1996 — Page 314

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 314 of 498

1498

356

# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

venue through its entrance. Secondly, the disabled toilets are often locked. Whenever the disabled need to use the toilet, they have to rush for someone to unlock the door for them. You can imagine the inconvenience thus caused to them. Actually, except the one in Hong Kong Park, all disabled toilets in other UC venues are locked. I deeply regret that UC venues have not provided the necessary convenient facilities for the disabled. I will follow up the said report at the UC meetings, and in the next few months, I will make every endeavour to address this problem.

Finally, I would like to respond to the speeches of some colleagues. As this is an annual debate, arguments and responses are inevitable. First of all, having heard Mr. CHAN Yeuk-sut's views on the transition of the Councillors and the pledge of allegiance to the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), I would like to make an amendment to his wording. In fact, the Councillors should pledge allegiance to the people of the SAR instead of the SAR's government. This is because we, as members of the Urban Council, are serving the public instead of the government. We ought to clearly draw a line between these two. Similarly, when we take an oath in the Legislative Council, we pledge to serve the Hong Kong people instead of the Hong Kong Government formed under Her Majesty. We should make out this difference as well. Secondly, whilst Mr. PAO Ping-wing sees no objection to the appointment of part or all of the Councillors and the formation of a Provisional Urban Council, I just find it very hard to accept. What is the rationale for setting up a Provisional Urban Council? Since the Urban Council is not a political body, there is nothing to do with the 'three violations'. Actually, neither 'the seven secret documents' between China and Britain nor the Joint Declaration has stated how the Urban Council should be formed. As such, what has it got to do with 'the three violations'? Even if you prefer to implement the appointment system rather than to support the Governor's view on a fully elected Council, it is inappropriate to accuse the existing Urban Council of committing the 'three violations' and consequently, to call for its dissolution and replace it by a Provisional Urban Council. I think we have to be reasonable and should not be confused. Urban Council is in fact a municipal council. If our tenure of office can only last for a year or so which would be ended on 30 June 1997, I suggest to put an end to it and set up a new Urban Council at 12:00 a.m. on 1 July 1997. If you like, you may prefer the appointment of a quarter of the Councillors by Mr. TUNG's SAR Government, but this is only your personal preference. Nevertheless, you should not make any reference to such thing as Provisional Urban Council or Provisional District Boards which should be referred to as the formal Urban Council or formal District Boards. The term 'Provisional' is disgusting, not to mention the Provisional Legislature. Therefore, I don't think the word 'Provisional' should be attached to the Urban Council and the district boards. Anyway, the above comments serve only as my response to other Councillors' views; there will certainly be more political discussions among our Councillors in the later stage of the debate.

Edit History

2026-05-16 02:01:19 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 314 of 498 Page 314 of 498 1498 356 # HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL venue through its entrance. Secondly, the disabled toilets are often locked. Whenever the disabled need to use the toilet, they have to rush for someone to unlock the door for them. You can imagine the inconvenience thus caused to them. Actually, except the one in Hong Kong Park, all disabled toilets in other UC venues are locked. I deeply regret that UC venues have not provided the necessary convenient facilities for the disabled. I will follow up the said report at the UC meetings, and in the next few months, I will make every endeavour to address this problem. Finally, I would like to respond to the speeches of some colleagues. As this is an annual debate, arguments and responses are inevitable. First of all, having heard Mr. CHAN Yeuk-sut's views on the transition of the Councillors and the pledge of allegiance to the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), I would like to make an amendment to his wording. In fact, the Councillors should pledge allegiance to the people of the SAR instead of the SAR's government. This is because we, as members of the Urban Council, are serving the public instead of the government. We ought to clearly draw a line between these two. Similarly, when we take an oath in the Legislative Council, we pledge to serve the Hong Kong people instead of the Hong Kong Government formed under Her Majesty. We should make out this difference as well. Secondly, whilst Mr. PAO Ping-wing sees no objection to the appointment of part or all of the Councillors and the formation of a Provisional Urban Council, I just find it very hard to accept. What is the rationale for setting up a Provisional Urban Council? Since the Urban Council is not a political body, there is nothing to do with the 'three violations'. Actually, neither 'the seven secret documents' between China and Britain nor the Joint Declaration has stated how the Urban Council should be formed. As such, what has it got to do with 'the three violations'? Even if you prefer to implement the appointment system rather than to support the Governor's view on a fully elected Council, it is inappropriate to accuse the existing Urban Council of committing the 'three violations' and consequently, to call for its dissolution and replace it by a Provisional Urban Council. I think we have to be reasonable and should not be confused. Urban Council is in fact a municipal council. If our tenure of office can only last for a year or so which would be ended on 30 June 1997, I suggest to put an end to it and set up a new Urban Council at 12:00 a.m. on 1 July 1997. If you like, you may prefer the appointment of a quarter of the Councillors by Mr. TUNG's SAR Government, but this is only your personal preference. Nevertheless, you should not make any reference to such thing as Provisional Urban Council or Provisional District Boards which should be referred to as the formal Urban Council or formal District Boards. The term 'Provisional' is disgusting, not to mention the Provisional Legislature. Therefore, I don't think the word 'Provisional' should be attached to the Urban Council and the district boards. Anyway, the above comments serve only as my response to other Councillors' views; there will certainly be more political discussions among our Councillors in the later stage of the debate.

