Page 174 of 259
322
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I should now like to turn to parks and recreation. Some of the most beautiful scenery in Hong Kong is to be seen in the locality of our reservoirs and catchment areas. These areas are not available for housing development. They are therefore some of the few remaining areas in this over-crowded Colony which will remain countryside. They are already being used in large numbers by hikers and picnickers on public holidays, but there are at present no facilities for refreshment and very few benches or places where people can sit and rest. I believe that these reservoir areas present a great opportunity for development for recreational purposes. I have in mind particularly the reservoirs on Hong Kong Island. These are all easily accessible and all have numerous footpaths, which provide very pleasant walks. We should set up in a few convenient places, stalls, where soft-drinks, ice-cream and other light refreshment of that nature may be bought. In this way, we will gradually encourage more people to enjoy themselves in the fresh air of the open countryside to the benefit of their health and physical well-being.
In addition, the reservoirs themselves can also be used for recreational purposes, for instance, fishing and boating. We could have rowing boats and sailing boats available for hire in the reservoirs. I am sure in time, this would be very popular. Moreover, boating in the calm waters of a reservoir would be far safer than in the sea off a beach. There would be no waves or currents for the beginner to contend with. In periods of drought when the water level in the reservoirs become very low, we may have difficulties with this boating project. Perhaps this could be solved by means of a floating platform to which the boats could tie up. If the water level gets too low, it may be necessary for boating to cease for a time, but this should only be necessary for short periods if at all.
The intensive use of the reservoir areas for recreational purposes may create certain problems, but I believe these could be overcome. For instance, there may be pollution of the reservoir water. After all, the purpose of a reservoir is to provide us with drinking water. For this reason, I would not advocate the use of powered boats. They will be objectionable both on the grounds of noise as well as possible pollution of the water. On the other hand, rowing and sailing boats should cause little or no pollution. In any case, the water is filtered before being supplied to the public, so I can see no risk to public health in making use of the reservoirs in this manner.
We will also be faced with the problem of litter. I can envisage that this will be more difficult to deal with. We can only hope to minimize this by anti-litter campaigns and by having park wardens or attendants who will be there to persuade people not to create litter indiscriminately.
The Plover Cove Reservoir would be particularly suitable for boating. Of course, being in the New Territories, it is outside the jurisdiction of the Urban Council, but I would make the suggestion nevertheless in the hope that it will be taken up by the appropriate authority.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
323
diction of the Urban Council, but I would make the suggestion never- theless in the hope that it will be taken up by the appropriate authority.
Finally, I would like to say a word on a subject which might not be of much interest to the general public, but which I believe should concern us as Members of the Urban Council. I refer to our procedure concerning appeals to the Council. These appeals may be on a variety of subjects. Let us take a case concerning resettlement. For instance, a person may consider that he is entitled to a resettlement shop but the Commissioner for Resettlement rules against him. In that case, he may appeal and the appeal will be considered by the Resettlement Appeals Sub-Committee through one of its panels. Each panel consists of three members in addition to the Commissioner for Resettlement. The appellant will be asked to attend. He will state his case, usually at great length, and the Panel will consider the matter. Let us suppose they come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the shop. They will therefore recommend dismissing the Appeal.
This however, is by no means the end of the matter. The appellant may appeal again, this time to the Resettlement Policy Select Committee. This Select Committee consists of about ten members and they will again consider the whole matter with the appellant attending in person to retell his story. It is very likely that this appeal will again be turned down since the members of the panel who heard his appeal in the first instance are also members of the Select Committee, but even then, the matter is still not closed. If he is persistent enough, he can appeal again, this time to the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. The whole matter is then gone through once again with the appellant telling his story all over again, with such additions and variations as he may think fit. So far as I know, the decision of the Standing Committee will be final as far as the Urban Council is concerned, but for all I know, he may be able to appeal to the Council in yet another way.
I believe this procedure is wasteful of time and effort. Furthermore, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council, consisting as it does of well over 20 members, is hardly the best tribunal for determining the facts of a case.
The matter is best dealt with by an appeal panel consisting of three or four members. The decision of the panel should be final and conclusive as far as the appellant is concerned. He should not be allowed to bring the matter any further himself, but it should be open to any member who feels the matter is of sufficient importance, to refer it to the Resettlement Management or the Resettlement Policy Select Committee or to the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. This streamlining of procedure would do something to facilitate the carrying out of the work of the Council.
With these remarks, I am happy to support the motion before the Council. (Applause).
Page 174 of 259