1978 — Page 41

Page 41 of 135

46

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN

CHAIRMAN (in English):-Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. Council

will come to order.

MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 13.6.78 were confirmed.

STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN

CHAIRMAN (in English):-The Council has never failed to press the Govern ment for more land for the people's rest and recreation. It is not an instant cause espoused to court passing popularity. On the contrary, it has been going on systematically for a score of years, just for the sake of the common man and his children in their overcrowded neighbourhood.

Some land has been given over for this purpose from time to time. Though, far from enough. Consequently, when new land is reclaimed from the sea, as at Lai Chi Kok and Yau Ma Tei, and also when military barracks and sports fields are relinquished to the civil authorities, as at Kai Tak and Victoria Barracks, the whole community too should stake a strong claim for their use for all basic civic purposes. Otherwise, the case for a better environ. ment would be lost by default altogether. Indeed, the people for whom Hong Kong is really home should always define in unequivocal terms their social needs and the environmental conditions in which they want to live.

Success does not come easily though. Take Whitfield Barracks as an example. By no means, the only one. It has a long history of patient negotia tion to get as much land as could be had for re-development as a public park. Progress was made by quiet argument when it scored and by mounting influential public opinion in support when reason failed to persuade. So, acre by acre, land was won for the new Kowloon Park. Unfortunately, the uphill struggle is still not over, after all these many years. For, the planning authorities seem bent on breaking a promise long made; they do so regardless of the Council's far-reaching plans to beautify the area and also to offer much needed recreation facilities to take the young off the streets. Surprisingly, there is a measure of indifference in an otherwise progressive community to the basic need for far more green areas to play and relax. So, it calls for constant vigilance by those who care.

Anyway, in such circumstances, the cynical public might be forgiven for believing that those most concerned professionally with land use in the narrow corridors of power here would also be the ones most anxious to seize all such never-to-be-repeated opportunities to lay out a city properly and to

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

47

make amends for bad planning in the past, when the sale of public land for private development was a prime object, without paying due heed to the ancillary problems it would bring in its wake. To create better living conditions humanitarian considerations, the base reason might well be to satisfy the more for all time should be the aim of any society. Here, if not motivated by higher exacting expectations of the new generation and to match Hong Kong's growing pre-eminence. But, what is the actual record?

Urban Hong Kong has too high a density by any standard with narrow, congested streets and jerry-built structures. It lives cheek by jowl, so to speak. Whose fault is it? While recrimination should be avoided, it is still necessary to alert the public in order to prevent the endless repetition of the same stubborn land policy: selling the people's birthright for a mess of pottage. But,

to what avail?

Again, take the case of Victoria Barracks right in the heart of Hong Kong. There was the belief that some substantial portion of this much prized site would be sold off eventually as ransom for recovery of land which never ceased to belong to the people anyway. Still, there was always the hope that reason would prevail in the end, since dashed. Even so, should there not be a stay of execution as the public coffers are overflowing while the children of Wan Chai have nowhere to play?

The use of scarce land resources in the postwar period until late in the day is not impressive judging by results, for they suggest that Hong Kong was not competently served. Perhaps, to be fair, the professional planners may have been pushed aside by grasping money-makers. If there is even the suspicion that this is so, should not the Government engage independent world-ranking experts to tell it what should be done for the common good? And, what everybody else seems to know? At least, doing so would arbitrate fairly among competing claims. It might also disabuse the public mind. For, the man in the street supposes that town-planning here is done at the behest of land developers and not to build a happy city worthy of its hardworking citizens. Unless, as many suspect, those who ultimately decide how land should be used do not necessarily live out their days here. Unfair? Probably so, but the thought is disturbingly there nevertheless.

What Hong Kong needs is better utilization of such land as there may be for public purposes. Indeed, total planning for effective social use. Certainly, to relieve the pressures of living in dense neighbourhoods; also, for the proper development of the city as a whole with adequate civic services; above all, a far more congenial environmental setting for the years beyond the working life of the present decision-makers.

In any event, the population here grows all the time. High buildings rise unfailingly, too. Thus, with more people, old problems are compounded; yet, with less land where it counts for the good of common humanity here, fewer options are found. So, more congestion, worse pollution. When will Hong