Page 94 of 201
146
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English): The motion has been carried and seconded. I know a number of Members still wish to speak and each Member has a list of speakers in front of them, so I call out your name and if you were kind enough to speak when your name is called.
THE HONOURABLE HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English): Mr. Chairman, the Consultative Document on the Redress of Grievances is a short but well-prepared document on the existing systems for the redress of grievances either by individuals or groups of individuals.
2. It is an important document in that it lists out the many avenues of complaint available to the ordinary citizen in Hong Kong.
3. And underpinning these many avenues and systems for complaint is the spirit of the Rule of Law which prevails in Hong Kong, under which every person is equal before the law whatever his or her status in the community may be.
4. In principle, it would seem that any additional channel of complaint that may be properly set up such as the Ombudsman or Commissioner for Administration system, should be good for the public, provided it is efficient, and represents a definite improvement to the overall system already in existence.
5. However, I think there are two highly relevant aspects which must be carefully considered before any final conclusion can be arrived at.
6. Firstly, we must learn what will be the scope of powers of such a Commissioner for Administration and how will that affect existing systems such as the OMELCO complaints system, the statutory responsibilities of such bodies as the Urban Council and the Regional Council, and also future changes in channels of petition to the Secretary of State and to the Queen which will soon have to be reviewed in the light of 1997.
7. Secondly, we need more information on the cost of setting up such an additional redress system and to assess whether in view of the recurrent costs, it would be worthwhile to set up in the public interest.
8. Or whether the same amount or even a lesser amount could be used to improve and strengthen the existing systems of redress of grievances.
9. After all, we in Hong Kong do not want to blindly borrow a system which may be working well in other countries but which would not have sufficiently fruitful results in the Hong Kong administrative and political environment.
10. For the reasons I have just stated, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is necessary for us to wait until a further analysis of the existing systems are completed—as indicated in paragraphs 26 to 29 in the Consultative Document—before deciding whether or not to set up the Office of an Ombudsman or a Commissioner for Administration in Hong Kong, but meantime, certainly, I would agree that Government should carefully study the systems in New Zealand, U.K. and Sweden where there are Ombudsmen and in other countries there are Ombudsmen to see what features can be fruitfully adopted to the Hong Kong system.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 94 of 201
147
MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I have something to say concerning the setting up of the Ombudsman. In my opinion, Hong Kong is a small area but it is a modern area, I do not think it is necessary for us to have the Commissioner for Administration because, let us take the Urban Council as an example, we already have a ward office and then an OMELCO Office and the ICAC and now the Meet The Public Sessions in all the District Boards. Although, we can't say that all these systems are perfect at least they are accessible to the citizens of Hong Kong to contact people who can help them and deal with their complaints. They have got various avenues for the redress of grievances. For example, we have several departments under ICAC, but it is impossible for them to set up offices in all the ten urban districts to deal with all the complaints. Actually, some citizens may be too busy or they may be timid or ignorant to make use of these venues of complaint. They may not dare to go to the OMELCO Office. Although OMELCO Office has already dealt with a number of complaints, which usually came from big groups of organizations and it is very seldom for ordinary citizens to go to make complaints there. On the contrary, common people have great confidence in the Urban Council ward office or the District Boards Meet the Public Session where we have got thirty years experience in the past. If a tourist comes to Hong Kong, he will see a lot of ward offices in Hong Kong and he might get a wrong impression that citizens have a lot of grievances, and he may wonder whether this is necessary. If we have the Ombudsman, does that mean we have only one office for dealing with complaints or should we have sub-offices in all the districts just like the Meeting the Public Sessions in the District Boards being set up in housing estates? I am sure that if this is to materialize in future, we will have excessive offices of complaints. So I think it is unnecessary to set up such a system which will give the tourists the wrong impression. So I think that rather than setting up this Ombudsman or the systems, we should rather set up more offices and we should take our citizens so that they can make up the best use of the existing channels of dealing with complaints. At the same time, we hope that all the Government Departments should give more respect to Councillors and the Government Departments should deal with all these complaints more promptly and they should also explain to the complainants what they need to know or hear. I hope very much that all the cases can be explained fully, so that the complainants could get a satisfactory answer and his problem can be solved. Personally, I do not agree with the setting up of the Commissioner for Administration. I think it is better to educate common citizens to make the best use of the existing channels and to make them more healthy to us.
DR. THE HONOURABLE KIM Y. S. CHAM (in English): Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate for me as Chairman of the Administration Select Committee to ...
