Page 43 of 185
78
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
At the time when the need for the Regional Council was discussed, the government felt that a second municipal council was needed because of the different geographical and social characteristics of the New Territories and that it would be difficult for one municipal council to develop and implement policies which could be applied throughout areas with such diverse needs and characteristics.
The Green Paper, however, brought out some interesting points:
First, the comment that because the Regional Council was only established in 1985, it was too early to evaluate fully the impact. This I can understand. What I cannot understand is the sentiment in the latter part of Chapter 3 about bringing the composition and working arrangements of the Urban Council more in line with the Regional Council. If the Urban Council in its present composition and working arrangements which existed for many many years had achieved a proven record of providing efficient services, it is very strange to come to the conclusion that the Urban Council composition should be brought more in line with the Regional Council which had only been established two years and was recognized that it was too early to evaluate the impact in the provision of municipal services in the New Territories. The two Councils were set up differently to meet different needs.
To sum up, I do not believe that the composition and working arrangements of the Urban Council should change because of some District Board members' criticism. If it is recognized that the Urban Council is working efficiently, effectively and has been providing efficient effective municipal services, criticisms from some District Board members must be viewed with certain reservations with the overall picture in mind.
(Mr. MAN Sai-cheong left at 3:50 p.m.)
MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I think that the proposals regarding the Urban Council in Chapter III of the Green Paper: The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government, are unreasonable, contradictory and unconsidered. To a certain extent, I doubt and disbelieve the intelligence of those who make these proposals. I would like to put forward my personal views on the proposals concerning the Urban Council one by one.
Paras. 55 and 56 proposed that 'the two Councils should not be amalgamated'. I fully agree with this point because there are different geographical and social characteristics in the New Territories and the urban area.
In para. 58, the proposal that 'the structure and working arrangements of the Urban Council should be brought more in line with the Regional Council' is contradictory. This is because the Green Paper has already pointed out that 'it is too early to evaluate fully the impact of the Regional Council as it has been set up for only one year'. In the absence of concrete evidence, why should the well-established and effective Urban Council follow the operating arrangements of the Regional Council?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 43 of 185
79
Para. 60 mentioned that 'most Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs.' This saying is sheer nonsense and does not tally with the facts. If the 15 elected Urban Councillors really do not show interest in district affairs, why did the voters vote for them? How could they be elected to represent local residents? This criticism is made by irresponsible people and is an insult to voters within the district. Moreover, appointed district Urban Councillors are assigned to attend DB meetings just because of their knowledge in and concern for the district. For example, Messrs. Stephen LAU and Ronnie WONG show great concern for the Kwun Tong district. As they have set up their factory and business in the district for many years, would they not show great interest in the district? Mr. FAN Kam-ping has been working as a school principal in Sham Shui Po district for more than 10 years. Both he and I are living in that district. It would be ridiculous to say that we do not understand the district. In Mong Kok district, Dr. Ronald LEUNG operates his bank and clinic. Would he not show any interest in the district? Mr. SZE has been living in Southern District for many years. He has a thorough understanding of every beach and street within the district. In Wan Chai district, Mr. Samuel WONG has been operating his business in Causeway Bay for a number of years. How can one say that Mr. WONG has not shown great interest in the district? From the above examples, we can see the criticism that 'most Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs' is made out of prejudice and without in-depth study. This is just talk in one's daydream. It is also unreasonable to ask district Urban Councillors to represent the interests of DB members. The Urban Council works for the overall interests of Hong Kong and Kowloon, but not for personal political interests of any individual.
Para. 61 mentioned 'dual role'. Why is the 'dual role' of an Urban Councillor incorrect, unreasonable and uncommunicable? On the contrary, why is it reasonable for DB members to have 'dual role', which will not hinder their work of communication and will not put them in an awkward position? What is the reason? Why is it that the voices of several hundred DB members can be heard, but not that of the 30 Urban Councillors?
The options set out in para. 62 are impracticable. My views are as follows:
— Option (i) is not feasible. The reason has been elaborated in para. 63.
— Option (ii) is impractical because there are 13 Select Committees under the Urban Council and each Committee is closely related to the everyday life of all districts. Is it possible for all District Boards to send their representatives to sit on all the Select Committees? If not, what do they represent, understand and advise? How can they report to their respective District Boards? How do they reflect views to the Urban Council? I just assume that all the representatives are supermen who can attend all the committee meetings and reflect DB views (though there is practical difficulty), but how can the Urban Council and Urban Services Department handle and implement the differing views of 10 DB representatives?
