Page 362 of 654
054
358
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
conclusion derived from collective wisdom is always better than the will of a bureau secretary who has a flair for tricks and acts arbitrarily. If this was not done, the SAR Government would be creating another big step backward for constitutional democracy after the PLC.
Lastly, I hope that when you, Mr. Chairman, convey the Urban Council's final recommendations to the Chief Executive after receiving them, you will not do so with shaking hands and stammer when you speak. We must be courageous in relating the pros and cons and in making beneficial and constructive proposals for district administration and the development of democracy.
With these remarks, I support Mr. Joseph CHAN's motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, having listened to the several Members who have spoken on today's motion, I noticed a number of common points. The first is that everyone supports the review. Secondly, everyone considers that the review we are facing is a major and complicated subject. Thirdly, everyone feels that time is very pressing and short. In particular, it is felt that in conducting a review of a 3-tier structure of such significance within such a short notice, the Government seems to be aiming at a wager. In connection with these three common points, I consider that the first thing the Council should do is to draw up a strategy under the leadership of the Chairman, which should cover the following elements.
The first element is time. If everyone considers that the timetable is too tight. I think the first thing we should do is to reach a consensus with the central government on the timetable through either the Chairman or the Urban and Regional Councils or even the Provisional District Boards. In examining the timetable, opportunity should also be taken to discuss with the central government the pattern of review, the form of consultation and assurance of the accuracy of the various data used for the review. Any slight discrepancy in all these would likely distort the review. Hence I consider that the first and foremost task should be to negotiate the timetable and pattern of review.
The second point is that simultaneously, the Urban Council should do some in-house preparation. In line with this view, I proposed as early as two weeks ago that the Urban Council should set up a special team tasked with the preparation of the Urban Council's stance, information etc. Such a move is similar to what was done for the 1983/84 review that Mr. Joseph Chan mentioned. Members may flip over the Council's records. In fact a lot of planning and preparation are required.
Apart from this, we should focus on the third point and that is, after we have completed the preparation and have arrived at some consensus or non-consensus, we should seek external communication. We can see that the motion also recommends that communication be made with the Regional
Page 362 of 654
Page 362 of 654
054
358
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
conclusion derived from collective wisdom is always better than the will of a bureau secretary who has a flair for tricks and acts arbitrarily. If this was not done, the SAR Government would be creating another big step backward for constitutional democracy after the PLC.
Lastly, I hope that when you, Mr. Chairman, convey the Urban Council's final recommendations to the Chief Executive after receiving them, you will not do so with shaking hands and stammer when you speak. We must be courageous in relating the pros and cons and in making beneficial and constructive proposals for district administration and the development of democracy.
With these remarks, I support Mr. Joseph CHAN's motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, having listened to the several Members who have spoken on today's motion, I noticed a number of common points. The first is that everyone supports the review. Secondly, everyone considers that the review we are facing is a major and complicated subject. Thirdly, everyone feels that time is very pressing and short. In particular, it is felt that in conducting a review of a 3-tier structure of such significance within such a short notice, the Government seems to be aiming at a wager. In connection with these three common points, I consider that the first thing the Council should do is to draw up a strategy under the leadership of the Chairman, which should cover the following elements.
The first element is time. If everyone considers that the timetable is too tight. I think the first thing we should do is to reach a consensus with the central government on the timetable through either the Chairman or the Urban and Regional Councils or even the Provisional District Boards. In examining the timetable, opportunity should also be taken to discuss with the central government the pattern of review, the form of consultation and assurance of the accuracy of the various data used for the review. Any slight discrepancy in all these would likely distort the review. Hence I consider that the first and foremost task should be to negotiate the timetable and pattern of review.
The second point is that simultaneously, the Urban Council should do some in-house preparation. In line with this view, I proposed as early as two weeks ago that the Urban Council should set up a special team tasked with the preparation of the Urban Council's stance, information etc. Such a move is similar to what was done for the 1983/84 review that Mr. Joseph Chan mentioned. Members may flip over the Council's records. In fact a lot of planning and preparation are required.
Apart from this, we should focus on the third point and that is, after we have completed the preparation and have arrived at some consensus or non- consensus, we should seek external communication. We can see that the motion also recommends that communication be made with the Regional
Page 362 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.