Page 95 of 201
148
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
bring into this debate the very important and long-standing contribution made by the Urban Council's Ward Offices to Hong Kong's system of lodging complaints or seeking redress.
The Council's Ward Office System was set up in 1965 to create a channel by which members of the public could have their grievances taken up. This involves not only the appropriate actions of government but more importantly, the inaction of bureaucracy. These Ward Offices also provide a safety valve where the man in the street could get advice on everyday problems.
Although the office of what has been known until very recently as UMELCO was opened two years earlier than the Ward Offices, the Urban Council Ward Offices were well situated and spread out over Hong Kong. This had an immediate grassroots appeal. They quickly became the place where the man in the street turned to for the redress of grievances, and it is no exaggeration to say that at least in the 60's and 70's these Ward Offices were foremost in closing the information gap between the Government and the people, especially the poor and the under-privileged.
Of course, the Ward Office system might, at first, have been intended to deal with matters related to the Urban Council. But from the first day Councillors sat down to meet the public in these Offices, it was obvious that the poor believed they had found a sympathetic and caring ear for a wide spectrum of grievances, which they made good use of. This broadened the role of the Ward Offices' to help people with problems and complaints relating to many other aspects of life in Hong Kong.
Those matters outside the Council's responsibilities are quickly referred to the appropriate Government department for follow-up action, while those concerning the Council are diligently dealt with by the Urban Services Department.
As a result, over the past 20 years or so, an average of 10,000 petitioners have brought their grievances to the Ward Offices every year. I am the first to admit that more than half of the cases concerned public housing, but it is a fact that the Council has an historical association with the Government low-cost housing and various Government housing authorities, past and present. Even today, Councillors continue to try their best to help people with housing problems if they appear to have a just case.
It is also true that today, as a result of the evolution of representative Government in Hong Kong, more channels for complaints have been opened and the existing avenues of redress have been strengthened and widened. The 'Meet the Public' scheme operated by the District Boards as well as the Public Enquiry Service Counters of the District Offices are alternative channels of communications. And of course OMELCO is still there to continue to play its part, too.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 95 of 201
149
Nevertheless, the Urban Council still maintains its Ward Offices for the convenience of members' constituents and the community at large. And indeed, Urban Councillors remain in the minds of some members of the public as one of the most useful people to take their complaints to. And indeed, if there is a wrong to be righted, this is one of the best ways to seek redress.
I should also make it clear that the Council's machinery for handling and responding to complaints by no means ends with its Ward Offices. In addition, Urban Councillors reflect public points of views and in some cases, complaints, at meetings of Select Committees, Sub-Committees, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council and the Council's monthly open meetings. Thus, through listening to complaints and understanding problems, Urban Councillors formulate valuable views on how policies can be changed to meet the needs of changing circumstances in this dynamic world. This, I feel, is an invaluable facet of our ward system.
MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the consultative document 'Redress of Grievances' makes no mention of the amount of government funds already spent on the existing avenues of complaint, nor the sum the taxpayers have to pay in setting up a new channel, which can hardly be a perfect means to meet the demands of the complainants.
Under the present complaints system, several hundred Councillors are available to offer assistance to the complainants at any time. Dozens of appeal boards are set up to scrutinize specific problems, whereas the Independent Commission Against Corruption carries out rigorous investigation on malpractices of government departments. As pointed out in the Document, complainants can also petition the Secretary of State, the Queen, or appeal to the Court. I believe the Basic Law will also provide for similar channels of redress after 1997.
I am very much in favour of improvement to the existing avenues and expansion of the OMELCO, the Urban and Regional Councils, and the District Board's function to handle complaints.
In my experience with the Urban Council Ward Office, instead of complaints against injustice, many of the cases are simply enquiries about housing matters. To allow the public an in-depth explanation to their doubts, the Housing Department may set up its own public enquiry counter to directly give detailed information. It is also necessary for other government departments to regularly review the work attitude and sense of responsibilities of their staffs. As compared with passive supervision, active improvement in administrative efficacy is more effective in restoring public confidence in government officials.
The Urban Council Ward Office system should be reformed according to circumstances, otherwise, it will become a duplicate of the District Board meet the public system. Perhaps a central office can be set up in the Urban Council
Page 95
Page 96
Page 96 of 201
Page 95 of 201
148
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
bring into this debate the very important and long-standing contribution made by the Urban Council's Ward Offices to Hong Kong's system of lodging complaints or seeking redress.
