1987 — Page 143

Page 143 of 185

276

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

passed by the Australian Government in Victoria to ban outdoor and cinema advertisement of tobacco and to curtail tobacco sponsorship of sporting and cultural activities with health promotional sponsorship. It included also setting a major fund to sponsor sports and arts events. Before achieving these in Hong Kong, we may suggest several interim steps as follows:---

(1) Tobacco money, even if accepted by private sectors, no advertisements or images of cigarettes be allowed in conjunction with any sponsorship. (2) Tobacco companies will only be allowed to use company name and not

the brand names.

(3) Updated information to the public and decision makers on the issue of tobacco sponsorship, should be supplied by the Council On Smoking

and Health.

With these words, I support the motion.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-Ladies and Gentlemen, the meeting is now adjourned until Thursday, the 14th of January on which day other Members of this Council will resume on the debate. That concludes the business of today's meeting. The Council stands adjourned until Thursday, 14 January 1988 at 2.30 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT-5.15 p.m.

Urban Council Annual Conventional Debate

Speech by Miss Cecilia L. Y. Yeung

12 January 1988

Mr. Chairman, Colleagues, This is the 17th time that I attend the annual conventional debate of this Council. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to listen to long speeches with sound arguments in the debate and be very much enlightened over the years.

(1) In the past year, much discussions on the political system were aired. Topics like the introduction of direct elections in 1988 and the establish- ment, terms of reference and election method of the Legislative Council were in heated debate and we have not yet reached a consensus on these issues. However, it seems that not even one word was mentioned about this Council. The Administration has recently disclosed a bit of news about the political reform. Urban Councillors will no longer to the ex officio members of District Boards as from 1989 onwards. The Government's sudden announcement without prior consultation with this Council has taken us by surprise. I am not going to discuss whether advantages/ disadvantages exist or not by letting/not letting Urban Councillors con- currently be District Board members. It seems that the Basic Law Drafting Committee does not attach due importance to this Council. We have all

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 143 of 185

277

along been working very hard and the achievements are there for all to see. All of a sudden, the Government set up the Regional Council. And now we are not allowed to sit on District Boards. It seems that this Council has no idea to take the initiative and allows itself to be trampled upon. The Urban Council is, in fact, the first institution to have direct elections. The Legislative Council follows us only recently by introducing elections by the so-called functional constituencies. This Council really takes the lead in the democratic political system. All along, we have been symbolic of an exhibit in the shop window of democracy. This Council has greatly contributed to the building up of Hong Kong and to the promotion of cultural, entertain- ment and recreational activities for the benefit of the citizens. It is necessary for us to take the initiative first. The responsibilities of this Council should be stipulated in the Basic Law and this Council should remain autonomous. As the work of District Boards is part of municipal services, they should come under the Council. As for the point whether Urban Councillors should be ex officio members of District Boards, it is still debatable. This can certainly serve as a bridge for communication and there is also the need for close co-operation. Moreover, the majority view is in favour of slight changes only. This is the only way to safeguard the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. Too many changes will merely cause more confusion. I hope that this Council will ensure our autonomy will not be influenced by politicians. We should continue to keep up with our brilliant achievements and to make great strides forward. I believe that all of you share the same feeling.

(2) Some people complained to me that it is a pity the Government does not accept separate assessment of tax for married couples. This is a grief of the sandwiched class. The income limit for the Home Ownership Scheme should be relaxed so that people are protected from the high prices of private flats. Let's take a couple with an income of $20,000 per month as an example. More family members will result in more expenditure. This particular family has, in fact, only 11 months' income in one year as one month of its income has to be spent in income tax. Moreover, much money will have to be spent in supporting the living of one's parents and wife, downpayment, instalments and monthly repayments required in the pur- chase of a flat, educational expenses for the children and the everyday living expenses which are often affected by inflation. They really have too many difficulties to cope with. It is hoped that separate assessment for married couples should be allowed so as to alleviate their burden. (3) The procedures in the application of liquor licences are still acceptable. However, the noise nuisance and overcrowdiness in discos result in much criticism. We should increase the man-power in order to exercise control by means of more frequent inspections. There is also quite a lot of disputes in the licensing procedures for food premises. Too much time is required by various government departments concerned in inspection works. The present level of rent is very high and may even be over $10,000 per day for