1997 — Page 203

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 203 of 654

Page 203 of 654

204

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

there is need for us to improve and review at an opportune time, but I don't think this is the right time. Nor do I think the Provisional Urban Council is the right body to take it up. The motive of the motion may be well-intended, but we have to consider whether it would bring negative outcome.

I think this Council should adopt a pragmatic approach in attaining its long time target of enhancing the living qualities of our people. This is not the right time for a review. With these remarks, I oppose the motion.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—I would like to speak on this motion too.

The motion covers four different areas and it is quite comprehensive. If Members do not agree to one area, you should vote against the motion.

We are now just a fortnight past the date of reunification. Proposing any drastic change right now is definitely not the right thing to do. Maybe I can say that it would be against the spirit of smooth transition, unchanged systems and gradual developments. As the Provisional Urban Council, we should not start far-reaching changes for the coming Urban Council. We should not give the public the impression of further politicization for the Urban Council.

The SAR government is earnestly handling urgent matters such as people's livelihood, inflated property prices, the influx of children from the Mainland, education, social welfare and others. It would be putting the cart before the horse to engineer major political reforms and review the relationship between the SAR government and district organizations (such as the Provisional Urban Council). There is not such need. Even if a full review of this administrative structure is called for, it would be for the SAR government and the Provisional Legislative Council to handle, not something to be raised unilaterally by this Council.

The terms of reference of the Urban Council cover several government departments. Before the reunification, this Council was accountable to the Governor and the Chief Secretary. Now, it is accountable to the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration. A review of relationship would involve contact and discussion at a high level. With Members of this Council newly appointed, if we conduct a review in a lofty stance before we have time to study the matter, discuss or exchange opinions, it would be rash, impulsive and extremely unwise.

The motion has raised a very important issue. The Municipal Services Ordinance states the terms of reference of both municipal councils. Is it the way to handle matters in times of democracy by deciding on a review unilaterally without consulting the opinions of the Regional Council?

The MAA was issued in 1973. I know its background well. In 1966, there was a White Paper on District Administration. The MAA was issued in 1973. It has been tried and tested for many years now and no major problem has arisen. I fail to see the intention behind moving this motion today. Is it that

