Page 120 of 132
239
238
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Chairman must talk to the SDB to understand what is meant by the SDB's concern in the development of sports and recreation activities at the district level. In fact, they have also got what they called the Community's Sports Clubs. And in fact, 24 such clubs have already been set up. In fact, they have been developing sports in Kwun Tong and Tuen Mun. They have linked up with District Sports Associations in developing sports. As far as district staff are concerned, I am sure they will have their work-load increased i.e. the staff at the DRSO's office. I am sure there will be some sort of wastage of resources. There would also be an increase of work pressure and work-load of our departmental staff, which will be unfair to them. So I think we should find out the crux of the matter and I don't think it is meaningful to talk about disbanding the SDB. That won't solve the problem and I don't think it is a workable solution. SDB has got its own functions e.g. the training of elites. But then when they want to develop sports at the district level, they must co-operate with us and co-ordinate with our work. I understand that there are four committees under the SDB and one of them is about community sports. I think we should talk to this committee to solve the problem. Lastly I would like to address one more point. I also addressed in the Legislative Council when we discussed the Amendment Bill of the SDB. We are concerned about the localisation of the senior management of the SDB. I, as an Urban Councillor, want to see a quicker pace of localisation of senior staff. Secondly, regarding administrative cost of the SDB, last year the SDB got a funding of $60 million, in 1992, $55 million, in 1991, $50 million. The administrative and salary costs of the SDB take up a very high percentage of the overall expenditure and only 60% is left for sports promotion. So I think this is also an area of concern and I just take this opportunity to air my dissatisfaction of the SDB.
Mr. Chairman, with the above words, I support the motion.
MR. JUSTIN WONG CHUN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I have not got a written text prepared for this speech but I am in full support of this motion particularly in relation to the first sentence i.e. upholds the present demarcation of responsibilities with the Hong Kong SDB. I am all for demarcation. We have been talking about resources and competition for resources at the community level. I do agree that it is proper to have a complementary as well as competitive situation. The UC and the SDB are competing for resources in terms of sports activities, venues and training courses. Because of these competitions, problems may arise. These points have been made by our colleagues and I do not wish to repeat them. I have two points to make for members' consideration. Last week, we discussed the Hong Kong ADC and this week we are talking about the SDB. I have only been in this Council for 2-3 months. I don't know whether in future we will be talking about a council for the hawkers or council for refuse collection. In this way, the responsibilities of the Urban Council might be taken over by another body or where another body might complement or supplement our efforts. Under this circumstance, we need to look at the direction for the future and how we should talk to the Government in order to make sure that we can maintain our responsibilities and keep ourselves as an entity.
Page 120 of 132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
talk to the Government in order to make sure that we can maintain our responsibilities and keep ourselves as an entity. Secondly, as Members have talked about competition and complementary role on resources and activities, the Council, the Secretary for Recreation and Culture and the SDB should have a regular avenue for communication and mechanism in place. Apart from our CUC, Dr. LEUNG, who is a member of the SDB, we should have a good mechanism for regular exchange of views. When we want to put in place a major policy, or if we want to stage major activities, then the UC, RC, DSAs should be able to work together and we should very clearly state our respective responsibilities. So I do agree that there should be a clear demarcation of responsibilities so that everybody knows where he stands, where it be at the district level, at the Municipal Councils level or at the SDB level, so that we all know where we stand, so that we all know the direction to take in future and where we know what we should do in relation to policies and activities. Perhaps the RSD, the USD and perhaps the Secretary for Recreation and Culture should come up with feasible ways to deal with this issue, so that there may be less argument and our general public will be able to enjoy the facilities equally.
With will be able to enjoy the facilities equally.
