Page 75 of 135
111
110
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
## ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-I will now call Council to order.
## MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 1978 were confirmed.
## STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-The circumstances were different in 1973 when the Council changed status and composition. A combination of progressive social and business policies and practices has been taking effect gradually over the postwar years. Its remarkable economic development has made this city the thriving and ambitious society that it is now, fully confident of its own ability to succeed in the face of heavy odds as has been proved time and again. Hence, the sound base for social advancement here. But, at the time, this high point had not yet been reached altogether.
There is now a more neatly defined expectation of a better community life. Consequently, civic facilities and urban amenities must match rising standards all round. True, by then, the Council was already making some impressive headway in creating neighbourhood recreational opportunities never before enjoyed by the man in the street; still, some basic municipal services were lagging behind the requirements of a major city living in overcrowded conditions. Therefore, when the Council assumed full financial responsibility and had the capacity to put its own executive decisions into practice, a comprehensive and long-needed programme for community betterment was taken on without demur. It was essential for the public good. And, that was reason enough for swift action.
Thus, in the intervening years, in addition to intensifying existing services beyond recognition and starting many novel ventures for the people's benefit, 205 building schemes were completed. And, there are now 41 actually under construction. There is a firm capital commitment currently amounting to $221 million in all, which is exactly as much as the Council's present combined cash reserves. Other identified projects now being processed or already on the drawing board, and adding up to another 296, are estimated to cost $1,400 million at today's prices. There is also the headquarters building under preliminary study which will add about $150 million to the tally. All these works are likely to cost more by the time they are ready for use because inflationary escalation of costs will take its toll. There is also the expense of equipping and furnishing these structures properly for their intended public purpose. It would be wise to reckon, then, that the Council's total capital commitment will be within the range of $2,000 million spread over a period of ten years or just more.
The shortage of urban land where it is most needed for a civic purpose aggravates construction costs because high-rise structures have to be put up for intensive multiple use in consequence. Indeed, maximum utilization of scarce land in the urban areas is clearly required. In any event, when all these numerous projects are completed, the Council will have changed the face of Hong Kong in conjunction with the vast building and engineering works private enterprise and the Government itself are undertaking separately. As a corollary of this essential development programme on the Council's part, operation costs will go up in the natural order of things although the Council has managed to hold down the actual numerical strength of the establishment all these years. A realistic exercise to balance running costs with revenue was undertaken right at the start though the gap is still not closed in every case. Anyhow, had this not been done, the Council's finances might not have been as buoyant temporarily. Indeed, even with the cut of our rate revenue by one-third in 1977 to help the householder in the aftermath of recession, the Council has met all recurrent expenditure up to now. However, it may not cover even the annual recurrent commitments in the near future as working costs will be rising sharply faster than counterpart revenue projections. Surely, responsible management calls for advance financial planning to phase carefully the raising of revenue to fit future needs without disruption. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Council should go into the red first. To shut the stable door after the horse has bolted is hardly a responsible approach to public finance. Indeed, it will cost much more to take remedial action at one go later on. Also, in the Council's circumstances, there is little hope of borrowing advantageously in the money market if at all, neither need it expect a special government grant without strings.
The Council must stand on its own feet. A businesslike community, that succeeds by its own exertions, expects no less. And, in Hong Kong's affluent circumstances, it will surely support the Council within reason. More so when all that is being done is clearly for the common good. The people realize pragmatically that they will only get what they pay for as nobody else will stand surety here; so, if they want improved sanitary services, a pleasant environment and more rewarding educational and leisuretime opportunities, all in keeping with the prevailing mood for a better material life, they must expect naturally to foot the bill. And, they are presumably willing to do so if they get value for money, even though some may plead poverty out of habit.
The issue is simple. Do the people want a better Hong Kong? If it is a higher level of municipal services and a fuller life that a prosperous society wants, then pay the community must for the making of a new Hong Kong. Each one according to his ability, of course.
Page 75
Page 76
Page 76 of 135