Page 104 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
125
headstrong with this purpose, then, no matter which option is finally taken, it cannot be launched successfully without the endorsement of the public.
When we look through the Consultation Document, we can look at it from two angles. First, is it going to be a review reform for better administrative efficiency? Secondly, is it to be a constitutional reform? From the administrative point of view, 'losing weight' by combining vertically and horizontally the two municipal councils and 18 district boards is a natural direction to take. If it is to be constitutional reform, we need to see the roles to be played by district organisations (no matter it is to be a two-tier or three-tier system) and their projected relationship with Legislative Council. Unfortunately, the Consultation Paper has given no explanation of government thinking in these two respects.
Although relevant government officials have stressed many times that both aspects can be considered under this review, I am sure fellow colleagues know full well the real motive of Government. I already spoke on the position of ADPL on the Consultation Document on Review of District Organisations at the Council's Annual Debate earlier in the year, I do not intend to repeat what I said.
To be brief, let me point out that we should consider the following principles when we carry out this current review;
1. Will the review increase administrative efficiency?
2. Will the review promote democratic development, participation of district members in policy making and increase their influence?
3. We agree to the point made by a fellow colleague just now and want to ask if the finally established structure can be a good training ground for political leaders of Hong Kong?
The ADPL has several points to make regarding the above three principles.
I. After the review, we may end up with a one-tier structure. Clearly, we will by then have no need to hold two elections and when Central Government wants to consult on any topic, there will be no need to go through different meetings. We believe this will help in enhancing administrative efficiency.
The one-tier structure should be vested with the following powers:
a. real management power for district administration;
b. power of consultation in respect of central policies;
c. power to link up with the central policy making structure, for example the Food Safety Bureau mentioned by a fellow colleague just now or the existing Housing Authority, Transport Advisory Committee etc. Our representatives should sit in the central structure of the one-tier council so as to increase district participation and maintain district involvement.
Page 104 of 606
Page 104 of 606
Page 104 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
125
headstrong with this purpose, then, no matter which option is finally taken, it cannot be launched successfully without the endorsement of the public.
When we look through the Consultation Document, we can look at it from two angles. First, is it going to be a review reform for better administrative efficiency? Secondly, is it to be a constitutional reform? From the administrative point of view, 'losing weight' by combining vertically and horizontally the two municipal councils and 18 district boards is a natural direction to take. If it is to be constitutional reform, we need to see the roles to be played by district organisations (no matter it is to be a two tier or three tier system) and their projected relationship with Legislative Council. Unfortunately, the Consultation Paper has given no explanation of government thinking in these two respects.
Although relevant government officials have stressed many times that both aspects can be considered under this review, I am sure fellow colleagues know full well the real motive of Government. I already spoke on the position of ADPL on the Consultation Document on Review of District Organisations at the Council's Annual Debate carlier in the year, 1 do not intend to repeat what I said.
To be brief, let me point out that we should consider the following principles when we carry out this current review;
1.
2.
3.
Will the review increase administrative efficiency?
Will the review promote democratic development, participation of district members in policy making and increase their influence?
We agree to the point made by a fellow colleague just now and want to ask if the finally established structure can be a good training ground for political leaders of Hong Kong?
The ADPL has several points to make regarding the above three principles.
I.
After the review, we may end up with a one tier structure. Clearly, we will by then have no need to hold two elections and when Central Government wants to consult on any topic, there will be no need to go through different meetings. We believe this will help in enhancing administrative efficiency.
The one tier structure should be vested with the following powers:
real management power for district administration: power of consultation in respect of central policies;
2.
a.
b.
C.
power to link up with the central policy making structure, for example the Food Safety Bureau mentioned by a fellow colleague just now or the existing Housing Authority, Transport Advisory Committee etc. Our representatives should sit in the central structure of the one tier council so as to increase district participation and maintain district involvement.
Page 104 of 606
Page 104 of 606
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.