1967 — Page 91

160

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 91 of 259

161

parents whose children have to roam the streets and are exposed to the consequent dangers. These people, Sir, want recreational facilities for their children, not their grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the Government could do better if the will is there. We must get on with the construction of recreational facilities on a massive scale.

It is calculated that well over half of the people who live in Hong Kong are in age groups interested in active recreation. With increasing leisure that must follow from more enlightened labour legislation, the demand will become even greater.

The Urban Council has put forward many plans. For example, in a recent review, it was determined that in the three years 1964-67, the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee considered and decided on 746 different items. These comprised plans and projects for immediate execution as well as suggestions for improvement in the next few years. The Urban Council's ambitions are limited by the restrictions tacitly imposed by the Government in the number of projects that can be carried out under the Public Works programme. Formerly, it was understood to have been two each year; recently, I am told it is six. In addition, there is the limiting factor of the capacity of the Architectural Office. Suggestions have been made that this might be overcome by the standardization of plans where possible and, more important, by the employment of private architects and engineers. It was even suggested that the Urban Council should have its own separate architectural section.

Mr. Chairman, another factor which is of importance is the need for the Government to engage the necessary staff in number and quality that this expanding programme must have. There can be no doubt that there is a serious shortage of professional staff. We do not have all the staff with horticultural training that we want. Neither do we have enough in the supervisory grades. But, above all, we must have staff with the training and experience to organize play activities. This is increasingly done elsewhere in the world and the Urban Council has consistently asked the Government to consider engaging such staff in order that our play facilities may be organized to the best advantage.

Mr. Chairman, we have also proposed a widening range of amenities for the recreation of the people. I think the Government must consider the advisability of enlarging the scope of public recreational facilities. For example, there is no reason why there should not be public bowling alleys in the districts where there is a concentration of low-cost housing estates. We must have physical training centres and more imaginative children's play corners. The list is a long one.

Sir, because of the fact that projects costing over $100,000 at one time, and latterly $150,000, must obtain the approval of the Government and then take their place in an order of priority, the Urban Council has made good use of the block vote which stands at $2m in the current financial year. This money has been used not only to carry out minor developments but as an aid for the development in stages of major projects which would otherwise have not been completed in good time because of the apparent restriction on the number of amenity projects allowed on the Public Works programme. For example, the report which was issued for the first quarter of the financial year showed that there were some 36 projects undertaken under the block vote. But, while the Urban Council has been authorized to over-commit the block vote by, first, 20% and, lately, 50%, this increase is only for planning and contracting, not for actual expenditure in the current financial year which is still limited to the meagre sum of $2m. Because this block vote enables the Council to provide the people of Hong Kong with so many secondary projects which, important as they may be, are still subordinate to the major programmes, it would vastly increase the Urban Council's ability to serve the people if the sum to be voted next year were also to be substantially marked up.

MR. WANG:- Mr. Chairman, our achievement in recent years on the provision of public recreational facilities is indeed of no small measure. The figures, some of which have been quoted by Mr. SALES or have been shown in the booklet published by the Department in September last year, will convince anyone of this fact. However, one cannot deny that coupled with our big progress, there now arises an even bigger urge and demand for more facilities in this field than ever before. Why is it so?

Here are some of the factors which account for the aggravation of such demand.

1. The unduly high increase in our youth population.

2. The increasing pressure on living space, which often precludes healthy leisure activities taking place in the home.

3. The improved standard of living and increased leisure hours and higher earning power of our workers.

4. The increased educational opportunities and greater emphasis on physical education programmes in schools will result in not only more school students but also school leavers taking a keener interest in healthy recreation.

Besides, in the provision of recreational facilities, we must aim not only at there being sufficient to cope with the demand, but also at there being sufficient to attract more people to use them.

All of us need some kind of recreation in our leisure. Some may be more purposeful in their choice of the form of recreation. Many will take up what comes more handy to them. If the right facilities