Page 85 of 136
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
designed for the more spacious prewar days and simply cannot cope with the large number of big double-decker buses required to transport beachgoers to and from the beach. In particular, buses turning round at Repulse Bay bring traffic to a halt while doing so. The provision of beach facilities and public transport are co-related. It is no use making provision for one without regard to the other. For these reasons, I urge Government to process the comprehensive plan as quickly as possible.
I now turn to another matter, that of the site now used by Ocean Park as its open-air car park. This was leased by Government to them in 1975. At the time the Council objected strongly. I will not now reopen the question of the rights and wrongs of that decision. However, this is an opportune time to bring the matter up again, because the lease was for a period of five years commencing from 2 January 1976. That is to say, it will expire in about one year's time. I would, therefore, like to give a gentle and timely reminder that we expect the site to be vacated and possession given to us in January 1981. In October 1978, the Secretary for the Environment confirmed that the site would be allocated to us in January 1981 for development as a velodrome. Even if for some reason, the velodrome project does not go ahead immediately, the site must still be allocated to the Council for development for active recreational use.
It is not for me to suggest how Ocean Park should reprovision its car park. They have nearly the whole of Brick Hill and can surely find space for one car park. It has been suggested that a multi-storey car park would detract from the scenic beauty of the area. I cannot agree with this. There are already a number of buildings in the vicinity which in any case is not far from an industrial area. One multi-storey car park will make little difference in this respect. It is for Ocean Park to decide how to reprovision the car park. We simply want the site of the existing car park.
Lastly, I would like to say something about Daylight Saving Time. I have raised this topic before in the Annual Conventional Debate, and have deplored Government's decision to do away with it. Last summer, Daylight Saving Time or Summer Time was brought back again. It would seem, therefore, that there is no reason for me to bring the matter up now.
However, I feel I must do so because I consider that the decision to bring back Summer Time last summer was based on the wrong reason. As I understand it, the sole reason was fuel economy. Summer time certainly results in fuel economy for the simple reason that we have more hours of daylight while we are awake. I say however, that this is a wrong reason because it is negative. We should not bring Summer Time because we cannot afford to pay for the fuel for lighting. Instead, we should bring it back because we prefer to have more hours of daylight while we are awake. We should have Summer Time even if somebody else were prepared to pay the extra cost of the fuel. Summer Time is a positive good and not a necessary evil. It should be retained and not abolished whatever the cost of fuel in the future.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
With these remarks, I am happy to support the motion before the Council.
(Mr. B. A. Bernacchi arrived during Mr. Kenneth Lo's address.)
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late in coming this afternoon and I ask that I may be permitted to make my speech last this afternoon.
MR. JOHN MACKENZIE (in English): Mr. Chairman, I am sure that other Councillors will defer to the Senior Elected Member and permit him to speak now.
CHAIRMAN (in English): The question is: first, the Standing Committee has fixed the order of speakers unanimously; secondly, Mr. BERNACCHI informed the Secretary on Saturday that he would not be able to come on time and asked that he should be allowed to speak subsequently; thirdly, the order of speaking having been agreed upon the Chairman has the option of either acceding to Mr. BERNACCHI's request to address the Council last or to ask Members who have not yet spoken if they wish to yield the floor to Mr. BERNACCHI as suggested by Mr. MacKenzie. So, what is the view of the Council? Is it your wish that Mr. BERNACCHI should speak last? All those in favour, please raise their hands. Four. Now all those against Mr. BERNACCHI speaking last, please raise their hands. Six. Mr. BERNACCHI will then speak in the order in which a member is willing to yield. I will ask each Member before his turn comes up whether he is willing to yield the floor to Mr. BERNACCHI. First, Dr. Denny HUANG?
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG (in English): I won't mind if Mr. BERNACCHI speaks last.
CHAIRMAN (in English): Then Dr. Denny HUANG will speak first.
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the Annual Conventional Debate is a valuable opportunity for all Urban Councillors to air their profound views freely once a year on matters inside and outside the jurisdiction of the Council. This year, I would like to leave this opportunity, or responsibility, to fellow Councillors while I would talk about some personal opinions on the Council.
Inside this lofty building, power is wielded and played with while people deceive one another.
Twelve years ago, when the first year of my term of office drew to an end, I attended a harmonious gathering with other official, appointed and elected Councillors. Every Councillor had to say a few words on that occasion and I said, 'Before being a Councillor, I had always thought that inside the Council, the elected Councillors not only contested with the official and
Page 85
Page 86
Page 86 of 136