1965 — Page 29

2

Page 29 of 382

36

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

On account of its proximity to one of our Courts, I very often visit the Victoria Park and can say at first hand that the facilities there are being used to the full. In fact, it is getting overcrowded. I often find two groups of pupils from neighbouring schools together sharing a basketball court for their physical training lessons as they cannot have one to each of them.

With our increasing population we need more space and more recreational facilities for our children. It is our duty as Councillors to ask for and acquire what open space we have at sea level for recreational amenities.

I have pleasure in supporting the motion.

MR. SOLOMON RAFEEK:-Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I rise to give my wholehearted support to the motion so thought- fully proposed by the Senior Nominated Member.

Some people would argue that in view of Hong Kong's particular circumstances, we should use every available inch of space for constructing apartments and factories. This philosophy, however acceptable from the point of view of the property and land owners it enriches, nevertheless rests on an unsound foundation. A nation, a city, a town, even a village, depends on its people for progress and prosperity. If its people are sickly, the greatest apartments, the most modern-equipped factories are but empty tokens of splendour. With- out healthy people there obviously cannot be prosperity.

The truly phenomenal advance of industry in Hong Kong in the last 15 years and the extraordinary way in which we have absorbed and integrated more than a million refugees and directed their industries and skills into a fantastic export trade, which contributes considerably to our Annual Income over Expenditure, has blinded us to the lacunae that loom large in our lives. One of the biggest of these is our pro- vision of open spaces, or "lungs" for our city and for our people. We are, by any reasonable standards, woefully deficient in this matter. Some no doubt will point to Victoria Park, the new Kowloon Tsai Park, and the various little rest gardens grudgingly won for the people by the Urban Amenities Select Committee of the Urban Council. I think I can safely say that few appreciate what has been done by officers of Government and civic-minded citizens to win these essential amenities. But, at the same time, I contend that we are falling, almost unconsciously, into two very serious pitfalls in this matter.

The first is the feeling that we have done enough. We can point to the amenities I have mentioned, which undoubtedly, in the context of our overall commitments in housing and public works, are sub- stantial achievements. But I feel that we have no right to sit back now and rest on our laurels, preening ourselves that we have done an

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

37

excellent job, and leave it at that. The second is, in some respects, a more serious one. We are rapidly sinking to the position where we consider any open space, however small, as an indication of waste, of unproductivity and therefore to be filled with the utmost despatch with a building of any sort to hide the nakedness. Our friend Mr. SALES' motion to-day affords us an opportunity to show that we have not totally succumbed to the temptation to use every available piece of land for building development.

Apart from the arguments I have outlined above, I wish also that we would consider this matter from another point of view. If the political situation so warranted it, this piece of land might have continued to be occupied by the Armed Services for many more years to come and would not have reverted to Government.

With over 10,000 empty flats in buildings already constructed on developed sites, it can hardly be said that developers of property will be deprived of suitable sites and people denied of living space if we ask that this land be given to this Council to be developed as an extension of Victoria Park, thus providing much needed additional amenities for the people of this recently developed area.

Sir, with these observations, I have great pleasure in supporting the motion before Council.

MR. HENRY HU:-Mr. Chairman, I would support the motion on two practical grounds. First, if this piece of land were reserved for the development of Victoria Park, it would stimulate the land value. If it were not, then the land value would go down, so that it is also for the general interest that this piece of land should be reserved for the enlargement of the park and should not be sold. My second point. I would say that if my observation is correct, then from Shau Kei Wan up to the Western District, this is the only piece of land which Govern- ment could possibly reserve for the development of a park. I think that this is a unique place which Government should not sell just for cashing in money.

For these two practical grounds I also support the motion.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS:---Mr. Chairman, I also support the motion very strongly. I agree entirely with the Members who stressed the need for more open space in Hong Kong, particularly within the urban areas, but there are three misconceptions that I would like to correct.

First of all, as far as I am aware, there has never been any intention on the part of Government to sell this land. This, I think, has been suggested by three or four Members. I am not aware of any suggestion at all that this land should be sold. Secondly, Dr. Raymond LEE said