Page 135 of 187
230
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
refuse collection. Undoubtedly we have to mechanize. Last year saw the introduction of Hilly Billy Litter Transporters and these have proved a success, in the removal of baskets of litter from the beach to refuse lorries. Unfortunately the beach cleaner which we purchased turned out to be ineffective. It could not operate on wet sand and was not much good even on dry. In procuring suitable equipment of this kind, the difficulty is that there is no stock available for inspection here before purchase. However, we have now had an opportunity of inspecting another machine, which from report is able to operate on wet sand as well as dry and is of sturdy construction. Hopefully it will prove itself a success operationally, in which case, more will be ordered.
People will have seen sometime ago in the newspapers a picture of Shek O Beach almost covered by timber of various shapes and sizes. Hardly any sand was to be seen. No one knew where the timber came from or why it should suddenly occur, but that is the sort of thing, perhaps on a smaller scale which we regularly have to cope with in keeping our beaches clean.
I now turn to the Cultural Complex which is the most important and costly of the projects which Government have rephased for us. This is on a prime site, perhaps, the best in the whole of Hong Kong. Whatever happens, it cannot be left as a derelict railway station for the indefinite future. I do not believe that anything that I, or any one here to-day, can say will make Government change its mind and bring this project forward. But if that is the case, Government should at least make its intention clear so that we will know where we stand. It is far too big a project as a whole for switch finance to cope with. However, we must explore the possibility of carrying out the project in stages and also investigate the possibility of raising a loan to carry it out. In any case, those parts of the site which will not be developed in the near future should at least be turned into a garden of simple design. After all, the site was originally zoned as open space. These must be a sense of urgency about this. The P.W.D. have already produced for us an imaginative and attractive design for the Cultural Complex. Let it be turned to concrete reality instead of remaining a beautiful design on paper.
With these remarks Mr. Chairman, I have pleasure in supporting the motion before the Council.
MR. PETER P. K. NG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I would like to concentrate my talks on the proposed "Cultural Complex" which was supposed to be constructed by the Central Government and now being deferred indefinitely because of financial considerations. We can
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
231
only take this matter in our own hand and to find ways and means to finance the project or to look for an alternative to dispose of the site so that such a good piece of land right in the heart of the city would
not be left wasted.
Let us look at it in relation to its priority in the ambitious 10-Year Development Programme of the Urban Council. Tentatively, the Council plans to spend about $225 million of its own fund in various construction projects, which aim to promote local culture and to bring about general well being for people in Hong Kong. There are in the 10-Year Programme altogether 127 development items, listed in order of priority with budgets varying from as high as $25 million to less than half a million. I have no intention to-day to dispute over the justification of the items in the programme, because they are all working towards the Statement of Aims we are debating to-day, but what I do find rather disappointing is the fact that the "10-Year Programme” merely includes $14 millions for the construction of the "Planetarium Building", which is but a small phase of the massive "Cultural Complex" project. This piece-meal construction scheme would definitely not be appealing to those who have a heart in the local culture. I quite appreciate there is a finance problem to tackle, for the total construction cost of about $214 million including the Planetarium is by no means inconsiderable. Also, it is understandable that one cannot expect Government to be able, in the current and foreseeable economic climate, to finance this huge project. Government has already encountered deficits over the year, and besides there are other more deserving community needs such as housing, education, hospitals etc. to be met urgently. To expect a substantial windfall from Government is most untimely and unrealistic. It is also unjustified that we should press on for increased or total allocation of the rates, as rates are intended for many other community services which lie outside the jurisdiction of the Council's dealings which is very limited, restrictive and incomprehensive. And as Mrs. ELLIOTT has said just now, housing is definitely not one of our responsibilities. We should therefore no more indulge in such day-dreaming idea of asking for the full portion of the rates.
