Page 116 of 132
231
230
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I find the remarks of a member of the Sports Development Board extremely disconcerting. He has wrongly perceived that the Sports Development Board is the responsible statutory body which 'ranks above all other government bodies and departments in matters concerning sports development.'. He is wrong because Sports Development Board is not the sole statutory body, nor does it rank above anyone.
He also made the assertion that the Sports Development Board should control public sports facilities. This sounds groundless ambition. Most sports venues co-exist with other Council facilities such as parks and markets. It is more cost-effective and efficient to manage and maintain them as integrated facilities. Moreover administration of sports venues does not simply mean renting them out. It involves a lot more such as how to ensure fair and maximum utilisation, balancing of demands from different bodies, and routine matters like maintenance, security, safety, etc. Over the years, the Council has accumulated valuable experiences in the management of these facilities and there seems no convincing ground to transfer such responsibilities to other bodies who might not be as grassroots-oriented in its approach.
There is also accusation that civil servants should not be involved in sports promotion. This is a totally anomalous assertion. First the Council comprises 40 non-officials who are not civil servants but are, same as those serving on the Sports Development Board, interested in the provision of sports and leisure facilities and in the promotion of sports programmes. The Council makes the policies and sets the directions. Second, the civil servants involved in organizing sports programmes are not only paid to do the job, they are also trained to do the job, and are highly qualified to do the job well. They are definitely no less, if not more, competent than their counterparts in the Sports Development Board, which presumably also relies on paid staff to implement its decisions.
The Recreation, Amenities and Sports Offices in various districts are established to promote grassroots level sports and to assist local, district-based sports associations to organize programmes for the general public. I am proud to say that they have been discharging their responsibilities amicably well. I am sure my colleagues here will join me in condemning those who seek to usurp the fruits of their hard work.
No one should monopolise the promotion of sports activities. Sports bodies should respect each other and embark on activities which are appropriate and relevant to their purposes and capabilities. There is no doubt that the Council should continue in its work in the promotion and co-ordination of grassroots level sports activities, intermediate training, liaison with local sports associations, and management of sports venues. These are among our statutory responsibilities, which this Council has discharged loyally and effectively over the years.
With all these remarks, I strongly urge this Council to reaffirm and uphold the present demarcation of responsibilities with the Sports Development Board.
Page 116 of 132
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
This is not to reinforce sectoral interest but rather than provide better co-ordinated and diversified sport programmes in the best interest of the community. Elimination of duplication will prevent waste of resources. Mutual respect will foster co-operation and contribute to the flourishing of both popular and elitist sports. Our society will benefit by having both sports for all and sports to win.
Mr. Chairman, I beg to move.
CHAIRMAN (in English): Thank you, Mr. PAO Ping-wing, who is also the Chairman of the Working Group to study the relationship between SDB and Urban Council. May I call the seconder, Mr. Ronnie WONG?
MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, as the Chinese saying goes, we should 'face all changes with inaction'. In order to have a smooth transition period, we should as far as possible retain the existing systems and work progressively towards a smooth transfer of sovereignty in terms of the civil service, the economy and the political system. Sports development is no exception. At the present stage, the various organizations involved in sports promotion should continue their respective roles. The two Municipal Councils should continue to be responsible for management of all recreation and sports venues and facilities, as well as promotion of sports amongst the general public. The Amateur Sports Federation and the Olympic Committee should continue to be responsible for sports exchanges with other countries and to serve as channels of communication with national sports associations.
As for the youngest body, the 4-year-old Sports Development Board should do its part by increasing liaison with other sports organizations so as to help them obtain resources from the Central Government and other sponsors for the training of elitist athletes. What it should not do is to go to great lengths and resort to every trick to expand its power and increase its sphere of influence at the expense of others. If the situation continues, I believe we should review the justifications for existence of the SDB in light of the following:
In my view, the SDB is neither representative nor is it a product of the local sports culture. As the SDB is an unmonitored body which lacks public recognition, it is impracticable for the Government to lay upon it the responsibility to co-ordinate the activities of various sports organizations in the territory during the transition period.
I say the SDB is not representative because all except the three ex-official members are appointed. I am not saying all of them are yes men but the fact is, the majority of them are given the appointment on the understanding that they echo the views of Government officials.
There is a lack of local sports culture in the Sports Development Board. From the Chairman to the Executive Director to his senior assistants, none of