HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. SALES: --Off-hand, Sir, I should think between a year and a half and two years, since the Council had it at that time too.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: - Mr. Chairman, it seems that Government has been sitting on this report for quite an extended period of time. Could Mr. SALES tell this Council if consideration in his Committee has been given to putting it to Government that this Council, being in a sense a non-profit making body, could be a suitable sponsor for this scheme, provided Government was willing to pay the annual operating expenses?
MR. SALES: Sir, that is Mr. CHEONG-LEEN's private opinion. His question is framed as a statement, and since the Select Committee has not taken a decision on this particular matter, we would welcome the presence of Mr. CHEONG-LEEN at any future meeting at which the proposal to have an oceanarium is brought up for consideration again. I should add at this point, Sir, that the Select Committee is vastly concerned with the provision of as great a number of recreational facilities as possible in every district in Hong Kong, particularly in the districts where there is a great density of population, and so, as with whatever proposal might be made by Councillors or interested parties outside, the proposal to have an oceanarium would have to be considered not only on its merit, but in the order of priority that should be accorded to it.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: - Mr. Chairman, with due respect to Mr. SALES, I think he was talking away from the subject. We are agreed that a high degree of priority should be given to the development of playgrounds and sitting-out areas for the public, but this is a special scheme which has been mooted for a long time, and I think that there are many individuals and groups in Hong Kong who are in favour of having an oceanarium here. So, may I ask whether the Select Committee of which Mr. SALES is Chairman, is or is not in favour of this scheme of having an oceanarium in Hong Kong?
MR. SALES: Sir, may I suggest that as my Committee appears to be taking on so much work for this Council, it would also be prepared to help Mr. CHEONG-LEEN in framing his supplementary questions in the future? Now, I was not talking away from the point of an oceanarium when I suggested that priority has to be given to projects for the masses because, Mr. Chairman, no Select Committee can undertake to put into practice whatever scheme might be put forward by interested parties. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that an oceanarium to the best of my knowledge and belief has not been adopted as a project by this Council as a whole. It has been pushed by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN from time to time. While I am personally sympathetic to it, I still think that other projects which the Council has in view should be accorded a higher priority, if there is a question of limited funds.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
One notable example is that of the indoor stadium which this Council has adopted as a Council project.
MR. BERNACCHI: - Mr. Chairman, in view of Mr. SALES saying that the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee has so much work on its hands, could I suggest that the oceanarium be referred instead to the City Hall Select Committee? (Laughter).
MR. SALES: Sir, may I suggest that the City Hall Select Committee would be delighted to take on that project, if its terms of reference were amended accordingly. (Laughter).
(5) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:-
Would the Commissioner for Resettlement please state:
(a) If it is true that Mr. KWAN Shan of 610, Block 48, Tsz Wan Shan Resettlement Estate, was granted a resettlement shop by the Appeals Committee on 25th April, 1967? Had he already been appealing for about 3 months prior to this date?
(b) Is it correct that as at 4th June, 1967, Mr. Kwan has still not been officially informed of the result of his appeal, and had not been offered a shop?
(c) Can any reason be given why the results of some appeals are delayed in this way?
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:-
The answer to the first part of the question is that, at a meeting held on 25th April, 1967, the Appeals Sub-Committee of the Resettlement Policy Select Committee recommended the allocation of a resettlement shop to Mr. KWAN. This Sub-Committee is not authorized to make decisions, and its recommendations require confirmation by the Resettlement Policy Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 22, paragraph (8). The Resettlement Policy Select Committee has also directed that the result of an appeal should not be communicated to an appellant until it has been confirmed by that committee. An appeal lies only against the decision of the Commissioner for Resettlement, not against decisions made by one of my officers. This case first came to my attention on the 20th February, 1967, when I received a letter from MRS. ELLIOTT on Mr. KWAN's behalf. In my reply dated the 1st March, I stated that I agreed with the departmental
Page 65
Page 66
259
Page 65 of 259
108
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. SALES: --Off-hand, Sir, I should think between a year and a half and two years, since the Council had it at that time too.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, it seems that Government has been sitting on this report for quite an extended period of time. Could Mr. SALES tell this Council if consideration in his Committee has been given to putting it to Government that this Council, being in a sense a non-profit making body, could be a suitable sponsor for this scheme, provided Government was willing to pay the annual operating expenses?