Page 43 of 185
Page 43 of 185
78
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
At the time when the need for the Regional Council was discussed, the government felt that a second municipal council was needed because of the different geographical and social characteristics of the New Territories and that it would be difficult for one municipal council to develop and implement policies which could be applied throughout areas with such diverse needs and characteristics.
The Green Paper, however, bought out some interesting points:
First, the comment that because the Regional Council was only established in 1985, it was too early to evaluate fully the impact. This I can understand. What I cannot understand is the sentiment in the latter part of Chapter 3 about bringing the composition and working arrangements of the Urban Council more in line with the Regional Council. If the Urban Council in its present composition and working arrangements which existed for many many years had achieved a proven record of providing efficient services, it is very strange to come to the conclusion that the Urban Council composition should be brought more in line with the Regional Council which had only been established two years and was recognized that it was too early to evaluate the impact in the provision of municipal services in the New Territories. The two Councils were set up differently to meet different needs.
To sum up, I do not believe that the composition and working arrangements of the Urban Council should change because of some District Board members' criticism. If it is recognized that the Urban Council is working efficiently, effectively and has been providing efficient effective municipal services, criticisms from some District Board members must be viewed with certain reservations with the overall picture in mind.
(Mr. MAN Sai-cheong left at 3.50 p.m.)
MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I think that the proposals regarding the Urban Council in Chapter III of the Green Paper: The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government, are unreasonable, contradictory and unconsidered. To a certain extent, I doubt and disbelieve the intelligence of those who make these proposals. I would like to put forward my personal views on the proposals concerning the Urban Council one by one.
Paras. 55 and 56 proposed that 'the two Councils should not be amalgamated'. I fully agree with this point because there are different geographical and social characteristics in the New Territories and the urban area.
In para. 58, the proposal that 'the structure and working arrangements of the Urban Council should be brought more in line with the Regional Council' is contradictory. This is because the Green Paper has already pointed out that 'it is too early to evaluate fully the impact of the Regional Council as it has been set up for only one year'. In the absence of concrete evidence, why should the well- established and effective Urban Council follow the operating arrangements of the Regional Council?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 43 of 185
79
Para. 60 mentioned that 'most Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs.' This saying is sheer nonsense and does not tally with the facts. If the 15 elected Urban Councillors really do not show interest in district affairs, why did the voters vote for them? How could they be elected to represent local residents? This criticism is made by irresponsible people and is an insult to voters within the district. Moreover, appointed district Urban Councillors are assigned to attend DB meetings just because of their knowledge in and concern for the district. For example, Messrs. Stephen LAU and Ronnie WONG Show great concern for the Kwun Tong district. As they have set up their factory and business in the district for many years, would they not show great interest in the district? Mr. FAN Kam-ping has been working as a school principal in Sham Shui Po district for more than 10 yrars. Both he and I are living in that district. It would be rediculous to say that we do not understand the district. In Mong Kok district, Dr. Ronald LEUNG operates his bank and clinic. Would he not show any interest in the district? Mr. SULKE has been living in Southern District for many years. He has a thorough understanding of every beach and street within the district. In Wan Chai district, Mr. Samuel WONG has been operating his business in Causeway Bay for a number of years. How can one say that Mr. WONG has not shown great interest in the district? From the above examples, we can see the criticism that 'most Urban Councillors do not show sufficient interest in district affairs is made out of prejudice and without indepth study. This is just talk in one's daydream. It is also unreasonable to ask district Urban Councillors to represent the interests of DB members. The Urban Council works for the overall interests of Hong Kong and Kowloon, but not for personal political interests of any individual.
Para. 61 mentioned ‘dual role'. Why is the 'dual role' of an Urban Councillor incorrect, unreasonable and uncommunicable? On the contrary, why is it reasonable for DB members to have 'dual role', which will not hinder their work of communication and will not put them in an awkward position? What is the reason? Why is it that the voices of several hundred DB members can be heard, but not that of the 30 Urban Councillors?
The options set out in para. 62 are impracticable. My views are as follows:—
---Option (i) is not feasible. The reason has been elaborated in para. 63. -Option (ii) is impractical because there are 13 Select Committees under the
Urban Council and each Committee is closely related to the everyday life of all districts. Is it possible for all District Boards to send their repre- sentatives to sit on all the Select Committees? If not, what do they represent, understand and advise? How can they report to their respective District Boards? How do they reflect views to the Urban Council? I just assume that all the representatives are supermen who can attend all the committee meetings and reflect DB views (though there is practical difficulty), but how can the Urban Council and Urban Services Depart- ment handle and implement the differing views of 10 DB representatives?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.