HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. STEPHEN LAU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, for the fees for swimming pools and the fact that the fees are put up, that would certainly mean that fewer children would go to swim and that we would either have to have extra revenue or try to save on expenditure. On saving on expenditure, what work have we done? I see that the costs have risen from $43.2 million in 1983/84 by an increase of over $10 million and I would like to know in management of swimming pools, it is only in the summer that we need to maintain the pools, but in winter how do we give alternative jobs to the workers and we need a lot of lifeguards as well, and in winter what would we do with the lifeguards?
MR. YOUNG (in English):—As for the increase in cost, when we reviewed the charges, this was raised by many members and the Recreation Select Committee agreed that the Department should give us a report so as to pinpoint where we can save on expenditure. At the same time, we must not affect safety in the swimming pools in any way, I think the department is actively compiling a report so hopefully, all information can be with us before March 1986. As yet the trend we see is that we could increase the number of senior staff and the quality of the senior staff in the swimming pools, including the managerial staff. At the same time, swimming is a very seasonal affair. We would certainly consider reducing permanent staff and rather take on more contract staff during the summer, so as to meet peak demand. But in winter we would certainly not like to spend so much on staff. When the review is completed I am hopeful our cost will be reduced substantially so that there would not be a need for an increase in charges next year, or at least delay the increase in charges, and I am sure Mr. SULKE would be happy with this decision.
MRS. TU (in English):—Mr. Chairman, there is going to be a review of the charges, may I suggest or ask the committee concerned to look into other possible reasons for reduction in use besides the cost, because there is possibility that the number of young people in Hong Kong has been reduced because of the reduction, for example, the birth rate. We do not know whether we should look up the population figure of the young people in Hong Kong and also the possibility because of better transport they could go to other enjoyments. Could the committee also look into the possibility of parents being afraid to let the children go to the swimming pools because of the accidents, or possibly because of the rumours about certain diseases which could easily be spread? I think they should look at a bit further than just cost.
MR. YOUNG (in English):—Yes, these are all very valid points, Mr. Chairman. Concerning accidents there was a very unfortunate incident last year, which in fact the Recreation Select Committee is discussing tomorrow morning. Regarding possible diseases, I believe questions were asked in this chamber last year, when there was a scare a year before which incidentally might help account for the perhaps artificial boost in attendance figures in 1984 because the scare in 1983 put people off swimming that particular year. I think all these factors are quite valid and should be taken into account.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 71 of 195
4. MR. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following question (in English):—I understand that the Urban Services Department has advised the Council not to proceed with my idea of having one or two Speakers' Corners in our parks on the model of Hyde Park in London because the Department does not think there is any demand for this sort of facility in Hong Kong and also because amendments to present legislation would be necessary. Could I please be told what sort of research the Department conducted that made them arrive at the view that there is no demand for such a facility, especially in view of the favourable media attention which was given to my suggestion originally and the number of calls I received at the time supporting my suggestion? Could I also please know why legislation amendments would be necessary, especially as I was told at one time that all that was required was police permission?
MR. HOWARD H. W. Young, Chairman of the Recreation Select Committee (in English):—This question is in two parts. I will answer the second part first.
The second part of the question asks why legislation amendment would be necessary. I am advised that it was anticipated that legislative amendment would be necessary as the requirement upon Section 8 of the Public Order Ordinance to give 7 days notice to the Police was not considered compatible with spontaneous expression of views inherent in a 'Speakers' Corner'.
The first part asks what sort of research the Urban Services Department conducted to arrive at the view that there is no demand for Speakers' Corners. As I reported to this Council on 14 May 1985 the suggestion was referred to the Commissioner of Police for comments who in turn sought the views of the Secretary for Security. The latter consulted the Attorney General, the Secretary for Administrative Services and Information and the Secretary for District Administration. Their consensus view was that there are already ample existing provisions for public speaking and meetings and that the proposal would be unlikely to find favour with the Hong Kong public. In these circumstances and given that any changes to current practice would require amendments to legislation by Government, the Department's advice to the Recreation Select Committee of this Council on 11 September 1985 was not to proceed further with this issue.
Following consideration the Select Committee accepted this advice. In doing so Members generally agreed that the Council would certainly not object to the proposal if it should be raised again and if it could be demonstrated that there was a demand to provide 'Speakers' Corners' and for changes to the Public Order Ordinance. I am not sure whether the member agrees that this was adequate or whether he thinks more research was warranted.
MR. SULKE (in English):—Two points, Mr. Chairman, on point No. 2 which was taken first, I understand that the Commissioner of Police has the ability to waive the 7-day notice clause under Section 8, perhaps the committee could...
