Page 101 of 243
182
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Legislative Council, that in eight years open space had grown fourfold in Hong Kong. But this Council must not relax its efforts to acquire even more public open space. At the same time, Council must do so objectively and to the best advantage of the people of Hong Kong; Council must remember that resources are limited and can only be spread out over the years; also, the capacity to develop these open spaces must be taken into account. There is the question of staffing requirements to be considered all the time. Mr. Chairman, I have always fought for more public open space and the Hansard is testimony to that. The people of Hong Kong need more open space for recreation. At the same time I think that one has to be fair.
Regarding the Central District, my opinion was clear all along. We want as much open space as we can get. In that Committee the opinion of the experts was sought; the Public Works Department made the position crystal clear to the Committee and the Committee had to face up to reality. The result was not what the Committee wanted but what the Committee could achieve. We must not lose sight of the fact that in essence the recommendation is as found on page 22, paragraph 14-"the Hong Kong Cricket Club should be granted a fresh lease in 1971 for 10 years, provided that if an alternative site becomes available before the expiry of this further term the lease should be terminated and the Club re-provisioned". That is a statement of the position. There is no question of the Committee advocating that the Cricket Club should remain on that particular site forever and a day. It was a question of the Committee facing up to the realities of the situation.
My colleagues knew at that time when we discussed this matter in private that I was taking this position in the Rodrigues Committee. My attitude was clear: it was predicated upon the Government providing land for public recreation in the Naval Dockyard which Dr. BELL has also just mentioned. In the plans for the re-development of the Naval Dockyard there was land reserved for public open space near to Wan Chai, which is where there is a heavy density of population and that is also where land for public recreation is needed more than in the Central District. Evidently, the Urban Council could make good use of the land that the Hong Kong Cricket Club occupies. In due time that land will no doubt be made available for public use; in fairness to the Hong Kong Cricket Club, when that time comes I think that adequate reprovisioning must be made. I have actual experience as a clubman of being left holding the short end of the stick when the Government deprived another club of its location in the Central District.
Sir, the paragraphs which Mr. Lo and Dr. BELL read, paragraphs 9 and 10, I take particular pride in them; the style must be familiar to my colleagues (laughter). Now, I do not wish this Council to go pell-mell into the question of dispossessing the Cricket Club for more public open space in the Central District. We want more open space in the Central District for sure; at the same time we must be fair to the Cricket Club, of which I am not a member, and we must also be fair to the Government's programme for the development of open space for public recreation. If it were a political issue, I would have offered my opinion here and now, but the political aspects of this problem should not colour the Council in its judgment. That is a matter which His Excellency the Governor must definitely take into account when he reaches a decision: the political implications of the location of that Club in a prime piece of land, but it is not up to me or to the Council to offer an opinion at this time.
However, I believe that Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and Mr. BLAKER did right in bringing forth this Motion; at least we've cleared the air. And, I would like to congratulate our two friends and colleagues and all those who spoke for the fact that they spoke so sincerely and in the belief that what they said and advocated was true and good for the people of Hong Kong.
I think that the position of our museum has not been sufficiently discussed in this Council; it is only recently, and in fact only today, that we hear that the Museum and Art Gallery Select Committee has second thoughts about the Rodney Block. Mr. Chairman, before you rule me out of order, I am marshalling my arguments (laughter). I believe the Museum and Art Gallery Select Committee has suddenly come to the conclusion that perhaps Rodney Block is not the best home for the museum of Hong Kong. I agree entirely with Mr. FORSGATE that the museum should be located in Kowloon, and as members of the Kowloon Residents Association we here and now issue an invitation for that purpose.
So, I think that the requirements of that Select Committee should be discussed properly and established before we go to the Government asking for a specific plot of land for the building of a museum and art gallery. And now, if I, Sir, may accept the invitation that was issued to me to make a suggestion to this Council for consideration in all earnestness rather than force Members of the Council to vote on this issue. The text of the Motion itself is innocuous; it is clear cut. But on that Motion some washing has been hung (laughter) and that may not be acceptable to all the Members of the Council, even though the straight Motion may be. Therefore I suggest that this Council consider either amending this Motion or referring it to a joint meeting of the Recreation and Amenities Select Committee and the Museum and Art Gallery Select Committee for proper discussion so that their requirements may be established and then for proper representations to be made to the Government. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to move that this Motion be referred to a joint meeting of the Recreation and Amenities Select Committee and the Museum and Art Gallery Select Committee.
(Dr. Denny M. H. HUANG left the meeting at this point).
183
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL