Page 243 of 654
Page 243 of 654
1654
242
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
prudent reflection on these criticisms. Our critics also point out that the way we conduct our meetings tends to be chaotic, that our meetings are fiascos, that we argue for argument's sake, that we conduct our business in a closed manner with little transparency, that we shut out public and professional participation, that we lack a fair and open assessment of our facilities, and there is even the suggestion that in the coming review of our 3-tier constitutional system, consideration should be given to abolish the two municipal councils. Mr. Chairman, all the above are criticisms from outsiders.
Whether such criticism is right or wrong is not the subject of this debate, but I think we should take advantage of this opportunity to learn from public opinion and respond. We should adopt a proactive attitude in leading the work of the Council towards a larger direction. I would suggest that we set four work targets.
First, we should have a vision in assuming leadership in taking municipal services of Hong Kong into a new era.
Secondly, I feel the Council should set work targets and plans as soon as possible. We can perhaps do so through the process of setting five-year plans by our Select Committees and after that through actual implementation.
Thirdly, we should review and improve certain operational mechanisms. The first step in this direction will be to review the relationship of cooperation among the Council, the Department, and the Architectural Services Department over capital work.
Fourthly, I think we should adopt an open, proactive spirit of reform in achieving the above three points.
I would now like to draw my speech on to our present mechanism for capital works and examine the demerits. I am sure we have all read the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement of 1973. The Memorandum is in fact divorced from the present-day needs of our society. As it is, the Architectural Services Department has a monopoly over our capital works. It is our sole professional expert in this respect. Whenever we need to seek outside professional consultation, we have to do so through the Architectural Services Department. If you go over the figures, you will realize that the bulk of our capital works is monopolized by the Architectural Services Department. In our cooperation with ASD, we face complicated procedures, high charges, delays, slippages, and overspending. In design, the work of the Architectural Services Department is in most cases just mediocre.
I recommend that we, through this motion debate, conduct a review of the 1973 Memorandum at the Standing Committee of the Whole Council or the Capital Works Select Committee, with particular emphasis on the cooperative relationship between the Council and the Architectural Services Department. The review should cover three aspects, including:
Page 243 of 654
Page 243 of 654
1654
242
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
prudent reflection on these criticism. Our critics also point out that the way we conduct our meetings tend to be chaotic, that our meetings are fiascos, that we argue for argument sake, that we conduct our business in a closed manner with little transparency, that we shut out public and professional participation, that we lack a fair and open assessment of our facilities, and there is even the suggestion that in the coming review of our 3-tier constitutional system. consideration should be given to abolish the two municipal councils. Mr. Chairman, all the above are criticism from outsiders.
Whether such criticism is right or wrong is not the subject of this debate, but I think we should take advantage of this opportunity to learn from public opinion and response. We should adopt a proactive attitude in leading the work of the Council towards a larger direction. I would suggest that we set four work targets.
First, we should have a vision in assuming leadership in taking municipal services of Hong Kong into a new era.
Secondly. I feel the Council should set work targets and plans as soon as possible. We can perhaps do so through the process of setting five year plans by our Select Committees and after that through actual implementation.
Thirdly, we should review and improve certain operational mechanisms. The first step in this direction will be to review the relationship of cooperation among the Council, the Department and the Architectural Services Department over capital work.
Fourthly, I think we should adopt an open, proactive spirit of reform in achieving the above three points.
I would now like to draw my speech on to our present mechanism for capital works and examine the demerits. I am sure we have all read the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement of 1973. The Memorandum is in fact divorced from present day needs of our society. As it is, the Architectural Services Department has a monopoly over our capital works. It is our sole professional expert in this respect. Whenever we need to seek outside professional consultation, we have to do so through the Architectural Services Department. If you go over the figures, you will realize that the bulk of our capital works is monopolised by the Architectural Services Department. In our cooperation with ASD, we face complicated procedures, high charges, delays, slippages and overspending. In design, the work of the Architectural Services Department is in most cases just mediocre,
I recommend that we, through this motion debate, conduct a review of the 1973 Memorandum at the Standing Committee of the Whole Council or the Capital Works Select Committee with particular emphasis on the cooperative relationship between the Council and the Architectural Services Department. The review should cover three aspects including:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.