It seems that a more practical solution would be for the Council to decide at this point of time between launching the 10-Year Programme as originally scheduled or constructing the Cultural Complex at the expense of deferring some of the construction items of lower priority. I strongly recommend that the latter course should be favoured as many items in the 10-Year Programme are, I believe, not indispensable or at least could be reviewed at a later stage for new
Page 135
Page 136
Page 135 of 187
230
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
refuse collection. Undoubtedly we have to mechanize. Last year saw the introduction of Hilly Billy Litter Transporters and these have proved a success, in the removal of baskets of litter from the beach to refuse lorries. Unfortunately the beach cleaner which we purchased turned out to be ineffective. It could not operate on wet sand and was not much good even on dry. In procuring suitable equipment of this kind, the difficulty is that there is no stock available for inspection here before purchase. However, we have now had an opportunity of inspecting another machine, which from report is able to operate on wet sand as well as dry and is of sturdy construction. Hopefully it will prove itself a success operationally, in which case, more will be ordered.
People will have seen sometime ago in the newspapers a picture of Shek O Beach almost covered by timber of various shapes and sizes. Hardly any sand was to be seen. No one knew where the timber came from or why it should suddenly occur, but that is the sort of thing, perhaps on a smaller scale which we regularly have to cope with in keeping our beaches clean.
I now turn to the Cultural Complex which is the most important and costly of the projects which Government have rephased for us. This is on a prime site, perhaps, the best in the whole of Hong Kong. Whatever happens, it cannot be left as a derelict railway station for the indefinite future. I do not believe that anything that I, or any one here to-day, can say will make Government change its mind and bring this project forward. But if that is the case, Government should at least make its intention clear so that we will know where we stand. It is far too big a project as a whole for switch finance to cope with. However, we must explore the possibility of carrying out the project in stages and also investigate the possibility of raising a loan to carry it out. In any case, those parts of the site which will not be developed in the near future should at least be turned into a garden of simple design. After all, the site was originally zoned as open space. These must be a sense of urgency about this. The P.W.D. have already produced for us an imaginative and attractive design for the Cultural Complex. Let it be turned to concrete reality instead of remaining a beautiful design on paper.
With these remarks Mr. Chairman, I have pleasure in supporting the motion before the Council.
MR. PETER P. K. NG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I would like to concentrate my talks on the proposed "Cultural Complex" which was supposed to be constructed by the Central Government and now being deferred indefinitely because of financial considerations. We can
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
231
only take this matter in our own hand and to find ways and means to finance the project or to look for an alternative to dispose of the site so that such a good piece of land right in the heart of the city would
not be left wasted.
Let us look at it in relation to its priority in the ambitious 10-Year Development Programme of the Urban Council. Tentatively, the Council plans to spend about $225 million of its own fund in various construction projects, which aim to promote local culture and to bring about general well being for people in Hong Kong. There are in the 10-Year Programme altogether 127 development items, listed in order of priority with budgets varying from as high as $25 million to less than half a million. I have no intention to-day to dispute over the justification of the items in the programme, because they are all working towards the Statement of Aims we are debating to-day, but what I do find rather disappointing is the fact that the "10-Year Programme” merely includes $14 millions for the construction of the "Planetarium Building", which is but a small phase of the massive "Cultural Com- plex" project. This piece-meal construction scheme would definitely not be appealing to those who have a heart in the local culture. I quite appreciate there is a finance problem to tackle, for the total con- struction cost of about $214 million including the Planetarium is by no means inconsiderable. Also, it is understandable that one cannot ex- pect Government to be able, in the current and foreseeable economic climate, to finance this huge project. Government has already en- countered deficits over the year, and besides there are other more de- serving community needs such as housing, education, hospitals etc. to be met urgently. To expect a substantial windfall from Government is most untimely and unrealistic. It is also unjustified that we should press on for increased or total allocation of the rates, as rates are intented for many other community services which lie outside the juris- diction of the Council's dealings which is very limited, restrictive and incomprehensive. And as Mrs. ELLIOTT has said just now, housing is definitely not one of our responsibilities. We should therefore no more indulge in such day-dreaming idea of asking for the full portion of the rates.
It seems that a more practical solution would be for the Council to decide at this point of time between launching the 10-Year Pro- gramme as originally scheduled or constructing the Cultural Complex at the expense of deferring some of the construction items of lower priority. I strongly recommend that the latter course should be favoured as many items in the 10-Year Programme are, I believe, not indispensable or at least could be reviewed at a later stage for new
Page 135Page 136
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.