Page 94 of 201
Page 94 of 201
146
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English): The motion has been carried and seconded. I know a number of Members still wish to speak and each Member has a list of speakers in front of them, so I call out your name and if you were kind enough to speak when your name is called.
THE HONOURABLE HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English): Mr. Chairman, the Consultative Document on the Redress of Grievances is a short but well- prepared document on the existing systems for the redress of grievances either by individuals or groups of individuals.
2. It is an important document in that it lists out the many avenues of complaint available to the ordinary citizen in Hong Kong.
3. And underpinning these many avenues and systems for complaint is the spirit of the Rule of Law which prevails in Hong Kong, under which every person is equal before the law whatever his or her status in the community may be.
4. In principle, it would seem that any additional channel of complaint that may be properly set up such as the Ombudsman or Commissioner for Administration system, should be good for the public, provided it is efficient, and represents a definite improvement to the overall system already in existence.
5.
However, I think there are two highly relevant aspects which must be carefully considered before any final conclusion can be arrived at.
6. Firstly, we must learn what will be the scope of powers of such a Commissioner for Administration and how will that affect existing systems such as the OMELCO complaints system, the statutory responsibilities of such bodies as the Urban Council and the Regional Council, and also future changes in channels of petition to the Secretary of State and to the Queen which will soon have to be reviewed in the light of 1997.
7.
Secondly, we need more information on the cost of setting up such an additional redress system and to assess whether in view of the recurrent costs, it would be worthwhile to set up in the public interest.
8. Or whether the same amount or even a lesser amount could be used to improve and strengthen the existing systems of redress of grievances.
9. After all, we in Hong Kong do not want to blindly borrow a system which may be working well in other countries but which would not have sufficiently fruitful results in the Hong Kong administrative and political environment.
10. For the reasons I have just stated, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is necessary for us to wait until a further analysis of the existing systems are completed— as indicated in paragraphs 26 to 29 in the Consultative Document-before deciding whether or not to set up the Office of an Ombudsman or a Com- missioner for Administration in Hong Kong, but meantime, certainly, I would agree that Government should carefully study the systems in New Zealand,
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 94 of 201
147
U.K. and Sweden where there are of Ombudsman and in other countries there are Ombudsman to see what features can be fruitfully adopted to the Hong Kong system.
MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I have something to say concerning the setting up of the Ombudsman. In my opinion, Hong Kong is a small area but it is a modern area, I do not think it is necessary for us to have the Commissioner for Administration because, let us take the Urban Council as an example, we already have a ward office and then an OMELCO Office and the ICAC and now the Meet The Public Sessions in all the District Boards. Although, we can't say that all these systems are perfect at least they are accessible to the citizens of Hong Kong to contact people who can help them and deal with their complaints. They have got various avenues for the redress of grievances. For example, we have several departments under ICAC, but it is impossible for them to set up offices in all the ten urban districts to deal with all the complaints. Actually, some citizens may be too busy or they may be timid or ignorant to make use of these venues of complaint. They may not dare to go to the OMELCO Office. Although OMELCO Office has already dealt with a number of complaints, which usually came from big groups of organizations and it is very seldom for ordinary citizens to go to make complaints there. On the contrary, common people have great confidence in the Urban Council ward office or the District Boards Meet the Public Session where we have got thirty years experience in the past. If a tourist comes to Hong Kong, he will see a lot of ward offices in Hong Kong and he might get a wrong impression that citizens have a lot of grievances, and he may wonder whether this is necessary. If we have the Ombudsman, does that mean we have only one office for dealing with complaints or should we have sub-offices in all the districts just like the Meeting the Public Sessions in the District Boards being set up in housing estates? I am sure that if this is to materialize in future, we will have excessive offices of complaints. So I think it is unnecessary to set up such a system which will give the tourists the wrong impression. So I think that rather than setting up this Ombudsman or the systems, we should rather set up more offices and we should take our citizens so that they can make up the best use of the existing channels of dealing with complaints. At the same time, we hope that all the Government Departments should give more respect to Councillors and the Government Departments should deal with all these complaints more promptly and they should also explain to the complainants what they need to know or hear. I hope very much that all the cases can be explained fully, so that the complainants could get a satisfactory answer and his problem can be solved. Personally, I do not agree with the setting up of the Commissioner for Administration. I think it is better to educate common citizens to make the best use of the existing channels and to make them more healthy to us.
DR. THE HONOURABLE KIM Y. S. CHAM (in English):---Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate for me as Chairman of the Administration Select Committee to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.