Page 9 of 185
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. LEE CHIK-YUET (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in Mr. LAU's reply it was said that except for one critic, the film was well received by the citizens. Recently we have had the establishment of the Survey Office regarding public opinion and that sort of thing. So I would like to know what indicators are there that the film was well received by the citizens?
MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, it seems that the question is directed to my own judgement. I think generally if only half of the people accept and the other half do not accept then it is difficult to say its acceptability. But if there is only one critic, I can say that the film was well received by the general public.
5. MR. PETER C. K. CHAN asked the following question (in Cantonese):—In May last year I asked a question in this Chamber concerning the former Tom Lee bookshop in the City Hall Low Block, and was told that the premises would be used to re-locate the small book-selling kiosk in the Low Block Lobby. The former Tom Lee Bookshop has now been vacant for 15 months, while the small kiosk continues operations from its inadequate site. Why have these premises been allowed to remain vacant for so long, thus perpetuating what I believe to be a scandalous waste of this Council's resources?
MR. LO KING-MAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE CULTURE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-This question concerns the resiting of the Urban Council bookshop in the City Hall foyer to the shop space vacated by Tom Lee Piano Co. Ltd.
Since Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN raised his question in May 1986, the Administration and Culture Select Committees approved in June 1986 vide Committee Papers ADM/71/86 and CUL/31/86 the refurbishment of the City Hall Music and Book Shop to replace the Urban Council Publication Kiosk in the foyer of the City Hall Low Block. To ensure design compatibility, the Architectural Services Department was subsequently asked to nominate an architect to take up the project together with the refurbishment of the adjacent, southern entrance to the City Hall.
In August 1986, the department forwarded the refurbishment requirements to Chief Architect/7 of the Architectural Services Department. Regrettably, owing to shortage of manpower, Chief Architect/7 advised that the refurbishment of the bookshop could be carried out separately and more expeditiously by AD (Maintenance). The department was initially concerned over design compatibility that this arrangement might cause, but this problem has been resolved between those concerned.
The refurbishment of the bookshop is now in progress and it is expected that the premises can be available for occupation as an Urban Council Publications Centre in late May or early June 1987.
6.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN asked the following question (in Cantonese):—
(a) Why are users charged in some public toilets?
(b) I have had complaints from members of the public that the cleanliness of some of our public toilets leaves much to be desired and that the maintenance of others is also very poor. What improvements can Council make to the situation?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-This question is in two parts. The first part inquires why users are charged in some public toilets. The second part asks what measures can be made to improve the cleanliness and maintenance of some of the public toilets.
The answer to the first question is that all public toilets managed by the Environmental Hygiene and Leisure Services Divisions are open to the public free of charge. However, users are charged in some toilets situated inside cultural venues, for example, the City Hall and the Space Museum where a charge of 50¢ is levied on the use of each cubicle through coin-operated locks.
The introduction of a charge was first approved in December 1973 by the then City Hall Select Committee in respect of toilets at the City Hall. Since then the subject has been raised at various Council meetings but the decision to maintain a charge has been upheld; and the Space Museum has adopted this practice too, shortly after its opening in 1980. In the Ngau Chi Wan Civic Centre, which will be opened later this month, a charge will also be made for the use of the toilets.
The reason for levying a charge is that toilets in the above venues are intended for genuine users of those venues and not the general public. Hence they cannot really be called public toilets. Indeed, the aim is to deter the use of those toilets by the general public in order to better serve the needs of the audience and visitors of those cultural venues.
Experience has also shown that a small charge is useful in preventing abuse of the toilets and keeping them in good condition. Considerable effort is being spent on maintaining toilets in the City Hall and Space Museum at an acceptable standard for the audiences. Removing the charge is likely to result in a deterioration of their condition which is not desirable from both the venue users' and management's point of view.
On the second question, USD workmen are responsible for cleaning all UC public toilets with the exception of those in Yau Ma Tei, Mong Kok and Sham Shui Po Districts where they are cleaned by the staff of a private contractor. All the public toilets are cleansed at frequent intervals and are subject to daily inspections by departmental supervisors at foreman level and surprise checks are also carried out regularly by other senior supervisors. USD staff are responsible for reporting any damage to the Architectural Services Department for repair.
Page 9 of 185
10
11