Page 87 of 136
140
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Some years ago, the management of car parks was taken away from us against a promise that the Council would be allowed to collect on advertising only earned a small amount of management fees. The Council is expected signs. It was agreed to let go of the car parks because the Urban Council should be secondary. However, advertising sign management was subsequently denied from us and the Council was told that we should not raise revenue, I personally do not subscribe to this view, because the Memorandum clearly says that we will prepare a budget and in terms of paragraph 3.4 we may finance our expenditure by income. Moreover, the point of being unable to raise revenue was not mentioned or raised at the time of negotiation of the surrender of the car parks. Meanwhile, the Council still pays for the removal of dangerous signs.
I feel very reluctant to support the idea that the right (those who do not have the same view may say it is a liability) of removal of dangerous signs be taken away from the Council by an amendment of the legislation proposed by the Government. Once this is done, the Government will probably and in due course, tax on the advertising signs, the management of which was promised to the Council as I said earlier. When the Urban Council members visited the Greater London Council in 1975, a member of the Greater London Council considered it was a good idea both for services to the ratepayers being an improvement of city amenities and for revenue purposes and he agreed that it was in fact and by its very nature, a true urban service.
Urban Council has demonstrated itself to serve the public well on culture affairs and recreation and in fact, the Council has won international acclaim in its work in these two fields. Three to four years ago, a proposal was made to form an Arts Council which, if formed, would likely, if not surely, take away at least part of our functions. Fortunately, this did not materialize but unfortunately, a number of government units were set up to compete with the role normally assumed by the Council—in recreation, arts especially music and performing arts. No amendment of legislation was required in all these instances as these functions are not written in the Urban Council Ordinance.
I am aware that the Council, of course, is not the sole or statutory authorities in these fields yet it appears that no consultation was made with us. Up to this moment, it is difficult to see how the role is divisible. One can easily see that any overlap would not be in the taxpayers and ratepayers' benefit.
Very recently, a proposal was made to declare the Han Tomb at Lei Cheng Uk as a monument under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. This tomb was entrusted to the Council as part of its museum of history and we paid and will pay for its maintenance and repairs. This declaration will in law have the effect that the authority of the Council over the tomb would be alienated though we are obliged by tradition for its maintenance. We pay the piper. Others call the tune. I will be very unhappy some day that the Government by amending the definition of 'relics' in the ordinance I just mentioned would recover all the precious museum pieces given to us in 1973 and would take away those subsequently acquired by us.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 87 of 136
141
alienated though we are obliged by tradition for its maintenance. We pay the piper. Others call the tune. I will be very unhappy some day that the Government by amending the definition of 'relics' in the ordinance I just mentioned would recover all the precious museum pieces given to us in 1973 and would take away those subsequently acquired by us.
The report (published probably ten years ago) on development of abattoir services recommended the establishment of abattoirs in the urban areas including an extension of the Cheung Sha Wan Abattoir. Recent information indicates that priority would be given instead to building abattoirs in the New Territories. There may be justification yet I think abattoir services must be developed at the same time both in the urban areas and the N.T. All these observations together point to one thing very obvious and significant, in that the Government lacks faith in the Council and is trying, either by legislation or otherwise, to take away at least part of our functions and powers. I am by profession, more sensitive to these things because I compare, with respect, these exercises to ordinary corporate takeovers and the defences.
About the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement, I think that it is time to have it reviewed and have some of its ambiguous provisions properly re-defined. This is important because it will materially affect the Council's finances, especially in long-term planning.
Much valuable time was taken up in its interpretation especially in the Cemeteries Select Committee some years ago and in the Markets & Abattoirs Select Committee recently. The Government had accepted our view that the Council need not refund the cost of the extension to the columbarium at Cape Collinson, a project included in Appendix D to the Memorandum. Regarding the abattoirs, the Government has consented to waive to charge the abattoirs, the Government has consented to waive to charge the Council the cost of the hide pulling machine but it insists that we have to pay for the additional pig lairage. Both of them are included in Category A on Schedule D. The principle appears to be the same. Both are additions to the abattoirs. The Government has however two views.
Paragraph 4.7 of the Memorandum is not easy to understand when it is read with paragraph 5.10. The former paragraph says that the Government will continue to be responsible for the planning, financing (I repeat, financing) and constructions of certain scheduled capital works including alterations and extensions. It went on to say that the Government may make a charge towards recovering capital costs. It is really unnecessary to put such in so many words and in such an ambiguous way in such paragraphs if the obligation to pay should be and was intended and agreed to be placed legally on the Council. Therefore, my interpretation is always that the Government is obliged to pay for these capital works.
