Page 135 of 154
234
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. WONG SHUI-CHEUCK (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the first and most important issue I wish to raise today concerns the provision of cremation facilities by both the Government and the Urban Council. For many years it has been the policy of this Council to promote and encourage cremation as an acceptable way of disposing the dead. In the context of increasing urbanisation in Hong Kong, cremation represents both a dignified and an inexpensive way of disposing the dead. For many years too, the target of this Council was to achieve by 1985 a 35% cremation ratio. I am pleased to note and report that this target has now been achieved 10 years ahead of schedule. Take for instance the burial and cremation figures for 1975. In 1975 the number of registered burials was 11,802 whereas the number of cremations rose to 7,296. This means that the percentage of cremation cases is now as high as 38.2%. This is most encouraging, so much so that this Council is now aiming at a new target of 50% as the cremation ratio by 1985. As far as acceptance by the general public is concerned, this Council therefore has no problem. The question now is: are the authorities providing adequate cremation facilities to meet future demand?
In order to examine this question in depth it is worth taking a somewhat detailed look at the capacity of our existing cremation facilities. There are now two crematoria in operation under the management of this Council, namely, Cape Collinson Crematorium and Diamond Hill Crematorium. In the case of Cape Collinson Crematorium it was designed to handle up to 15 cremations a day. In the case of Diamond Hill Crematorium it was designed to handle up to 4 cremations a day. Assuming that both crematoria could operate every day throughout the year, they together have a total designed capacity of 6,935 cremations per annum. As I stated earlier, the number of cremations in 1975 rose up to 7,296, in other words our crematoria are already handling about 1,300 cremations above their designed capacity. With growing public acceptance of cremation as an acceptable way of disposing the dead we could and indeed should expect the number of cremations would rise even higher in 1976 and the years thereafter. The immediate prospect in front of us therefore is that, to cope with this increasing demand, there would have to be a decline in the standard of cremation services offered to the public. Given the fact that it is the Council's policy to encourage cremation and given the fact that the public have taken up this encouragement, I find this prospect of declining standard of cremation services most alarming.
Under the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements between the Government and the Urban Council, the construction of crematoria is the direct responsibility of the Government. The Urban Council is only responsible for the subsequent management of a crematorium after it has been built. To this extent, the Urban Council, though conscious of the crisis, is very much in the hands of the Government. Well, what are the plans for the future as they stand? Present plans for the future consist of no more than providing an additional twin cremator at Cape Collinson Crematorium and the reprovisioning of Diamond Hill Crematorium. The provision of an additional twin cremator at Cape Collinson Crematorium is planned to increase its capacity so that it could handle 6 additional cremations per day, and it is hoped that this additional facility could be ready in 1976. The reprovisioning of Diamond Hill Crematorium will raise its designed capacity to 20 cremations per day, and it is hoped that this reprovisioning might be completed by 1978. Judging from our past experience, this type of target dates represents the most optimistic forecast. If anything, the completion would be behind schedule for one reason or another.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
235
The present position and the immediate prospects are therefore most unsatisfactory. In my view the Government has failed to grasp in its entirety the problem of provision of cemetery and cremation facilities for the public. For many years the line of the Council is twofold. Firstly, the Council will promote and encourage the public to accept cremation. Secondly, the Government must provide adequate cremation facilities failing which the Government must provide land for the extension of cemeteries. As I mentioned right at the beginning the Council has done its part in promoting acceptance by the general public of cremation as an acceptable method of disposing the dead. The Government however has been dragging its feet for the part it has to play. It has certainly not provided for enough land for extension of cemeteries. Nor has it constructed in time the additional cremation facilities required. It would be a great pity if, because of declining standard of cremation services caused by inadequate cremation facilities, the public would again turn its back on cremation. My impression is that this problem has simply not been examined by the Government in its entirety, otherwise we simply would not have got into a situation like the present one. I would further submit that it is very much in the interest of the Government that we should leave no stones unturned to encourage cremation because, amongst its many advantages, cremation is the most economical for Hong Kong in terms of land usage and land is always at a premium in Hong Kong. May I therefore urge that the Secretary for the Environment hand in hand with the Urban Council should examine the problem of the provision of cremation and cemetery
Page 135
Page 136