Page 137 of 185
264
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
power of the Urban Council or even its abolition, please spells out straight-forward that they are manipulated behind the scene. It is no need to make excuses. It is not proper at all to rush into a decision in a haste and to play trick on the Urban Councillors and causing resentment from all quarters. Mr. Donald LIAO, you have taken a wrong step!
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support your motion.
MR. LEE CHIK-YUET (in Cantonese):-As expected, the Secretary for District Administration announced on 18 December 1987 that the Government has decided to withdraw the ex-officio seats held by Urban Councillors in District Boards. Urban Councillors who still wish to retain a seat in the District Board after 1989 should therefore register in January in order to run for the District Board election to be held in March.
It appears that the Executive Council has already made a decision and choice in principle on the Green Paper entitled 'The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government'. The White Paper too is in the process of compilation. So the pattern of Government system in the next three years has more or less been pre-established. The aim of announcing the rescission of Urban Councillors' ex-officio seats in District Boards before the publication of the White Paper is, as pointed out by Mr. Donald LIAO, to let the affected Urban Councillors to register 'in time' for the election. With regard to the whole 1987 Review, this is in fact just the very tip of an iceberg that is above water. The really important part such as the time when direct election will be introduced into the Legislative Council is still unexposed, though we have been given an inkling of it.
I do not wish to grumble and rumble purely as an Urban Councillor who is going to lose his ex-officio seat in the District Board. I will attempt to look at the situation and comment from different angles those items including the results the Government has said it hoped to achieve, the problems it wanted to solve and whether the present decision is feasible.
But first I must point out a fact of great significance and that is to withdraw ex-officio seats held by Urban Councillors in District Boards, a move contrary to the public opinion. Being one in support of direct election in 1988, I am greatly disgusted and disappointed with the part concerning direct election in the two so-called public opinion surveys commissioned by the Survey Office. Experts and professionals alike all pointed out that as there are defects in the design of the questionnaire, the findings are therefore dubious. Nevertheless, we should not regard the opinion survey as totally undesirable. We all admit that there are no great technical flaws in the questionnaire on the part concerning the Urban Council and District Boards and hence this part can be of reference value. So we might as well look at its results: those who thought that 'Urban Councillors should not withdraw from ex-officio membership of urban District Boards' were 48% and 44% of the respondents in the 1st and 2nd survey
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 137 of 185
265
respectively; whereas only 19% and 13% of the respondents in the two separate surveys thought that 'Urban Councillors should withdraw from ex-officio membership of urban District Boards'. This is clearly in line with the findings of the other eight well-organized and representative surveys collected by the Survey Office. They consider it desirable not to have too many changes in the present district administration and objected to withdrawal of the Urban Councillors' ex-officio membership status.
The main opposing voice comes from some District Board members. Paragraph 60 of the Green Paper on the 1987 Review states that this system of cross-membership between the Urban Council and urban District Boards has been criticized by many District Board members. They consider that most Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs and, as a result, have not been able to represent adequately in the Council the views and interests of District Board members, or to provide an effective link between the district and regional levels of government. Most District Board members see little point in Urban Councillors continuing to sit on District Boards.
Experience gained from actual participation told me that it was just impossible for an Urban Councillor, in particular an elected one, not to show interest in affairs of their own constituency. For if they do not show their concern in district matters and pay no heed to local views (including DB members' views of course), can they be re-elected after three years when their terms of office expire? To an elected member, no matter which rank or which Board he belongs to, a complete break away from district affairs and disregard of local views is tantamount to committing political suicide. An elected Urban Councillor who showed no interest in district affairs will soon be ousted even if there are any. One need not worry. This is the sacred and lovely thing of direct election. In fact part of the reasons for the appointment of a number of appointed Urban Councillors is their close relationship with and influence in the district, e.g. Mr. Ronald LEUNG of Mong Kok District, Mr. TONG Kam-biu and Mr. FAN Kam-ping of Sham Shui Po District. Their profound knowledge of district issues and their frequent participation in district activities is comparable to the most enthusiastic DB members. Half of the composition of the Urban Council is made up of elected members. In addition, a lot of appointed members too have a special rapport with the district. How can one say 'most' Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs? Even if there are any, they are individual cases only.
Paragraph 59 of the Green Paper on the 1987 Review points out that the intention of arranging Urban Councillors to sit on a District Board as ex-officio members then was to strengthen the relationship of the Urban Council with the local community by enabling greater public participation and consultation at the local level and placing greater emphasis on the importance of district-based planning.
