Page 55 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
35
etc., then if we want to, we can write down tens or even a hundred pages of criteria. By not writing out the Metroplan, I am not saying that we do not consider it at all, only that we won't do everything in accordance with it. The second point on which I cannot agree is the use of the word 'in accordance with' in the amended motion. If the word 'consideration' is used instead, then the Urban Council will be a big help to our work. If the wording is 'in accordance with', not only are we getting no help, but also our work will be greatly affected,
So, to sum up, I am not saying that the Metroplan as mentioned in the amended motion is no good, but that the Urban Council should consider it rather than act in accordance with it. As such, I feel that the amended motion is not as suitable and good for us as the original motion since the latter allows for considering the Metroplan. That is very different from the amended motion which points out the need to act in accordance with the Metroplan. So, I hope my colleagues will disregard their stance, including political stance, and think about this whole matter practically. This way, the Council will be able to carry out our proposed work. As pointed out in both the original and the amended motion, we have to prepare for the future of our citizens. For the needs of our citizens and to serve them, we have to make all sorts of arrangements in respect of land, facilities etc. After you have thought about this seriously, I am sure you will support the original motion and make it one with better coverage, more flexibility and more suited to the Council's future development in capital works. Thank you.
MR. STANLEY WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese): Early this year in our Annual Debate, I suggested that we should consider the Council's future capital works projects carefully. I also pointed out that our urban sitting-out areas were far from adequate. As a large area of land would be vacated when the airport moves in 1997 and its use has not yet been finalised, I hope that the Council and the Department can actively fight for more land there so as to provide various cultural and recreational facilities, indoor games halls and entertainment or cultural performance sites.
The motion by Ms. CHOW pinpoints this. It is a simple and straightforward motion which I think does not call for an amendment. I recall that Ms. CHOW mentioned the Metroplan in her speech just now. One of her points was made the focal point of the amended motion. Ms. CHOW said that a lot of factors had to be considered, including the Metroplan, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, population bi-census, public consultation and participation, the work and progresses of the Urban Council, various government departments and the urban land supply situation. She spoke fast. I was able to jot down the above points only. She actually referred to a lot more.
Looking back at the amended motion, I am puzzled. Why was the Metroplan the only plan referred to? It is not appropriate to move an
Page 56
Page 55 of 498
Page 56 of 498