1987 — Page 166

322

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

over in 1997. What the White Paper really means is that at the end of 1994 something entirely new will have to take the place of the 1991 LEGCO. At that time 30 members of LEGCO will have to be removed since the Joint Declaration clearly states that LEGCO has to be an elected body and up to September of 1994 we will still have 10 officials and 20 appointed LEGCO members. And why is this not mentioned in the White Paper? Well, the obvious answer is that we are waiting for the Basic Law and we are waiting for convergence. And let me repeat again what I have already previously said here and elsewhere: Convergence is a two-way process and it should not be just a convergence from Hong Kong to China, there should also be convergence from China to Hong Kong.

Let me repeat something else I have said before: Our present system of Government, although it has served us well over the last 30 years, is a colonial Government and is completely wrong for the purposes of the Government envisaged in the Joint Declaration for the SAR. Our present Government consists only of Civil Servants who are used to getting their own way and who have, in many ways, a contempt for the common man they direct, and who are just as used to being directed and therefore basically do what they are told whether the directives come from Whitehall, Beijing, or Timbuktu. And it is for this reason that some of us are pushing so hard for a properly democratic representative Government, which must not only include a directly elected Legislative Council, but also a ministerial system. When I say, as I have often done, that this will be protection after 1997 from Beijing, I am being quite even handed because it is also protection before 1997 from Whitehall, and in my view it is absolutely essential if Hong Kong is to keep on thriving and to lead China into the 21st Century.

Now as far as the decisions regarding this Council are concerned, I think we have already said everything that needs saying, I certainly have, and we weren't listened to. And I may say, judging by some of the things said in LEGCO yesterday, and some of them unfortunately quite viciously by an ex-member of this Council, and judging also by the number of ex-members who voted against us, we must now seriously look at ourselves as others see us. When one goes down in political defeat as badly as we have done, I think it is time, rather than to repeat all the same old arguments as to why we are right and they are wrong, to consider that maybe we are wrong, to take a good look at ourselves and see whether all that criticism which emanates from the District Boards and from LEGCO and from Government is in any way justified.

Certainly it is clear that we have fallen down very badly in our communications with the District Boards and with the public, and with LEGCO, and with the Government. Quite apart from the fact that our leadership should have, at least six months ago, started a campaign to forestall Government's, and especially the CNTA's, intentions against us, I believe we missed a great many chances to explain our problems and our stand to members of EXCO, Chairmen of District Boards, the CNTA, etc. etc. We never once invited the Senior members of EXCO, of LEGCO, or the CNTA for serious discussions nor have we ever had them sit in on one of our committee meetings. But they were constantly invited by District Boards to do so. Why did we wait until the powers that be had a go at us and only then reacted?

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 166 of 185

323

Senior members of EXCO, of LEGCO, or the CNTA for serious discussions nor have we ever had them sit in on one of our committee meetings. But they were constantly invited by District Boards to do so. Why did we wait until the powers that be had a go at us and only then reacted?

And let's face it, our own USD Civil Servants are often arrogant and remiss, and so are we as Councillors. We raise fees and charges without regard to the effect it may have on our customers. We often ignore criticisms, the recent debate in the newspapers about the way we handle cultural events is a typical case in point, so are the criticisms of how we operate our RCPs, our swimming pools etc.. I know the Department and we, as Councillors, always have an answer to these criticisms: It is never really our fault, it is the equipment, or it is a lack of understanding by the public. But is it really? Aren't all these black crows now coming home to roost?

Mr. Chairman, I think it would have been far better if you had instead of calling for this P.R. exercise type debate, initiated a working party to take a hard look as to why we are so isolated and why we have not been able to prevent the unwanted and undesirable reorganization now facing us.

We should look at our predicament in the bright light of day and not in the heat of the moment. Our defeat not only shows a failure of our leadership but also that all of us tend to accept much too easily the whitewash excuses served up by the USD when exposed to public criticism.

I don't think you, Mr. Chairman, or my fellow Councillors will like very much what I am saying today, and the Department certainly won't like it. But the slowness with which this Council, very often at the behest of the Department, reacts to criticism, the difficulty and the length of time taken extracting information from the USD, the attitude that we don't really have to reply to criticism or we shouldn't reply to criticism because that would only widen the debate, all this contributes to a picture of arrogance negating often all the very good work that we and the Department are doing in this city. And make no mistake we are doing good work. We can proudly point to the greening of the city, to the cleanliness of the city, to major contributions to culture and entertainment, but all this goes for nought when it takes a month to investigate a complaint even by a Councillor about environmental problems in a certain district, or no replies are forthcoming to criticisms as to how we run City Hall etc. etc..

I personally think that this debate today is a complete waste of breath, that instead of having this debate we should be sitting in Committee working out how we can deal with our image problems, how we can deal with the new members the Government has wished upon us, how we should structure our future conduct in meetings. In other words, how to make the best now of a very bad job. And in this spirit, Mr. Chairman, I do not support your motion. Since, however, it is not a substantive motion, I will simply abstain from voting.