Page 54 of 498
Page 54 of 498
54
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, first of all, I state my position that I am in support of the original motion. It is not that the amended motion is not good, but that the amendment does not differ substantially from the original motion in spirit and substance. I therefore support the original motion. Maybe I should explain why I find the motion and the amendment not different in spirit and substance. We look at the original motion first. It is clear that the spirit is for the Council to make forward-looking considerations in formulating its vision of 10-year capital works projects as well as to ensure there is sufficient land for development use. The content of the amendment is the same, only it includes the Metroplan in accordance with medium and long-term outline planning.
First of all, back to the original motion. The original motion does not rule out the possibility of considering a 10-year vision plan instead of the Metroplan in future. In fact, the proposer of the original motion pointed out that the Metroplan as well as other plans would be considered. I think that is a step in the right direction. For example, the proposer asked to consider the Metroplan, population growth, land requirement, and the development plans of other organizations such as the Housing Authority. The amended motion proposed that we should base on the Metroplan because it was a good plan.
I have been engaged in academic discussions over planning and I have had over 10 years of experience with planning. I feel that we in Hong Kong need a Metroplan, but the Metroplan should be viewed as a guideline as proposed in the amended motion, and just a guideline to be subjected to changes. All of you know that the Urban Council has a 5-year capital works plan previously called the Capital Works Programme. From bidding for land to completion of land development, the shortest cycle would be five years. Sometimes a cycle would take seven to 10 years to complete, depending on what sort of difficulties arise in the interim. Under such circumstances, if we try to amend a plan drawn up in the Metroplan, then the difficulties from on-going changes as pointed out in the amended motion would make the Council lose flexibility and initiative. In other words, if our capital works and the development of our facilities have to base on the Metroplan with no room for flexibility at all, there will be a lot of difficulties and the Council will not know where to start. The Metroplan is itself not a plan, just a direction, a vision, a strategy. It is a planning target, not a schedule to proceed. The Urban Council needs a concrete schedule to follow, and that schedule must take into account various conditions and the needs of the public. Speaking of the needs of the public, there are many aspects including planning standards and criteria. We must base on the various conditions in drawing up our concrete procedures. If we try to do that, purely basing on the Metroplan would make things very difficult. That is the first reason why I do not support the amended motion.
Point number two. If we pass the amended motion, the danger is that the Metroplan will be the only thing to base on. If we do not propose to make the Metroplan the base by taking reference from social requirement, population
Page 54 of 498
4 of 498