HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
41
not explained in detail this increase in cost. No wonder the public feel that we are always wasteful. I think allocation of resources is the most important thing and that the rationale of allocation or re-allocation of resources should be regularly reviewed in the light of social progress and the needs and expectations of the public.
Fifthly, we have 14 Select Committees but for some unknown reasons only 10 Statements of Aims. Committees such as the Finance Select Committee and the Hong Kong Stadium-Board of Governors do not have such statements. Don't they need any Statement of Aims? Take financial matters for instance, while our surplus is adequate, we should have a policy direction and the Finance Select Committee should have some proper guidelines to follow when considering Committee papers. These are policy objectives and plans. These plans may not have to change every year, but they must be set out clearly. As for the Hong Kong Stadium, since its management is semi-independent and some Members of the Council are on its Board of Governors, I think the Board of Governors should also set policy aims as well as a Five-Year-Plan for the Stadium.
When I went through the minutes of past Annual Debates, I found that some Members had raised questions about the Statements of Aims similar to what I have just pointed out. For example, Mr. CHEUNG Kin-tung pointed out last year that most of the aims in the Statements for the years from 1991 to 1995 were in fact the same. He also wondered why the Council should consider such pedestrian and stale aims every year. I notice that the Department has not taken any follow-up actions or made any response after Mr. CHEUNG's speech.
Let me return to the subject of Statements of Aims. Mr. Chairman, I feel that we are deceiving ourselves as well as others if we think that after these Statements of Aims are adopted, we can provide the Urban Services Department, our executive arm, some clear guidelines for implementing the Council's policies. These Statements of Aims, which are too general and without specific timetables and priorities for implementation, give Members only some superficial and insubstantial monitoring power, but give the Department great discretionary power in making decision in relation to the implementation of some policies and on detailed allocation of resources. Under the Council's existing mode of operation, Members are said to have policy-making power. However, I notice that as Members have not initiated policy papers for deliberation at the meetings of the Select Committees, the Department has assumed the leading role most of the time by submitting papers and making specific recommendations for us to approve. No matter how much we criticize, eighty to ninety percent of the papers are approved. This may be a long-standing practice, but the way I see it, the problem lies in the lack of a cost-effectiveness assessment. The Urban Services Department is now the largest civilian department of the Government. We spend nearly 60% of our resources on the remuneration of Departmental staff every year, and the Administration Select Committee seems to be very lenient in creating posts. Have we made a reasonable assessment in this respect? Shouldn't our manpower be regularly examined and reviewed in the light of the manning scale? If we do not
Page 327 of 485
Page 327 of 485
Page 327 of 485
Page 327 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
41
not explained in detail this increase in cost. No wonder the public feel that we are always wasteful. I think allocation of resources is the most important thing and that the rationale of allocation or re-allocation of resources should be regularly reviewed in the light of social progress and the needs and expectations of the public.
Fifthly, we have 14 Select Committees but for some unknown reasons only 10 Statements of Aims. Committees such as the Finance Select Committee and the Hong Kong Stadium-Board of Governors do not have such statements. Don't they need any Statement of Aims? Take financial matters for instance, while our surplus is adequate, we should have a policy direction and the Finance Select Committee should have some proper guidelines to follow when considering Committee papers. These are policy objectives and plans. These plans may not have to change every year, but they must be set out clearly. As for the Hong Kong Stadium, since its management is semi-independent and some Members of the Council are on its Board of Governors, I think the Board of Governors should also set policy aims as well as a Five-Year-Plan for the Stadium.
When I went through the minutes of past Annual Debates, I found that some Members had raised questions about the Statements of Aims similar to what I have just pointed out. For example, Mr. CHEUNG Kin-tung pointed out last year that most of the aims in the Statements for the years from 1991 to 1995 were in fact the same. He also wondered why the Council should consider such pedestrian and stale aims every year. I notice that the Department has not taken any follow-up actions or made any response after Mr. CHEUNG's speech.
Let me return to the subject of Statements of Aims. Mr. Chairman, I feel that we are deceiving ourselves as well as others if we think that after these Statements of Aims are adopted, we can provide the Urban Services Department, our executive arm, some clear guidelines for implementing the Council's policies. These Statements of Aims, which are too general and without specific timetables and priorities for implementation, give Members only some superficial and insubstantial monitoring power, but give the Department great discretionary power in making decision in relation to the implementation of some policies and on detailed allocation of resources. Under the Council's existing mode of operation, Members are said to have policy-making power. However, I notice that as Members have not initiated policy papers for deliberation at the meetings of the Select Committees, the Department has assumed the leading role most of the time by submitting papers and making specific recommendations for us to approve. No matter how much we criticize, eighty to ninety percent of the papers are approved. This may be a long-standing practice, but the way I see it, the problem lies in the lack of a cost-effectiveness assessment. The Urban Services Department is now the largest civilian department of the Government. We spend nearly 60% of our resources on the remuneration of Departmental staff every year, and the Administration Select Committee seems to be very lenient in creating posts. Have we made a reasonable assessment in this respect? Shouldn't our manpower be regularly examined and reviewed in the light of the manning scale? If we do not
Page 327 of 485
Page 327 of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.