1997 — Page 201

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 201 of 654

202

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

The structural conflict among the Urban Council, Regional Council, Sport Development Bureau and Art Development Council is even more complicated. If there is any incidence of bad coordination, it will be detrimental to the long-term cultural and sports development of Hong Kong.

Another example is housing. The Urban Council used to be in charge of resettlement matters. With the establishment of the Housing Department in 1973, the Housing Authority became the manager of all estates. Markets in estates became the responsibility of the Housing Authority too. We are still responsible for resettling hawkers, but with the NT area now given over to the Regional Council, that responsibility is only restricted to hawkers of non-estate areas. Finding sites to build markets for hawkers to operate has posed many problems. We cannot satisfy hawkers and markets are not operationally viable. We are in fact handicapped by our limited power.

The role or the importance of the Urban Council is fading. In the eighties, we could have our Members attending meetings of District Boards. Now, it is the other way round. All of us are Appointed Members now, but before June, District Board Members were indirectly elected Urban Councillors. In addition, a lot of organizations like the Town Planning Board always consulted District Boards first. They did not put much importance on the opinions of the Urban Council.

The changes from 1973 to the present saw our role becoming more and more passive. Very often, our response was defensive. Our powers have been trimmed down and we have to face the fact that the jurisdiction of this Council has been eaten away. Things are now very different from when the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement was issued in 1973.

Hong Kong is now a Special Administrative Region and we have entered a new era. I think we need to face, discuss and resolve the unsatisfactory situation of the past. We now have the chance to do so. I hope to consolidate the views of Members in reviewing with the SAR Government our powers and terms of reference. We have to reaffirm clearly our role in the three aspects of public health, culture and recreation. The set-up of structure above structure of parallel structures should be avoided. I mean to include also in the review of the arrangement of 16% administration charge for the use of services of departments like the Architectural Services Department and Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Take the Central Library project with a $700 million budget for example, we will have to pay the Architectural Services Department an additional $100 million. Members can consider whether this is reasonable. At the time of the MAA, the Council's work cost was budgeted at around $10 million compared to the present $1 billion. You can see the difference there.

I want to touch on financial arrangement, accounting system etc. I think we need to negotiate with the SAR government. The MAA of 1973 did not mention the self-financing principle now used for the Hong Kong Stadium.

Page 202

Edit History

2026-05-16 03:13:53 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 201 of 654 Page 201 of 654 202 HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL The structural conflict among the Urban Council, Regional Council, Sport Development Bureau and Art Development Council is even more complicated. If there is any incidence of bad coordination, it will be detrimental to the long-term cultural and sports development of Hong Kong. Another example is housing. The Urban Council used to be in charge of resettlement matters. With the establishment of the Housing Department in 1973, the Housing Authority became the manager of all estates. Markets in estates became the responsibility of the Housing Authority too. We are still responsible for resettling hawkers, but with the NT area now given over to the Regional Council, that responsibility is only restricted to hawkers of non-estate areas. Finding sites to build markets for hawkers to operate has posed many problems. We cannot satisfy hawkers and markets are not operationally viable. We are in fact handicapped by our limited power. The role or the importance of the Urban Council is fading. In the eighties, we could have our Members attending meetings of District Boards. Now, it is the other way round. All of us are Appointed Members now, but before June, District Board Members were indirectly elected Urban Councillors. In addition, a lot of organizations like the Town Planning Board always consulted District Boards first. They did not put much importance on the opinions of the Urban Council. The changes from 1973 to the present saw our role becoming more and more passive. Very often, our response was defensive. Our powers have been trimmed down and we have to face the fact that the jurisdiction of this Council has been eaten away. Things are now very different from when the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement was issued in 1973. Hong Kong is now a Special Administrative Region and we have entered a new era. I think we need to face, discuss and resolve the unsatisfactory situation of the past. We now have the chance to do so. I hope to consolidate the views of Members in reviewing with the SAR Government our powers and terms of reference. We have to reaffirm clearly our role in the three aspects of public health, culture and recreation. The set-up of structure above structure of parallel structures should be avoided. I mean to include also in the review of the arrangement of 16% administration charge for the use of services of departments like the Architectural Services Department and Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Take the Central Library project with a $700 million budget for example, we will have to pay the Architectural Services Department an additional $100 million. Members can consider whether this is reasonable. At the time of the MAA, the Council's work cost was budgeted at around $10 million compared to the present $1 billion. You can see the difference there. I want to touch on financial arrangement, accounting system etc. I think we need to negotiate with the SAR government. The MAA of 1973 did not mention the self-financing principle now used for the Hong Kong Stadium. Page 202 Page 202 Page 202

