Page 138 of 185
266
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It is difficult to evaluate how effective the role of Urban Councillors is as the channel of communication between the Urban Council and District Boards if no comparison can be made. Although the White Paper on the 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government is not yet published, it is apparent that the Government has already 'decided' to withdraw from Urban Councillors the ex-officio membership of District Boards and will, instead, select a representative of each District Board to be a Council member. Which arrangement is better? Comparing them from the point of representativeness, if the representative elected from among the Board members is to represent the residents of his district, it would be a retrograde step in democracy because at present there are Councillors directly elected from each district. Why should we elect a representative by way of indirect election? Moreover, there will be considerable technical constraints for the elected representative to speak on behalf of the Board in the Council. Besides the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council, there are another 13 select committees and more than 20 working groups under the Council. It is impossible for a member to participate in all kinds of work. It is also impossible for the representative elected from among Board members to obtain the views of the Board (or the views of the majority of Board members) on any district issue before the meeting of the Urban Council (the papers are usually received 4 or 5 days before the meeting). No matter if it is arranged for Urban Councillors to become ex-officio District Board members or to elect for the Council a representative from among Board members, the communication work that they do for the people is just one of the channels through which the people's views are reflected. There are pros and cons for this system but it is difficult to make a comparison. But there should be other ways to assist in communicating with the public. Take for instance, should there be any important issue of district concern, the Urban Council can seek the views of the Board Chairman. The Council may also take the initiative to recommend to the Board concerned to include the matter in the agenda for formal discussion. It cannot be said that to have a representative of the Board in the Council will definitely improve the communications and we should therefore withdraw from the ex-officio seats of the Urban Councillors in District Boards on such grounds.
The main intention of the Government in setting up District Boards is to establish in the districts boards of advisory nature so as to allow people representative of each district to give their views on local issues to the Government. The Urban Councillors, particularly those directly elected by the residents of their respective districts, have a close relationship with the district and well understand the local situation. Since they are elected from a larger constituency, they can widely represent the residents in their districts. Being elected by the district residents, their representativeness should be the same as District Board members. So when the Government collects the views of local residents, how can it ignore these Urban Councillors? If the Government considers that appointed members are representative, how can it squeeze the Urban Councillors out? Therefore, after the Government announced the withdrawal of Urban Councillors' ex-officio seats, both the appointed and elected members of the Urban Council unanimously expressed that if the Government had to do so, it should at least retain the ex-officio seats of the elected Urban Councillors. If an Urban Councillor has to go through an election in a large constituency and then another election in a smaller constituency so as to confirm his qualification of being a district representative and is until then that he is allowed to speak on district issues, would it be reasonable? The principal contradictions of the current developments in Hong Kong's political system lie not in the structural changes in district administration but in the following areas such as the composition of Legislative Council, the Legislative Council and the Executive Council, the relationship between the Legislative Council, over 400 advisory boards and some 50 departments of the central government, and the convergence with the Basic Law. District administration must coordinate with the central government system and we should not work out the pattern of district administration before finalizing the central government system. This would put the cart before the horse.
There should not be too many structural changes to district administration before the pattern of the central government system becomes clear and obvious. Incoordination or even contradictions between Urban Council and District Boards are a natural phenomenon which cannot be avoided during the transitional period when Hong Kong's political system is in the process of change. They are just the same as the contradictions between District Boards and the Housing Authority, Legislative Council and certain government departments. However, we must not be too anxious and should first solve the crux of the problem concerning the central government system of Hong Kong before making improvements to district administration.
Although it is unfair to withdraw the ex-officio seats of Urban Councillors in District Boards, it is only a minor issue in regard to the overall development of the political system in Hong Kong. The present change gains no wide support from the general public. If the rumours in the political circles are true, that is the CNTA tries to extend its power and intends to make District Boards become the only political organization in the district administration structure, I have to remind the authorities concerned to consider the matter carefully. It is easy to change the system but difficult to restore it; it is easy to give out power but difficult to take back. In order to have a more logical development of the political system in Hong Kong, we should have some patience and wait until the picture of the central government system becomes clear. Then we can make further structural changes for the district administration to coordinate with the central government system.
