Page 135 of 185
260
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
care of the overall distribution of resources. Then, would it be likely for representatives of the District Board who hold divergent views because of differences in district and regional interests to shift to the battle field of the issue from District Boards to the Urban Council?
The Secretary for District Administration stressed that the system of the Regional Council was found better than that of the Urban Council and for this reason it was proposed to restructure the Urban Council on the model of the Regional Council. But let us not forget that the Regional Council was only established as a second Municipal Council because of the geographical and social differences between the urban areas and the New Territories. It is also noteworthy that the Green Paper has clearly stated that it was too early to evaluate the impact of the Regional Council as it has only been established for less than two years. It would be contradictory to ask the Urban Council to model on the system of the Regional Council.
In fact, why should there be a change? The Urban Council with a history of over 100 years has distinguished itself in the improvement of recreational and cultural facilities in the urban areas. It gained financial autonomy in 1973. It puts resources under its command to good use and works with good efficiency and good results. The change is most unnecessary as it will alter the structure of the Council and adversely affect the status of the councillors. It will also deal a blow to the morale of the councillors, especially the elected ones. As a result of this change, those councillors who want to continue their participation in the work of District Board would have to stand for two elections in their three-year tenure of service. It will waste much time and resources, and will not be beneficial to the people and society at large.
I thus hope that the government will reconsider this proposal with discretion and retain Urban Councillors' ex-officio membership in the District Boards or at least, that of elected Councillors so that they could continue to serve as a bridge between the Urban Council and the District Boards.
The structure of the Urban Council is one of the topics for discussion in the Green Paper on 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government. With the publication of the White Paper on 10 February any changes in the political structure will then be made known. When the Green Paper was issued, the government stressed that there would be real consultation this time with due consideration given to the public's views and the people were called upon to express their opinions. I hope that the White Paper will live up to what the government has said earlier. It is also hoped that the government will give clear and sufficient explanation for any change. The reasons given for the change in Urban Councillors' status were undefined and vague. It is hoped that this will not happen in the White Paper. I have always advocated that there be more communication and mutual respect between the government and the public and there be a sincere and moderate dialogue in common effort to build for Hong Kong a good future. A government that is to gain the trust and support of the people must be an open and positive government. Only a government that looks after the interest of the public can maintain Hong Kong's stability and prosperity. I hope the government will lead Hong Kong into a new era with greater foresight.
I have spent so much time today discussing the issue of the change in Urban Councillors' status that I don't have enough time for other issues. But before I conclude today, I have to commend on the Urban Council's achievements in the past year. Last year, many UC projects were completed, providing more recreational facilities and amenities for the public while significant progress and accomplishments were made in the promotion of cultural activities as well as in hawker policy issues. All these have been gratifying. However, facilities in some older districts are still unsatisfactory and further improvements are needed. I have much confidence that in the foreseeable future, with the development of the Urban Council's work, its determination to improve urban amenities and members' co-operation and efforts, there will be even more encouraging accomplishments.
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the motion.
(The Chairman declared a recess at 4.05 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 4.15 p.m.)
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese): 'Mr. Donald LIAO, you have taken a wrong step.'
On 19 December 1987, Mr. Donald LIAO, the Secretary for District Administration, formally announced that as from 1988, Urban Councillors can no longer sit on District Boards as District Board members unless they also stand for District Board elections. Since we, as Urban Councillors, have long been concerned about district affairs and participate in government affairs with the objective of improving the livelihood of the people, this change is undoubtedly a blow to us.
I can recall that when the Green Paper and White Paper on District Administration in Hong Kong were published in 1981, the government agreed that Urban Councillors were allowed to be District Board members concurrently on the ground that Urban Councillors are elected by the people and hence should be their representatives. As District Boards are advisory bodies which serve to provide a forum for representatives of the people to give advice on government policy, local problems and the use of resources, it is therefore natural that elected Urban Councillors can also be members of the respective District Boards. Now this change will undoubtedly downgrade the advisory role of the Urban Councillors and reduce their participation in district affairs.
In the past 5 years, Urban Councillors have actively participated in the work of District Boards and the attendance rate of elected Urban Councillors at District Board meetings exceeded 90%. Take my constituency, Sham Shui Po
Page 135 of 185
261
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 136 of 185
Page 135 of 185
260
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
care of the overall distribution of resources. Then, would it be likely for representatives of the District Board who hold divergent views because of differences in district and regional interests to shift to battle field of the issue from District Boards to the Urban Council?