Baseline (Original)

Page 201 of 654 Page 201 of 654 202 HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL The structural conflict among the Urban Council, Regional Council, Sport Development Bureau and Art Development Council is even more complicated If there is any incidence of bad coordination, it will be detrimental to the long term cultural and sports development of Hong Kong. Another example is housing. The Urban Council used to be in charge of resettlement matters. With the establishment of the Housing Department ir 1973. the Housing Authority became the manager of all estates. Markets it estates became the responsibility of the Housing Authority too. We are stil responsible for resettling hawkers, but with the NT area now given over to the Regional Council, that responsibility is only restricted to hawkers of non estate areas. Finding sites to build markets for hawkers to operate has posed many problems. We cannot satisfy hawkers and markets are not operationally viable We are in fact handicapped by our limited power. The role or the importance of the Urban Council is fading. In the eighties we could have our Members attending meetings of District Boards. Now, it i the other way round. All of us are Appointed Members now, but before June, District Board Members were indirectly elected Urban Councillors. It addition, a lot of organizations like the Town Planning Board always consulted District Boards first. They did not put much importance on the opinions of the Urban Council. The changes from 1973 to the present saw our role becoming more and mor passive. Very often, our response was defensive. Our powers have beer trimmed down and we have to face the fact that the jurisdiction of this Counci has been eaten away. Things are now very different from when the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement was issued in 1973. Hong Kong is now a Special Administrative Region and we have entered i new era. I think we need to face, discuss and resolve unsatisfactory situation of the past. We now have the chance to do so. I hope to consolidate the views of Members in reviewing with the SAR Government our powers and terms of reference. We have to reaffirm clearly our role in the three aspects of publi: health, culture and recreation. The set up of structure above structure of parallel structures should be avoided. I mean to include also in the review of the arrangement of 16% administration charge for the use of services of departments like the Architectural Services Department and Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Take the Central Library project with a $700 million budget for example, we will have to pay the Architectural Services Department an additional $100 million. Members can consider whether this is reasonable. At the time of the MAA, the Council's work cost was budgeted at around $10 million compared to the present $1 billion. You can see the difference there. I want to touch on financial arrangement, accounting system etc. 100. 1 think we need to negotiate with the SAR government. The MAA of 1973 did not mention the self financing principle now used for the Hong Kong Stadium.

2026-05-16 03:13:53 · Baseline

View content

Page 201 of 654

202

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

The structural conflict among the Urban Council, Regional Council, Sport Development Bureau and Art Development Council is even more complicated If there is any incidence of bad coordination, it will be detrimental to the long term cultural and sports development of Hong Kong.

Another example is housing. The Urban Council used to be in charge of resettlement matters. With the establishment of the Housing Department ir 1973. the Housing Authority became the manager of all estates. Markets it estates became the responsibility of the Housing Authority too. We are stil responsible for resettling hawkers, but with the NT area now given over to the Regional Council, that responsibility is only restricted to hawkers of non estate areas. Finding sites to build markets for hawkers to operate has posed many problems. We cannot satisfy hawkers and markets are not operationally viable We are in fact handicapped by our limited power.

The role or the importance of the Urban Council is fading. In the eighties we could have our Members attending meetings of District Boards. Now, it i the other way round. All of us are Appointed Members now, but before June, District Board Members were indirectly elected Urban Councillors. It addition, a lot of organizations like the Town Planning Board always consulted District Boards first. They did not put much importance on the opinions of the Urban Council.

The changes from 1973 to the present saw our role becoming more and mor passive. Very often, our response was defensive. Our powers have beer trimmed down and we have to face the fact that the jurisdiction of this Counci has been eaten away. Things are now very different from when the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement was issued in 1973.

Hong Kong is now a Special Administrative Region and we have entered i new era. I think we need to face, discuss and resolve unsatisfactory situation of the past. We now have the chance to do so. I hope to consolidate the views of Members in reviewing with the SAR Government our powers and terms of reference. We have to reaffirm clearly our role in the three aspects of publi: health, culture and recreation. The set up of structure above structure of parallel structures should be avoided. I mean to include also in the review of the arrangement of 16% administration charge for the use of services of departments like the Architectural Services Department and Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Take the Central Library project with a $700 million budget for example, we will have to pay the Architectural Services Department an additional $100 million. Members can consider whether this is reasonable. At the time of the MAA, the Council's work cost was budgeted at around $10 million compared to the present $1 billion. You can see the difference there.

I want to touch on financial arrangement, accounting system etc. 100. 1 think we need to negotiate with the SAR government. The MAA of 1973 did not mention the self financing principle now used for the Hong Kong Stadium.

1997 — Page 201

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note