Page 570 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Victoria Park which was not adopted. As we all know, a project has to go through the Working Group, then the Select Committee concerned and finally the Standing Committee. It has to go through many levels and it is perfectly normal for it to be vetoed at any one of them. All of you must be aware of the recent case in which a project endorsed by the Culture Select Committee was rejected by the Standing Committee. I wish to take the opportunity to let members of the public know that the messages they get might have come from a Working Group or a certain Select Committee but they might eventually be rejected at the top level. This does not mean that the messages are wrong. I also wish to remind Mr. KAM here that we must not mislead the public anymore. We are acting according to procedures and we know very well that a decision is liable to be turned down at any one level.
May I repeat here that I support MS. CHOW's amended motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to what Mr. LEE Shui-sing said just now. Since he is a newcomer, he might not know too much about our charges. Are they pegged to the market value, profiteering, and same as the levels of private shopping centres at all? Mr. LEE is concerned about the charges of the Council's swimming pools, recreational facilities, tennis courts and indoor stadiums. The current level of subsidy is already more than 70%. Can this be called 'profiteering'? Absolutely not. On the contrary, subsidization is made, which means that a subsidy of 75% or even 80% is given to top up the charges collected by the Council. It is up to you all to decide whether further reduction of charges should be made, which would mean increasing the subsidy to 85% or even 90%. Since the economy is on the downturn, members of the public should be charged less in hiring a venue for a game. Was this what Mr. LEE meant?
Secondly, the rentals of the Council's markets are not pegged to the market value. The markets are in fact operating at a loss. In other words, the markets' income could hardly offset the expenditure. No money is being made on them. The only venues of the Council which are making money are the Coliseum and Hong Kong Stadium. Nevertheless, the present situation of the Hong Kong Stadium is not that promising either. The project of revamping the pitch alone costs $18m. It can be said to be 'spending all with one stroke'. If the project of revamping the pitch was to be funded by the Hong Kong Stadium itself alone, all the profits it has made in the past would be exhausted, not to mention the Council's loan of $175m to the Stadium at its opening. I think we should take all these figures into full consideration. We do not mind supporting Ms. Jennifer CHOW's amended motion, but we have to be more specific about the present level of subsidy and how much further we can go. Ms. CHOW's motion proposes to further examine the charges of the Council's venues, without specifying the types of these venues. They might include the Hong Kong Stadium, the Coliseum and all the venues which are already enjoying a subsidy
Page 571 of 654