Page 87 of 136
Page 87 of 136
140
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Some years ago, the management of car parks was taken away from us against a promise that the Council would be allowed to collect on advertising only earned a small amount of management fees. The Council is expected signs. It was agreed to let go of the car parks because the Urban Council
should be secondary. However, advertising sign management was subsequently to serve the community therefore, the question of profit or the lack of
denied from us and the Council was told that we should not raise revenue, I personally do not subscrible to this view, because the Memorandum clearly says that we will prepare a budget and in terms of parapraph 3.4 we may
finance our expenditure by income. Moreover, the point of being unable raise revenue was not mentioned or raised at the time of negotiation of the surrender of the car parks. Meanwhile, the Council still pays for the removal of dangerous signs.
I feel very reluctant to support the idea that the right (those who do not have the same view may say it is a liability) of removal of dangerous signs be taken away from the Council by an amendment of the legislation proposed by the Government. Once this is done, the Government will probably and in due course, tax on the advertising signs, the management of which was promised to the Council as I said earlier. When the Urban Council members visited the Greater London Council in 1975, a member of the Greater London Council considered it was a good idea both for services to the ratepayers being an improvement of city amenities and for revenue purposes and he agreed that it was in fact and by its very nature, a true urban service.
Urban Council has demonstrated itself to serve the public well on culture affairs and recreation and in fact, the Council has won international acclaim in its work in these two fields. Three to four years ago, a proposal was made to form an Arts Council which, if formed, would likely, if not surely, take away at least part of our functions. Fortunately this did not materialize but unfortunately a number of government units were set up to compete with the role normally assumed by the Council-in recreation, arts especially music and performing arts. No amendment of legislation was required in all these instances as these functions are not written in the Urban Council Ordinance.
I am aware that the Council, of course, is not the sole or statutory authorities in these fields yet it appears that no consulation was made with us. Up to this moment, it is difficult to see how the role is divisible. One can easily see that any overlap would not be in the taxpayers and ratepayers' benefit.
Very recently, a proposal was made to declare the Han Tomb at Lei Cheng Uk as a monument under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. This tomb was entrusted to the Council as part of its museum of history and we paid and will pay for its maintenance and repairs. This declaration will in law have the effect that the authority of the Council over the tomb would be
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 87 of 136
141
alienated though we are obliged by tradition for its maintenance. We pay the piper. Others call the tune. I will be very unhappy some day that the Government by amending the definition of 'relics' in the ordinance I just Gentioned would recover all the precious museum pieces given to us in 1973
and would take away those subsequently acquired by us.
The report (published probably ten years ago) on development of abattoir services recommended the establishment of abattoirs in the urban areas including an extension of the Cheung Sha Wan Abattoir. Recent information indicates that priority would be given instead to building abattoirs in the New Territories. There may be justification yet I think abattoir services must be developed at the same time both in the urban areas and the N.T. All these observations together point to one thing very obvious and significant, in that the Government lacks faith in the Council and is trying, either by legislation or otherwise, to take away at least part of our functions and powers. I am by profession, more sensitive to these things because I compare, with respect, these exercises to ordinary corporate takeovers and
the defences.
About the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement, I think that it is time to have it reviewed and have some of its ambiguous provisions properly re-defined. This is important because it will materially affect the Council's finances, especially in long term planning.
Much valuable time was taken up in its interpretation especially in the Cemeteries Select Committee some years ago and in the Markets & Abattoirs Select Committee recently. The Government had accepted our view that the Council need not refund the cost of the extension to the columbarium at Cape Collinson, a project included in Appendix D to the Memorandum. Regarding the abattoirs, the Government has consented to waive to charge the abattoirs, the Government has consented to waive to charge the Council the cost of the hide pulling machine but it insists that we have to pay for the additional pig lairage. Both of them are included in Category A on Schedule D. The principle appears to be the same. Both are additions to the abattoirs. The Government has however two views.
Paragraph 4.7 of the Memorandum is not easy to understand when it is read with paragraph 5.10. The former paragraph says that the Government will continue to be responsible for the planning, financing (I repeat, financing) and constructions of certain scheduled capital works including alterations and extensions. It went on to say that the Government may make a charge towards recovering capital costs. It is really unnecessary to put such in so many words and in such an ambiguous way in such paragraphs if the obligation to pay should be and was intended and agreed to be placed legally on the Council. Therefore my interpretation is always that the Govern- ment is obliged to pay for these capital works.
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.