84
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
interests. When Mr. Chairman of UC and I attended the District Board meeting on the Green Paper, we did not hear a word of criticism as regards the relationship between District Boards and the Urban Council. On the contrary, we heard some favourable remarks. Obviously, members know that communication and monitoring are two separate issues. Likewise, whether or not to elect representatives to the Urban Council and whether such arrangement can improve communication are not related in any way.
Apart from the above, I would like to mention two points. I agree with Mr. TONG that those who drafted Chapter III of the Green Paper have virtually no idea of how the Urban Council and District Boards work. Papers drafted by such persons cannot be easily read and commented by the public, who know nothing about the functioning of District Boards and the Urban Council. And as we can see, the wording is quite illogical. For example, paragraph 60 purports that many District Board members are of the view that Urban Councillors do not show enough concern for district affairs. This, I think, is a misrepresentation of the views of many District Board members. In fact, District Board members have never requested Urban Councillors to represent their personal views and interests. They know very well which are the overall views and which are views of individual members. All along they have been pressing for overall views of District Boards and not personal interests.
Having served in the C & W District Board for five years, I do not think there are problems in communication. There are Urban Services Department staff attending the meetings, to be monitored and to do as the Board requests---provided that it does not contravene existing policies. Requests which contravene existing policies and thus cannot be acceded to instantly are reflected through the executive staff to the Urban Council so that the policies in question may be reviewed. I have been on the Urban Council for more than a year. I am aware that the Council cares very much about the views of the District Boards. Each and every one of these views is carefully considered before the Council comes to a decision.
I suspect the drafters of this Green Paper in fact hope to save the face of the government. The former Chief Secretary Sir Philip HADDON-CAVE in his conclusions on the review of district administration in 1984 had raised four points: (i) the Regional Council is to be set up; (ii) the ratio of elected and appointed members on the District Boards is to be raised to 2 : 1; (iii) official members on the District Boards are to be withdrawn and civil servants attend District Board meetings as non-voting members; (iv) the role of District Boards in district management is to be enhanced---a point which is frequently mentioned at present.
The C & W District Board, the Board with which I am most familiar, has for the past few years repeatedly urged the government to implement what Sir Philip HADDON-CAVE put forward at the Legislative Council, i.e., to enhance the role of District Boards in district management. The government has done nothing to this effect. Nor has it formally replied to the District Boards. In fact,
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 46 of 185
85
it had, in private, asked District Board members not to mention it again, the reason being that the government cannot think of any ways through which District Boards' role in district management can be enhanced. It is absurd and ridiculous to assign a little of the power of the Urban Council to the District Boards to enhance their role in district management just to save face.
The second point lies in paragraph 71 which sets out the various options regarding the structure of the Urban Council to be studied by the public. In fact, this is not within the scope of a review of representative government. Whatever the system of government is, working arrangements of the government machinery should be made in accordance with time and circumstances. If the committee structure has to be decided by the public and once decided upon, has to be maintained permanently, the time and place and duration of the meetings, as well as members' attire at the meetings, should perhaps also be decided on by the public. This shows that the persons who drafted the Green Paper have no understanding whatsoever of how the council system works and the functioning of the Urban Council.
The Green Paper, however, does not mention two important issues which are frequently raised by District Board members. First, how should District Board members participate in the work of District Management Committee? Second, the demand that District Board secretariats should become totally independent---a demand which has been repeatedly raised by members in the past few years. The Green Paper may incorporate these points and put forward some formal proposals. Perhaps the drafters know that these are not within the scope of the review and therefore have not mentioned them. But why is the structure of the Urban Council mentioned in paragraph 71? Chapter III of the Green Paper is illogical. No one after reading it can formulate any views. I have had the opportunity to serve in the two tiers mentioned in this chapter. Judging from experience, I think it is best to maintain the present system.
MRS. CHOW CHEUNG WAI-PING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the government has published the 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government Green Paper with the objective of awakening Hong Kong's silent majority so that they will respond actively to its contents. Unfortunately, most people do not have a deep understanding of politics, or the functioning of the present three-tier system.
Thus I believe the silent majority will only remain silent. Only those few hundred or so people with whom we are familiar will respond, while the rest will make their choice among a number of misleading options wrongly and unknowingly.
For years Hong Kong people have only aimed at stability and prosperity. They are not willing to take the initiative to get into contact with or understand politics. So, it is exorbitant of the government to hope that they will make constructive responses to the political system proposed in the Green Paper. The government is either too ignorant or too 'knowing'.
