HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
$59
could be endorsed and implemented promptly. Of course, if we flip through our survey questionnaires, we will find that the range of reduction is in the order of 20 to 30%, because the turnover has dropped by 20 to 30%, or even by a greater percentage.
I therefore hope that Members will support our motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. KAM NAI-WAI (in Cantonese):-At today's monthly meeting, there are a number of amended and further amended motions. This is rather rare, but it has exactly highlighted what the Chairman said just now, and that is, everyone is concerned for the economic difficulties Hong Kong is experiencing. I hope a clear message will be conveyed today. Apart from the Chairman's ruling to forbid us from discussing the motion on rates, the message that the Urban Councillors are concerned for the livelihood of the people is very clear. Nevertheless, sending out a message is one thing, sending out a wrong message is another.
I want to say something about what the four members of the Liberal Party said just now. I have been sitting here for more than an hour and except for the moment I went to the toilet. I have been listening to them. All along these members of the Liberal Party have not mentioned the financial implication of their proposed reduction of rentals, if it is endorsed. They haven't told us this. Only Mr. Wong Chung-ki of our Democratic Party mentioned a figure. The figure is that if our amended motion or Mr. CHEUNG Yu-yan's original motion was carried, the annual financial implication would be some $80m, but if the various charges and rentals were reduced as proposed by Ms. Jennifer Chow in her amended motion, what would the financial implication be?
I am disappointed that as the Chairman of the Finance Select Committee, neither Mr. Chiang Sai-cheong was able to tell us this. He should at least be able to advise the public on the feasibility of the proposal. We should not ‘assume' that the charge of every item could be reduced. Could we financially afford every reduction? I think we should account for this clearly to the public.
Secondly, regarding Ms. Jennifer Chow's amended motion, I consider that the Liberal Party is very liberal indeed. A few days ago (the exact date of the fax cannot be recalled), that is, on 6 February, I received Mr. CHEUNG Yu-yan's motion. I would not go into detail about the motion itself. The seconders were Ms. Jennifer Chow, Mr. Chiang Sai-cheong and Mr. Chan Noi-yue. Members of the Liberal Party gave full support to Mr. CHEUNG Yu-yan's motion. I simply don't understand why in a wink, an amended motion was moved by Ms. Jennifer Chow, the fax copy of which I found when I returned to the office at 10.00 a.m. today, that is, 10 February (I seldom return to the office in the morning). I hope Mr. CHEUNG Yu-yan will give us a clear explanation later for such a behaviour of you Members. Having seen others [proposing reduction, you not only followed suit but also added to the list of
Page 565 of 654
Page 565 of 654
Page 565 of 654
Page 565
Page 566