110
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. STEPHEN LAU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, for the fees for swimming pools and the fact that the fees are put up, that would certainly mean that fewer children would go to swim and that we would either have to have extra revenue or try to save on expenditure. On saving on expenditure, what work have we done? see that the costs have risen from $43.2 million in 1983/84 by an increase of over $10 million and I would like to know in management of swimming pools, it is only in the summer that we need to maintain the pools, but in winter how do we give alternative jobs to the workers and we need a lot of lifeguards as well, and in winter what would we do with the lifeguards?
areas
MR. YOUNG (in English):—As for the increase in cost, when we reviewed the charges, this was raised by many members and the Recreation Select Committee agreed that the Department should give us a report so as to pinpoint where we can save on expenditure. At the same time, we must not affect safety in the swimming pools in any way, I think the department is actively compiling a report so hopefully, all information can be with us before March 1986. As yet the trend we see is that we could increase the number of senior staff and the quality of the senior staff in the swimming pools, including the managerial staff. At the same time, swimming is a very seasonal affair. We would certainly consider reducing permanent staff and rather take on more contract staff during the summer, so as to meet peak demand. But in winter we would certainly not like to spend so much on staff. When the review is completed I am hopeful our cost will be reduced substantially so that there would not be a need for an increase in charges next year, or at least delay the increase in charges, and I am sure Mr. SULKE would be happy with this decision.
a
MRS. TU (in English):-Mr. Chairman, there is going to be a review of the charges, may I suggest or ask the committee concerned to look into other possible reasons for reduction in use besides the cost, because there is possibility that the number of young people in Hong Kong has been reduced because of the reduction, for example, the birth rate. We do not know whether we should look up the population figure of the young people in Hong Kong and also the possibility because of better transport they could go to other enjoyments. Could the committee also look into the possibility of parents being afraid to let the children go to the swimming pools because of the accidents, or possibly because of the rumours about certain diseases which could easily be spread? I think they should look at a bit further than just cost.
MR. YOUNG (in English):-Yes, these are all very valid points, Mr. Chairman. Concerning accidents there was a very unfortunate incident last year, which in fact the Recreation Select Committee is discussing tomorrow morning. Regarding possible diseases, I believe questions were asked in this chamber last year, when there was a scare a year before which incidentally might help account for the perhaps artificial boost in attendance figures in 1984 because the scare in 1983 put people off swimming that particular year. I think all these factors are quite valid and should be taken into account.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 71 of 195
4. MR. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following the question (in English):—I understand that the Urban Services Department has advised the Council not to proceed with my idea of having one or two Speakers' Corners in our parks on the model of Hyde Park in London because the Department does not think there is any demand for this sort of facility in Hong Kong and also because amendments to present legislation would be necessary. Could I please be told what sort of research the Department conducted that made them arrive at the view that there is no demand for such a facility, especially in view of the favourable media attention which was given to my suggestion originally and the number of calls I received at the time supporting my suggestion? Could I also please know why legislation amendments would be necessary, especially as I was told at one time that all that WELS required was police permission?
MR. HOWARD H. W. Young, Chairman of the Recreation Select Committee (in English):-This question is in two parts. I will answer the second part first.
The second part of the question asks why legislation amendment would be necessary. I am advised that it was anticipated that legislative amendment would be necessary as the requirement upon Section 8 of the Public Order Ordinance to give 7 days notice to the Police was not considered compatible with spontaneous expression of views inherent in a 'Speakers' Corner".
The first part asks what sort of research the Urban Services Department conducted to arrive at the view that there is no demand for Speakers' Corners. As I reported to this Council on 14 May 1985 the suggestion was referred to the Commissioner of Police for comments who in turn sought the views of the Secretary for Security. The latter consulted the Attorney General, the Secretary for Administrative Services and Information and the Secretary for District Administration. Their consensus view was that there are already ample existing provisions for public speaking and meetings and that the proposal would be unlikely to find favour with the Hong Kong public. In these circumstances and given that any changes to current practice would require amendments to legislation by Government, the Department's advice to the Recreation Select Committee of this Council on 11 September 1985 was not to proceed further with this issue.
Following consideration the Select Committee accepted this advice. In doing so Members generally agreed that the Council would certainly not object to the proposal if it should be raised again and if it could be demonstrated that there was a demand to provide 'Speakers' Corners' and for changes to the Public Order Ordinance. I am not sure whether the member agrees that this was adequate or whether he thinks more research was warranted.
MR. SULKE (in English):----Two points, Mr. Chairman, on point No. 2 which was taken first, I understand that the Commissioner of Police has the ability to waive the 8-day notice clause under Section 8, perhaps the committee could
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.