Page 100 of 201
158
3.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
(4) seek redress for members of the public from a higher level, which means England before 1997, and Beijing afterwards;
(5) submit reports to the Governor only;
(6) receive public complaints on behalf of the Governor, so to the Government House should be banned; petition
(7) criticize any fault in government administration and suggest rectifications.
It is only with a combination of these points that the Commissioner for Administration's independent status and special powers with which he handles public complaints independently and effectively can be demonstrated.
Ways to improve the Urbco's existing avenue of complaint:
(1) Setting up offices of Urban Councillors to facilitate the Councillors' meeting with the public. An office should be set up in the City Hall for Councillors of Hong Kong Island, and another in Hong Kong Cultural Centre in Tsimshatsui for Councillors of Kowloon side. Each Councillor should have his own office served by a full-time secretary. Offices for the Councillors should also be provided in Urban Council complexes in various districts;
(2) Right to interview government officials involved for oral or written testimony and to order submission of documents;
(3) Right to suggest ways of improvement if faults in departmental administration are verified;
(4) Submission to the Commissioner for Administration reports on matters the Councillors fail to handle;
(5) A raise of allowance for the Councillors.
Conclusion: To remedy the limitations of the existing avenues of complaint and appeal, to cope with future changes and needs of Hong Kong where there is not a truly democratic council at present, nor is there one anticipated in the future, to guarantee members of the public the rights and interests they are entitled to enjoy, to uphold justice, to redress wrongs and to rectify maladministration, it is necessary to set up an independent authority, with special power to handle grievances of the public. Sir, I support the motion.
(Dr. Ronald LEUNG left the meeting at 3.59 p.m.)
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 100 of 201
159
CHAIRMAN (in English):—It seems to reach the half way mark of the speeches so with your permission I now declare a short recess about five to ten minutes.
(A recess of 5 minutes at 4.05 p.m. and the Council resumed at 4.10 p.m.)
(Mr. Stephen LAU and Dr. Philip Kwok left the meeting after the recess.)
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have the following words to say concerning the consultative document. I think in the future structure of Government, we must make sure that the bureaucratic system should be abolished and a democratic one be set up. In a bureaucratic system, a complaint can only be lodged before the consent of the officials is obtained. However, the democratic system will enable the people to lodge complaints freely without any interruption. By doing so, we can also prevent corruption. I understand that the contents of this document was made in response to the Governor's opening address on 30 October last year that the public would be consulted on the existing channels of complaints. I personally think that this document is very conservative and low key. Its contents are far from concrete as there is a lack of detailed analysis and useful information in it. I have the following criticisms. Firstly, the consultative document does not mention much demerits on the existing channels of complaints. In summary, three suggestions are made: 1) to maintain status quo until the 1987 review of representative Government; 2) to improve the existing channels i.e. to do something about the handling of appeal cases by the existing channels; and 3) to set up an office of the Commissioner for Administration. However, we are only given negative comments rather than positive ones in the document and the paper seemed to have expressed complete satisfaction to the existing channels of complaint. Mr. SULKE has rightly pointed out that this conclusion is rather misleading to the general public. The powers to be vested to the future Commissioner for Administration as proposed in the document are really very limited. Moreover, the origin of its power, tenure of office and the accountability of the proposed Commissioner for Administration have not been clearly shown. Secondly, the establishment of the Commissioner for Administration should be geared towards the assessment on the limitations of the existing systems. We should assess the limitations and proposed concrete methods of improvement to the existing system. Besides, the merits of the proposed improvement should also be stated. In the past, although elected members had received a lot of complaints, the only thing we could do was just to refer the complaints to the relevant departments. We do not have any powers to ask the relevant departments to listen to our views. It is up to them to adopt our suggestions or not. Secondly, more information should be provided to enable us to carry out in-depth study to examine the feasibility of setting up the office of Commissioner for Administration. We should also get more information concerning Ombudsman in other countries. Finally, I think that the future Commissioner for Administration must be independent and fair. He must have sufficient powers, financial resources and manpower to facilitate the operation of his office and to enable
Page 100
Page 101
Page 101 of 201
Page 100 of 201
158
3.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
(4) seek redress for members of the public from a higher level, which
means England before 1997, and Beijing afterwards;
(5) submit reports to the Governor only;
(6) receive public complaints on behalf of the Governor, so
to the Government House should be banned;
petition
(7) criticize any fault in government administration and suggest
rectifications.
