1994 — Page 20

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next Source

Page 20 of 115

39

38

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I registered to speak, but since I found that other members have said more or less the same that I wish to say, therefore I decided not to speak. But now I have changed my mind again. First, I will give you my stance and explain why I think so. I support Mr. Fred Li's motion conditionally i.e. if it complies with two conditions that I now raise, then I will support his motion. I wish to make this clear. As to my conditions, the Council has a lot of debates. Some are agreed, some may be opposed, but so long as there is no personal attack, we needn't be afraid of debates. Very seldom does the Urban Council have such debates. I am very happy about this. That is the reason why I have absented myself from a Legislative Council meeting to be here. Moreover, this motion does not involve the abolition of the BOG. The BOG perhaps also has suggestions as to how it can improve its functioning. But what we are proposing here is to set up a working group under the SCWC to deal with questions raised by some other Urban Councillors who feel that they are not satisfied with what is happening at the Hong Kong Stadium. There is something wrong on the relationship between BOG and some other Members. Perhaps within two months, it is expected that the working group can make recommendations for the consideration of the BOG. As to whether they will be accepted and be able to make the decision of SCWC and the BOG, my two conditions are as follows: first, we will not be talking about dissolving the BOG and we will not be re-electing the BOG members unless we find that some have not been up to the mark, otherwise we should allow them to remain till their current terms expire. Secondly, since BOG members are also Urban Councillors, I don't think we should keep them out of this proposed working group. For instance, if I want to talk to my wife about our relationship, I have to talk to her. I can't talk to myself and so it is just the same as our relationship with the BOG. So we won't be dissolving the BOG and we won't be changing members unless we find that there has been inadequacy. We should also allow them to join the working group. I would explain why it is necessary to set up a working group. First, I agree that time is very tight. We have taken over the Hong Kong Stadium for only a short time, and yet we have to perform a lot of tasks. It is because we have to do so many things within such a short period that we expose all the shortcomings in the mechanism and system. These shortcomings and loopholes need careful deliberations. Secondly, we must admit one point-because of such shortcomings, it does not merely affect the UC or the BOG or the relationship between UC and BOG, but also people living in the vicinity. Because people who came to petition today also talked about transport, law and order problems. On one occasion, there was an event at the Stadium on the one hand, but on the other, there was a horse racing at the Happy Valley. So there were a lot of people coming to that direction. It begs the question why the BOG can't direct the relevant departments to handle this issue better. The third point is that: in the whole process from the taking over of the Stadium, the BOG or USD which is supposed to be accountable to the Urban Council, has created dissatisfaction among a lot of Urban Councillors who are not BOG members. It is not an isolated incident that we ask for details on a lot of things and yet they keep turning us down. So all communication was blocked. We have heard that the BOG is willing to circulate minutes and also hold meetings in public. I don't know whether that is a formal decision by the BOG. In the Urban Council, under the SCWC, there is already a working party responsible for reviewing the Stadium. Since so many problems have emerged, to consider having another working group together with some BOG members to find out what has happened is understandable. If we can come up with recommendations, then we can go back to the BOG for decision. If no recommendation for change is being proposed, the position will remain as it is. So the impact of this working group won't be that great. It won't really create problems. So my conditions are: firstly, not to disband BOG; secondly, not to change BOG members; thirdly, to accept BOG members as members of the working group. So in this way, non-BOG members of this Council will be able to give views to the BOG and also express their feelings in relation to the Stadium. If we can do this well, then we will minimise future disputes.

DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English): Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak either. But after listening to other members, I just get the feeling.... They are saying if you employ someone to do the job, you must trust him. If you don't trust him, don't employ him. We set up the BOG because we trust those people. As far as we can see they have done their job properly. What has happened has not been their fault. They have had a very difficult task to face. They faced a lot of criticisms from the public, criticisms they did not deserve. I really think that they have tried to act responsibly. I don't think it is fair to set something up to investigate into things they have done. I think they have learnt a lesson. They have learnt a great deal with experience. And I think we should give them a longer time to assure us that they can be trusted.

CHAIRMAN (in English): Thank you. Does any other member wish to speak? I notice Mr. WONG Siu-yee wants to speak, but according to the Standing Order 21(9)—limitation of number of speeches no member may speak more than once on any question. The mover of any motion may, however, reply at the close of the debate, and any member may explain himself if he has been misapprehended. Since Mr. WONG Siu-yee is the seconder of the motion, he has no right to reply. The right of reply would go to the mover of the motion, the Hon. Li Wah-ming.

MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): But according to Standing Order, if my point has been misinterpreted, I can explain the situation. That is Standing Order 9.

CHAIRMAN (in English): Yes, but then in that case, it must be conditional upon that such explanation must not introduce new matter. This can only be exercised if any member has been misapprehended in any essential statements. So I would like to know whether any essential statements has been misapprehended.

Page 20 of 115

Page 20

Page 21

Page 21 of 115

Edit History

2026-05-15 22:17:23 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Page 20 of 115 39 38 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I registered to speak, but since I found that other members have said more or less the same that I wish to say, therefore I decided not to speak. But now I have changed my mind again. First, I will give you my stance and explain why I think so. I support Mr. Fred Li's motion conditionally i.e. if it complies with two conditions that I now raise, then I will support his motion. I wish to make this clear. As to my conditions, the Council has a lot of debates. Some are agreed, some may be opposed, but so long as there is no personal attack, we needn't be afraid of debates. Very seldom does the Urban Council have such debates. I am very happy about this. That is the reason why I have absented myself from a Legislative Council meeting to be here. Moreover, this motion does not involve the abolition of the BOG. The BOG perhaps also has suggestions as to how it can improve its functioning. But what we are proposing here is to set up a working group under the SCWC to deal with questions raised by some other Urban Councillors who feel that they are not satisfied with what is happening at the Hong Kong Stadium. There is something wrong on the relationship between BOG and some other Members. Perhaps within two months, it is expected that the working group can make recommendations for the consideration of the BOG. As to whether they will be accepted and be able to make the decision of SCWC and the BOG, my two conditions are as follows: first, we will not be talking about dissolving the BOG and we will not be re-electing the BOG members unless we find that some have not been up to the mark, otherwise we should allow them to remain till their current terms expire. Secondly, since BOG members are also Urban Councillors, I don't think we should keep them out of this proposed working group. For instance, if I want to talk to my wife about our relationship, I have to talk to her. I can't talk to myself and so it is just the same as our relationship with the BOG. So we won't be dissolving the BOG and we won't be changing members unless we find that there has been inadequacy. We should also allow them to join the working group. I would explain why it is necessary to set up a working group. First, I agree that time is very tight. We have taken over the Hong Kong Stadium for only a short time, and yet we have to perform a lot of tasks. It is because we have to do so many things within such a short period that we expose all the shortcomings in the mechanism and system. These shortcomings and loopholes need careful deliberations. Secondly, we must admit one point-because of such shortcomings, it does not merely affect the UC or the BOG or the relationship between UC and BOG, but also people living in the vicinity. Because people who came to petition today also talked about transport, law and order problems. On one occasion, there was an event at the Stadium on the one hand, but on the other, there was a horse racing at the Happy Valley. So there were a lot of people coming to that direction. It begs the question why the BOG can't direct the relevant departments to handle this issue better. The third point is that: in the whole process from the taking over of the Stadium, the BOG or USD which is supposed to be accountable to the Urban Council, has created dissatisfaction among a lot of Urban Councillors who are not BOG members. It is not an isolated incident that we ask for details on a lot of things and yet they keep turning us down. So all communication was blocked. We have heard that the BOG is willing to circulate minutes and also hold meetings in public. I don't know whether that is a formal decision by the BOG. In the Urban Council, under the SCWC, there is already a working party responsible for reviewing the Stadium. Since so many problems have emerged, to consider having another working group together with some BOG members to find out what has happened is understandable. If we can come up with recommendations, then we can go back to the BOG for decision. If no recommendation for change is being proposed, the position will remain as it is. So the impact of this working group won't be that great. It won't really create problems. So my conditions are: firstly, not to disband BOG; secondly, not to change BOG members; thirdly, to accept BOG members as members of the working group. So in this way, non-BOG members of this Council will be able to give views to the BOG and also express their feelings in relation to the Stadium. If we can do this well, then we will minimise future disputes. DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English): Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak either. But after listening to other members, I just get the feeling.... They are saying if you employ someone to do the job, you must trust him. If you don't trust him, don't employ him. We set up the BOG because we trust those people. As far as we can see they have done their job properly. What has happened has not been their fault. They have had a very difficult task to face. They faced a lot of criticisms from the public, criticisms they did not deserve. I really think that they have tried to act responsibly. I don't think it is fair to set something up to investigate into things they have done. I think they have learnt a lesson. They have learnt a great deal with experience. And I think we should give them a longer time to assure us that they can be trusted. CHAIRMAN (in English): Thank you. Does any other member wish to speak? I notice Mr. WONG Siu-yee wants to speak, but according to the Standing Order 21(9)—limitation of number of speeches no member may speak more than once on any question. The mover of any motion may, however, reply at the close of the debate, and any member may explain himself if he has been misapprehended. Since Mr. WONG Siu-yee is the seconder of the motion, he has no right to reply. The right of reply would go to the mover of the motion, the Hon. Li Wah-ming. MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): But according to Standing Order, if my point has been misinterpreted, I can explain the situation. That is Standing Order 9. CHAIRMAN (in English): Yes, but then in that case, it must be conditional upon that such explanation must not introduce new matter. This can only be exercised if any member has been misapprehended in any essential statements. So I would like to know whether any essential statements has been misapprehended. Page 20 of 115 Page 20 Page 21 Page 21 of 115
