1960 — Page 25

Page 25 of 118

34

HONG KONG. URBAN COUNCIL

mind, are worthy of priority. I refer, in the first instance, to the many squatter shacks in the streets. These settlements are to be seen in congested areas and in narrow lanes. Most of them are on streetsides, particularly in the rear lanes behind buildings. Some squatters have built shelters even down the centre of roadways, obstructing traffic. These shacks add doubly to the fire risks. They also block the firemen from easy access when outbreaks occur. They are a constant source of annoyance and anxiety to the residents and a constant menace to the public health.

Granting the possibility that the occupants of these squatter shacks are people who have lost their homes because of fires, collapses of old buildings, condemnation of buildings or other reasons, the tendency is for these shacks to increase in number. I urge that the Government make a more energetic effort to find accommodation for these un- fortunate people, if extension of such slum conditions is to be avoided. This matter, I submit, is very urgent.

There are other municipal matters inviting comment, one of which is the recommendation that the Colony should be provided with more indoor stadia. I would prefer to see one large covered stadium rather than a number of small ones.

Hong Kong is now a big city, and it lags far behind other big cities in its lack of a roofed "arena" worthy of its pride. Hong Kong's Government stadium and those of the football clubs can be used; but the acoustics must be taken into account, and in this climate the possibility of rain is a real difficulty. When an event has been arranged and advertised at much cost, rain can mean very heavy financial loss.

The idea of a large covered stadium is not overly ambitious. The few existing places are far too small and far too limited in the events that they can accommodate. In reply to the statement that they have not been fully used, we may fairly say that the entertainment which they have offered has not often been very attractive to the general public. We should think also in terms of new entertainment--of performances which are still infrequent here, such as cycle races and other forms of athletics, band concerts and contests, ice-skating and

so on.

But in evaluating the suggestions, I think we shall be in error if we are guided entirely by considerations of local performances—that is, of local fixtures such as football matches, tattoos, school displays and so on. Hong Kong has not yet enough talent to regard itself as capable of catering to the public interest on any large scale throughout the year. We must look as well to imported entertainment. Nor is the Colony so well supplied with entertainment that we can regard Hong Kong life as over-full of something to see or something to hear. To provide

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

35

somewhere to go and more to enjoy will also offer more alternatives to the extravagant and sometimes questionable pleasures which make up "night life". And we may do more than merely entertain Hong Kong. We may make the Colony the venue for events of worldwide importance, and thereby provide additional attractions for tourists.

Admittedly, a large indoor stadium will be expensive. It will also require a large site. One can be financed and built, however, if the necessary collaboration is available; and it should be able to maintain itself. Very recently, I read that a Convention Hall was among the suggested amenities to which the Naval Yard land might be devoted. If a Convention Hall is really needed, this and the Covered Stadium ideas could well be merged into a composite provision.

With these remarks, it gives me pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to accept wholeheartedly your statement of progress and policy.

MR. K. A. WATSON: -Mr. Chairman, may I start with a word of comfort: there are only two speakers after me and my own contribu- tion to the debate will not be lengthy. I can give this assurance because most of the subjects I would have liked to have discussed have already been mentioned by previous speakers.

I am delighted to find Mr. BERNACCHI back in his own fire eating form. In the past few years it seems that he had mellowed and that the crusading spirit had moved across to this side of the table. As one of the sops referred to I can see no logic in the suggestion that because we have limited powers we should pack up. It may or may not be beneficial for us to develop into a full municipal council. It may or may not be beneficial for the Legislative Council to have elected members. But these are not the only alternatives and it is absurd to argue that because we do not have control over the police and other departments this Council should then be abolished. What he is suggest- ing is that the enormous amount of work done by members, particularly in select committees, is of no value whatsoever, and with this I cannot agree. If this really is the view of Mr. BERNACCHI and his friends, I suggest that their only logical course is to stop standing for election and leave the running of this council to those of us who think our work on it is not a waste of time.

Mr. Y. K. KAN, for example, has spoken about the work of the sub-committee on delegated powers, and the importance we attach to the proposals for streamlining the licensing procedures.

We are satisfied that a considerable reduction in the time taken by the Urban Services Department to deal with applications can be achieved. But there are many cases when outside departments, such as the Labour Department, the Fire Brigade and the Building Authority, have to be consulted, and their co-operation is needed if we are to get the

Page 25Page 26