Page 50 of 654
~54
48
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Third point. In the reply document, it is stated that damages were in three aspects and were due to wear and tear and depreciation of the facilities, improper use by swimmers and unconscious damage by over-excited swimmers. However, my original question is why there was severe damage to the facilities. Let me draw the attention of Members to part (b) of my question: How were the works supervised at that time? Was the severe damage to the facilities at the two leisure pools immediately after they were opened due to inadequate monitoring by the Architectural Services Department? Regarding the damaged facilities and their imperfect design leading to the injuries of users of the facilities, and the situation that it was necessary to call ambulances for the injured, of whom some were not injured slightly, has a review been conducted?' That is one part of my original question. It seems to me that the reply document has ignored questions of this kind and failed to give answers to them.
Point four is about the usage of the two pools. There were 42 cases of injuries involving the sending of injured persons to the hospital for treatment. I must point out here clearly that there were 42 such cases. If I have not misinterpreted, the reply said there were 42 cases involving the sending of injured persons to hospital. There was no mention of cases of bruised limbs and the application of mercurochrome. I can tell you that I saw cases not recorded when the lifeguards merely applied mercurochrome on the bruises of the injured. Did the Department monitor such cases? As stated in the reply document, of the 42 cases involving sending the injured to hospital, 26 arose because of the carelessness of swimmers. How many of such cases were results of damaged pool facilities such as loosened screws, cracked tiles etc.? Were there ever such cases? Can we have some examples of injuries caused by damaged pool facilities? I know of this case of a 14 year old student who hit against a loosened screw on his way gliding down the water slide and got a deep cut down to the bone. He had to have 4 stitches. Why is it that I know of the case but there is no mention of it in the Department's records? I don't understand.
Point number five. The reasons that facilities are still not completed have been given in paragraph 10 of the reply document. Paragraph 11 states the work has been delayed, but no reason has been given for it. Can I have some firm answers to my question?
Mr. Ronnie Wong Man-chiu (in Cantonese):—Perhaps I can explain to Mr. Hung why the above problems have evolved. He just handed me the original of his question. In fact, Mr. Hung's question covers both facilities of the Urban Council and those of the Regional Council. In view of that, the Secretariat amended it. The reason is that we cannot answer questions on behalf of the Regional Council.
Let me answer Mr. Hung's fifth question about works delay first. As a matter of fact, the Working Group on Swimming Pools chaired by Ms. Christina TING Yuk-chee has been following it up. There are various reasons for the delay. The contractor of the two swimming pools met with financial
Page 50 of 654
Page 50
Page 51