Page 50 of 118
84
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
reference to sanitation and flies and mosquito control, extend to the valley behind the Lai Chi Kok Beach; will the Chairman please make a statement in clarification?
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
"This question concerns responsibility for cleansing and hygiene in Lai Chi Kok and Kau Wa Keng.
The dividing line between the New Territories and Kowloon runs from a point at the West end of the mouth of Lai Chi Kok Bay roughly along the seaward end of the amusement park and to the Kowloon side of the road running up to the Castle Peak Road just west of milestone 5. The Urban Council is thus in no way responsible for the valley behind Lai Chi Kok Beach which lies wholly in the New Territories."
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. On a point of clarification. If mosquitoes or flies are found on the landward side of the Amusement Park, does that mean to say that their control is not subject to the Urban Council?
CHAIRMAN:-That is correct.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-How do you distinguish, Mr. Chairman, between a rural mosquito and an urban mosquito? (Laughter).
CHAIRMAN:-There is no distinction in the type of mosquito; there is a distinction in the method of treatment. If they are in the Urban Area, I treat them as C.U.C. If they are outside the Urban Area, I treat them as the D.U.S.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-If a resident living in the area behind the Amusement Park, Mr. Chairman, is complaining of a nuisance from either mosquitoes or flies, who is responsible?
CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this would appear to be a rhetorical question and is not permitted under Standing Orders.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-May I put the question in another way, Mr. Chairman. If a resident complains of flies on the seaward side, to whom should he complain-to the Urban Council or to the New Territories Administration?
CHAIRMAN:-Your original question, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN simply inquired who is responsible for the valley behind the Amusement Park, and I think that I have sufficiently answered it.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-I shall not pursue the matter any further, Mr. Chairman.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
85
MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN asked the following question:—
"About a year ago, a suggestion was mooted that there should be an oceanarium on Hong Kong Island:
(a) Will the Chairman please state whether the Urban Services Department staff has considered this suggestion as a future amenity for the public? (b) Has this suggestion been considered to any extent by the Urban Amenities Select Committee? If not, would the Chairman agree to have this suggestion discussed at a meeting of this Select Committee at an early date?”
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
"These questions concern an oceanarium, a vast aquarium which caters for the largest species of fish.
It is correct that the question of an oceanarium was considered by the Urban Services Department and, colour films of such amenities in the U.S.A. were shown to Members of the Urban Amenities Select Committee. The proposal emanated originally from the Fisheries Research Unit in the University and it was thought that any further action would be taken by the University rather than by the Department. In any case, Government had already indicated in unequivocal terms that while a Zoo or an Aquarium might be a desirable educational or recreational amenity in Hong Kong, it was considered that it should be established and run either by private enterprise, or, ideally, by a suitable non-Government organization representing all the persons or bodies with an interest in such a project. This view was conveyed to the Urban Amenities Select Committee in Committee Paper 17/8/59 of 6th April, 1959.
The proposal looked rather promising on paper in that the largest fish and aquatic mammals would be visible at close quarters, but the practical details were never worked out. The initial capital cost of the structure alone might be in the region of $2m. - $3m., and maintenance expenses would inevitably be high owing to the need to circulate the water by mechanical pumping. The capture, delivery and feeding of the voracious occupants of the tank would also be a heavy financial burden.
Acrobatic dolphins are entertaining, but I cannot believe that the population of Hong Kong are going to travel regularly and repeatedly to Brick Hill, the suggested site, to watch their antics. An Oceanarium could admittedly become a
Page 50
Page 51
Page 51 of 118
8'1
Page 50 of 118
84
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
reference to sanitation and flies and mosquito control, extend to the valley behind the Lai Chi Kok Beach; will the Chairman please make a statement in clarification?"
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
"This question concerns responsibility for cleansing and hygiene
in Lai Chi Kok and Kau Wa Keng.
The dividing line between the New Territories and Kowloon runs from a point at the West end of the mouth of Lai Chi Kok Bay roughly along the seaward end of the amusement park and to the Kowloon side of the road run- ning up to the Castle Peak Road just west of milestone 5. The Urban Council is thus in no way responsible for the valley behind Lai Chi Kok Beach which lies wholly in the New Territories."
MR. CHEONG-LEEN : -A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. On a point of clarification. If mosquitoes or flies are found on the landward side of the Amusement Park, does that mean to say that their control is not subject to the Urban Council?
CHAIRMAN:-That is correct.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: -How do you distinguish, Mr. Chairman, between a rural mosquito and an urban mosquito? (Laughter).
CHAIRMAN: ---There is no distinction in the type of mosquito; there is a distinction in the method of treatment. If they are in the Urban Area, I treat them as C.U.C. If they are outside the Urban Area, I treat them as the D.U.S.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-If a resident living in the area behind the Amusement Park, Mr. Chairman, is complaining of a nuisance from either mosquitoes or flies, who is responsible?
CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this would appear to be a rhetorical question and is not permitted under Standing Orders.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-May I put the question in another way, Mr. Chairman. If a resident complains of flies on the seaward side, to whom should he complain-to the Urban Council or to the New Territories Administration?
CHAIRMAN:-Your original question, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN simply inquired who is responsible for the valley behind the Amusement Park, and I think that I have sufficiently answered it.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-I shall not pursue the matter any further, Mr. Chairman.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
85
MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN asked the following question:—
"About a year ago, a suggestion was mooted that there should
be an oceanarium on Hong Kong Island:
(a) Will the Chairman please state whether the Urban Services Department staff has considered this suggestion as a future amenity for the public? (b) Has this suggestion been considered to any extent by the Urban Amenities Select Committee? If not, would the Chairman agree to have this suggestion discussed at a meeting of this Select Committee at an early date?”
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
"These questions concern an oceanarium, a vast aquarium which
caters for the largest species of fish.
It is correct that the question of an oceanarium was considered by the Urban Services Department and, colour films of such amenities in the U.S.A. were shown to Members of the Urban Amenities Select Committee. The proposal emanated originally from the Fisheries Research Unit in the University and it was thought that any further action would be taken by the University rather than by the Department. In any case, Government had already indicated in unequivocal terms that while a Zoo or an Aquarium might be a desirable educational or recreational amenity in Hong Kong, it was considered that it should be established and run either by private enterprise, or, ideally, by a suitable non-Government organization representing all the persons or bodies with an interest in such a project. This view was conveyed to the Urban Amenities Select Committee in Committee Paper 17/8/59 of 6th April, 1959.
The proposal looked rather promising on paper in that the largest fish and aquatic mammals would be visible at close quarters, but the practical details were never worked out. The initial capital cost of the structure alone might be in the region of $2m. - $3m., and maintenance expenses would inevitably be high owing to the need to circulate the water by mechanical pumping. The capture, delivery and feeding of the voracious occupants of the tank would also be a heavy financial burden.
Acrobatic dolphins are entertaining, but I cannot believe that the population of Hong Kong are going to travel regularly and repeatedly to Brick Hill, the suggested site, to watch their antics. An Oceanarium could admittedly become a
Page 50Page 51
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.