Page 12 of 115
22
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I believe all Urban Councillors agree that the noise level generated by pop concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium is not acceptable. I believe the Urban Council as well as all parties concerned are trying their best to solve the problem. Concerning Mr. MA Lee-wo's motion, it seems that it is not an effective solution to solve the problem. So I cannot support this motion. Why do I say that this motion cannot effectively resolve the problem? The fact is that if we pass this motion proposed by Mr. MA, then we are, to a certain extent, admitting that the noise problem should continue to exist. So I hope members would be very careful. This motion mentions two things. Firstly, 'Resolved that before the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled, the Urban Council should consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts.' There are two main points in this motion. Firstly, Urban Council should consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts, that is to say Urban Council should not decide, it should only consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts. That is really a very vague statement. That is unacceptable to the public. I think members of the public would want Urban Council to be more specific. If it reads 'the Urban Council should not accept', then everything is clear. But then it reads 'the Urban Council should consider not to accept' and I think the wording of the motion is not clear enough. Secondly, concerning Mr. MA's motion, it cannot handle the situation where we have accepted bookings. As Mr. MA Lee-wo himself has pointed out, towards the end of April and then between May and November, there will altogether be 11 provisional bookings. So how can we deal with those bookings? Mr. Ma's motion fails to deal with this situation. I really cannot understand the reason behind the motion. Shall we allow those concerts to go ahead? Should we from today onwards refuse bookings of pop concerts while allowing those provisional bookings to go ahead? I think the wording of the motion is not clear enough.
Thirdly, in Mr. Stephen LAU's reply to Ms. Anna TANG, it says that the BOG has proposed a series of remedial measures to minimize the problem. So if Mr. LAU's answer is a reflection of the truth and I am sure what he says is true, then the situation has improved. Mr. MA says that according to the EPD figures, at three locations are as follows: Beverly Hills, 65-69 dB(A), the So Kon Po Cottage area, 68-72 dB(A) and Ching Man Village, from 68–69 dB(A). According to EPD, in the day time, the acceptable level is 70 dB(A). That is what Mr. Ma said himself. In the night time, the acceptable level is 65 dB(A). If we accept this motion, are we saying that we will not accept bookings for day time concerts? In fact, I ask this question based on the figures provided by Mr. MA, and so I think what he says is self-contradictory and I think he can't deal with the situation effectively. While the BOG is trying to minimize the problem, Mr. Stephen LAU asks us to be more patient. He says that a full report will be prepared for our information. I think it is unfair to the BOG if on one hand we agree that the BOG should do something to resolve the issue, and on the other, we ask the BOG not to do anything and not to accept bookings on pop concerts. We are now awaiting the results of the remedial measures proposed. Mr. LAU has given us the preliminary outcome of the remedial measures. We hope that the BOG can give us a full report as soon as possible so that the Urban Council can effectively deal with the noise problem. I think refusal to accept bookings of pop concerts alone cannot resolve the noise problem. It is too simple.
In view of the above reasons, I think it is very difficult for me to support Mr. MA's motion. It does not mean that I do not support the proposal to resolve the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium. On the contrary, I want to have a motion which can comprehensively and effectively resolve the noise issue from the point of view of the general public. For example, we need a motion which can address the appropriateness of managing the Stadium according to commercial principles. We also want to have a motion to deal with whether the Stadium should be a sports venue or a multi-purpose one. We should also need a motion which can address the noise problem, which proposes ways to mitigate noise, and which sets a limit for the staging of pop concerts per year. We need a motion to cope with all these issues. If we accept Mr. MA Lee-wo's motion, we will be undermining the BOG and the Urban Council's ability to deal with the noise problem comprehensively.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if we accept this motion, it may not be correct procedurally. Let me explain why. We have elected the BOG to be responsible for overseeing the management of the Stadium. So whether the bookings should be accepted or not is the responsibility of the BOG. The Urban Council should not interfere. We can pass a resolution requiring the BOG to do certain things. But we must not impose our decisions on the BOG or else there is an element of disrespect to the BOG which was elected by us. We will be pre-empting the BOG and this won't help. In view of the above, I object to the motion.
23
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, may first answer the points raised by Mr. Pao. Mr. Ma's motion actually answers the points raised by Mr. PAO and it is not pre-empting the decision of the BOG. Because we are only asking the Council to consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts. The decision should be made by the BOG. So there is nothing wrong procedurally. As to the point in relation to 'before the noise at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled', it has been said that the situation has improved. The latest concerts' sound level ranges from 65 dB(A) to 72 dB(A). EDP's acceptable noise level in the day time is 70 dB(A), and in the evening it is 65 dB(A). Does that in fact mean that we can, if the sound level is effectively controlled, stage such concerts in the day time? And yet in the evening, probably most pop concerts cannot cope with the limit yet. This is the reason why we want to bring it within the limit. As regards the sound level from 65 dB(A) to 72 dB(A) produced by concerts in the night time, then the Urban Council should consider not to accept these bookings. I think that the final decision should rest with the BOG. So both the wording and procedure of the motion are acceptable. I hope that Mr. PAO will change his mind and support the motion.