Page 204 of 654

Page 204 of 654

Edit History

2026-05-16 03:14:11 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Page 203 of 654 Page 203 of 654 204 HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL there is need for us to improve and review at an opportune time, but I don't think this is the right time. Nor do I think the Provisional Urban Council is the right body to take it up. The motive of the motion may be well-intended, but we have to consider whether it would bring negative outcome. I think this Council should adopt a pragmatic approach in attaining its long time target of enhancing the living qualities of our people. This is not the right time for a review. With these remarks, I oppose the motion. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—I would like to speak on this motion too. The motion covers four different areas and it is quite comprehensive. If Members do not agree to one area, you should vote against the motion. We are now just a fortnight past the date of reunification. Proposing any drastic change right now is definitely not the right thing to do. Maybe I can say that it would be against the spirit of smooth transition, unchanged systems and gradual developments. As the Provisional Urban Council, we should not start far-reaching changes for the coming Urban Council. We should not give the public the impression of further politicization for the Urban Council. The SAR government is earnestly handling urgent matters such as people's livelihood, inflated property prices, the influx of children from the Mainland, education, social welfare and others. It would be putting the cart before the horse to engineer major political reforms and review the relationship between the SAR government and district organizations (such as the Provisional Urban Council). There is not such need. Even if a full review of this administrative structure is called for, it would be for the SAR government and the Provisional Legislative Council to handle, not something to be raised unilaterally by this Council. The terms of reference of the Urban Council cover several government departments. Before the reunification, this Council was accountable to the Governor and the Chief Secretary. Now, it is accountable to the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration. A review of relationship would involve contact and discussion at a high level. With Members of this Council newly appointed, if we conduct a review in a lofty stance before we have time to study the matter, discuss or exchange opinions, it would be rash, impulsive and extremely unwise. The motion has raised a very important issue. The Municipal Services Ordinance states the terms of reference of both municipal councils. Is it the way to handle matters in times of democracy by deciding on a review unilaterally without consulting the opinions of the Regional Council? The MAA was issued in 1973. I know its background well. In 1966, there was a White Paper on District Administration. The MAA was issued in 1973. It has been tried and tested for many years now and no major problem has arisen. I fail to see the intention behind moving this motion today. Is it that Page 204 of 654 Page 204 of 654
Baseline (Original)
Page 203 of 654 Page 203 of 654 204 HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL there is need for us to improve and review at an opportune time, but I don't think this is the right time. Nor do I think the Provisional Urban Council is the right body to take it up. The motive of the motion may be well-intended, but we have to consider whether it would bring negative outcome. I think this Council should adopt a pragmatic approach in attaining its long time target of enhancing the living qualities of our people. This is not the tight time for a review. With these remarks, I oppose the motion. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—I would like to speak on this molion too. The motion covers four different areas and it is quite comprehensive. If Members do not agree to one area, you should vote against the motion. We are now just a fortnight past the date of reunification. Proposing any drastic change right now is definitely not the right thing to do. May be I can say that it would be against the spirit of smooth transition, unchanged systems and gradual developments. As the Provisional Urban Council, we should not start far-reaching changes for the coming Urban Council. We should not give the public the impression of further politicization for the Urban Council. The SAR government is earnestly handling urgent matters such as people's livelihood, inflated property prices, the influx of children from the Mainland. education, social welfare and others. It would be putting the cart before the horse to engineer major political reforms and review the relationship betweer the SAR government and district organizations (such as the Provisional Urbar Council). There is not such need. Even if a full review of this administrative structure is called for, it would be for the SAR government and the Provisional Legislative Council to handle, not something to be raised unilaterally by this Council. The terms of reference of the Urban Council cover several government departments. Before the reunification, this Council was accountable to the Governor and the Chief Secretary. Now, it is accountable to the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration. A review of relationship would involve contact and discussion at a high level. With Members of this Council newly appointed, if we conduct a review in a lofty stance before we have time to study the matter, discuss or exchange opinions, it would be rash impulsive and extremely unwise. The motion has raised a very important issue. The Municipal Services Ordinance states the terms of reference of both municipal councils. Is it the way to handle matters in times of democracy by deciding on a review unilaterally without consulting the opinions of the Regional Council? The MAA was issued in 1973. I know its background well. In 1966, there was a White Paper on District Administration. The MAA was issued in 1973 It has been tried and tested for many years now and no major problem has arisen. I fail to see the intention behind moving this motion today. Is it that
2026-05-16 03:14:11 · Baseline
View content

Page 203 of 654

Page 203 of 654

204

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

there is need for us to improve and review at an opportune time, but I don't think this is the right time. Nor do I think the Provisional Urban Council is the right body to take it up. The motive of the motion may be well-intended, but we have to consider whether it would bring negative outcome.

I think this Council should adopt a pragmatic approach in attaining its long time target of enhancing the living qualities of our people. This is not the tight time for a review. With these remarks, I oppose the motion.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—I would like to speak on this molion too.

The motion covers four different areas and it is quite comprehensive. If Members do not agree to one area, you should vote against the motion.

We are now just a fortnight past the date of reunification. Proposing any drastic change right now is definitely not the right thing to do. May be I can say that it would be against the spirit of smooth transition, unchanged systems and gradual developments. As the Provisional Urban Council, we should not start far-reaching changes for the coming Urban Council. We should not give the public the impression of further politicization for the Urban Council.

The SAR government is earnestly handling urgent matters such as people's livelihood, inflated property prices, the influx of children from the Mainland. education, social welfare and others. It would be putting the cart before the horse to engineer major political reforms and review the relationship betweer the SAR government and district organizations (such as the Provisional Urbar Council). There is not such need. Even if a full review of this administrative structure is called for, it would be for the SAR government and the Provisional Legislative Council to handle, not something to be raised unilaterally by this Council.

The terms of reference of the Urban Council cover several government departments. Before the reunification, this Council was accountable to the Governor and the Chief Secretary. Now, it is accountable to the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration. A review of relationship would involve contact and discussion at a high level. With Members of this Council newly appointed, if we conduct a review in a lofty stance before we have time to study the matter, discuss or exchange opinions, it would be rash impulsive and extremely unwise.

The motion has raised a very important issue. The Municipal Services Ordinance states the terms of reference of both municipal councils. Is it the way to handle matters in times of democracy by deciding on a review unilaterally without consulting the opinions of the Regional Council?

The MAA was issued in 1973. I know its background well. In 1966,

there was a White Paper on District Administration. The MAA was issued in 1973 It has been tried and tested for many years now and no major problem has arisen. I fail to see the intention behind moving this motion today. Is it that

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.