Page 15 of 115
28
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will talk to the Central Government as quickly as possible. I fully support the spirit of the motion moved by Mr. MA Lee-wo. However, it fails to resolve some of my doubts and that is the reason why I can't fully support this motion. We have received a lot of views from local residents from Tai Hang. They all say that the Hong Kong Stadium should be for sports activities rather than for pop concerts. So this motion fails to resolve that problem. It might also give the misunderstanding that the Urban Council has an established policy of staging pop concerts. It might also give the impression that after the noise problem has been resolved, then we can stage any events. It might even lead to the spending of a lot of money to modify the Hong Kong Stadium in order to stage pop concerts. That might give the wrong impression that the Hong Kong Stadium should be a venue for pop concerts and therefore we should modify the venue correspondingly. Who should be responsible for the expenses of erecting something on the roof? Is it within our affordability? This is a major question. Secondly, a lot of members have pointed this out already. This motion is not at all binding because it says: 'the Urban Council should consider'. That means that the Urban Council can ignore it totally. As Mr. Fred Li has said, this is merely a gesture. If that is the case, how can I support the motion? Unless there is a motion that the public interest can be protected, I am afraid I cannot support the motion.
MISS ANNA TANG KING-YUNG (in Cantonese):—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MA has moved the motion on the noise problem in the Hong Kong Stadium. In fact, on the 15 November 1991, the issue was raised at the Wanchai District Board. Since the opening of the Hong Kong Stadium, we have received hundreds of complaints. The Wanchai District Board is very concerned about this problem. I was invited by Kai Fong Organisations, the hospital nearby, the Tai Hang residents and other residents living in the vicinity to discuss this issue. I welcome this motion but think that is not comprehensive enough. Let me explain why. Since the opening of the Hong Kong Stadium, there have been a lot of nuisances. Noise nuisance is only one of the problems, traffic problem is another. So I think this motion covers one of my concerns, and that is the noise problem. Three organizations from Wanchai petitioned Urban Councillors today. They asked us to consider resolving the noise problem. Although this motion is not comprehensive enough, I still hope that the BOG and the Working Party can investigate into the issues to find a solution to the problems. So I support the motion.
DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English):-Mr. Chairman, my words will be very few because other members have raised similar points. I think the wording of this motion is not definitive enough because it asks the Urban Council to consider not to accept pop concerts unless the noise problem can be effectively controlled. I would prefer the motion to have been amended to read 'unless the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled, the BOG should not accept bookings of pop concerts'. However, the motion is worded flexibly enough to include my suggestion as an amendment. As such
Page 15 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
29
I could accept and I will support it but I would like the BOG to consider not accepting bookings of pop concerts unless the noise problem can be effectively controlled.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Are you not proposing an amendment to the motion?
DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English):—I am not trying to amend it but I say I would prefer it to be amended but I will accept it if it can be read flexibly.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Thank you. The motion will stand as it is. Mr. Ma, you want to exercise your right of reply?
MR. MA LEE-WO (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank colleagues for their support of my motion. I also welcome criticisms or comments on my motion. My motion does not seek to solve all the problems in the Hong Kong Stadium. That is not practicable. Different problems call for different solutions. My motion is about noise. Of the 232 complaints, 208 or 90% were related to pop concerts. The others were related to other problems. There were 3 complaints received by the EPD concerning the Rugby Sevens. I thank Mr. PAO for his comments. I think he was over excited and I was really caught by surprise. He was in fact more excited than those petitioning downstairs. In fact, I have expected Mr. PAO to object to my motion. In fact the problems started on the 11 March. We waited and waited till the 30 March. We waited and the BOG proposed ten remedial measures. We waited again, but how long shall we wait? The remedial measures are not effective enough in controlling the noise level. Let me emphasise this. We must not break the law. We must abide by or comply with the maximum acceptable decibel level set down by the EPD. I think Mr. PAO has misunderstood my motion. It does not mean that we should stop and do nothing about the noise issue. That is not my intention. I just hope that we can have the time so that the BOG and the Urban Council can study the noise issue thoroughly and introduce improvement measures with a view to enabling the public to enjoy pop concerts in future. Meanwhile there won't be noise nuisances caused to people living in the vicinity. Concerning bookings between May and November this year, in fact, according to Wembley's report given to us in March, there are 12 applications for pop concerts to be confirmed. Only one of them has been approved. That is the classical concert held by the Urban Council on 5 November. As for the other bookings, they remain to be confirmed. These are only provisional bookings. We are in a position to refuse those bookings. So we still have room to manoeuvre. Mr. WONG Siu-yee said that he would consider accepting the motion which can take into the account the overall interest of the public. I just want to ask Mr. WONG whether there is any part in my motion which is not in line with public interest or the overall interest of the public? Mr. WONG Siu-yee should point out this. I think that this motion will serve to demonstrate that Urban Councillors are very concerned about the noise issue and that the Urban Council is a law abiding and responsible body.
