1988 — Page 15

Page 15 of 182

"

22

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

with E. coli bacteria in it, do we often inspect the quality of waters? If they swallow the water by accident, would it be harmful to their health or have we urged the public to change their swimming habits i.e. not to submerge their heads in water and not to open their mouths when they swim? Do we have any education campaigns to urge the public to change their swimming habit? Since the Environ- mental Protection Department will take a lot of time to improve the quality of water, in the interim could we educate the public in changing their swimming habits so as to protect their health?

(Miss Cecilia L. Y. YEUNG left the meeting at 2.50 p.m.)

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, this question is in two parts. The first part which relates to polluted water being discharged onto our beaches is incorrect. The Government has never allowed polluted water to be discharged directly onto the beaches. In some of the private premises, they have their own sewage treatment and filtration plants. But if these plants are not maintained properly or not maintained at all, then untreated waste water will be discharged onto the sea. The Urban Council together with other Government Departments would certainly pay attention to this particular problem. Secondly, some of the waste is discharged through long submerged pipes. Generally, this is quite acceptable. But in Repulse Bay, there are leakages in five different locations along the pipeline, therefore the waste water leaks out and washed back onto the beach. I am sure Government will pay particular attention to this aspect during the coming few months. As regards the swimming methods of swimmers, I am sure Mr. FAN Kam-ping's Sub-Committee would consider this in the next season of the 'learn-to-swim' classes.

MR. RONNIE M. C. WONG (in Cantonese); Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wong said that the pollution of water is caused by inadequate sewage treatment facilities. I understand that in Repulse Bay Beach, sewage is discharged and treated, but the treatment provided is not adequate enough. When it is discharged onto the sea, because of the current tide, dirty water will come back into the beach eventually and I would like to ask the Department whether it would suggest to the Environmental Protection Department that extra process and work in the treat- ment of sewage should be done before being discharged onto the sea?

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, we will certainly suggest to the Environmental Protection Department to consider this particular aspect but if the beaches are heavily polluted, I will urge members of the public to use more of our swimming pools which can always take extra patrons.

STATEMENT BY MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE

He said (in English):-Just a month ago, in this Council, approval was given to adjustments to the hire charges for our tennis courts, to go into effect this

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 15 of 182

23

month. The main objective of these adjustments was to encourage more widespread usage of our tennis courts, and to achieve better cost effectiveness.

All but a very few tennis enthusiasts have accepted these adjustments at face value, realizing that in this day and age no pricing arrangements can possibly

remain static.

However there are one or two critics-figuratively speaking, of course--who have served a few lets in their objections to the new arrangements. The most extreme criticism was the view of one rather one-eyed critic who put pen to paper to draw a parallel between the tennis court charge adjustments and the MTR's decision to introduce a surcharge for peak-hour travel.

This criticism smacks of the opposite of fair play, and reminds me of the tennis tantrums we all deplore so much. Therefore, for the benefit of this very small minority of critics, kindly allow me to put the matter in its true perspective:

The facts are that the increase from $33 to $36 per hour for use of floodlit courts represents an increase of a mere 9 per cent, while the increase from $17 to $25 for non-floodlit courts is quite reasonable considering that the last increase was in July 1986, or nearly two years ago.

In fact, since the basic cost for floodlighting is $11 per hour, in the past we had been charging a differential of $16 for the use of floodlit courts i.e., $33 per hour as against $17 per hour for unlit courts. Thus, we had indeed been exercising differential charges whereby floodlit courts were subsidizing non- floodlit courts, in the past years, to a sum of $5 per hour. The current revision should be seen as a rectification.

As I said, the whole purpose of the re-introduction of differential charges was to encourage more usage of courts in non-busy hours. To this end, we have indeed kept the charge level identical to that of two years ago, i.e. $17 an hour. What a bargain!

Let's consider four people playing doubles which is by far the favourite game in Hong Kong. The charge must be divided by four to establish what each player is paying. If these players choose to play at night at weekends or on holidays they will only be paying $9 per head for an hour's sport and enjoyment. However, if they choose to play at the times during which we are trying to encourage more usage of courts, then it will be costing them just over $4 per player per hour.

This represents virtually no increase since the summer of 1986. And in that respect I think the right thing for all our tennis players is to appreciate that we have genuinely tried to do our best to cater for everybody who enjoys a game of tennis.

(Miss Victoria CHAN Ying arrived at 2.53 p.m.)

Page 15Page 16

Page 16 of 182