1970 — Page 228

Page 228 of 241

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Mr. A. de O. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, if none of my colleagues would like to avail themselves of the convention to express their views when the Estimates are put before Council, may I do so under Item 2(3) of the Agenda. At this time each year, the Senior Unofficial Member, Mr. BERNACCHI, reminds the Chairman that it is a convention of the Urban Council that Members speak their piece on the draft estimates before Council. This time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to do so with particular reference to the cuts that have been made on the applications for development of Recreation and Amenities and also Cultural Affairs programmes.

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite your attention to Appendix 1, item 2(4) where the subsistence allowance for your headquarters amounts to $100. Upon enquiring from the Senior Treasury Accountant I was told, as an example, that should a member of the staff be stranded, say, on Lantau Island, he might have to pass the night there and this allowance would then come in very handy. Sir, I had visions of you being stranded on Lantau Island and being turned away from a certain tea plantation when you went there for accommodation for the night or even from Mr. Henry Hu's sumptuous place when you sought refuge there. (Laughter). But may I commend you, Mr. Chairman, on the parsimonious attitude on the part of your staff to apply for only $100.

Sir, I cannot understand Government's attitude in reference to sub-head No. 5 when the application made for reimbursement of Urban Councillor's expenditure was $240,000 and Government allowed only $180,000. Speaking as an Urban Councillor who has not drawn on this allowance, I think I can do so with even greater force. Is Government intending that only 15 Urban Councillors out of 20 will be looked after out of public funds, or is Government expecting that, should there be more applications for reimbursement, then Government would have recourse to what is generally known, I am told, virement, that delightful Government term which is so obscure to an ingenuous layman, like myself. "Virement", I thought perhaps it might be "by way of the mind" as "via mentis". Then it occurred to me that if any Government department or the Urban Council, for that matter, really availed themselves of this virement procedure, they might be thought, by the Financial Secretary, to be “non compos mentis”.

Sir, the applications for recreation and amenities which have been substantially cut out by Government need, in point of fact, to be justified in Select Committee. Under sub-head 74, we asked for $224,600 for Cultural Services Division to organize programmes of cultural interest to the public of Hong Kong and all we have been given is $87,600. In this respect, Mr. Chairman, in the current year, ending 31st March, the allowance was intended for 32 live concerts and 24 recorded concerts.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

435

So far the City Hall has already presented 87 public concerts and other performances and there is the intention of presenting another 17, before the end of the fiscal year. Now in 1971-72 it was our intention to develop this programme for a total of 126 presentations including 24 orchestral concerts, 24 vocal and instrumental performances, 6 ballet and other dances, 48 Cantonese plays and 24 hi-fi concerts, for which we asked $224,600, and all Government has done is to tell us that we must make do with what we had in this 1970-71 fiscal year. I would like to draw Council's attention to the fact that up to the end of January the City Hall has spent $82,400 on presenting 87 concerts, but the total revenue is greater. It amounts to $86,382 so there is no actual loss on recurrent account for the Government. I can't understand how Government should profess that Hong Kong should provide more programmes for young people and various other sections of the population when the attempts made by this Council to do so are ham-strung by Government's niggardly policy on financial matters.

Sir, we are very pleased indeed with the increase of the block vote to $4 million, but I would like to have your assurance that the second block vote for projects which have not been completed in the field of recreation and amenities will be re-voted by the Government at the end of the fiscal year on any amount that might not be spent which I believe is estimated to be between $500,000 and $600,000.

There is also a very interesting application made by the Cultural Affairs Select Committee which Government has turned down completely. We asked for $300,000 to provide a mobile performing arts centre which Hong Kong needs very badly, but Government has rejected it although Government has said that they will reconsider this matter and I hope their reconsideration will mean a positive attitude for the benefit of the people of Hong Kong. This is an innovation in Hong Kong. This is the only way that we can effectively cater to people in every district not served by the City Hall or, for example, the Morse Park open air theatre and I would like to give notice on this occasion that it is also the intention of my Select Committee to ask Government to buy a second concert grand piano to overcome the deficiency which exists in the City Hall at the present time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot restrain myself from referring to another matter concerning presumably the Hygiene Select Committee. There is a note on Page 3 that intrigues me when Government said they could not support the inclusion of funds for three mechanical sweepers for flyovers and roads that are at present under construction. The Colonial Secretariat brilliantly wrote and I quote "the question of the need to sweep daily will be referred to the appropriate policy branch of the Secretariat for further consideration". Are we to understand that they are still not persuaded that it is necessary to sweep our roads every day?

Page 229 of 241

434

28 of 24