, telling the public what it is that has been decided. So, I also agree that we ought to bridge the communication gap. I am not entirely convinced that having the Standing Committee meeting in public is the only way. It may be one way. It might be the best way; on the other hand, it might not be the best way. I am not entirely convinced at this stage. The third point on the likely effects of the opening of the Standing Committee meetings and the objective of this exercise is that it will probably increase the publicity of the Council and also, I would imagine, the increase in most instances of the popularity of the Councillors. I am in two minds about this one, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, we do wish to have publicity on what the Urban Council does and what it does for the public. On the other hand, I don't think we ought to try and get publicity for the sake of publicity, if that is done at the expense of Councillors speaking freely, because we must bear in mind that when people speak, it is conceivable that one could be inhibited if you are for a certain measure; on the other hand, if you think you might lose votes, for instance, because you spoke that way. I think it would be unfair to Councillors if they have to impair their judgement because of that. So, I think there are virtues in having some discussions in private. In fact, I believe Mr. BERNACCHI himself has also suggested that matters of a confidential nature should not be made public anyway. The fourth point or objective, as I see it from listening to Mr. BERNACCHI's speech, is there appears to be an attempt to claw back or perhaps even steal some limelight from the district boards; in other words, let the limelight shine back on the Urban Council. Now, I am not convinced that we ought to try and do that. I agree that in the past, there was no such thing as District Boards, but surely we must not become jealous of the District Boards and say just because they have open meetings and all the press publicity that we, as the Urban Council, ought to try and steal the limelight and get more publicity. I don't think that is a very good objective. We should not be thinking along these lines, and I am quite sure that the District Boards would not like that to happen.

Baseline (Original)

age 43 of 194 Page 43 of 194 56 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL is probably the liveliest one we had in 10 years. Meetings of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council on the contrary often become a forum for lively, informal debate. Members of the public would no doubt be interested to hear how their elected representatives vote. They might be surprised, for example to see how Members as candidates promising to fight for this and struggle for that, may keep their mouths shut in meetings. Accountability to the public is what democracy is all about. If everything is done in secret, how can the public see whether or not we are accountable. Public opinion has something to tell us and we should be prepared to listen. With all its faults, there is no substitute for democracy except something worse, dictatorship by power seekers. For these reasons, I support Mr. BERNACCHI's motion which makes very small step towards democracy and more open policy by the Urban Council and a chance to know public opinion and formulate policies for the public good. I support the motion. a MR. YOUNG (in English):—As I see it, there are two motions being discussed at the moment. One is moved by Mr. BERNACCHI that hopes that we will approve in principle now that Standing Committees be open to the public. The second one is the one raised by Miss Maria TAM under Standing Order 15(c) that suggests that the whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee, and I take it that if we agree to Miss TAM's motion, we won't have to vote on Mr. BERNACCHI'S motion until a later date. Since we are also talking about Mr. BERNACCHI'S motion, I would like to share my observations on that particular motion with Members. The proposal is to have Standing Committee meetings open to the public, but in my opinion, this is only one method of doing things and I have been thinking very hard since I saw the notice of this motion on what would be the likely result, and what are the objectives of such a motion. As I see it, one of the objectives is to let the public have a better idea of what the Council does. In other words, to use Mr. BERNACCHI's own word, the enormous amount of work done by the Urban Council, and another Councillor who just spoke also said that in a meeting just as today, the public is able to see what the Councillors stood for and how they are going to be accountable to the public. This point, I support entirely. Mrs. ELLIOTT also mentioned that today's open meeting is one of the liveliest we have had in 10 years. I cannot comment on 10 years since I have only been on the Council for 5 years, but I would say yes, I do too agree that it is lively today, not only because we have a perhaps rather controversial motion, but also because of the fact that we have on the agenda 7 questions, two of which were asked by Members who were elected to the Council and accountable to the public. I think this is a very good way of letting the public know the amount of work we do and a very good way of livening up our meetings. So, as for the objective of letting the public have an idea of what we do, I support the objective entirely although I do have some reservations on whether that is the best way to go about it. HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 43 of 194 57 The second point or the objective is to lessen the communication gap that supposedly exists between the Members of the Council and the members of the public. I agree that if we are seen to be doing everything in so called secret, then of course, there will be a communication gap and I think that ought not be so. We must really find out some way of trying to bridge this communication gap. Of course, the best way is to let the public know honestly what we are talking about, what we have decided and perhaps even what each Councillor said when he was either for or against a particular issue. Now on that score, I believe that opening the Standing Committee to the public is possibly one way, but there may be another way also, for instance, why can't we after and before every Standing Committee let the public know every single item on the agenda that is to be discussed and also let them know what we have discussed immediately. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Vice-Chairman of the Urban Council, in his capacity of Chairman of another advisory committee, has adopted this sort of practice that a press release goes out immediately, telling the public what it is that has been decided. So I also agree that we ought to bridge the communication gap. I am not entirely convinced that having the Standing Committee meeting in public is the only one way. It may be one way. It might be the best way, on the other hand, it might not be the best way. I am not entirely convinced at this stage. The third point on the likely effects of the opening of the Standing Committee meetings and the objective of this exercise is that it will probably increase the publicity of the Council and also I would imagine the increase in most instances of the popularity of the Councillors. I am in two minds about this one, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, we do wish to have publicity on what the Urban Council does and what it does for the public. On the other hand, I don't think we ought to try and get publicity for the sake of publicity, if that is done at the expense of Councillors speaking freely because we must bear in mind that when people speak, it is conceivable that one could be inhibited if you are for a certain measure, on the other hand, if you think you might lose votes, for instance, because you spoke that way. I think it would be unfair to Councillors if they have to impair their judgement because of that. So I think there are virtues in having some discussions in private. In fact, I believe Mr. BERNACCHI himself has also suggested that matters of a confidential nature should not be made public anyway. The fourth point or objective, as I see it from listening to Mr. BERNACCHI'S speech, is there appears to be an attempt to claw back or perhaps even steal some lime light from the district boards, in other words, let the lime light shine back on the Urban Council. Now, I am not convinced that we ought to try and do that. I agree that in the past, there was no such thing as District Boards, but surely we must not become jealous of the District Boards and say just because they have open meetings and all the press publicity that we, as the Urban Council, ought to try and steal the lime light and get more publicity. I don't think that is a very good objective. We should not be thinking along these lines and I am quite sure that the District Boards would not like that to happen.

