1998 — Page 431

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

419

one public servant in every eight workers. Compared with only one civil servant in every 30 workers on the average in the Mainland, the number of civil servants in Hong Kong is really too large. Their pension alone is an astronomical figure which the Government can hardly afford. The Government must be resolute enough to slash the expenditure of government departments, otherwise, enhancing productivity would be just another story of "the Foolish Old Man Removing the Mountains".

I do not want to discuss now whether 5% is too low or not. What I want to say is that since all government departments have to streamline their structure, the Urban Services Department should not be an exception. So, why are there still so many officers of different ranks in our recreation venues? Even the newly completed Hong Kong Museum of History is manned, apart from the curator, by many managers of different ranks. I am not speaking against anyone. I only want to point out from the professional business management point of view that it is inappropriate human resources deployment if commanders are outnumbered by soldiers. Let us look at another example. After taking over the Hong Kong Stadium from Wembley, we have reduced the number of staff by about 20%, i.e., from 42 which Wembley employed to 33 at present. However, the savings in salary that can be achieved annually is only 4%, i.e., $570,000. Many posts have been filled by civil servants, and the Director, Deputy Directors, and Assistant Directors have been giving support to the stadium without any reward. In view of the present economic climate, if civil service posts keep on increasing and staff are not recruited on contract terms, the remuneration would deviate very much from the market. With an establishment of over 17,000, the Urban Services Department is at present the largest civilian government department. To increase sources of revenue and reduce expenditure should not be merely a slogan. Much to my regret, despite the call for prudent financial management, the Department still has not been resolute enough to make drastic cuts in its expenditure.

I also wish to express regret at the Buildings Department's stringent control on the licensing of karaoke. Undoubtedly, safety of entertainment establishments is the grave concern of all the people in Hong Kong. However, when enacting legislation to protect the safety of the public, should we also consider the possible undesirable impacts? Before the legislation was enacted, had the authorities concerned assessed fully whether the cost would be proportional to the gain? Why did the Government create lots of obstacles and put investors operating proper business in an awkward situation? Now every business sector is suffering from a sluggish market, but, instead of giving positive support to businessmen, the Government has laid down overcorrected law on them. Besides being a disturbing and irresponsible act, I think this is also a bureaucratic jugglery. As the existing complicated and bureaucratic licensing procedures are inefficient and time-consuming, I suggest that the Government should set up a central licensing organization to streamline and expedite licensing procedures and formulate the performance pledges as soon as possible.

Page 431 of 606.

Page 431 of 606

Page 431 of 606