Page 377 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
365
In 1996, in the face of transition and the uncertainty of the future, I asked: 'How is the Urban Council going to prove its importance and justify its existence to the public? While the Urban Council is the only council bestowed with real power and resources, it is also caught in between; it is getting nowhere, and seems to be forgotten by the people. You may recall that the candidates running for the election of the Chief Executive only visited the District Boards but not the Urban Council. This was a telling sign. In 1997, I appealed to the leadership of the Chairman to take up the issue of the role and functions of the Urban Council with the Government. I said then that we should no longer rest on our laurels in our own kingdom and wait for opportunities to come to us, because the latter may never come. What a pity that we have not seized the opportunity.
In early 1998, the Government proceeded with the review of the structure of the regional bodies. I still hoped then that we could open a new dialogue with the Government to review the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements on the role of the Council. I also mentioned then that the relationship between the Council and the Department was strained and that such conflicts should be resolved. Many of the past incidents show that the Department is only paying lip service; and the consequence of that is the Council has become a toothless tiger. These are also the problems that have to be addressed and tackled at the root.
But now a new set-up for environmental health is coming on stream and no matter how we oppose it, it would only be feeble protest. It seems that the dust has settled. In the final analysis, we are abandoned by the people of Hong Kong. We have failed to demonstrate or explain to them the importance of the Urban Council. Can we really monitor and exercise control over the Department? Can we attack the problems of staff establishment and operation at the root? And can we follow the trend of the society and take resolute steps to introduce changes to municipal services? People in the community cannot see the value of our existence. As to the dissolution of the Urban Council, the people of Hong Kong and public opinion are on the side of the Government, which is quite seldom the case with other matters. Even the District Boards are echoing the views of the Government. When it has come to this, who can we blame?
Once we had the opportunity to initiate actions to really monitor the Department and follow up the proposals, but all is too late. The Steering Committee on Healthy Living set up by the Government following the outbreak of avian influenza is a case in point. On the face of it, the Steering Committee aims at improving the co-ordination of health education, but in reality, it is conducting a comprehensive review of policies. It acts faster than the Council and leads public opinion in such issues as fixed penalty for littering and categorization of restaurants, which, in fact, have been the subjects of our discussions for years. We feel let down. Our Working Group has had serious discussions on such proposals as fixed penalty for littering since 1991, but has...
Page 377 of 606
Page 377 of 606
Page 377 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
365
In 1996, in the face of transition and the uncertainty of the future, I asked : 'How is the Urban Council going to prove its importance and justify its existence to the public? While the Urban Council is the only council bestowed with real power and resources, it is also caught in between; it is getting mowhere, and seems to be forgotten by the people. You may recall that the candidates running for the election of the Chief Executive only visited the District Boards but not the Urban Council. This was a telling sign. In 1997, I *appealed to the leadership of the Chairman to take up the issue of the role and tfunctions of the Urban Council with the Government. I said then that we :should no longer rest on our laurels in our own kingdom and wait for opportunities to come to us, because the latter may never come. What a pity that we have not seized the opportunity.
In early 1998, the Government proceeded with the review of the structure of the regional bodies. I still hoped then that we could open a new dialogue with the Government to review the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements on the role of the Council, I also mentioned then that the relationship between the Council and the Department was strained and that such conflicts should be resolved. Many of the past incidents show that the Department is only paying lip service; and the consequence of that is the Council has become a toothless tiger. These are also the problems that have to be addressed and tackled at the
root.
But now a new set-up for environmental health is coming on stream and no matter how we oppose to it, it would only be feeble protest. It seems that the dust has settled. In the final analysis, we are abandoned by the people of Hong Kong. We have failed to demonstrate or explain to them the importance of the Urban Council. Can we really monitor and exercise control over the Department? Can we attack the problems of staff establishment and operation at the root? And can we follow the trend of the society and take resolute steps to introduce changes to municipal services? People in the community cannot see the value of our existence. As to the dissolution of the Urban Council, the people of Hong Kong and public opinion are on the side of the Government, which is quite seldom the case with other matters. Even the District Boards are echoing the views of the Government. When it has come to this, who can we blame?
Once we had the opportunity to initiate actions to really monitor the Department and follow up the proposals, but all is too late. The Steering Committee on Healthy Living set up by the Government following the outbreak of avian influenza is a case in point. On the face of it, the Steering Committee aims at improving the co-ordination of health education, but in reality, it is conducting a comprehensive review of policies. It acts faster than the Council and leads public opinion in such issues as fixed penalty for littering and categorization of restaurants, which, in fact, have been the subjects of our discussions for years. We feel let down. Our Working Group has serious discussions on such proposals as fixed penalty for littering since 1991, but has
Page 377 of 606
Page 377 of 606
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.