Page 15 of 115
Page 15Page 16
Page 16 of 115
30
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Now I shall take a vote on the motion. Would you please record your vote by show of hands.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 16 votes for, 1 against and 6 abstentions. (The Chairman did not vote.)
(4) THE HON. LI WAH-MING moved the following motion:-
'RESOLVED that to ensure effective operation of the Hong Kong Stadium as a first class sports facility in Hong Kong, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council should set up a working group to review thoroughly the current management framework of the Hong Kong Stadium, its mode of operation and its working relationship with the Council, and to submit to the Council a report on the review together with recommendations for improvement within two months.'
He said (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I intended to move a motion to dissolve the BOG and to have it re-elected. But after discussing with other members, I want to be more constructive recognising that if another group of members is elected, it would not be clear whether it is a question of personnel or whether it is actually a problem with the system. That is the reason why I have dropped that idea of abolishing the BOG. We are now looking forward. I am not trying to apportion blame. If you don't know what my motion is, may I repeat that to you, 'Resolved that to ensure effective operation of the Hong Kong Stadium as a first class sports facility in Hong Kong, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council should set up a working group to review thoroughly the current management framework of the Hong Kong Stadium, its mode of operation and its working relationship with the Council, and to submit to the Council a report on the review together with the recommendations for improvement within two months.' Why I suggest the setting up of a working group? Some people may say it might be a duplication and it might not really be effective. I have attended a number of SCWC meetings. When we try to obtain information from BOG, it seems as if we are trying to squeeze the content out of a toothpaste. Some members have requested to read the minutes of BOG but the answer was that it was not available because of confidentiality. I have looked at our Standing Order. I know that CUC can exercise his power to stop members from gaining access to minutes of certain committees. I hope that this won't happen because we do receive both open and confidential minutes of all select committees and sub-committees. For instance, I also get the confidential minutes of the LLB. The BOG which has been set up for a year has not released the minutes to other members. We are even kept in the dark about its agenda. In view of the low transparency of the BOG, we can only try to squeeze information out of it. Sometimes it is not just the noise issue. We have had some very bad experience.
Page 16 of 115
Page 15 of 115
Page 15 of 115
28
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will talk to the Central Government as quickly as possible. I fully support the spirit of the motion moved by Mr. MA Lee-wo. However, it fails to resolve some of my doubts and that is the reason why I can't fully support this motion. We have received a lot of views from local residents from Tai Hang. They all say that the Hong Kong Stadium should be for sports activities rather than for pop concerts. So this motion fails to resolve that problem. It might also give the misunderstanding that the Urban Council has an established policy of staging pop concerts. It might also give the impression that after the noise problem has been resolved, then we can stage any events. It might even lead to the spending of a lot of money to modify the Hong Kong Stadium in order to stage pop concerts. That might give the wrong impression that the Hong Kong Stadium should be a venue for pop concerts and therefore we should modify the venue correspondingly. Who should be responsible for the expenses of erecting something on the roof? Is it within our affordability? This is a major question. Secondly, a lot of members have pointed this out already. This motion is not at all binding because it says: 'the Urban Council should consider'. That means that the Urban Council can ignore it totally. As Mr. Fred Li has said, this is merely a gesture. If that is the case, how can I support the motion? Unless there is a motion that the public interest can be protected, I am afraid I cannot support the motion.
MISS ANNA TANG KING-YUNG (in Cantonese):—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MA has moved the motion on the noise problem in the Hong Kong Stadium. In fact, on the 15 November 1991, the issue was raised at the Wanchai District Board. Since the opening of the Hong Kong Stadium, we have received hundreds of complaints. The Wanchai District Board is very concerned about this problem. I was invited by Kai Fong Organisations, the hospital nearby, the Tai Hang residents and other residents living in the vicinity to discuss this issue. I welcome this motion but think that is not comprehensive enough. Let me explain why. Since the opening of the Hong Kong Stadium, there have been a lot of nuisances. Noise nuisance is only one of the problems, traffic problem is another. So I think this motion covers one of my concerns, and that is the noise problem. Three organizations from Wanchai petitioned Urban Councillors today. They asked us to consider resolving the noise problem. Although this motion is not comprehensive enough, I still hope that the BOG and the Working Party can investigate into the issues to find a solution to the problems. So I support the motion.
DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English):-Mr. Chairman, my words will be very few because other members have raised similar points. I think the wording of this motion is not definitive enough because it asks the Urban Council to consider not to accept pop concerts unless the noise problem can be effectively controlled. I would prefer the motion to have been amended to read 'unless the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled, the BOG should not accept bookings of pop concerts'. However, the motion is worded flexibly enough to include my suggestion as an amendment. As such
Page 15 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
29
I could accept and I will support it but I would like the BOG to consider not accepting bookings of pop concerts unless the noise problem can be effectively controlled.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Are you not proposing an amendment to the motion?
DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English):—I am not trying to amend it but I say I would prefer it to be amended but I will accept it if it can be read flexibly.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Thank you. The motion will stand as it is. Mr. Ma, you want to exercise your right of reply?
MR. MA LEE-Wo (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank colleagues for their support of my motion. I also welcome criticisms or comments on my motion. My motion does not seek to solve all the problems in the Hong Kong Stadium. That is not practicable. Different problems call for different solutions. My motion is about noise. Of the 232 complaints, 208 or 90% were related to pop concerts. The others were related to other problems. There were 3 complaints received by the EPD concerning the Rugby Sevens. I thank Mr. PAO for his comments. I think he was over excited and I was really caught by surprise. He was in fact more excited than those petitioning downstairs. In fact, I have expected Mr. PAO to object to my motion. In fact the problems started on the 11 March. We waited and waited till the 30 March. We waited and the BOG proposed ten remedial measures. We waited again, but how long shall we wait? The remedial measures are not effective enough in controlling the noise level. Let me emphasise this. We must not break the law. We must abide by or comply with the maximum acceptable decibel level set down by the EPD. I think Mr. PÃO has misunderstood my motion. It does not mean that we should stop and do nothing about the noise issue. That is not my intention. I just hope that we can have the time so that the BOG and the Urban Council can study the noise issue thoroughly and introduce improvement measures with a view to enabling the public to enjoy pop concerts in future. Meanwhile there won't be noise nuisances caused to people living in the vicinity. Concerning bookings between May and November this year, in fact, according to Wembley's report given to us in March, there are 12 applications for pop concerts to be confirmed. Only one of them has been approved. That is the classical concert held by the Urban Council on 5 November. As for the other bookings, they remain to be confirmed. These are only provisional bookings. We are in a position to refuse those bookings. So we still have room to manoeuvre. Mr. WONG Siu-yee said that he would consider accepting the motion which can take into the account the overall interest of the public. I just want to ask Mr. WONG whether there is any part in my motion which is not in line with public interest or the overall interest of the public? Mr. WONG Siu-yee should point out this. I think that this motion will serve to demonstrate that Urban Councillors are very concerned about the noise issue and that the Urban Council is a law abiding and responsible body.
Page 15 of 115
Page 15Page 16
Page 16 of 115
30
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Now I shall take a vote on the motion. Would you please record your vote by show of hands.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 16 votes for, 1 against and 6 abstentions. (The Chairman did not vote.)
(4) THE HON. LI WAH-MING moved the following motion:-
'RESOLVED that to ensure effective operation of the Hong Kong Stadium as a first class sports facility in Hong Kong, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council should set up a working group to review thoroughly the current management framework of the Hong Kong Stadium, its mode of operation and its working relationship with the Council, and to submit to the Council a report on the review together with recommendations for improvement within two months.'
.....
He said (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I intended to move a motion to dissolve the BOG and to have it re-elected. But after discussing with other members, I want to be more constructive recognising that if another group of members is elected, it would not be clear whether it is a question of personnel or whether it is actually a problem with the system. That is the reason why I have dropped that idea of abolishing the BOG. We are now looking forward. I am not trying to apportion blame. If you don't know what my motion is, may I repeat that to you, 'Resolved that to ensure effective operation of the Hong Kong Stadium as a first class sports facility in Hong Kong, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council should set up a working group to review thoroughly the current management framework of the Hong Kong Stadium, its mode of operation and its working relationship with the Council, and to submit to the Council a report on the review together with the recommendations for improvement within two months.' Why I suggest the setting up of a working group? Some people may say it might be a duplication and it might not really be effective. I have attended a number of SCWC meetings. When we try to obtain information from BOG, it seems as if we are trying to squeeze the content out of a toothpaste. Some members have requested to read the minutes of BOG but the answer was that it was not available because of confidentiality. I have looked at our Standing Order. I know that CUC can exercise his power to stop members from gaining access to minutes of certain committees. I hope that this won't happen because we do receive both open and confidential minutes of all select committees and sub-committees. For instance, I also get the confidential minutes of the LLB. The BOG which has been set up for a year has not released the minutes to other members. We are even kept in the dark about its agenda. In view of the low transparency of the BOG, we can only try to squeeze information out of it. Sometimes it is not just the noise issue. We have had some very bad experience.
Page 16 of 115
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.