Page 231 of 259
436
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Since the receipt of your reminder and your question, Sir, the matter has been looked into. I can see no insuperable difficulty in translating selected extracts from this annual document, which can be gestetnered and distributed to schools and associations interested in the work of the Council. Copies can also be made available in the public libraries and on request from members of the public.
DR. Woo:- Mr. Chairman, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN asked me to ask one supplementary question, that is whether the annual document is to be stencilled or gestetnered?
CHAIRMAN:- Sir, so far as I know it comes to the same thing.
(13) DR. P. F. Woo, in the absence of MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN, asked the following question:-
Can the Chairman advise how many persons visit the Li Cheng Uk Historical Tomb during 1967? Has there been a decline in the number of visitors 1967 as compared with 1966 and 1965? Is it because of an increase in charge from 10 to 30¢? In order to encourage a larger number of visitors to visit this historical Tomb, can consideration be given to reducing the charge from 30 to 10¢ or even to making it completely free?
MR. A. de O. SALES, CHAIRMAN OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND AMENITIES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:
13,765 people visited the Tomb during 1967. This represented a decrease of 1,773 as compared with the total attendance figure for 1966. The 1966 total, in turn, showed a fall of 2,075 from the total attendance recorded in the preceding year.
The Tomb was opened to the public in June 1957. From then until February 1961, an admission fee of 20¢ was charged for adults and children paid 10¢. These fees were raised in 1961 to 60¢ for adults and 20¢ for children but they were revised the following year to their present level of 30¢ for adults and 10¢ for children.
There have been fairly wide fluctuations in attendance over the past 5 years although the fees have remained constant. There seems, then, to be no strong relationship between the level of attendance and the amount of admission fee charged.
Nevertheless, I am sure the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee will be prepared to act upon Mr. CHEONG-LEEN's suggestion to review the admission fees. It is relevant in this context however to note that the latest statement of accounts for the Tomb, for the year ending 31st March, 1967, shows that expenditure exceeded revenue by nearly $16,000.
MR. BERNACCHI:- Mr. Chairman, as a supplementary I would ask how that is? Are there other expenses apart from the collection of fees itself? A man to collect the fees? Are there expenses regarding the upkeep that are fairly heavy?
MR. SALES:- Mr. Chairman, staff upkeep constitutes the major expenditure on the Tomb at Li Cheng Uk.
MR. BERNACCHI:- But is it the case that the total staff for the upkeep of the appropriate places under the Urban Services Department is divided into a certain proportion and that proportion is allocated as the technical upkeep of the Tomb, or is it staff employed all the time on the Tomb?
MR. SALES:- Mr. Chairman, it might help Mr. BERNACCHI to relate the expenditure if I were to mention that in the same year there were 13,765 visitors. Assuming that all of them were adults, the total collection was only of the order of $4,000, so that in point of fact it was easy enough to exceed the figure by roughly $1,400 per month and that in point of fact explains the disparity. It might appear to be big for the entire year, but when broken down to monthly figures and related to the takings for the whole year, the sum is not great.
MR. BERNACCHI:- If the cost of collection exceeds the cost of revenue, then surely the answer is to admit free and have no staff?
MR. SALES:- Mr. Chairman, perhaps Mr. BERNACCHI is not aware of the fact that in addition to the Tomb itself, there is a rest garden and that, of course, increases the upkeep. Besides that, we employ a resident caretaker at the Tomb.
MR. BERNACCHI:- So, the actual cost of collection itself does not exceed the revenue?
MR. SALES:- Presumably the caretaker is designed to serve that purpose as well. We have not done a costing to the extent of which part of the day is spent in collecting and which part is spent on the upkeep of the garden, but if Mr. BERNACCHI wishes us to go through that exercise for the sum of $1,400, I would be delighted to do that if I could put it under the Hawker Control Force block vote rather than my own.
MR. BERNACCHI:- No, I do not desire that. I was simply making the point that we must be careful that the cost of collection does not exceed the cost of income, because otherwise it would be better to admit free.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
437
Page 232 of 259