Editor's note: The author explains his rationale for district administration in the first of two articles. In the second he will offer more specific suggestions on improving the efficiency of both district officers and district councils.

When district advisory boards were established in Hong Kong under colonial rule in the 1970s, the idea was to prepare for the formation of district boards in the early 1980s so that a wide range of government services would be delivered to the people in a more effective manner.

The introduction of district board elections during the 1990s was accompanied by much fanfare from both the SAR government and the media. These elections became far more important politically when district board members acted as the "piling legs" or building blocks for candidates in the direct elections held for the Legislative Council throughout the 1990s. But after the 1997 resumption of Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong, district councils, renamed from district boards, were no longer regarded as the focal point of administrative reforms at district level.

This is mainly because the Hong Kong government has instead been focusing on politics at the higher level, including the methods for the selection of the Chief Executive, the debate over the Basic Law interpretations made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and what I would term the performance legitimacy of our government. Compounding the problem of the long neglect of district administration has been the hyper-politicization of the administration of Hong Kong, whereby extended ideological debates take precedence over how district administrative reforms should be carried out.

Arguably, district councils have many areas for reform that have still not even been discussed by the district councilors themselves. I have been observing district councils since the early 1990s. I will now highlight various reform areas which are basically untouched, ignored or underdeveloped.

First and foremost, let me propose an idea that may seem simplistic, but in my view would bring overall improvement to district council meetings by stimulating discussion and enlivening the decision-making process. My proposal is that the seating of all district councils should be rearranged so all the chairpersons of the subcommittees sit near the head of the table in the closest proximity to the district council chair, deputy chair and district officer (DO). This is instead of seating them indiscriminately around the table. By instituting this change a kind of "executive branch" would be formed. This would also be accountable to all other district councilors through the discussion period and question time during each council meeting. The present arrangement is that all district councilors sit around a large round table. No priority is given to chairpersons of various subcommittees in regard to the seating arrangements. As for government officials invited to speak and answer questions at council meetings, I believe it would be better if they were seated. Then they could face all the elected councilors. There could then be a structural setting of accountability which could encourage the free flow of questions and informative answers.

Second, I would suggest a further positive step would be for all the chairs of the subcommittees, including environment, public works and finance, to be required to report on the progress of their committees. Then a firmer system of accountability could be established. At present, the operations of district councils remain consultative. The time is overdue for introducing a more rigorous way of holding all the chairs of subcommittees accountable.

Third, to upgrade the political empowerment of all 18 councils, the district management committee (DMC) of each council should be held more accountable to council members by requiring immediate follow-up actions and government explanations on each item of its agenda. In particular, the DO of each district, who is also a key player on the DMC, should represent the government. This is to explain what actions it has taken. Additionally, the DO should ensure that details of follow-up action are reported to the DMC, where other government officials also attend committee meetings on a regular basis.

Fourth, the performance appraisal of DOs should at least be partially given to district councilors so that the latter can assess the former. In this way, DOs will have a greater incentive to perform to the best of their ability, knowing they are being held accountable to district councilors. The present procedure is for DOs' performance to be assessed by their government superiors rather than elected councilors. I believe this system is not only outdated but does nothing to improve the DOs' performance. Instead I would suggest that the present operational system for DOs has reduced their powers to a secretarial function. This change occurred at the same time it was decided to confine to elected council members the eligibility to stand for the position of chairperson of a district council. Nevertheless, the assessment from district councilors will not be exclusive and decisive as the performance of district councilors will also be graded by their governmental superiors in the Home Affairs Department. But stronger accountability brought about by this change will encourage DOs to work more diligently.

The author is professor and head of the Department of Social Sciences at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. He has been studying district administration in Hong Kong for a long time.

(HK Edition 09/07/2015 page6)