2026-05-15 11:07:34 · Baseline

View content

age 43 of 194

Page 43 of 194

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

is probably the liveliest one we had in 10 years. Meetings of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council on the contrary often become a forum for lively, informal debate. Members of the public would no doubt be interested to hear how their elected representatives vote. They might be surprised, for example to see how Members as candidates promising to fight for this and struggle for that, may keep their mouths shut in meetings. Accountability to the public is what democracy is all about. If everything is done in secret, how can the public see whether or not we are accountable. Public opinion has something to tell us and we should be prepared to listen. With all its faults, there is no substitute for democracy except something worse, dictatorship by power seekers. For these reasons, I support Mr. BERNACCHI's motion which makes very small step towards democracy and more open policy by the Urban Council and a chance to know public opinion and formulate policies for the public good. I support the motion.

MR. YOUNG (in English):—As I see it, there are two motions being discussed at the moment. One is moved by Mr. BERNACCHI that hopes that we will approve in principle now that Standing Committees be open to the public. The second one is the one raised by Miss Maria TAM under Standing Order 15(c) that suggests that the whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee, and I take it that if we agree to Miss TAM's motion, we won't have to vote on Mr. BERNACCHI'S motion until a later date. Since we are also talking about Mr. BERNACCHI'S motion, I would like to share my observations on that particular motion with Members.

The proposal is to have Standing Committee meetings open to the public, but in my opinion, this is only one method of doing things and I have been thinking very hard since I saw the notice of this motion on what would be the likely result, and what are the objectives of such a motion. As I see it, one of the objectives is to let the public have a better idea of what the Council does. In other words, to use Mr. BERNACCHI's own word, the enormous amount of work done by the Urban Council, and another Councillor who just spoke also said that in a meeting just as today, the public is able to see what the Councillors stood for and how they are going to be accountable to the public. This point, I support entirely. Mrs. ELLIOTT also mentioned that today's open meeting is one of the liveliest we have had in 10 years. I cannot comment on 10 years since I have only been on the Council for 5 years, but I would say yes, I do too agree that it is lively today, not only because we have a perhaps rather controversial motion, but also because of the fact that we have on the agenda 7 questions, two of which were asked by Members who were elected to the Council and accountable to the public. I think this is a very good way of letting the public know the amount of work we do and a very good way of livening up our meetings. So, as for the objective of letting the public have an idea of what we do, I support the objective entirely although I do have some reservations on whether that is the best way to go about it.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 43 of 194

The second point or the objective is to lessen the communication gap that supposedly exists between the Members of the Council and the members of the public. I agree that if we are seen to be doing everything in so called secret, then of course, there will be a communication gap and I think that ought not be so. We must really find out some way of trying to bridge this communication gap. Of course, the best way is to let the public know honestly what we are talking about, what we have decided and perhaps even what each Councillor said when he was either for or against a particular issue. Now on that score, I believe that opening the Standing Committee to the public is possibly one way, but there may be another way also, for instance, why can't we after and before every Standing Committee let the public know every single item on the agenda that is to be discussed and also let them know what we have discussed immediately. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Vice-Chairman of the Urban Council, in his capacity of Chairman of another advisory committee, has adopted this sort of practice that a press release goes out immediately, telling the public what it is that has been decided. So I also agree that we ought to bridge the communication gap. I am not entirely convinced that having the Standing Committee meeting in public is the only one way. It may be one way. It might be the best way, on the other hand, it might not be the best way. I am not entirely convinced at this stage.

The third point on the likely effects of the opening of the Standing Committee meetings and the objective of this exercise is that it will probably increase the publicity of the Council and also I would imagine the increase in most instances of the popularity of the Councillors. I am in two minds about this one, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, we do wish to have publicity on what the Urban Council does and what it does for the public. On the other hand, I don't think we ought to try and get publicity for the sake of publicity, if that is done at the expense of Councillors speaking freely because we must bear in mind that when people speak, it is conceivable that one could be inhibited if you are for a certain measure, on the other hand, if you think you might lose votes, for instance, because you spoke that way. I think it would be unfair to Councillors if they have to impair their judgement because of that. So I think there are virtues in having some discussions in private. In fact, I believe Mr. BERNACCHI himself has also suggested that matters of a confidential nature should not be made public anyway.

The fourth point or objective, as I see it from listening to Mr. BERNACCHI'S speech, is there appears to be an attempt to claw back or perhaps even steal some lime light from the district boards, in other words, let the lime light shine back on the Urban Council. Now, I am not convinced that we ought to try and do that. I agree that in the past, there was no such thing as District Boards, but surely we must not become jealous of the District Boards and say just because they have open meetings and all the press publicity that we, as the Urban Council, ought to try and steal the lime light and get more publicity. I don't think that is a very good objective. We should not be thinking along these lines and I am quite sure that the District Boards would not like that to happen.

1983 — Page 43

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note