Page 255 of 606
250
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
I appreciate and support this. I also support the arguments of Mr. WONG Kwok-hing and Ms. Jennifer CHOW who have just spoken.
The issue has been discussed many times. I wish to make some supplementary comments in two aspects. One is to supplement the public views while the other is to comment on the recommendations, so as to advise the Government how best to complete the task.
I would first of all supplement the public views. Public views are the views given by members of the public and in the process, discussion will be conducted by the Legislative Council, based on which the final decision will be made.
The approach adopted by the Government this time is not fair to the public. I have viewed the issue from another angle. Not to mention the Urban Council, is the approach adopted now by the Government fair to the public and to the Legislative Council, which represents public opinions? The answer is 'no'. In brief, consultation and discussion in the first phase (June to July) were conducted in a premature situation. Basically, the Government appealed to the public to make their choice when there were not any specific proposals for administrative restructuring. The first time when any specific proposals for the management of food safety and environmental hygiene surfaced was barely a few days ago when the Policy Address was delivered. Since then, there have been a lot of arguments. The briefing made at the meeting of the Panel on Health and Welfare of the Legislative Council yesterday also gave rise to many arguments that the proposed framework fundamentally was no solution for the problems of streamlining and overlapping. This is the first point.
The second point is that the consultation paper has not touched on the ways to manage arts and culture or recreation and sports. At the meeting of the Panel on Home Affairs yesterday, there was also heated discussion as to why a conclusion should have been reached when there had not been any concrete options. This is very unfair to the public. Before members of the public knew anything about the Government's direction, it was concluded that they were in favour of the Government's stance. This is the second point.
The third point is that the method of analysis adopted by the Government has been one in which views are taken out of the context simply to suit its needs and support its stance. I have all along considered this to be inappropriate.
The fourth point is that the Government has adopted the tactic of releasing one part of the information while keeping back the other part. I am talking about the 600 copies of questionnaire designed by the Government. So far, only a summary analysis has been presented to the public. Mr. Li Wah-ming is correct in saying that the reason for dissolving the Councils is not because 'views are diverse', 60% of the respondents favoured retention of the Councils while only 17% supported their dissolution. I consider that the Government
Page 255 of 606
Page 256
Page 255 of 606
Page 255 of 606
250
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
I appreciate and support this. I also support the arguments of Mr. WONG Kwok-hing and Ms. Jennifer CHOW who have just spoken.
The issue has been discussed for many times. I wish to make some supplementary comments in two aspects. One is to supplement the public views while the other is to comment on the recommendations, so as to advise the Government how best to complete the task.
I would first of all supplement the public views. Public views are the views given by members of the public and in the process, discussion will be conducted by the Legislative Council, based on which the final decision will be made.
The approach adopted by the Government this time is not fair to the public. I have viewed the issue from another angle. Not to mention the Urban Council, is the approach adopted now by the Government fair to the public and to the Legislative Council, which represents public opinions? The answer is 'no'. In brief, consultation and discussion in the first phase (June to July) were conducted in a pre-mature situation. Basically the Government appealed to the public to make their choice when there were not any specific proposals for administrative restructuring. The first time when any specific proposals for the management of food safety and environmental hygiene surfaced was barely a few days ago when the Policy Address was delivered. Since then there have been a lot of arguments. The briefing made at the meeting of the Panel on Health and Welfare of the Legislative Council yesterday also gave rise to many arguments that the proposed framework fundamentally was no solution for the problems of streamlining and overlapping. This is the first point.
The second point is that the consultation paper has not touched on the ways to manage arts and culture or recreation and sports. At the meeting of the Panel on Home Affairs yesterday, there was also heated discussion as to why a conclusion should have been reached when there had not been any concrete options. This is very unfair to the public. Before members of the public knew anything about the Government's direction, it was concluded that they were in favour of the Government's stance. This is the second point.
The third point is that the method of analysis adopted by the Government has been one in which views are taken out of the context simply to suit its needs and support its stance. I have all along considered this to be inappropriate.
The fourth point is that the Government has adopted the tactic of releasing one part of the information while keeping back the other part. I am talking about the 600 copies of questionnaire designed by the Government. So far only a summary analysis has been presented to the public. Mr. Li Wah-ming is correct in saying that the reason for dissolving the Councils is not because 'views are diverse', 60% of the respondents favoured retention of the Councils while only 17% supported their dissolution. I consider that the Government
of 606
Page 255Page 256
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.