Page 137 of 185
264
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
power of the Urban Council or even its abolition, please spells out straight- forward that they are manipulated behind the scene. It is no need to make excuses. It is not proper at all to rush into a decision in a haste and to play trick on the Urban Councillors and causing resentiment from all quarters. Mr. Donald LIAO, you have taken a wrong step!
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support you motion.
MR. LEE CHIK-YUET (in Cantonese):-As expected, the Secretary for District Administration announced on 18 December 1987 that the Government has decided to withdraw the ex-officio seats held by Urban Councillors in District Boards. Urban Councillors who still wish to retain a seat in the District Board after 1989 should therefore register in January in order to run for the District Board election to be held in March.
It appears that the Executive Council has already made a decision and choice in principle on the Green Paper entitled 'The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government'. The White Paper too is in the process of com- pilation. So the pattern of Government system in the next three years has more or less been pre-established. The aim of announcing the rescission of Urban Councillors' ex-officio seats in District Boards before the publication of the White Paper is, as pointed out by Mr. Donald LIAO, to let the affected Urban Councillors to register 'in time' for the election. With regard to the whole 1987 Review, this is in fact just the very tip of an iceberg that is above water. The really important part such as the time when direct election will be introduced into the Legislative Council is still unexposed, though we have been given an inkling of it.
I do not wish to grumble and rumble purely as an Urban Councillor who is going to lose his ex-officio seat in the District Board. I will attempt to look at the situation and comment from different angles those items including the results the Government has said it hoped to achieve, the problems it wanted to solve and whether the present decision is feasible.
But first I must point out a fact of great significance and that is to withdraw ex-officio seats held by Urban Councillors in District Boards, a move contrary to the public opinion. Being one in support of direct election in 1988, I am greatly disgusted and disappointed with the part concerning direct election in the two so-called public opinion surveys commissioned by the Survey Office. Experts and professionals alike all pointed out that as there are defects in the design of the questionnaire, the findings are therefore dubious. Nevertheless, we should not regard the opinion survey as totally undesirable. We all admit that there are no great technical flaws in the questionnaire on the part concerning the Urban Council and District Boards and hence this part can be of reference value. So we might as well look at its results: those who thought that ‘Urban Councillors should not withdraw from ex-officio memberhip of urban District Boards' were 48% and 44% of the respondents in the 1st and 2nd survey
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 137 of 185
265
respectively; whereas only 19% and 13% of the respondents in the two separate surveys thought that 'Urban Councillors should withdraw from ex-officio membership of urban District Boards'. This is clearly in line with the findings of the other eight well-organized and representative surveys collected by the Survey Office. They consider it desirable not to have too many changes in the present district administration and objected to withdrawal of the Urban Councillors' ex-officio membership status.
The main opposing voice comes from some District Board members. Para- graph 60 of the Green Paper on the 1987 Review states that this system of cross-membership between the Urban Council and urban District Boards has been criticized by many District Board members. They consider that most Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs and, as a result, have not been able to represent adequately in the Council the views and interests of District Board members, or to provide an effective link between the district and regional levels of government. Most District Board members see little point in Urban Councillors continuing to sit on District Boards.
Experience gained from actual participation told me that it was just impos- sible for an Urban Councillor, in particular an elected one, not to show interest in affairs of their own constituency. For if they do not show their concern in district matters and pay no heed to local views (including DB members' views of course), can they be re-elected after three years when their terms of office expire? To an elected member, no matter which rank or which Board he belongs to, a complete break away from district affairs and disregard of local views is tantamount to committing political suicide. An elected Urban Councillor who showed no interest in district affairs will soon be ousted even if there are any. One need not worry. This is the sacred and lovely thing of direct election. In fact part of the reasons for the appointment of a number of appointed Urban Councillors is their close relationship with and influence in the district, e.g. Mr. Ronald LEUNG of Mong Kok District, Mr. TONG Kam-biu and Mr. FAN Kam-ping of Sham Shui Po District. Their profound knowledge of district issues and their frequent participation in district activities is comparable to the most enthusiastic DB members. Half of the composition of the Urban Council is made up of elected members. In addition, a lot of appointed members too have a special rapport with the district. How can one say 'most' Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs? Even if there are any, they are individual cases only.
Paragraph 59 of the Green Paper on the 1987 Review points out that the intention of arranging Urban Councillors to sit on a District Board as ex-officio members then was to strengthen the relationship of the Urban Council with the local community by enabling greater public participation and consultation at the local level and placing greater emphasis on the importance of district-based planning.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.