Page 98 of 243
176
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. Lo: Mr. Chairman, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN's Motion urges the provision of more public open space within the Central district. Hong Kong as a whole is in need of more public open space, but it seems to me that the Central District is relatively well provided for. The need in other districts is even more urgent. Take the Western district for instance. There is hardly any open space in that district with its teeming population. Wan Chai too is in need of more open space. The Central District is not a district where many people live. Office workers rush to their offices at 9 in the morning and rush home again at 5 in the afternoon. The provision of public open space in this area is, therefore, not so important. In any case we have the beautiful Statue Square garden, and a short distance to the south we have the Botanical Gardens so that the Central district is in fact quite well provided for.
Mr. Chairman, Council's attention is being misdirected. The terms of the Motion confines itself to the Central district. If the Motion is passed by this Council it will give the impression that we consider the Central district needs more open space while the other urban areas of Hong Kong do not. This is far from being the case. For this reason I must oppose the present Motion, although I will certainly support a motion urging Government to provide more open space for the urban areas of Hong Kong generally. I would also strongly oppose any suggestion that the Hong Kong Cricket Club ground is taken away from the Club and used as a public open space. I am not a member of that club and hold no special brief, although I have played tennis and cricket there more times than I can remember. The Report of the Advisory Committee on Private Recreational Leases makes it clear that the Hong Kong Cricket Club is not the only club of its kind enjoying privileges which are not available to any other body. The Report lists 28 clubs or associations holding land on similar private recreational leases. The Hong Kong Cricket Club ground is not even the biggest. For instance, the Kowloon Cricket Club, of which I am a member, and the Club de Recreio each have grounds and facilities which are bigger and better than the Hong Kong Cricket Club ground. It is said that the Hong Kong Cricket Club has the best location. This is so if you live in Hong Kong. The other two clubs that I mentioned are very centrally located in Kowloon, and if you happen to live in Kowloon then, from the Kowloon residents' point of view, these clubs are better located than the Hong Kong Cricket Club. Since twice the number of people live in Kowloon as compared to Hong Kong, it may be said that the Club de Recreio and the Kowloon Cricket Club are twice as conveniently situated as the Hong Kong Cricket Club. But let us assume that the Hong Kong Cricket Club has the best ground. Is that a sufficient reason to take it away from the Club? If the answer is yes, where do we go on from there? The club with the second best
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
177
ground would now become the best. Do we take away their ground as well? If so, where should we draw the line?
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: - Mr. Chairman, on a point of order here, is Mr. Lo speaking to the Motion?
CHAIRMAN: - As much as ... (Laughter). you yourself Mr. CHEONG-LEEN.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: - Then why have you blemished Mr. BLAKER and myself with that mild stricture of yours a little while ago?
MR. LO: Has the position been rectified now?
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: - It's all right, we allow you to go on.
MR. Lo: - Now, to resume. Should we take away their ground as well? If so, where should we draw the line? No, Mr. Chairman, we should not take away a ground merely because we think it is the best. Here, I would like to refer Members to paragraph 9 of the Report of the Advisory Committee. I quote "Until recently Hong Kong depended almost entirely on private clubs developing recreational facilities for the promotion of sport in the community. The history of sport and recreation organized in this way dates back to the establishment of the Colony. Consequently, custom and tradition have grown up over the years and much care and money have been expended to create and maintain the existing facilities in most clubs holding recreational leases. These clubs, with varying interests and membership, continue to serve an increasing number of people and contribute in great measure to the promotion of amateur sport through the more recently established national sports associations". Take away these grounds from these clubs and associations and you will destroy organized sport in Hong Kong. Mr. Chairman, we should create and build up rather than destroy. We should provide more open space for the Central district, Wan Chai, by using all the dockyard land or the new central reclamation, and not by destroying the Hong Kong Cricket Club as a sports ground.
MR. FORSGATE: - Mr. Chairman, the Motion before Council today is, on the face of it, one with which no Member could find fault if it were, in fact, designed to focus attention on a serious deficiency in the open air amenities of Hong Kong. But is this, in fact, the case? The Advisory Committee on Private Recreational Leases, whose report was recently tabled in Legislative Council, said that it is arguable whether further open space, similar to Statue Square, is necessary for even the purpose of a garden as there are, but an easy walking distance, the Botanical Gardens, the City Hall Memorial Garden, the roof of Blake Pier and so on. After listening to Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and Mr. BLAKER,
Page 98 of 243