Page 77 of 120
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I am not pointing the finger at all appointed and elected members. I can only say that I personally find myself unable to sacrifice principle for position.
For the Government to offer the franchise to all adult citizens of Hong Kong while this situation continues, calls into question the motives of the Government in the Green Paper, and now likewise in the White Paper, since it offers no genuine democratic rights, but merely a vote that can only be used to show support for the policies of an appointed Chairman. No other opinions are heeded. I can only say how happy I am that for once the elected members stood united in refusing to continue with the farce, when they submitted their views on the Green Paper to the Government.
To turn to finance—some members have, no doubt in all good faith, advocated doubling the rates percentage in order to carry out Urban Council programmes. I hope these colleagues will cast back their minds to two years or so ago when the Chairman announced a cut in the Urban Council's rates percentage. Did he on that occasion seek the advice of the Whole Council, as constitutionally he is required to do? No. In fact, some of us knew nothing of this cut until he made the announcement and brought public acclaim upon himself. But now that the reverse is the case and more money is sought from ratepayers, the Councillors have been badgered, day in day out, to speak up publicly in favour of a rates percentage rise. Having been kept in total ignorance last time, are we now prepared to become the scapegoats by speaking up, instead of leaving it again to the Chairman to do his solo piece? I do not doubt that more achievements require more money. But may I request that all Councillors keep their eyes open too to possible savings. For example, has anyone counted the increase in cost for the numerous committee papers and minutes covering such petty subjects as carnivals and standards in table-tennis, volleyball, and other sports and minor matters that can safely be left to the many highly-paid experts to be found in Government Departments? At the same time, have we noticed how libraries have all but disappeared from the agenda of our Cultural Services Select Committee and they are not even considered worthy of a Sub-Committee? What is more important, a carnival or a library?
Have Councillors noticed how elaborately printed productions are either given free to prestigious visitors or sold for a song? Can one find any news of importance in 'City News' which is not reported with less pomp and bias in any newspaper sold in the streets? Have we counted the cost of the public Information Unit, and whose footsteps they follow to publish their propaganda?
I could continue, but I think I have said enough to indicate why I feel that the public is not only getting a raw deal, but is in fact not even getting all the truth.
I intend also to abstain from voting on this Motion in protest at this blatant usurpation of the powers of the Urban Council and the simultaneous disenfranchisement of the voters. However, I can assure the public that I shall in meetings continue to support any policies in this motion which I believe to be for the public good, and oppose with all my might what I believe to be contrariwise. I have no fear, and seek no favour.
MR. H. M. G. FORSGATE (in English):—Mr. Chairman, in 1973, the Urban Council embarked upon an ambitious capital works programme. Some 280 projects costing about $200 million have been completed. Projects which we had planned to commence during the next five years are now estimated to cost $1,744 million at mid-1980. A forecast of the revenue and expenditure for the next five years, however, indicated that our resources would be insufficient to meet these commitments and a heavy deficit would occur very early during the forecast period. We therefore conducted a critical review of all projects. This review resulted in a reduced capital works programme with a ceiling of $1,000 million based on mid-1980 prices. An order of priorities was also established to reflect the most pressing needs and the known availability of land and funds.
The reduced capital works programme is an attempt to limit capital expenditure to a more realistic level, taking into account both the financial resources of the Council as well as the architectural capacity of the Public Works Department. However, it is still an impressive one, even by Hong Kong standards. It is envisaged that some 220 projects will be built during the next five years. Expenditure during this period is estimated to reach $1,000 million (at mid-1980 prices), which is five times the total capital expenditure incurred by the Council since 1973.
A total of $57.6 million was spent on Urban Council capital projects in the 1979/80 financial year ending 31.3.1980, and an estimated $90 million will be spent this year.
45 Council projects were completed. Projects of interest include the Space Museum, the Queen Elizabeth Stadium, the Chai Wan Swimming Pool and Park, and the Hong Kong Tennis Centre. There are at present some 40 projects under construction and another 90 or so awaiting construction.
Private architects supplemented the working capacity of the Architectural Office of the Public Works Department on Urban Council projects and handled some 75 projects. Completed in the year were the Kowloon Park Aviary, the Tin Wan Market, and a number of sitting-out areas.
Of great interest, the first solar energy system was successfully installed at the public bathhouse in Stanley, which we all visited some time ago, and since November, people have been enjoying hot showers with heat supplied by the solar energy system. The results of this first experiment will be closely monitored during the rest of the winter with a view to its wider application to other public facilities.
120
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
121
Page 77 of 120