MRS. NELLIE FONG (in English): Since 19 October 1987, the Hong Kong stock exchange and its related activities have consistently been in the headlines of the newspapers. It is therefore very tempting to jump on the bandwagon
Page 138 of 185
267
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 138 of 185
266
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It is difficult to evaluate how effective the role of Urban Councillors is as the channel of communication between the Urban Council and District Boards if no comparison can be made. Although the White Paper on the 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government is not yet published, it is apparent that the Government has already 'decided' to withdraw from Urban Coun- cillors the ex-officio membership of District Boards and will, instead, select a representative of each District Board to be a Council member. Which arrange- ment is better? Comparing them from the point of representativeness, if the representative elected from among the Board members is to represent the residents of his district, it would be a retrograde step in democracy because at present there are Councillors directly clected from cach district. Why should we elect a representative by way of indirect election? Moreover, there will be considerable technical constraints for the elected representative to speak on behalf of the Board in the Council. Besides the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council, there are another 13 select committees and more than 20 working groups under the Council. It is impossible for a member to participate in all kinds of work. It is also impossible for the representative elected from among Board members to obtain the views of the Board (or the views of the majority of Board members) on any district issue before the meeting of the Urban Council (the papers are usually received 4 or 5 days before the meeting). No matter it is arranged for Urban Councillors to become ex-officio District Board members or to elect for the Council a representative from among Board members, the communication work that they do for the people is just one of the channels through which the people's views are reflected. There are pros and cons for this system but it is difficult to make a comparison. But there should be other ways to assist in communicating with the public. Take for instance, should there be any important issue of district concern, the Urban Council can seek the views of the Board Chairman. The Council may also take the initiative to recommend to the Board concerned to include the matter in the agenda for formal discussion. It cannot be said that to have a representative of the Board in the Council will definitely improve the communications and we should therefore withdraw from the ex-officio seats of the Urban Councillors in District Boards on such grounds.
The main intention of the Government in setting up District Boards is to establish in the districts boards of advisory nature so as to allow people representative of each district to give their views on local issues to the Government. The Urban Councillors, particularly those directly elected by the residents of their respective districts, have a close relationship with the district and well understand the local situation. Since they are elected from a larger constituency, they can widely represent the residents in their districts. Being elected by the district residents, their representativeness should be the same as District Board members. So when the Government collects the views of local residents, how can it ignore these Urban Councillors? If the Government considers that appointed member is representative, how can it squeeze the
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 138 of 185
267
Urban Councillors out? Therefore, after the Government announced the withdrawal of Urban Councillors ex-officio seats, both the appointed and elected members of the Urban Council unanimously expressed that if the Government had to do so, it should at least retain the ex-officio seats of the elected Urban Councillors. If an Urban Councillor has to go through an election in a large constituency and then another election in a smaller con- stituency so as to confirm his qualification of being a district representative and is until then that he is allowed to speak on district issues, would it be reasonable? The principal contradictions of the current developments in Hong Kong's political system lies not in the structural changes in district administration but in the following areas such as the composition of Legislative Council, the Legislative Council and the Executive Council, the relationship between the Legislative Council, over 400 advisory boards and some 50 departments of the central government, and the convergence with the Basic Law. District adminis- tration must coordinate with the central government system and we should not work out the pattern of district administration before finalizing the central government system. This would put the cart before the horse.
There should not be too many structural changes to district administration before the pattern of central government system becomes clear and obvious. Incoordination or even contradictions between Urban Council and District Boards are natural phenomenon which cannot be avoided during the transi- tional period when Hong Kong's political system is in the process of change. They are just the same as the contradictions between District Boards and the Housing Authority, Legislative Council and certain government departments. However, we must not be too anxious and should first solve the crux of the problem concerning the central government system of Hong Kong before making improvement to district administration.
Although it is unfair to withdraw the ex-officio seats of Urban Councillors in District Boards, it is only a minor issue in regard to the overall development of political system in Hong Kong. The present change gains no wide support from the general public. If the rumours in the political circles are true, that is the CNTA tries to extend its power and intends to make District Boards become the only political organization in district administration structure, I have to remind the authorities concerned to consider the matter carefully. It is easy to change the system but difficult to restore it; it is easy to give out power but difficult to take back. In order to have a more logical development of political system in Hong Kong, we should have some patience and wait until the picture of the central government system becomes clear. Then we can make further structural changes for the district administration to coordinate with the central govern- ment system.
MRS. NELLIE FONG (in English):-Since 19 October 1987, the Hong Kong stock exchange and its related activities have consistently been in the headlines of the newspapers. It is therefore very tempting to jump on the bandwagon
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.