Baseline (Original)

Page 314 of 498 Page 314 of 498 1498 356 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL venue through its entrance. Secondly, the disabled toilets are often locked. Whenever the disabled need to use the toilet, they have to rush for someone to unlock the door for them. You can imagine the inconvenience thus caused to them. Actually, except the one in Hong Kong Park, all disabled toilets in other UC venues are locked. I deeply regret that UC venues have not provided the necessary convenient facilities for the disabled. I will follow up the said report at the UC meetings, and in the next new months, I will make every endeavour to address this problem. Finally, I would like to respond to the speeches of some colleagues. As this is an annual debate, arguments and responses are inevitable. First of all, having heard Mr. CHAan Yeuk-sut's views on the transition of the Councillors and the pledge of allegiance to the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), I would like to make an amendment to his wording. In fact, the Councillors should pledge allegiance to the people of the SAR instead of the SAR's government. This is because we, as members of the Urban Council, are serving the public instead of the government. We ought to clearly draw a line between these two. Similarly, when we take an oath in the Legislative Council, we pledge to serve the Hong Kong people instead of the Hong Kong Government formed under Her Majesty. We should make out this difference as well. Secondly, whilst Mr. PAO Ping-wing sees no objection to the appointment of part or all of the Councillors and the formation of a Provisional Urban Council, I just find it very hard to accept. What is the rationale for setting up a Provisional Urban Council? Since the Urban Council is not a political body, there is nothing to do with the three violations'. Actually, neither 'the seven secret documents' between China and Britain nor the Joint Declaration has stated how the Urban Council should be formed. As such, what has it got to do with 'the three violations"? Even if you prefer to implement the appointment system rather than to support the Governor's view on a fully elected Council, it is inappropriate to accuse the existing Urban Council of committing the three violations' and consequently, to call for its dissolution and replace it by a Provisional Urban Council. I think we have to be reasonable and should not be confused. Urban Council is in fact a municipal council. If our tenure of office can only last for a year or so which would be ended on 30 June 1997, I suggest to put an end to it and set up a new Urban Council at 12:00 a.m. on 1 July 1997. If you like, you may prefer the appointment of a quarter of the Councillors by Mr. TUNG'S SAR Government. but this is only your personal preference. Nevertheless, you should not make any reference to such thing as Provisional Urban Council or Provisional District Boards which should be referred to as the formal Urban Council or formal District Boards. The term 'Provisional' is disgusting, not to mention the Provisional Legislature. Therefore, I don't think the word 'Provisional' should be attached to the Urban Council and the district boards. Anyway, the above comments serve only as my response to other Councillors' views, there will certainly be more political discussions among our Councillors in the later stage of the debate.

2026-05-16 02:01:19 · Baseline

View content

Page 314 of 498

1498

356

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

venue through its entrance. Secondly, the disabled toilets are often locked. Whenever the disabled need to use the toilet, they have to rush for someone to unlock the door for them. You can imagine the inconvenience thus caused to them. Actually, except the one in Hong Kong Park, all disabled toilets in other UC venues are locked. I deeply regret that UC venues have not provided the necessary convenient facilities for the disabled. I will follow up the said report at the UC meetings, and in the next new months, I will make every endeavour to address this problem.

Finally, I would like to respond to the speeches of some colleagues. As this is an annual debate, arguments and responses are inevitable. First of all, having heard Mr. CHAan Yeuk-sut's views on the transition of the Councillors and the pledge of allegiance to the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), I would like to make an amendment to his wording. In fact, the Councillors should pledge allegiance to the people of the SAR instead of the SAR's government. This is because we, as members of the Urban Council, are serving the public instead of the government. We ought to clearly draw a line between these two. Similarly, when we take an oath in the Legislative Council, we pledge to serve the Hong Kong people instead of the Hong Kong Government formed under Her Majesty. We should make out this difference as well. Secondly, whilst Mr. PAO Ping-wing sees no objection to the appointment of part or all of the Councillors and the formation of a Provisional Urban Council, I just find it very hard to accept. What is the rationale for setting up a Provisional Urban Council? Since the Urban Council is not a political body, there is nothing to do with the three violations'. Actually, neither 'the seven secret documents' between China and Britain nor the Joint Declaration has stated how the Urban Council should be formed. As such, what has it got to do with 'the three violations"? Even if you prefer to implement the appointment system rather than to support the Governor's view on a fully elected Council, it is inappropriate to accuse the existing Urban Council of committing the three violations' and consequently, to call for its dissolution and replace it by a Provisional Urban Council. I think we have to be reasonable and should not be confused. Urban Council is in fact a municipal council. If our tenure of office can only last for a year or so which would be ended on 30 June 1997, I suggest to put an end to it and set up a new Urban Council at 12:00 a.m. on 1 July 1997. If you like, you may prefer the appointment of a quarter of the Councillors by Mr. TUNG'S SAR Government. but this is only your personal preference. Nevertheless, you should not make any reference to such thing as Provisional Urban Council or Provisional District Boards which should be referred to as the formal Urban Council or formal District Boards. The term 'Provisional' is disgusting, not to mention the Provisional Legislature. Therefore, I don't think the word 'Provisional' should be attached to the Urban Council and the district boards. Anyway, the above comments serve only as my response to other Councillors' views, there will certainly be more political discussions among our Councillors in the later stage of the debate.

1996 — Page 314

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note