HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
207
jobs to be done by the Architectural Services Department? Can't we do it ourselves? Don't these situations call for a review? I think many colleagues see eye to eye with me on this point. Take the Hong Kong Stadium for example. The motion was moved by Ms. Ada Wong. Some Members voted against it because the motion was moved by her. If it had been moved by me, they would perhaps have considered voting in favour. If this is the kind of attitude to take, nothing can be done. I hope Members vote according to your conscience, not because of your Party or any other factor. There is one thing more. Ms. Ada WONG in her motion asks for a review. She has not proposed a time schedule or anything concrete. She has simply asked that we should take the first step. I do not agree to radical actions or immediate implementation of improvement measures. However, if we do not make a start today, when do we do it? In fact, many years ago at different Select Committees, many Members already saw the need for a review. We thought we should negotiate with government for improvements.
I find that the motion is in the interest of this Council. The Chairman as well as fellow Members have pledged to serve the Council with our best. I support Ms. Ada WONG's motion.
Mr. WU CHI-WA1 (in Cantonese): Having heard Members' opinions in opposition to the motion by Ms. Ada WONG, I find that they have an assumption. They assume that the work of the Urban Council will continue as before if the MAA is not amended. If we think back to 1973, we can see the Chairman's point that the powers of the Urban Council have been gradually trimmed down through the establishment of many new bodies. As such, may I say that maintaining the MAA is not equivalent to continuation of the work of the Urban Council?
As Council Members of the Democratic Party, our greatest concern is not the continuation of the work of the Urban Council, but how the relationship between the Council and government can be proportioned for the most effective way to serve the public. If there is the day that a review shows there is no need for the existence of the Urban Council, we should let it go as a historical development. It is no big deal.
So, the concern before us should be how we can carry out our function most effectively. Consideration should be given to how we can serve people from different strata of our society with the resources we are allocated at present. This is my first point.
My second point addresses our claim that the Urban Council is financially autonomous. We say this because under the MAA, we can decide how to allocate our resources. Think back a few months. You must remember that the Finance Branch cut down sizably our request for funds for the next three years. From this, we can see that government is very concerned about how the Urban Council utilizes its funds. The thing is, our relationship with
Page 206 of 654
Page 206 of 654
Page 206 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
207
jobs to be done by the Architectural Services Department? Can't we do it ourselves? Don't these situations call for a review? I think many colleagues see eye to eye with me on this point. Take the Hong Kong Stadium for example. The motion was moved by Ms. Ada Wong. Some Members voted against it because the motion was moved by her. If it had been moved by me, they would perhaps have considered voting in favour. If this is the kind of attitude to take, nothing can be done. I hope Members vote according to your conscience, not because of your Party or any other factor. There is one thing more. Ms. Ada WONG in her motion asks for a review. She has not proposed a time schedule or anything concrete. She has simply asked that we should take the first step. I do not agree to radical actions or immediate implementation of improvement measures. However, if we do not make a start today, when do we do it? In fact, many years ago at different Select Committees, many Members already saw the need for a review. We thought we should negotiate with government for improvements.
I find that the motion is in the interest of this Council. The Chairman as well as fellow Members have pledged to serve the Council with our best. I support Ms. Ada WONG's motion.
Mr. WU CHI-WA1 (in Cantonese):-Having heard Members' opinions in opposition to the motion by Ms. Ada WONG, I find that they have an assumption. They assume that the work of the Urban Council will continue as before if the MAA is not amended. If we think back to 1973, we can see the Chairman's point that the powers of the Urban Council have been gradually trimmed down through the establishment of many new bodies. As such, may I say that maintaining the MAA is not equivalent to continuation of the work of the Urban Council?
As Council Members of the Democratic Party, our greatest concern is not the continuation of the work of the Urban Council, but how the relationship between the Council and government can be proportioned for the most effective way to serve the public. If there is the day that a review shows there is no need for the existence of the Urban Council, we should let it go as a historical development. It is no big deal.
So, the concern before us should be how we can carry out our function most effectively. Consideration should be given to how we can serve people from different strata of our society with the resources we are allocated at present. This is my first point.
My second point addresses our claim that the Urban Council is financially autonomous. We say this because under the MAA, we can decide how to allocate our resources. Think back a few months. You must remember that the Finance Branch cut down sizably our request for funds for the next three years. From this, we can see that government is very concerned about how the Urban Council utilizes its funds. The thing is, our relationship with
Page 206 of 654
Page 206 of 654
Page 206 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.