I have put a lot of emphasis on the information from EPD in relation to the issue in deciding whether we should have concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium. In the past months, the EPD has released a lot of information, which I want members to pay attention to. First, major events did create noise
Page 12 of 115
Page 12 of 115
Page 12 of 115
22
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I believe all Urban Councillors agree that the noise level generated by pop concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium is not acceptable. I believe the Urban Council as well as all parties concerned are trying their best to solve the problem. Concerning Mr. MA Lee-wo's motion, it seems that it is not an effective solution to solve the problem. So I cannot support this motion. Why do I say that this motion cannot effectively resolve the problem? The fact is that if we pass this motion proposed by Mr. MA, then we are, to a certain extent, admitting that the noise problem should continue to exist. So I hope members would be very careful. This motion mentions two things. Firstly, 'Resolved that before the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled, the Urban Council should consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts.' There are two main points in this motion. Firstly, Urban Council shold consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts, that is to say Urban Council should not decide, it should only consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts. That is really a very vague statement. That is unacceptable to the public. I think members of the public would want Urban Council to be more specific. If it reads 'the Urban Council should not accept', then everything is clear. But then it reads 'the Urban Council should consider not to accept and I think the wording of the motion is not clear enough. Secondly, concerning Mr. MA's motion, it cannot handle the situation where we have accepted bookings. As Mr. MA Lee-wo himself has points out, towards the end of April and then between May and November, there will altogether be 11 provisional bookings. So how can we deal with those bookings? Mr. Ma's motion fails to deal with this situaiton. I really cannot understand the reason behind the motion. Shall we allow those concerts to go ahead? Should we from today onwards refuse bookings of pop concerts while allow those provisional bookings to go ahead? I think the wording of the motion is not clear enough. Thirdly, in Mr. Stephen LAU's reply to Ms. Anna TANG, it says that the BOG has proposed a series of remedial measures to minimize the problem. So if Mr. LAU's answer is a reflection of the truth and I am sure what he says is true, then the situaiton has improved. Mr. MA says that according to the EPD figures, at three locations are as follows: Beverly Hills, 65-69 dB(A), the So Kon Po Cottage area, 68-72 dB(A) and Ching Man Village, from 68–69 dB(A). According to EPD, in the day time, the acceptable level is 70 dB(A). That is what Mr. Ma said himself. In the night time, the acceptable level is 65 dB(A). If we accept this motion, are we saying that we will not accept bookings for day time concerts? In fact I ask this question based on the figures provided by Mr. MA, and so I think what he says. is self-contradictory and I think he can't deal with the situaiton effectively. While the BOG is trying to minimize the problem, Mr. Stephen LAU asks us to be more patient. He says that a full report will be prepared for our information. I think it is unfair to the BOG if on one hand we agree that the BOG should do something to resolve the issue, and on the other, we ask the BOG not to do anything and not to accept bookings on pop concerts. We are now awaiting the results of the remedial measures proposed. Mr. LAU has given us the preliminary outcome of the remedial measures. We hope that the BOG can give
Page 12 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
23
us a full report as soon as possible so that the Urban Council can effectively deal with the noise problem. I think refusal to accept bookings of pop concerts alone cannot resolve the noise problem. It is too simple. In view of the above reasons, I think it is very difficult for me to support Mr. MA's motion. It does not mean that I do not support the proposal to resolve the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium. On the contrary, I want to have a motion which can comprehensively and effectively resolve the noise issue from the point of view of the general public. For example, we need a motion which can address the appropriateness of managing the Stadium according to commercial principles. We also want to have a motion to deal with whether the Stadium should be a sports venues or a multi-purpose one. We should also need a motion which can address the noise problem, which proposes ways to mitigate noise, and which sets limit for the staging of pop concerts per year. We need a motion to cope with all these issues. If we accept Mr. MA Lee-wo's motion, we will be undermining the BOG and the Urban Council's ability to deal with the noise problem comprehensively. Finally, Mr. Chairman, if we accept this motion, it may not be correct procedurally. Let me explain why. We have elected the BOG to be responsible for overseeing the management of the Stadium. So whether the bookings should be accepted or not is the responsibility of the BOG. The Urban Council should not interfere. We can pass a resolution requiring the BOG to do certain things. But we must not impose our decisions on the BOG or else there is an element of disrespect to the BOG which was elected by us. We will be pre-empting the BOG and this won't help. In view of the above, I object to the motion.
I
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, may first answer the points raised by Mr. Pao. Mr. Ma's motion actually answers the points raised by Mr. PAO and it is not pre-empting the decision of the BOG. Because we are only asking the Council to consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts. The decision should be made by the BOG. So there is nothing wrong procedurally. As to the point in relation to 'before the noise at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled', it has been said that the situation has improved. The latest concerts' sound level ranges from 65 dB(A) to 72 dB(A). EDP's acceptable noise level in the day time is 70 dB(A), and in the evening it is 65 dB(A). Does that in fact mean that we can, if the sound level is effectively controlled, stage such concerts in the day time. And yet in the evening, probably most pop concerts cannot cope with the limit yet. This is the reason why we want to bring it within limit. As regards the sound level from 65 dB(A) to 72 dB(A) produced by concerts in the night time, then the Urban Council should consider not to accept these bookings. I think that the final decision should rest with the BOG. So both the wording and procedure of the motion are acceptable. I hope that Mr. PAO will change his mind and support the motion. I have put a lot of emphasis on the information from EPD in relation to the issue in deciding whether we should have concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium. In the past months, the EPD has released a lot of information, which I want members to pay attention to. First, major events did create noise
Page 12 of 115
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.