Page 119 of 132
237
236
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
members are appointed by the Governor. Therefore they do not have adequate credibility and they do not have to be monitored by the general public. They are accountable to the Governor. On the other hand, in putting in place the SDB, the Governor, while proclaiming democracy for our society, is in fact doing something which is quite contrary from what he proclaims regarding democracy. The establishment of the SDB is a very clear and obvious example. The SDB is not democratic at all. I feel that if we want to justify its existence, then the members of this Board should not be appointed and should be elected rather. If there is no election, then it might as well be disbanded or dissolved.
The SDB members, because of their ignorance or high-handedness, take a very overbearing attitude towards us. I think they should know their jurisdiction and should keep within bounds their attitudes and they should show respect to the Municipal Councils. If they can enhance co-operation with the Council and there is a clear demarcation of responsibilities, then they will be able to contribute to our society. A healthy competition and good division of neighbour are advantageous to the society. But if they keep their ignorance and high-handed ways, and they keep on interfering with the smooth functioning of things, the justification for their existence is doubted. If they cannot see clearly what their role should be and continue to be uncooperative with the Urban Council, then I don't think we should keep our courteous ways. Rather if they come to us for venues and facilities, we should simply turn them down. In this way, we will be able to penalize them for their ignorance, high-handedness and overbearing attitude.
Mr. Chairman, I do know that in the past, we have organized a lot of international sports events. Since we are confined to the areas under our jurisdiction, sometimes it is not really that easy for us to stage territory-wide programmes or international events on a large scale. Since we have always had a very good relationship with the Regional Council, in fact we can increase and improve our co-operation in order to stage community, district or grassroots sports for all activities and even for the elite. We do not need to bind our hands and feet by another party. We must make good use of our resources to provide better, more popular, more varied and more colourful sports activities for our people. With these remarks, I support the motion.
THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, if we ask others to be disbanded, then others would also ask us to disband. I don't think it is meaningful. The Hong Kong SDB was established four years ago. I don't think it has anything to do with Mr. PATTEN. So I don't think we should confuse it with democratisation and anything. I think we have to be rational and sensible.
I think today's motion debate is to study the relationship between the Urban Council and the Hong Kong SDB to see whether there are conflicts in our work and whether there is any overlapping of our work and so leading to wastage of resources. If any Boards or Councils with appointed membership need abolition, then many Councils in Hong Kong have to be disbanded.
I think in 1988 there was a consultation paper regarding the establishment of the Hong Kong SDB. I wasn't in the Council then. But anyway, what is the purpose of the motion debate? The motion debate arises from the amendment bill to the Hong Kong SDB Ordinance in order to merge the Hong Kong SI and the Hong Kong SDB. The Bill has been passed in the LegCo recently. This merger has drawn Council's attention.
In the past, the Hong Kong SDB and the Hong Kong SI had different sets of functions and priorities. The Hong Kong SDB was not the only statutory body to promote sport. But then with the merger of the two organizations, the Hong Kong SDB becomes a very vast organization with also its own venues. So there may be overlapping as far as the work of the UC and the Hong Kong SDB are concerned.
I myself did some homework before I came to the motion debate. I got hold of a copy of the 1992/93 annual report of the Hong Kong SDB. I don't know whether our colleagues have read such report. If you have, then I am sure that you will be convinced that the work will definitely overlap with that of the Urban Council. Maybe you can take reference of page 1 of the terms of reference of the SDB. The SDB is the statutory body, together with the UC, RC, ASF OC, the NSA and other sports organizations, should co-operate and jointly promote sports development.
Under this overriding principle, there are six areas of responsibilities. Some of the responsibilities do not conflict with that of ours, e.g. training of elite, we have got nothing to do with them. Regarding the study of technology etc., those we don't take up as our work. As to which areas that would be overlapping our work, I think the first is the promotion of recreation activities. The purpose is to develop a community-based system so as to ensure that people from all levels of the society can take part in better quality sports activities. I think such objective overlaps with the work of the Urban Council.
Also, the SDB is entrusted to set out an overall policy. And the SDB is to co-ordinate the work of the Government departments and non-government bodies in sports development. So its job is to co-ordinate on an overall basis. So the Urban Council's work should also be co-ordinated by the Hong Kong SDB. I think we must pay attention to these two points.
Earlier on, Mr. Pao Ping-wing mentioned about the promotion of sports at the grassroots level and the district level has resulted in overlapping and wastage of resources. When I was reading the SDB annual report, there was a paragraph concerning the relationship with the two Municipal Councils. First of all, the SDB has got ex-official membership i.e. the Chairman of the Urban Council is on the SDB and also their half-yearly discussion at the directorate meeting with USD.
When there is a need, meetings can be called upon. Also the DUS can attend the yearly meetings between the NSAS and the SDB. In other words, departmental staff do take part in the work of the SDB, at least some of it. As to whether USD's staff have come back and communicated on the work of the SDB, I think we have to review the situation. We cannot simply argue on the SDB taking over all our work, I don't think we should adopt such an approach.
The development of the SDB and also its terms of reference will certainly overlap with our work. Must we then say that they have to be disbanded? I think we have to be very objective and rational. The UC should discharge its functions. But on the other hand, we should be concerned with the development of sports and recreation activities at the grassroots level. I think this is the most crucial point in this debate.
