Page 88 of 126
154
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the Secretary told us that the seating capacity would be increased to 40,000 or 50,000 and the track would be kept in the redeveloped facilities. One year later, the seating capacity remains at 40,000 and yet the track will disappear. We don't know the reason why because we haven't had any access to the final report of the consultancy. As regards the way of handling this matter by the Secretary and also the short notice given to the Urban Council, I really have to express my anger and frustration. In November, the final report was presented to us for consultation and yet the work was scheduled to commence in April next year. It seems to me when the Secretaries deal with matters which relate to the daily life of the general public, he tries to evade this responsibility. Why did I say that? The development of the Hong Kong Stadium is one evidence and another example would be the proposal by the Secretary for Health and Welfare to cut the workforce in the welfare sector. Some remedial measures have been proposed after severe opposition from the schools and sports associations. For example, the proposal to expand the Wong Chuk Hang Sports Ground. Is it really an adequate replacement for the Hong Kong Stadium because even if you expand the facilities in the Wong Chuk Hang Sports Ground, it doesn't really make up for the loss of the track in the Hong Kong Stadium.
The second point is whether the management still rests with the Urban Council. In November, the officials still told us that they were still not certain about it. By April next year, the Hong Kong Stadium will have to be redeveloped, and yet we still don't know who is going to manage it. This is ridiculous. Last time when the Secretary for Recreation and Culture talked to us about its schedule of redevelopment and about the details of the redevelopment, he stressed the importance of future management for the Hong Kong Stadium. The crucial matter is money. Because of financial reasons, we are going to lose the track. That is what I understand. At the same time, the Secretary for Recreation and Culture gave me an impression that he was in favour of rugby because the redevelopment would only start after the rugby season. And after the redevelopment is completed by 1994, the first programme put on the stadium would be the Rugby event to celebrate the opening of the new Stadium. Why is the Secretary of Recreation and Culture so much in favour of rugby? Without the field track, I really don't think we can be as effective as previously in promoting sports at grassroots level. Because the Hong Kong Stadium has long been a venue for promoting sports at grassroots level. Without the track, the development of athletic sports would be stifled. Why does the Government put so much stress on financial autonomy? It seems to me that the Government is trying to cut back its financial commitment to the development of sports because during the past few years, the Government has been trying to cut its financial responsibility in many areas and one way of doing it is to privatise the services and to pass on those services to the non-voluntary sectors and private sectors. So I think the re-development of the Hong Kong Stadium is to pave the way for more rugby events and to have more restaurants and more coliseums that would be able to accommodate large-scale concerts.
Actually, the finance of the future Hong Kong Stadium is the fund given to the Sports Development Board. The revenue generated by the stadium will determine the extent to which the Sports Development Board can do. But who can make sure that the Hong Kong Stadium is to make money? And if it is making losses, who is going to shoulder the losses? Actually, before we benefit from the Hong Kong Stadium, we already suffer from the loss of the athletic track. I really don't see the re-development of the Hong Kong Stadium is going to do any good to the development of sports in Hong Kong. It seems to me that the minority interest is being safeguarded at the expense of the majority interest. The interest of school children is being sacrificed in order to pave the way for international concerts and international rugby events. With these remarks, I object to the hasty redevelopment of the Hong Kong Stadium and I support the motion.
MR. DANIEL WONG (in English): Mr. Chairman, this motion basically concerns two issues. First, the relevant authority in government decides to alter or re-develop the Hong Kong Football Stadium without consulting this Council first. Secondly, the management of the Stadium after its re-development will no longer rest with this Council. First, when we look at this matter, my initial reaction was to ask: Whether this is just a power struggle between two authorities or whether the Council's fighting is to protect the interest of the public. After careful consideration, I support this motion whole-heartedly without reservation because I believe both for the interest of the public and for the stand of this Council, this motion is correct. I also consider that our arguments for this motion are sound and justified. On the question of management, I will also refer to the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements for the Urban Council which forms the basis and trust relationship between the Council and the Government. Section 4.7 of the Memorandum clearly provides that the management and control of the Stadium will vest in the Council even after any alteration or extension work. It is therefore beyond any question that the management of the Hong Kong Stadium should always rest with the Council. The Government has not shown any exceptional or unusual circumstances which would justify the departure from this principle.
