1982 — Page 92

Page 92 of 142

140

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Last year the Urban Services Department put forward proposals to the Government and it has now been agreed that future covered service reservoirs should be designed from the outset to accommodate, wherever practical, recreational features for public use or any other form of development which might maximize use of the available space.

The Department will be notified at the initial planning stage so that our requirements can be made known and taken into account in the planning. In this manner, useful areas for recreational purposes for active games can be provided.

We now have a total of five free-standing indoor games halls, with several more under planning or being built. In addition to these large halls, we are also now including, as a matter of course, indoor games halls and games rooms in new multi-purpose complexes. Two have been built as joint ventures with the Hong Kong Housing Authority. Others are being planned within purely Urban Council complexes. Although not as large as indoor games halls, they will certainly provide much-needed facilities for the districts in which they are located. The two which have been completed are already intensively used.

In addition to providing facilities for active games, we try to achieve a balance by providing amenity or passive recreational areas as well. Phase II of Chater Gardens is now nearing completion. Phase I has been criticized as having too much concrete. When Phase II is completed and the trees and plants in the Garden are well grown, I believe the public will approve what we have done. When the garden is completed and seen as a whole, the lawns and greenery, as well as the water pool, will be seen as sufficient counterbalance for the concrete areas.

With these remarks, I am happy to support the motion before the Council.

DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, recently, many people have written to me or rung me up, asking me to elaborate on 1997 and how we should deal with the issue. Some days ago, two of my friends who are newspapermen have also asked me to speak on the subject at today's meeting. Well, let me then express further my views on this question.

If we are to look at the issue of 1997 objectively, we cannot, in our own wishful thinking, disregard the following three significant factors.

First of all, as the British Prime Minister has stated, if the old treaties are not superseded by new agreements, then Britain will return the New Territories to China in 1997. But, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon could not possibly exist without the New Territories.

Secondly, as far back as 1962, Britain has amended her immigration law, rescinding the right of the people of Hong Kong, including those of British nationality, to enter and live in the U.K. Subsequently, the British government, under the Labour Party, drafted the New Nationality Bill, which was passed into law by the Conservative Government and took effect on the first of this month. Using Lord MACLEHOSE'S analogy, it is putting a lock on the closed door. For a long time now, people who are holding Hong Kong British passports have to pass through the 'Foreigners' gate when they visit the U.S. Also, in recent years, students holding Hong Kong British passports are regarded as overseas students in Britain, and furthermore, Britain has always taken the lead in the European Economic Community to impose more and more restrictions on our multi-fibre products. We could see that what Britain wants is to govern Hong Kong and reap the benefits. She is unwilling to shoulder any responsibility in regard to the people of Hong Kong in times of political changes.

Thirdly, the Chinese government has expressly pointed out that once it takes back Hong Kong, the territory will become a self-governed Special Administrative Region run by its own people.

Let us now take a sober look at this.

Hong Kong is a part of China both historically and geographically. Unlike Singapore, we are not in a position to become an independent country.

Internationally, the three treaties in respect of Hong Kong are disreputable and unequal ones, so if China tears them up, Britain will not be supported by other countries. Take, for example, several years ago, the Indian government, without giving any notice, entered and took back Goa (then a Portuguese colony in Indian territory) from Portugal, and there was not even a protest on the world scene, because colonialism has long been condemned and abandoned. I am not trying to ring the alarm by saying that China will take back Hong Kong at any moment. If so, why should China negotiate with Britain? As a matter of fact, both governments have declared that they would negotiate under the common aim of maintaining the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. However, when we discuss Hong Kong's future, we must be clear about our own position and not be confused by impractical fantasy.

Some people still have doubts about how China will deal with the question of Hong Kong. In this respect, it may be useful to cite what Mr. LIAO Cheng-zhi has told me some months back. Mr. LIAO said people in Hong Kong were afraid that Hong Kong might one day become another Shanghai or Guangzhou, which certainly would not happen. He also said people in Hong Kong feared the frequent changes of policies in China, adding that in the past, when policies in the Mainland changed incessantly, people in Hong Kong were only spectators from the outside, whereas the Chinese people living in the Mainland were those who actually suffered from such changes. The government admitted that persistent changes of policies had caused China to go on a roundabout course and waste much of the precious time in building up the country. How would China then commit the same mistake again? His words are very convincing, at least to me.

Page 92 of 142

141

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL