Page 19 of 115
37
36
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Kong Stadium had a meeting this morning. I am sure that this working party can look at past events as well as the future management. With these words, I object to this motion.
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I did not intend to speak. But after listening to the views from members, Members of the BOG including myself have much to say. I wish to clarify a number of points. The problems of the Hong Kong Stadium did not come about overnight. If you still remember correctly, you should know that in December 1991, when this Council discussed the management of the Hong Kong Stadium, the first question was related to the track. There were 25 members of this Council participating in a working group. We spent a lot of time to resolve the issue. On 29 June 1992, the working group made recommendations to the SCWC suggesting that we should accept the conditions imposed by the Government i.e. it should be self-financing. If there are surpluses, apart from keeping a certain amount for maintenance, the rest should be channelled to the promotion of sports. I had some reservations then because those were lofty ideals. Where could you find an organisation to just work for you without gaining anything from it? According to the 1973 MAA with the Government, the Hong Kong Stadium, Museums and the Cultural Centre, built by the Government, were to be managed by the Urban Council. However it was for the first time the Hong Kong Stadium had to be self-financing. Since we have accepted its management, I hope that we will do a good job so that we can be accountable to the public and let people using the Stadium know of our contribution. Because of the self-financing principle, we are now faced with this problem. When we asked for $175 million for the fitting out costs, the BOG was unfairly criticized. At that time the BOG felt that its credibility was at stake, therefore a paper for the SCWC was prepared and discussed on 1 February 1994. At that time, members supported the BOG and agreed that they should continue to function. Two months later, it seems as if the BOG's credibility and ability are still questioned. Mr. Fred Li, in his speech, could not really give a concrete example to show that the BOG has been ineffective in managing the Stadium. He also said that he was not trying to create a confrontational situation with the BOG but he suggested that the working group should exclude members of the BOG. Is the motion not trying to create confrontation? Or is it the BOG that is trying to create confrontation? I feel that in relation to all issues, the BOG has submitted recommendations to the SCWC before proceeding further, for instance, fitting out costs and the opening gala. At the same time, everything is scrutinized. So the SCWC should shoulder the responsibility collectively for whatever being done. It should not be the sole responsibility of the BOG. The BOG, in the past, probably could not make all papers accessible to members because there might be commercial secrets involved. Neither did it have a fixed schedule for meetings. At the end of March, the BOG agreed at the meeting that after the opening of the Hong Kong Stadium, everything should become regularized and on track. Therefore starting from 1 April 1994, all minutes would be made available to members of this Council. We also decided that since we now had a fixed schedule of meetings, all meetings could now be opened unless they involved personnel and other confidential matters. Policy issues would be discussed at open meetings. I also think that Mr. Fred Li's proposal is perhaps a bit premature. I hope that Members can be patient and allow the Hong Kong Stadium which is confronted with a number of problems now to function for six months first. We will also have to look at its financial position. I hope that in six months' time, we will once again have an adjournment debate at this Council. After soliciting the views of Members, perhaps we can take up the issue again with the Central Government with your backing. If Members maintained that we should continue to operate the Hong Kong Stadium, perhaps we should have some understandings with the Government in relation to financial arrangement and operation. If the Central Government thinks that our proposals are not acceptable, then we will have to refer to the MAA that the principle of self-financing of the Hong Kong Stadium is an unprecedented demand. If they still insist on it, perhaps we will have to relinquish our management role. I think it is desirable to let our colleagues make some efforts first. After 6 months, we may need an indication from members as to how we should go forward and then we will take it up with The Central Government. We hope that you will consider it very carefully before you take a vote.
MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we have two motion debates on the Hong Kong Stadium. This proves that the decision of taking over the management of the Hong Kong Stadium was correct. If we had not taken over the management of the Hong Kong Stadium, the Central Government would have handed it over to another organisation. The transparency and the accountability of that organisation would definitely be inferior to that of the Urban Council. I think the transparency of the Urban Council is in no way inferior to that of the LegCo. Concerning today's comments, criticisms and so on, I think all these are healthy phenomena. But I would like to mention I agree to what Mr. Stephen LAU had said i.e. concerning the motion moved by Mr. Fred LI to set up a working group, I think this motion is premature. As Mr. LAU has pointed out, from 1 April all minutes of the BOG will be sent to all Urban Councillors and our meetings are open. This is one channel to increase transparency. Also, at the SCWC, the Chairman of the BOG will report to members concerning items discussed and agreed at the previous BOG meeting. So at the SCWC, Urban Councillors can give their views and monitor the work of the BOG. That would be another form of guarantee of transparency. In many big companies, the probation period of a very high-ranking executive can be from 6 to 12 months. But the BOG has only been set up for less than a year. It was set up in May last year. It has been set up for only 11 months. A lot of things have happened which are well beyond the control of the BOG. The suggestion of review and even abolition of the BOG is very unfair to the BOG. Mr. Chairman, with these words, I object to Mr. Fred Li's motion.
Page 19 of 115
Page 19 of 115
Page 19 of 115
37
36
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Kong Stadium had a meeting this morning. I am sure that this working party can look at past events as well as the future management. With these words, I object to this motion.
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I did not intend to speak. But after listening to the views from members, Members of the BOG including myself have much to say. I wish to clarify a number of points. The problems of the Hong Kong Stadium did not come about overnight. If you still remember correctly, you should know that in December 1991, when this Council discussed the management of the Hong Kong Stadium, the first question was related to the track. There were 25 members of this Council participating in a working group. We spent a lot of time to resolve the issue. On 29 June 1992, the working group made recommendations to the SCWC suggesting that we should accept the conditions imposed by the Government i.e. it should be self financing. If there are surpluses, apart from keeping a certain amount for maintenance, the rest should be channelled to the promotion of sports. I had some reservations then because those were lofty ideals. Where could you find an organisation to just work for you without gaining anything from it? According to the 1973 MAA with the Government, the Hong Kong Stadium, Museums and the Cultural Centre, built by the Government, were to be managed by the Urban Council. However it was for the first time the Hong Kong Stadium had to be self financing. Since we have accepted its management, I hope that we will do a good job so that we can be accountable to the public and let people using the Stadium know of our contribution. Because of the self financing principle, we are now faced with this problem. When we asked for $175 million for the fitting out costs, the BOG was unfairly criticized. At that time the BOG felt that its creditability was at stake, therefore a paper for the SCWC was prepared and discussed on 1 February 1994. At that time, members supported the BOG and agreed that they should continue to function. Two months later, it seems as if the BOG's creditability and ability are still questioned. Mr. Fred Li, in his speech, could not really give a concrete example to show that the BOG has been ineffective in managing the Stadium. He also said that he was not trying to create a confrontational situation with the BOG but he suggested that the working group should exclude members of the BOG. Is the motion not trying to create confrontation? Or is it the BOG that is trying to create confrontation? I feel that in relation to all issues, the BOG has submitted recommendations to the SCWC before proceeding further, for instance, fitting out costs and the opening gala. At the same time, everything is scrutinized. So the SCWC should shoulder the responsibility collectively for whatever being done. It should not be the sole responsibility of the BOG. The BOG, in the past, probably could not make all papers accessible to members because there might be commercial secret involved. Neither did it have a fixed schedule for meetings. At the end of March, the BOG agreed at the meeting that after the opening of the Hong Kong Stadium, everything should become regularized and on track. Therefore starting from 1 April 1994, all minutes would be made available to members
Page 19 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
of this Council. We also decided that since we now had a fixed schedule of meetings, all meetings could now be opened unless they involved personnel and other confidential matters. Policy issues would be discussed at open meetings. I also think that Mr. Fred Lr's proposal is perhaps a bit pre-mature. I hope that Members can be patient and allow the Hong Kong Stadium which is confronted with a number of problems now to function for six months first. We will also have to look at its financial position. I hope that in six months' time, we will once again have an adjournment debate at this Council. After soliciting the views of Members, perhaps we can take up the issue again with the Central Government with your backing. If Members maintained that we should continue to operate the Hong Kong Stadium, perhaps we should have some understandings with the Government in relation to financial arrangement and operation. If the Central Government thinks that our proposals are not acceptable, then we will have to refer to the MAA that the principle of self-financing of the Hong Kong Stadium is an unprecedented demand. If they still insist on it, perphaps we will have to relinquish our management role. I think it is desirable to let our colleagues make some efforts first. After 6 months, we may need an indication from members as to how we should go forward and then we will take it up with The Central Government. We hope that you will consider it very carefully before you take a vote.
MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we have two motion debates on the Hong Kong Stadium. This proves that the decision of taking over the management of the Hong Kong Stadium was correct. If we had not taken over the management of the Hong Kong Stadium, the Central Government would have handed it over to another organisation. The transparency and the accountability of that organisation would definitely be inferior to that of the Urban Council. I think the transparency of the Urban Council is in no way inferior to that of the LegCo. Concerning today's comments, criticisms and so on, I think all these are healthy phenomena. But I would like to mention I agree to what Mr. Stephen LAU had said i.e. concerning the motion moved by Mr. Fred LI to set up a working group, I think this motion is pre-mature. As Mr. LAU has pointed out, from 1 April all minutes of the BOG will be sent to all Urban Councillors and our meetings are open. This is one channel to increase transparency. Also, at the SCWC, the Chairman of the BOG will report to members concerning items discussed and agreed at the previous BOG meeting. So at the SCWC, Urban Councillors can give their views and monitor the work of the BOG. That would be another form of guarantee of transparency. In many big companies, the probation period of a very high ranking executive can be from 6 to 12 months. But the BOG has only been set up for less than a year. It was set up in May last year. It has been set up for only 11 months. A lot of things have happened which are well beyond the control of the BOG. The suggestion of review and even abolition of the BOG is very unfair to the BOG. Mr. Chairman, with these words, I object to Mr. Fred Li's motion.
Page 19 of 115
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.