PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
303
Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—Annex 1 to the written reply indicates that the number of cases of misconduct is the largest in the Foreman grade. There were 10 such Foremen in 1996, nine in 1997 and five in 1998 (up to the end of October), while the number of Workmen I and II at the basic level committing offences is equally large. Could this be attributed to the poor performance of the Foremen, as there is the saying that when there are poor supervisors, there will be poor subordinates? I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee what the nature of work of the Foreman grade is. Would it give rise easily to absence from duty or violation of the rules?
Secondly, is there an absence of coordination between Senior Foremen and Foremen? Is it because there is a shortage of Senior Foremen such that tight supervision cannot be enforced? Mr. Chairman, I hope the Chairman of the Administration Select Committee will answer the above questions.
MR. SUEN KAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—To describe the Department's 16,000-plus staff-members as poor subordinates because they have poor supervisors is far from being objective. There is a considerable proportion of Foremen among the 16,000 staff-members. I am sure Members are well aware of the percentages that the disciplined Foremen, whose numbers are quoted in Annex I, that is, 10, 9 and 5 respectively. Of course, I am not saying that we can tolerate it as long as the number is small. But I don't consider this a proper remark for the staff as a whole.
As to the question of whether the supervisors should be held responsible for the misconduct of their subordinates, I consider the answer to be positive, but I am sure that staff misconduct cases take place in every corner of the world and it all depends on the effectiveness of our monitoring system.
MR. WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese):—I wish to urge the Chairman of the Select Committee for the answers to the questions of whether the issue of smoking or making calls whilst on duty will be covered in the comprehensive review and when the comprehensive review mentioned in part three of the written reply will be submitted to the Administration Select Committee for discussion.
Mr. Suen Kai-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Regarding the issue of smoking and making calls with a mobile phone whilst on duty, as I replied Mr. Henry Wu just now, I don't have the specific information with me now. I will request the Department to prepare the information for Members. If there are areas for improvement, I shall raise them in the course of the comprehensive review so that Members may discuss them together.
Mr. Chan Choi-II (in Cantonese):—The reply given by the Chairman of the Select Committee covers mostly the staff of junior and middle ranks. In fact, in the context of supervision, supervisors overseeing their subordinates are themselves being supervised. In a bureaucratic framework with different ranks.
Page 311 of 606
Page 311 of 606
Page 311 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
303
Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—Annex 1 to the written reply indicates that the mumber of cases of misconduct is the largest in the Foreman grade. There were 10 such Foremen in 1996, nine în 1997 and five in 1998 (up to the end of October), while the mumber of Workmen I and II at the basic level committing offences is equally large. Could this be attributed to the poor performance of the Foremen, as there is the saying that when there are poor supervisors, there will be poor subordinates? I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee what the nature of work of the Foreman grade is. Would it give rise easily to absence from duty or violation of the rules?
Secondly, is there an absence of coordination between Senior Foremen and Foremen? Is it because there is a shortage of Senior Foremen such that tight supervision cannot be enforced? Mr. Chairman, I hope the Chairman of the Administration Select Committee will answer the above questions.
MR. SUEN KAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—To describe the Department's 16 000-plus staff-members as poor subordinates because they have poor supervisors is far from being objective. There is a considerable proportion of Foremen among the 16 000 staff-members. I am sure Members are well aware of the percentages that the disciplined Foremen, whose numbers are quoted in Annex I, that is, 10, 9 and 5 respectively. Of course, I am not saying that we can tolerate it as long as the number is small. But I don't consider this a proper remark for the staff as a whole.
As to the question of whether the supervisors should be held responsible for the misconduct of their subordinates, I consider the answer to be positive, but I am sure that staff misconduct cases take place in every corner of the world and it all depends on the effectiveness of our monitoring system.
MR. WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese):—I wish to urge the Chairman of the Select Committee for the answers to the questions of whether the issue of smoking or making calls whilst on duty will be covered in the comprehensive review and when the comprehensive review mentioned in part three of the written reply will be submitted to the Administration Select Committee for discussion.
Mr. Suen Kal-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Regarding the issue of smoking and making calls with a mobile phone whilst on duty, as I replied Mr. Henry Wu just now, I don't have the specific information with me now. I will request the Department to prepare the information for Members. If there are areas for improvement, I shall raise them in the course of the comprehensive review so that Members may discuss them together.
Mr. Chan CHOI-II (in Cantonese):—The reply given by the Chairman of the Select Committee covers mostly the staff of junior and middle ranks. In fact, in the context of supervision, supervisors overseeing their subordinates are themselves being supervised. In a bureaucratic framework with different ranks.
Page 311 of 606
Page 311 of 606
Page 311 of 60
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.