On the question of prior consultation, I must admit that under the memorandum section 4.7, the government has the right to plan, finance and construct the Stadium including any alteration or extension work. Strictly speaking, it is not mandatory for the Government to consult the Council. However, there are a number of important factors which make consultation necessary in this case. First, for several decades, the use and management of the Hong Kong Stadium has always been within the control of the Council. As I have pointed out, even after the improvement work, management will still remain within the Council. Therefore, it makes little sense that the management body isn't consulted at all in this case. Secondly, the Council has always been trusted with the important function of providing recreational facilities to the public. Ever since its formation over 100 years ago, the public looks to the Council for improvement in enjoyment of lives. In order to safeguard the public interest, the structure of this Council is so arranged that it consists of the majority of elected members, both generally elected and
Page 88 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 88 of 126
155
Page 88 of 126
154
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the Secretary told us that the seating capacity would be increased to 40 000 or 50 000 and the track would be kept in the redeveloped facilities. One year later, the seating capacity remains at 40 000 and yet the track will disappear. We don't know the reason why because we haven't had any access to the final report of the consultancy. As regards the way of handling this matter by the Secretary and also the short notice given to the Urban Council, I really have to express my anger and frustration. In November, the final report was presented to us for consultation and yet the work was scheduled to commence in April next year. It seems to me when the Secretaries deal with matters which relate to the daily life of general public, he tries to evade this responsibility. Why did I say that? The development of the Hong Kong Stadium is one evidence and another example would be the proposal by the Secretary for Health and Welfare to cut workforce in the welfare sector. Some remedial measures have been proposed after severe opposition from the schools and sports associations. For example, the proposal to expand the Wong Chuk Hang Sports Ground. Is it really an adequate replacement for the Hong Kong Stadium because even if you expand the facilities in the Wong Chuk Hang Sports Ground, it doesn't really make up for the loss of the track in the Hong Kong Stadium. The second point is whether the management still rests with the Urban Council. In November, the officials still told us that they were still not certain about it. By April next year, the Hong Kong Stadium will have to be redeveloped, and yet we still don't know who is going to manage it. This is ridiculous. Last time when the Secretary for Recreation and Culture talked to us about its schedule of redevelopment and about the details of the redevelopment, he stressed the importance of future management for the Hong Kong Stadium. The crucial matter is money. Because of the financial reasons, we are going to lose the track. That is what I understand. At the same time, the Secretary for Recreation and Culture gave me an impression that he was in favour of rugby because the redevelopment would only start after the rugby season. And after the redevelopment is completed by 1994, the first programme put on the stadium would be the Rugby event to celebrate the opening of the new Stadium. Why is the Secretary of Recreation and Culture so much in favour of rugby? Without the field track, I really don't think we can be as effective as previously in promoting sports at grassroot level. Because the Hong Kong Stadium has along been a venue for promotion of sports at grassroot level. Without the track, the development of athletic sports would be stiffled. Why the Government puts so much stress on financial autonomy? It seems to me that the Government is trying to cut back its financial committment on the development of sports because during the past few years, the Government has been trying to cut its financial responsibility in many areas and one way of doing it is to privatise the services and to pass on those services to the non-voluntary sectors and private sectors. So I think the re-development of the Hong Kong Stadium is to pave the way for more rugby events and to have more restaurants and more coliseums that would be able to accommodate large scale concerts.
Actually, the finance of the future Hong Kong Stadium is the fund given to the Sports Development Board. The revenue generated by the stadium will
Page 88 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 88 of 126
155
determine the extent to which the Sports Development Board can do. But who can make sure that the Hong Kong Stadium is to make money? And if it is making losses, who is going to shoulder the losses? Actually before we benefit from the Hong Kong Stadium, we already suffer from the loss of the athletic track. I really don't see the re-development of Hong Kong Stadium is going to do any good to the development of sports in Hong Kong. It seems to me that the minority interest is being safeguarded at the expense of the majority interest. The interest of school children is being sacrificed in order to pave way for the international concerts and international rugby events. With these remarks, I object to the hasty redevelopment of Hong Kong Stadium and I support the motion.
MR. DANIEL WONG (in English): Mr. Chairman, this motion basically concerns two issues. First, the relevant authority in government decides to alter or re-develop the Hong Kong Football Stadium without consulting this Council first. Secondly, the management of the Stadium after its re- development will no longer rest with this Council. First, when we look at this matter, my initial reaction was to ask: Whether this is just a power struggle between two authorities or whether the Council's fighting is to protect the interest of the public. After careful consideration, I support this motion whole-heartedly without reservation because I believe both for the interest of the public and for the stand of this Council, this motion is correct. I also consider that our arguments for this motion are sound and justified. On the question of management, I will also refer to the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements for the Urban Council which forms the bases and trust relationship between the Council and the Government. Section 4.7 of the Memorandum clearly provides that the management and control of the Stadium will vest in the Council even after any alteration or extension work. It is therefore beyond any question that the management of the Hong Kong Stadium should always rest with the Council. The Government has not shown any exceptional or unusual circumstances which would justify the departure from this principle. On the question of prior consultation, I must admit that under the memorandum section 4.7, the government has the right to plan, finance and construct the Stadium including any alteration or extension work. Strictly speaking, it is not mandatory for the Government to consult the Council. However, there are a number of important factors which make consultation necessary in this case. First, for several decades, the use and management of the Hong Kong Stadium has always been within the control of the Council. As I have pointed out, even after the improvement work, management will still remain within the Council. Therefore, it makes little sense that the management body isn't consulted at all in this case. Secondly, the Council has always been trusted with the important function of providing recreational facilities to the public. Ever since its formation over 100 years ago, the public looks to the Council for improvement of enjoyment in lives. In order to safeguard the public interest, the structure of this Council is so arranged that it consists of the majority of elected members, both generally elected and
Page 88 of 126
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.