ין
84
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
interests. When Mr. Chairman of UC and I attended the District Board meeting on the Green Paper, we did not hear a word of criticism as regards the relationship between District Boards and the Urban Council. On the contrary, we heard some favourable remarks. Obviously, members know that communic ation and monitoring are two separate issues. Likewise, whether or not to elect representatives to the Urban Council and whether such arrangement can improve communication are not related in any way.
Apart from the above, I would like to mention two points. I agree with Mr. TONG that those who drafted Chapter III of the Green Paper have virtually no idea of how the Urban Council and District Boards work. Papers drafted by such persons cannot be easily read and commented by the public, who know nothing about the functioning of District Boards and the Urban Council. And as we can see, the wording is quite illogical. For example, paragraph 60 purports that many District Board members are of the view that Urban Councillors do not show enough concern for district affairs. This, I think, is a misrepresent- ation of the views of many District Board members. In fact, District Board members have never requested Urban Councillors to represent their personal views and interests. They know very well which are the overall views and which are views of individual members. All along they have been pressing for overall views of District Boards and not personal interests.
Having served in the C & W District Board for five years, I do not think there are problems in communication. There are Urban Services Department staff attending the meetings, to be monitored and to do as the Board requests--- provided that it does not contravene existing policies. Requests which contravene existing policies and thus can not be acceded to instantly are reflected through the executive staff to the Urban Council so that the policies in question may be reviewed. I have been on the Urban Council for more than a year. I am aware that the Council cares very much about the views of the District Boards. Each and every one of these views is carefully considered before the Council comes to a decision.
I suspect the drafters of this Green Paper in fact hope to save the face of the government. The former Chief Secretary Sir Philip HADDON-CAVE in his conclusions on the review of district administration in 1984 had raised four points: (i) the Regional Council is to be set up; (ii) the ratio of elected and appointed members on the District Boards is to be raised to 2 : 1; (iii) official members on the District Boards are to be withdrawn and civil servants attend District Board meetings as non-voting members; (iv) the role of District Boards in district management is to be enhanced- a point which is frequently mentioned at present.
The C & W District Board, the Board with which I am most familiar, has for the past few years repeatedly urged the government to implement what Sir Philip HADDON-CAVE put forward at the Legislative Council, i.e. to enhance the role of District Boards in district management. The government has done nothing to this effect. Nor has it formally replied to the District Boards. In fact
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 46 of 185
85
it had, in private, asked District Board members not to mention it again, the reason being that the government cannot think of any ways through which District Boards' role in district management can be enhanced. It is absurd and ridiculous to assign a little of the power of the Urban Council to the District Boards to enhance their role in district management just to save face.
The second point lies in paragraph 71 which sets out the various options regarding the structure of the Urban Council to be studied by the public. In fact, this is not within the scope of a review of representative government. Whatever the system of government is, working arrangements of the government machinery should be made in accordance with time and circumstances. If the committee structure has to be decided by the public and once decided upon, has to be maintained permanently, the time and place and duration of the meetings, as well as members' attire at the meetings, should perhaps also be decided on by the public. This shows that the persons who drafted the Green Paper have no understanding whatsoever of how the council system works and the functioning of the Urban Council.
The Green Paper, however, does not mention two important issues which are frequently raised by District Board members. First, how should District Board members participate in the work of District Management Committee? Second, the demand that District Board secretariats should become totally inde- pendent—a demand which has been repeatedly raised by members in the past few years. The Green Paper may incorporate these points and put forward some formal proposals. Perhaps the drafters know that these are not within the scope of the review and therefore have not mentioned them. But why is the structure of the Urban Council mentioned in paragraph 71? Chapter III of the Green Paper is illogical. No one after reading it can formulate any views. I have had the opportunity to serve in the two tiers mentioned in this chapter. Judging from experience, I think it is best to maintain the present system.
MRS. CHOW CHEUNG WAI-PING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the govern- ment has published the 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government Green Paper with the objective of awakening Hong Kong's silent majority so that they will respond actively to its contents. Unfortunately, most people do not have a deep understanding of politics, or the functioning of the present three-tier system.
Thus I believe the silent majority will only remain silent. Only those few hundred or so people with whom we are familiar will respond, while the rest will make their choice among a number of misleading options wrongly and unknowingly.
For years Hong Kong people have only aimed at stability and prosperity. They are not willing to take the initiative to get into contact with or understand politics. So, it is exorbitant of the government to hope that they will make constructive responses to the political system proposed in the Green Paper. The government is either too ignorant or too 'knowing'.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.