Page 202 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
203
But because of this principle, we are now facing a lot of difficulties as Members are aware of.
Mr. Chairman, some Members are worried that discussion with government might lead to further trimming of our powers. I take the contrary view. In the sixties, Members of this Council reviewed and discussed things aggressively. "We should think of the long term benefit of Hong Kong, not just our own powers. I find our existing terms of reference vague and the matters we have authority over are piecemeal. This is detrimental to the long term development of Hong Kong and bad for our policies on public health, culture and sports. A redundant structure does no good for development. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will support my motion and I want us to discuss our role and our relationship with the SAR government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RONNIE WONG Man-chiu (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I second the motion by Ms. Ada WONG.
Ms. Jennifer CHOW Kit-bing (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the motion has its macro and micro aspects. It touches on our jurisdiction and matters beyond our jurisdiction. So, personally, I have doubts on whether a review should be taken at the Provisional Urban Council at this stage.
The terms of reference of the Urban Council are wide. We provided basic services to people's livelihood and we enhance the qualities of living as well as supply all kinds of facilities. In general, our work centres on public health, recreation and culture. We also have Five Year Plans for these areas. If a review is carried out, I wonder what is to become of the Five Year Plans.
As for reviews on the financial and accounting systems, part of the Urban Council's income is from rates in the urban area, all sorts of licensing fees and rental income from facilities provided at our venues. We also worked out a Five Year Forecast in estimating the expenditure of the coming financial year and assisting in planning capital works and development projects. We plan what we spend on what we get as income. We have been doing this for a long time. Citizens are therefore benefitting from improving urban services. I have the following worries about the motion.
First, a review may delay the implementation of our projects progress and Five Year Plan.
Secondly, is there urgent need to conduct the review with the Council in its present stage as the Provisional Urban Council? It makes me ask question. Shouldn't the Provisional Urban Council see it as a target to provide services on the existing foundation and seek to implement Five Year Plans? Those who have joined us recently may not yet be familiar with the Council's operation to participate in a review. Is this really an opportune time?
I think that at this juncture, we should proceed along consistently instead of make major changes. Undeniably, our work is far from perfect. I agree that
Page 202 of 654
Page 202 of 654
Page 202 of 654
Page zuz 01054
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
203
Ibut because of this principle, we are now facing a lot of difficulties as Members sare aware of.
Mr. Chairman, some Members are worried that discussion with government might lead to further trimming of our powers. I take the contrary view. In the sixties, Members of this Council reviewed and discussed things aggressively. "We should think of the long term benefit of Hong Kong, not just our own powers. I find our existing terms of reference vague and the matters we have authority over are piecemeal. This is detrimental to the long term development oof Hong Kong and bad for our policies on public health, culture and sports. A redundant structure does no good for development. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, II hope Members will support my motion and I want us to discuss our role and cour relationship with the SAR government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RONNIE Wong Man-chIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I second the rmotion by Ms. Ada WONG.
Ms. Jennifer CHOW KIT-BING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the motion mas its macro and micro aspects. It touches on our jurisdiction and matters beyond our jurisdiction. So, personally, I have doubts on whether a review should be taken at the Provisional Urban Council at this stage.
The terms of reference of the Urban Council are wide. We provided basic services to people's livelihood and we enhance the qualities of living as well as supply all kinds of facilities. In general, our work centres on public health, recreation and culture. We also have Five Year Plans for these areas. If a review is carried out, I wonder what is to become of the Five Year Plans.
As for reviews on the financial and accounting systems, part of the Urban Council's income is from rates in the urban area, all sorts of licensing fees and rental income from facilities provided at our venues. We also workouted a Five Year Forecast in estimating the expenditure of the coming financial year and assisting in planning capital works and development projects. We plan what we spend on what we get as income. We have been doing this for a long time. Citizens are therefore benefitting from improving urban services. I have the fiollowing worries about the motion.
First, a review may delay the implementation of our projects progress and Five Year Plan.
Secondly, is there urgent need to conduct the review with the Council in its present stage as the Provisional Urban Council? It makes me ask question. Shouldn't the Provisional Urban Council see it as a target to provide services on the existing foundation and seek to implement Five Year Plans? Those who have joined us recently may not yet be familiar with the Council's operation to poarticipate in a review. Is this really an opportune time?
I think that at this juncture, we should proceed along consistently instead of make major changes. Undeniably, our work is far from perfect. I agree that
Page 202 of 654
Page 202 of 654
Page 202 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.