It is only with a combination of these points that the Commissioner for Administration's independent status and special powers with which he handles public complaints independently and effectively can be demonstrated.
Ways to improve the Urbco's existing avenue of complaint:
(1) Setting up offices of Urban Councillors to facilitate the Councillors' meeting with the public. An office should be set up in the City Hall for Councillors of Hong Kong Island, and another in Hong Kong Cultural Centre in Tsimshatsui for Councillors of Kowloon side. Each Councillor should have his own office served by a full-time secretary. Offices for the Councillors should also be provided in Urban Council complexes in various districts;
(2) Right to interview government officials involved for oral or written
testimony and to order submission of documents;
(3) Right to suggest ways of improvement if faults in departmental
administration are verified;
(4) Submission to the Commissioner for Administration reports on
matters the Councillors fail to handle;
(5) A raise of allowance for the Councillors.
Conclusion: To remedy the limitations of the existing avenues of complaint and appeal, to cope with future changes and needs of Hong Kong where there is not a truly democratic council at present, nor is there one anticipated in the future, to guarantee members of the public the rights and interests they are entitled to enjoy, to uphold justice, to redress wrongs and to rectify maladministration, it is necessary to set up an independent authority, with special power to handle grievances of the public. Sir, I support the motion.
(Dr. Ronald LEUNG left the meeting at 3.59 p.m.)
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 100 of 201
159
CHAIRMAN (in English):-It seems to reach the half way mark of the speeches so with your permission I now declare a short recess about five to ten minutes.
(A recess of 5 minutes at 4.05 p.m. and the Council resumed at 4.10 p.m.)
(Mr. Stephen LAU and Dr. Philip Kwok left the meeting after the recess.)
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have the following words to say concerning the consultative document. I think in the future structure of Government, we must make sure that the bureaucratic system should be abolished and a democratic one be set up. In a bureaucratic system, a complaint can only be lodged before the consent of the officials is obtained. However, the democratic system will enable the people to lodge complaints freely without any interruption. By doing so, we can also prevent corruption. I understand that the contents of this document was made in response to the Governor's opening address on 30 October last year that the public would be consulted on the existing channels of complaints. I personally think that this document is very conservative and low key. Its contents are far from concrete as there is a lack of detailed analysis and useful information in it. I have the following criticisms. Firstly, the consultative document does not mention much demerits on the existing channels of complaints. In summary, three suggestions are made: 1) to maintain status quo until the 1987 review of representative Government; 2) to improve the existing channels i.e. to do something about the handling of appeal cases by the existing channels; and 3) to set up an office of the Commissioner for Administration. However, we are only given negative comments rather than positive ones in the document and the paper seemed to have expressed complete satisfaction to the existing channels of complaint. Mr. SULKE has rightly pointed out that this conclusion is rather misleading to the general public. The powers to be vested to the future Commissioner for Administration as proposed in the document are really very limited. Moreover, the origin of its power, tenure of office and the accountability of the proposed Commissioner for Administration have not been clearly shown. Secondly, the establishment of the Commissioner for Administration should be geared towards the assessment on the limitations of the existing systems. We should assess the limitations and proposed concrete methods of improvement to the existing system. Besides, the merits of the proposed improvement should also be stated. In the past, although elected members had received a lot of complaints, the only thing we could do was just to refer the complaints to the relevant departments. We do not have any powers to ask the relevant departments to listen to our views. It is up to them to adopt our suggestions or not. Secondly, more information should be provided to enable us to carry out in-depth study to examine the feasibility of setting up the office of Commissioner for Admin- istration. We should also get more information concerning Ombudsman in other countries. Finally, I think that the future Commissioner for Administra- tion must be independent and fair. He mut have sufficient powers, financial resources and manpower to facilitate the operation of his office and to enable
Page 100Page 101
Page 101 of 201
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.