The Council's Ward Office System was set up in 1965 to create a channel by which members of the public could have their grievances taken up. This involves not only the appropriate actions of government but more importantly, the inaction of bureaucracy. These Ward Offices also provide a safety valve where the man in the street could get advice on everyday problems.
Although the office of what has been known until very recently as UMELCO was opened two years earlier than the Ward Offices, the Urban Council Ward Offices were well situated and spread out over Hong Kong. This had an immediate grassroots appeal. They quickly became the place where the man in the street turned to for the redress of grievances, and it is no exaggeration to say that at least in the 60's and 70's these Ward Offices were foremost in closing the information gap between the Government and the people, especially the poor and the under-privileged.
Of course, the Ward Office system might, at first, have been intended to deal with matters related to the Urban Council. But from the first day Councillors sat down to meet the public in these Offices, it was obvious that the poor believed they had found a sympathetic and caring ear for a wide spectrum of grievances, which they made good use of. This broadened the role of the Ward Offices' to help people with problems and complaints relating to many other aspects of life in Hong Kong.
Those matters outside the Council's responsibilities are quickly referred to the appropriate Government department for follow-up action, while those concerning the Council are diligently dealt with by the Urban Services Department.
As a result, over the past 20 years or so, an average of 10 000 petitioners have brought their grievances to the Ward Offices every year. I am the first to admit that more than half of the cases concerned public housing, but it is a fact that the Council has an historical association with the Government low-cost housing and various Government housing authorities, past and present. Even today, Councillors continue to try their best to help people with housing problems if they appear to have a just case.
It is also true that today, as a result of the evolution of representative Government in Hong Kong, more channels for complaints have been opened and the existing avenues of redress have been strengthened and widened. The 'Meet the Public' scheme operated by the District Boards as well as the Public Enquiry Service Counters of the District Offices are alternative channels of communications. And of course OMELCO is still there to continue to play its part, too.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 95 of 201
149
Nevertheless, the Urban Council still maintains its Ward Offices for the convenience of members' constituents and the community at large. And indeed, Urban Councillors remain in the minds of some members of the public as one of the most useful people to take their complaints to. And indeed, if there is a wrong to be righted, this is one of the best ways to seek redress.
I should also make it clear that the Council's machinery for handling and responding to complaints by no means ends with its Ward Offices. In addition, Urban Councillors reflect public points of views and in some cases, complaints, at meetings of Select Committees, Sub-Committees, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council and the Council's monthly open meetings. Thus, through listening to complaints and understanding problems, Urban Councillors formulate valuable views on how policies can be changed to meet the needs of changing circumstances in this dynamic world. This, I feel, is an invaluable facet of our ward system.
MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the consultative document 'Redress of Grievances' makes no mention of the amount of government funds already spent on the existing avenues of complaint, nor the sum the taxpayers have to pay in setting up a new channel, which can hardly be a perfect means to meet the demands of the complainants.
Under the present complaints system, several hundred Councillors are available to offer assistance to the complainants at any time. Dozens of appeal boards are set up to scrutinize specific problems, whereas the Independent Commission Against Corruption carries out rigorous investigation on malpractices of government departments. As pointed out in the Document, complainants can also petition the Secretary of State, the Queen, or appeal to the Court. I believe the Basic Law will also provide for similar channels of redress after 1997.
I am very much in favour of improvement to the existing avenues and expansion of the OMELCO, the Urban and Regional Councils, and the District Board's function to handle complaints.
In my experience with the Urban Council Ward Office, instead of complaints against injustice, many of the cases are simply enquiries about housing matters. To allow the public an in-depth explanation to their doubts, the Housing Department may set up its own public enquiry counter to directly give detailed information. It is also necessary for other government departments to regularly review the work attitude and sense of responsibilities of their staffs. As compared with passive supervision, active improvement in administrative efficacy is more effective in restoring public confidence in government officials.
The Urban Council Ward Office system should be reformed according to circumstances, otherwise, it will become a duplicate of the District Board meet the public system. Perhaps a central office can be set up in the Urban Council
Page 95Page 96
Page 96 of 201
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.