After the debate, departmental staff or even the
Page 119 of 132
Page 119 of 132
Page 119 of 132
237
236
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
members are appointed by the Governor. Therefore they do not have adequate credibility and they do not have to be monitored by the general public. They are accountable to the Governor. On the other hand, in putting in place the SDB, the Governor, while proclaiming democracy for our society, is in fact doing something which is quite contrary from what he proclaims regarding democracy. The establishment of the SDB is a very clear and obvious example. The SDB is not democratic at all. I feel that if we want to justify its existence, then the members of this Board should not be appointed and should be elected rather. If there is no election, then it might as well be disbanded or dissolved. The SDB members, because of their ignorance or high-handedness, take a very overbearing attitude towards us. I think they should know their jurisdiction and should keep within bounce their attitudes and they should show respects to the Municipal Councils. If they can enhance co-operation with the Council and there is a clear demarcation of responsibilities, then they will be able to contribute to our society. A healthy competition and good division of neighbour are advantageous to the society. But if they keep their ignorance and high-handed ways, and they keep on interfering with the smooth functioning of things, the justification for their existence is doubted. If they cannot see clearly what their role should be and continue to be uncooperative with the Urban Council, then I don't think we should keep our courteous ways. Rather if they come to us for venues and facilities, we should simply turn them down. In this way, we will be able to penalize them for their ignorance, high-handedness and overbearing attitude. Mr. Chairman, I do know that in the past, we have organized a lot of international sports events. Since we are confined to the areas under our jurisdiction, sometimes it is not really that easy for us to stage territory-wide programmes or international events on a large scale. Since we have always had a very good relationship with the Regional Council, in fact we can increase and improve our co-operation in order to stage community, district or grassroots sports for all activities and even for the elite. We do not need to bind our hands and feet by another party. We must make good use of our resources to provide better, more popular, more varied and more colourful sports activities for our people. With these remarks, I support the motion.
THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, if we ask others to be disbanded, then others would also ask us to disband. I don't think it is meaningful. The Hong Kong SDB was established four years ago. I don't think it has anything to do with Mr. PATTEN. So I don't think we should confuse it with democratisation and any thing. I think we have to be rational and sensible. I think today's motion debate is to study the relationship between the Urban Council and the Hong Kong SDB to see whether there are conflicts in our work and whether there is any overlapping of our work and so leading to wastage of resources. If any Boards or Councils with appointed membership need abolition, then many Councils in Hong Kong have to be disbanded. I think in 1988 there was a consultation paper regarding the establishment of the Hong Kong SDB. I wasn't in the Council then. But any way, what is the purpose of the motion debate? The motion debate arises from the amendment
Page 119 of 132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
bill to the Hong Kong SDB Ordinance in order to merge the Hong Kong SI and the Hong Kong SDB. The Bill has been passed in the LegCo recently. This merger has drawn Council's attention. In the past, the Hong Kong SDB and the Hong Kong SI had different sets of functions and priorities. The Hong Kong SDB was not the only statutory body to promote sport. But then with the merger of the two organizations, the Hong Kong SDB becomes a very vast organization with also its own venues. So there may be overlapping as far as the work of the UC and the Hong Kong SDB are concerned. I myself did some homework before I came to the motion debate. I got hold of a copy of the 1992/93 annual report of the Hong Kong SDB. I don't know whether our colleagues have read such report. If you have, then I am sure that you will be convinced that the work will definitely overlap with that of the Urban Council. May be you can take reference of page 1 of the terms of reference of the SDB. The SDB is the statutory body, together with the UC, RC, ASF OC, the NSA and other sports organizations, should co-operate and jointly promote sports development. Under this overriding principle, there are six areas of responsibilities. Some of the responsibilities do not conflict with that of ours, e.g. training of elite, we have got nothing to do with them. Regarding the study of technology etc., those we don't take up as our work. As to which areas that would be overlapping our work, I think the first is the promotion of recreation activities. The purpose is to develop a community based system so as to ensure that people from all levels of the society can take part in better quality sports activities. I think such objective overlaps with the work of the Urban Council. Also, the SDB is entrusted to set out an overall policy. And the SDB is to co-ordinate the work of the Government departments and non-government bodies in sports development. So its job is to co-ordinate on an overall basis. So the Urban Council's work should also be co-ordinated by the Hong Kong SDB. I think we must pay attention to these two points. Earlier on, Mr. Pao Ping-wing mentioned about the promotion of sports at the grassroots level and the district level has resulted in overlapping and wastage of resources. When I was reading the SDB annual report, there was a paragraph concerning the relationship with the two Municipal Councils. First of all, the SDB has got ex-official membership i.e. the Chairman of the Urban Council is on the SDB and also their half-yearly discussion at the directorate meeting with USD. When there is a need, meetings can be called upon. Also the DUS can attend the yearly meetings between the NSAS and the SDB. In other words, departmental staff do take part in the work of the SDB, at least some of it. As to whether USD's staff have come back and communicated on the work of the SDB, I think we have to review the situation. We cannot simply argue on the SDB taking over all our work, I don't think we should adopt such an approach. The development of the SDB and also its terms of reference will certainly overlap with our work. Must we then say that they have to be disbanded? I think we have to be very objective and rational. The UC should discharge its functions. But on the other hand, we should be concerned with the development of sports and recreation activities at the grassroot level. I think this is the most crucial point in this debate. After the debate, departmental staff or even the
Page 119 of 132
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.