MISS CHRISTINA TING YUK-CHEE (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I didn't prepare a speech but then Mr. Fred Li said that he was very concerned about sports development at the district level and also a lot of urge was made for the SDB to be disbanded. Of course, I come from the district and I can tell you that Districts Sports Associations have been co-operating with the Urban Council very well since we can make use of the UC venues and assistance from the departmental staff in the organization of activities. The districts have also benefitted from the training courses and various sports competitions. In fact, the SDB is now providing cash subsidy to the DSAs. The UC has spent a lot of efforts in the management and maintenance of the venues but then the DSAs think that they can take for granted in terms of venue provision and welcome more financial subsidy from the SDB. So I can tell you that this is a new trend of development. The new development is welcomed by the districts sports people. I just wonder whether we can consider imposing venue charges to the DSAs and instead granting cash subsidy to them as well. By doing so, I am sure that the DSAs will not take it for granted that we are providing the venues to them.
We must emphasize that recreation and sports venues are also very important. I support the motion today, but would like to point out that there is in fact overlapping of work between the SDB and the UC. Mr. Fred Li talked about six areas of responsibilities and four of them are not that important to us. What is important to us is about the provision of venues to the DSAs. I support the motion. Maybe we should consider granting cash subsidies to the DSAs.
CUC (in English): Does any other Member wish to speak? I may take the privilege to address the meeting. First point I want to stress is why this debate.
Page 120 of 132
Page 120
Page 121
Page 121 of 132
240
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As the Honourable Fred LI pointed out what triggered off this debate because when the SDB was formed in 1990, it was spelt out very clearly in statutory ordinance and I was in the Council at that time. We had extensive discussion with the Branch Secretary, Mr. A. K. CHUI. The same concern that SDB's statutory powers may to a certain extent overlap ours was expressed. This concern was raised and registered. Nevertheless, the SDB was formed. Lets hope that the future SDB would behave according to what they are asked to. What Mr. Fred LI pointed out and read to the meeting was an annual report for the last year. But I would advise the Hon. Fred LI to study their ordinances rather than their annual report which was compiled by the full-time Executive Director and which may deviate from the original ordinance. They can put down anything they like, whatever they would like to do in their annual report. And that is not a statutory document. No doubt there has been overlapping activities, waste of the taxpayers' money and a lot of false accusations to the Municipal Councils on various topics. For example, we were accused of hampering the development of sports by not encouraging the formation of Sports Clubs which I am going to address later on. The second point was that personally as an ex-officio member of the Board of the SDB, I did not keep the Council informed of the Board's decision and the resolution. I am going to address on these points again. There were also strong insinuation that the SDB should rank above all other bodies. As pointed out by Fred LI, reading out of the report that the SDB will co-ordinate, putting SDB in the centre of the circle attempting at least to play a bigger brother among the other authorities responsible for promoting sports. Also, there was a rumour that SDB is seriously suggesting to review whether Urban Council should continue to manage public recreational facilities with the hope that SDB may eventually take over all the facilities we built, we planned and we managed. All these points trigger off today's debate. The prepared script is too long but I want to abbreviate it. First, on the role of SDB. As Mr. PAO eloquently pointed out, SDB is trying to assume a supreme role in sports development, promotion and managing sports facilities, and to try to take away from the Municipal Councils with largely elected Members and long years of experiences and also well qualified and experienced departmental staff to operate and run our programmes. The Urban Council Ordinance Cap. 101 clause 25(1)(b) states very clearly Urban Council's duties with regard to sports promotion and our responsibility in promoting sports. Therefore, I could not agree more with Mr. Ronnie WONG that SDB should carefully review that SDB is a wholly appointed council. Not that I am going to say against to link democracy with SDB. But the real fact of life is that with the democratisation of Hong Kong, we should not go against the trend. While the Governor is talking about abolishing appointed members, we should not promote an appointed body to govern over an elected council. This is totally against our Governor's direction. There is no representation whatsoever as Mr. Ronnie WONG pointed out, the Board was dominated by a few expatriates with no grassroots contacts whatsoever. There is no public creditability because they only speak on their own personal experiences and their own capacity as a Chairman of Rolling Association,
Page 121 of 132