1977 — Page 107

Page 107 of 174

174

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

(3) MR. KENNETH T. C. LO, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION AND AMENITIES SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion (in English):-

"RESOLVED that the Pleasure Grounds (Amendment) (No. 2) By-laws 1977 be made under section 109 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance Cap. 132."

He said:-Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Recreation and Amenities Select Committee, I rise on the Motion standing in my name:

"RESOLVED that the Pleasure Grounds (Amendment) (No. 2) By-laws, 1977, be made under section 109 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132."

These by-laws effect certain amendments to provisions in the principal by-laws relating to fees payable for existing facilities in public pleasure grounds. The amendments are consequent upon the enact- ment of the Interpretation and General Clauses (Amendment) Ordinance 1977 which deleted the definition of "summer time" in the principal Ordinance. No change to current policy or fees is being proposed.

I beg to move.

MR. F. K. Hu (in English):-I have the pleasure to second the motion.

The question was put.

The motion was carried unanimously.

(4) MR. A. de O. SALES, CHAIRMAN, URBAN COUNCIL, moved the following motion (in English):-

Appendix I "THAT this Council endorse the Statement of Aims for 1978."

He said: Once again this Council is debating its Statement of Aims. It does so each year. Still, it is not a routine exercise. Far from it. By an old convention, it is also the time when Members speak out on public matters beyond the Council's jurisdiction though without setting aside the rules of debate. Let all speak now, who wish to do so.

Above all, this is a singularly apt occasion to tell Hong Kong about the Council and all it does. There are many projects and activities undertaken for a happier life for all as well as other plans and pro- grammes already drawn up for community betterment. Of course, there

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 107 of 174

175

are also problems and shortcomings, some inherited while others are of the Council's own making, but they must all be examined frankly and solved with determination, and not purposely played down to court popularity. Anyway, the trend of the annual conventional debate in recent times is perceptibly: more about the substance of what the Council does together for the common good and less about further im- mediate political reform. First things, first.

Surely, only by doing well what it does at present can genuine support be expected from the people for increased responsibilities. Such is, in essence, the challenge to the Council. It may be claimed, and rightly, that the Council's considerable achievements in the five years since its reconstitution are incontrovertible facts. So they are, indeed. They argue the Council's case compellingly, as it were. Never before have the people here been given so many civic amenities of quality in such a short time. Also, many more are in the offing. Patience, even

SO.

True, this Council did not reach its present position without struggle. And, new substantial progress will not be easy to make beyond all that has been planned and is now only awaiting actual implementation though disappointingly at a snail's pace. It will mean even more hard-work in the future. It will entail also the determination to respond swiftly to reasonable community expectations. In sum, there will be the need to think positively and act decisively all the time, preferably in anticipation of community requirements. Obviously, there can be no hope of just sitting back and letting events take care of themselves.

Success arouses envy, for sure. Why else would reactionary ele- ments snipe sporadically at the Council? It may be construed as the price of success. The more opposition it meets, the more assured can the Council be that it must be doing well and also winning popular acclaim, where it was hoped by die-hards that it would fall flat on its face. Clearly, nobody bothers with failure, so even specious criticisms may be taken as a sure sign of the growing impact the select committees are making with their work. Of course, all constructive suggestions from any source when made in good faith must be taken seriously.

To obscure the real issues in Hong Kong is foolhardy, for the Council as for anybody else. It does nothing to better the lot of the masses here. The furtive aim of Hong Kong's detractors may well have the effect of arresting the onward march of the local people towards a higher standard of living all round. For Members to do the same, even unwittingly, would seem to be a betrayal of their mandate. And, it might frustrate the people's cause.