Page 350 of 654
Page 350 of 654
1054
346
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, about the allocation of funds for the next three years, which is covered by the motion, I would view it in two stages. The first stage is to bid for provision while the second is to seek supplementary provision.
I believe that on the question of bidding for provision, a conclusion has already been reached in the past months' discussions. We can see that as far as the question of allocation of funds is concerned, the Government's stance and the Urban Council's are different. Apart from the different stances on the two aspects of finances and figures, our views on the community's expectation of the standard of the Urban Council's services also vary. This is something that the Urban Council and the Government fail to compromise. This is due to the lack of a specific way of measurement between both parties. No consensus between the two parties can be reached on the perspectives and viewpoints, as well as the standards and positions in relation to 'quality municipal facilities' and 'the community's demands for municipal facilities and services'.
As for the second stage, I consider that what we can do now is to seek supplementary provision and I agree that we must not take things easy. I consider that we can go about this in two steps. The first step is to get the Urban Council's job done. I hope a detailed list of the facilities and services that will be affected in the next three years, be they delayed, rescheduled or deleted ones, will be made available soon for the information of our colleagues in the Council. Thirty-five items of facilities and services that will be affected by the existing shortage of funds should be listed out. I propose that when we have confirmed the above information, we should go on to the second step. Our discussions on this issue are always devoid of community involvement. We tend to say that the community demands this service and those facilities but in fact, the people have never had a chance to express their views and to be involved.
I propose that as the second step, the Provisional Urban Council should prepare a consultation paper on the facilities and services which will be affected in the next three years, which will disclose the information concerned to the public for discussion, so that all the people of Hong Kong will have a chance to voice their views. They could put forth their views on the types of facilities that should or should not be provided and on whether the facilities should be provided according to an amended schedule. I feel that it is only after we have obtained these views that we could get hold of new justifications and new information to demand for re-negotiation with the Government on the issue of supplementary provision.
I feel that if we still held onto the contention and argument over the quality and quantity of good services and fund allocation instead of laying down some yardsticks, we would be absolutely powerless in convincing the Government which party the public are supporting, the Urban Council or the Government.
Page 350Page 351
Page 351 of 654
Page 350 of 654
Page 350 of 654
1054
346
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, about the allocation of funds for the next three years, which is covered by the motion, I would view it in two stages. The first stage is to bid for provision while the second is to seek supplementary provision.
I believe that on the question of bidding for provision, a conclusion has already been reached in the past months' discussions. We can see that as far as the question of allocation of funds is concerned, the Government's stance and the Urban Council's are different. Apart from the different stances on the two aspects of finances and figures, our views on the community's expectation of the standard of the Urban Council's services also vary. This is something that the Urban Council and the Government fail to compromise. This is due to the lack of a specific way of measurement between both parties. No consensus between the two parties can be reached on the perspectives and viewpoints, as well as the standards and positions in relation to 'quality municipal facilities" and 'the community's demands for municipal facilities and services'.
As for the second stage, I consider that what we can do now is to seek supplementary provision and I agree that we must not take things easy. I consider that we can go about this in two steps. The first step is to get the Urban Council's job done. I hope a detailed list of the facilities and services that will be affected in the next three years, be they delayed, rescheduled or deleted ones, will be made available soon for the information of our colleagues in the Council. Thirty-five items of facilities and services that will be affected by the existing shortage of funds should be listed out. I propose that when we have confirmed the above information, we should go on to the second step. Our discussions on this issue are always devoid of community involvement. We tend to say that the community demands this service and those facilities but in fact, the people have never had a chance to express their views and to be involved.
I propose that as the second step, the Provisional Urban Council should prepare a consultation paper on the facilities and services which will be affected in the next three years, which will disclose the information concerned to the public for discussion, so that all the people of Hong Kong will have a chance to voice their views. They could put forth their views on the types of facilities that should or should not be provided and on whether the facilities should be provided according to an amended schedule. I feel that it is only after we have obtained these views that we could get hold of new justifications and new information to demand for re-negotiation with the Government on the issue of supplementary provision.
I feel that if we still held onto the contention and argument over the quality and quantity of good services and fund allocation instead of laying down some yardsticks, we would be absolutely powerless in convincing the Government which party the public are supporting, the Urban Council or the Government.
Page 350Page 351
Page 351 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.