1998 — Page 247

Page 247 of 606

-247 of 606

Page 247 of 606

242

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

known the arrangements after abolishing the two Municipal Councils to outside bodies, misleading the public to think that abolition of the two Councils was an inevitable outcome. However, this is contrary to a considerable number of opinion surveys and the Government's published 'Review of District Organizations-Compendium of Public Views' which have substantially indicated that the majority of citizens wished the two Municipal Councils to be merged or retained. In view of this, the Council censures the Government for the ways in which it has been misleading the public during the consultation period.'

He said (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I am going to move my motion.

I think I have to spend some time in elaborating the motion, because some colleagues think that I want to change the system to 'One Council, One Department' and have asked for a debate on the dissolution of the two Municipal Councils. I hope I can make it clear that my motion is:

In the course of the consultation on 'Review of District Organizations', the Government has frequently made known the arrangements after abolishing the two Municipal Councils to outside bodies, misleading the public to think that abolition of the two Councils was an inevitable outcome. However, this is contrary to a considerable number of opinion surveys and the Government's published 'Review of District Organizations-Compendium of Public Views' (nicknamed 'the telephone directory' by us) which have substantially indicated that the majority of citizens wished the two Municipal Councils to be merged or retained. In view of this, the Council censures the Government for the ways in which it has been misleading the public during the consultation period.'

I have debated about this issue with the officials of the Constitutional Affairs Bureau thrice at the meetings of the Legislative Council. I look at the views and analysis given in the 'telephone directory' recently released from different angles. I have digested the Government's stance. It is with meticulous care that I have studied it in great detail, spending quite some time on it. I have also studied the views of the four academics quoted in the Report as well as the submissions of various bodies, including the Arts Development Council, the Sports Development Board and the Amateur Rowing Association. I have studied them very carefully. I have also studied in detail the views of the Democratic Party and the other political parties as well as the comments of individual scholars. I have asked my colleagues in the press office to photocopy the views of scholars covered by the press in the past couple of months for my perusal. I have therefore read a lot of materials in the past two days about the motion. I have prepared a speech, but I am not in the mood at all to point out—the more materials I have read, the more reluctant I am to point out that this is the most foul soccer game of the century. This is my description of the matter. I recall that last time I said it was like playing a foul game, with the referee joining in. I also said it was like Brazil versus Hong Kong. The situation is more than that now. The Government is simply turning