1986 — Page 175

308

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

to be seen anywhere. I have been told that although councillors wanted signs on the building which were to be tastefully backlighted Urban Council logos on the cantilevered wall below the roof, the architectural department would not permit such signs. But since this is our building and we are responsible for it, how is it that another Government department can prohibit us from putting up simple and elegant identifying signage?

MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENTERTAINMENT SELECT COMMIT- TEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, this question concerns the erection of external identification signs to the Hong Kong Coliseum.

Even before the opening of the Coliseum, the idea of erecting signs on the Coliseum's external walls was considered. At one time, despite objections from the project architect on aesthetic and architectural grounds, the intention was to pursue the idea. Indeed design proposals were sought from four prominent design and architectural firms. In October 1983, the then Indoor Stadia and Programme Sub-Committee decided that the proposals should not be further pursued. This decision was made in the light of the growing public awareness of the Coliseum, the financial implications involved and the fact that not all renowned buildings had identification signs on them.

In short, the decision not to erect identification signs on the Coliseum's external walls was made by the Council for reasons which had nothing to do with objections or permissions from the project architects or any government department. The gist of this reply was already given to Mr. SULKE previously on 8 May 1984.

MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I remember that reply very well and I hoped for something different today. At the time I asked a supplementary for reconsideration of the decision which at the time was promised but I don't think it was ever done because the original decision was taken under the very strong influence of the architect. Could I please know what the financial implications were putting up a sign at that time? Would you not agree that for marketing purposes it is now essential that we do reconsider that decision?

MR. STEPHEN M. L. Lau (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, in 1983 the cost estimated was $0.7 to $0.9 million. For a newly completed building, it was considered too expensive to have the erection in May 1984: I did promise Mr. SULKE that in the future when we reviewed the problem we will certainly invite Mr. SULKE to express his opinions. But during these two years, there were other important issues regarding the Coliseum and therefore this problem has not been discussed. I understand that the Department has not abandoned the review. In the future when we review the problem of marketing, we may install something to enhance our image. May be we can do this at the same time and the cost may be less. So in the future when we study this problem, I will certainly invite Mr. SULKE to express his views.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 175 of 201

309

5. MR. LAM CHAK-PIU asked the following question (in Cantonese):— I have noted that the cleansing services provided by private contractors in some urban squatter areas, e.g. squatter area in Shau Kei Wan and Tai Shing Tsuen and On Lok Village in Sau Mau Ping are very effective. Will the Council extend the privatization scheme to other squatter areas? If yes, when and where will it take place?

DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE (in English): Mr. Chairman, the question asks whether privatized cleansing schemes similar to that implemented in Shau Kei Wan squatter villages will be extended to other squatter areas, and if so, when and where it will take place.

Departmental action on major new trial schemes on cleansing services has been temporarily suspended, but further small-scale privatization schemes (or, more properly, contracting out schemes) which are similar in character to schemes already tried out and successfully implemented will be proceeded with in 1987-88. The self-help cleansing scheme at Ma Hang, Stanley which started in July 1986 has proved to be very successful. Further self-help schemes on similar lines will be initiated if suitable sites can be identified. Subject to the availability of funds and suitable sites being found, consideration will also be given to extending the contractual cleansing services provided for the Shau Kei Wan villages to other squatter areas, and a number of possible sites will be suggested for consideration in the future.

DR. THE HONOURABLE KIM Y. S. CHAM (in English):—Mr. Chairman, why has the departmental action on major new trial schemes been suspended if it proved to be successful?

DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, what it refers to I think is the overall privatization scheme because we have got to consider very carefully the impact of such a privatization e.g. staff redundancy will be a major problem to overcome before we go on to full scale privatization in the cleansing services. At the moment, I think we have a small working team to work on the privatization of the abattoirs and the results of such implementation will shed light on our future decision.

MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):—Mr. Chairman, since the experiment in Ma Hang has gone so well, would my friend please ask the department to extend this experiment into the adjoining villages as quickly as possible?

DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in the last sentence, a number of possible sites will be suggested and picked out for consideration of such a contracting out scheme for cleansing.

Page 175Page 176