The Secretary for District Administration stressed that the system of the Regional Council was found better than that of the Urban Council and for this reason it was proposed to restructure the Urban Council on the model of the Regional Council. But let us not forget that the Regional Council was only established as a second Municipal Council because of the geographical and social differences between the urban areas and the New Territories. It is also noteworthy that the Green Paper has clearly stated that it was too early to evaluate the impact of the Regional Council as it has only been established for less than two years. It would be contradictory to ask the Urban Council to model on the system of the Regional Council.
In fact, why should there be a change? The Urban Council with a history of over 100 years has distinguished itself in the improvement of recreational and cultural facilities in the urban areas. It gained financial autonomy in 1973. It puts resources under its command to good use and works with good efficiency and good results. The change is most unnecessary as it will alter the structure of the Council and adversely affect the status of the councillors. It will also deal a blow to the morale of the councillors, especially the elected ones. As a result of this change, those councillors who want to continue their participation in the work of District Board would have to stand for two elections in their three-year tenure of service. It will waste much time and resources, and will not be beneficial to the people and society at large.
I thus hope that the government will reconsider this proposal with discretion and retain Urban Councillors' ex-officio membership in the District Boards or at least, that of elected Councillors so that they could continue to serve as a bridge between the Urban Council and the District Boards.
The structure of the Urban Council is one of the topics for discussion in the Green Paper on 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government. With the publication of the White Paper on 10 February any changes in the political structure will then be made known. When the Green Paper was issued, the government stressed that there would be real consultation this time with due consideration given to the public's views and the people were called upon to express their opinions. I hope that the White Paper will live up to what the government has said earlier. It is also hoped that the government will give clear and sufficient explanation for any change. The reasons given for the change in Urban Councillors' status were undefined and vague. It is hoped that this will not happen in the White Paper. I have always advocated that there be more communication and mutual respect between the government and the public and there be a sincere and moderate dialogue in common effort to build for Hong Kong a good future. A government that is to gain the trust and support of the
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 135 of 185
261
people must be an open and positive government. Only a government that looks after the interest of the public can maintain Hong Kong's stability and prosperity. I hope the government will lead Hong Kong into a new era with greater foresight.
I have spent so much time today discussing the issue of the change in Urban Councillors' status that I don't have enough time for other issues. But before I conclude today, I have to commend on the Urban Council's achievements in the past year. Last year, many UC projects were completed, providing more recreational facilities and amenities for the public while significant progress and accomplishments were made in the promotion of cultural activities as well as in hawker policy issues. All these have been gratifying. However, facilities in some older districts are still unsatisfactory and further improvements are needed. I have much confidence that in the foreseeable future, with the development of the Urban Council's work, its determination to improve urban amenities and members' co-operation and efforts, there will be even more encouraging accomplishments.
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the motion.
(The Chairman declared a recess at 4.05 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 4.15 p.m.)
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):-'Mr. Donald LIAO, you have taken a wrong step.'
On 19 December 1987, Mr. Donald LIAO, the Secretary for District Adminis- tration, formally announced that as from 1988, Urban Councillors can no longer sit on District Boards as District Board members unless they also stand for District Board elections. Since we, as Urban Councillors, have long been concerned about district affairs and participate in government affairs with the objective of improving the livelihood of the people, this change is undoubtedly a blow to us.
I can recall that when the Green Paper and White Paper on District Adminis- stration in Hong Kong were published in 1981, the government agreed that Urban Councillors were allowed to be District Board members concurrently on the ground that Urban Councillors are elected by the people and hence should be their representatives. As District Boards are advisory bodies which serve to provide a forum for representatives of the people to give advice on government policy, local problems and the use of resources, it is therefore natural that elected Urban Councillors can also be members of the respective District Boards. Now this change will undoubtedly downgrade the advisory role of the Urban Councillors and reduce their participation is district affairs.
In the past 5 years, Urban Councillors have actively participated in the work of District Boards and the attendance rate of elected Urban Councillors at District Board meetings exceeded 90%. Take my constituency, Sham Shui Po
Page 135Page 136
Page 136 of 185
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.