MR. SALES: Sir, that is Mr. CHEONG-LEEN's private opinion. His question is framed as a statement, and since the Select Com- mittee has not taken a decision on this particular matter, we would welcome the presence of Mr. CHEONG-LEEN at any future meeting at which the proposal to have an oceanarium is brought up for con- sideration again. I should add at this point, Sir, that the Select Com- mittee is vastly concerned with the provision of as great a number of recreational facilities as possible in every district in Hong Kong, particularly in the districts where there is a great density of population, and so, as with whatever proposal might be made by Councillors or interested parties outside, the proposal to have an oceanarium would have to be considered not only on its merit, but in the order of priority that should be accorded to it.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, with due respect to Mr. SALES, I think he was talking away from the subject. We are agreed that a high degree of priority should be given to the development of playgrounds and sitting-out areas for the public, but this is a special scheme which has been mooted for a long time, and I think that there are many individuals and groups in Hong Kong who are in favour of having an oceanarium here. So, may I ask whether the Select Com- mittee of which Mr. SALES is Chairman, is or is not in favour of this scheme of having an oceanarium in Hong Kong?
MR. SALES: Sir, may I suggest that as my Committee appears to be taking on so much work for this Council, it would also be prepared to help Mr. CHEONG-LEEN in framing his supplementary questions in the future? Now, I was not talking away from the point of an oceanarium when I suggested that priority has to be given to projects for the masses because, Mr. Chairman, no Select Committee can undertake to put into practice whatever scheme might be put for- ward by interested parties. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that an oceanarium to the best of my knowledge and belief has not been adopted as a project by this Council as a whole. It has been pushed by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN from time to time. While I am personally sympa- thetic to it, I still think that other projects which the Council has in view should be accorded a higher priority, if there is a question of
limited funds.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
109
One notable example is that of the indoor stadium which this Council has adopted as a Council project.
MR. BERNACCHI: -Mr. Chairman, in view of Mr. SALES saying that the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee has so much work on its hands, could I suggest that the oceanarium be referred instead to the City Hall Select Committee? (Laughter).
MR. SALES: Sir, may I suggest that the City Hall Select Com- mittee would be delighted to take on that project, if its terms of reference were amended accordingly. (Laughter).
(5) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:-
Would the Commissioner for Resettlement please state:
(a) If it is true that Mr. KWAN Shan of 610, Block 48, Tsz Wan Shan Resettlement Estate, was granted a resettle- ment shop by the Appeals Committee on 25th April, 1967? Had he already been appealing for about 3 months prior to this date?
(b) Is it correct that as at 4th June, 1967, Mr. Kwan has still not been officially informed of the result of his appeal, and had not been offered a shop?
(c) Can any reason be given why the results of some appeals
are delayed in this way?
THE COMMISSioner for Resettlement replied as follows:-
The answer to the first part of the question is that, at a meet- ing held on 25th April, 1967, the Appeals Sub-Committee of the Resettlement Policy Select Committee recommended the allocation of a resettlement shop to Mr. KWAN. This Sub-Committee is not authorized to make decisions, and its recommendations require confirmation by the Resettle- ment Policy Select Committee in accordance with Stand- ing Order 22, paragraph (8). The Resettlement Policy Select Committee has also directed that the result of an appeal should not be communicated to an appellant until it has been confirmed by that committee. An appeal lies only against the decision of the Commissioner for Resettlement, not against decisions made by one of my officers. This case first came to my attention on the 20th February, 1967, when I received a letter from Mrs. ELLIOTT on Mr. KWAN's behalf. In my reply dated the 1st March, I stated that I agreed with the departmental
Page 65Page 66
259
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.