Baseline (Original)
Page 20 of 115 Page 20 of 115 39 ¡ 38 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I registered to speak, but since I found that other members have said more or less the same that I wish to say, therefore I decided not to speak. But now I have changed my mind again. First, I will give you my stance and explain why I think so. I support Mr. Fred Lr's motion conditionally i.e. if it complies with two conditions that I now raise, then I will support his motion. I wish to make this clear. As to my conditions, the Council has a lot of debates. Some are agreed, some may be opposed, but so long as there is no personal attack, we needn't be afraid of debates. Very seldom does the Urban Council have such debates. I am very happy about this. That is the reason why I have absented myself from a Legislative Council meeting to be here. Moreover, this motion does not involve the abolition of the BOG. The BOG perhaps also has suggestions as to how it can improve its functioning. But what we are proposing here is to set up a working group under the SCWC to deal with questions raised by some other Urban Councillors who feel that they are not satisfied with what is happening at the Hong Kong Stadium. There is something wrong on the relationship between BOG and some other Members. Perhaps within two months, it is expected that the working group can make recommendations for the consideration of the BOG. As to whether they will be accepted and be able to make the decision of SCWC and the BOG, my two conditions are as follows: first, we will not be talking about dissolving the BOG and we will not be re-electing the BOG members unless we find that some have not been up to the mark, otherwise we should allow them to remain till their current terms expire. Secondly, since BOG members are also Urban Councillors, I don't think we should keep them out of this proposed working group. For instance, if I want to talk to my wife about our relationship, I have to talk to her. I can't talk to myself and so it is just the same as our relationship with the BOG. So we won't be dissolving the BOG and we won't be changing members unless we find that there has been inadequacy. We should also allow them to join the working group. I would explain why it is necessary to set up a working group. First, I agree that time is very tight. We have taken over the Hong Kong Stadium for only a short time, and yet we have to perform a lot of tasks. It is because we have to do so many things within such a short period that we expose all the shortcomings in the mechanism and system. These shortcomings and loopholes need careful deliberations. Secondly, we must admit one point-because of such shortcomings, it does not merely affect the UC or the BOG or the relationship between UC and BOG, but also people living in the vicinity. Because people who came to petition today also talked about transport, law and order problems. On one occasion, there was an event at the Stadium on the one hand, but on the other, there was a horse racing at the Happy Valley. So there were a lot of people coming to that direction. It begs the question why the BOG can't direct the relevant departments to handle this issue better. The third point is that: in the whole process from the taking over of the Stadium, the BOG or USD which is supposed to be accountable to the Urban Council, has created dissatisfaction among a lot of Urban Councillors who are not BOG members. It is not an isolated incident that we ask for details on a lot of things and yet Page 20 of 115 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL they keep turning us down. So all communication was blocked. We have heard that the BOG is willing to circulate minutes and also hold meetings in public. I don't know whether that is a formal decision by the BOG. In the Urban Council, under the SCWC, there is already a working party responsible for reviewing the Stadium. Since so many problems have emerged, to consider having another working group together with some BOG members to find out what has happened is understandable. If we can come up with recommenda- tions, then we can go back to the BOG for decision. If no recommendation for change is being proposed, the position will remain as it is. So the impact of this working group won't be that great. It won't really create problems. So my conditions are: firstly, not to disband BOG; secondly, not to change BOG members; thirdly, to accept BOG members as members of the working group. So in this way, non-BOG members of this Council will be able to give views to the BOG and also express their feelings in relation to the Stadium. If we can do this well, then we will minimise future disputes. DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak either. But after listening to other members, I just get the feeling.... They are saying if you employ someone to do the job, you must trust him. If you don't trust him, don't employ him. We set up the BOG because we trust those people. As far as we can see they have done their job properly. What has happened has not been their fault. They have had a very difficult task to face. They faced a lot of criticisms from the public, criticisms they did not deserve. I really think that they have tried to act responsibly. I don't think it is fair to set something up to investigate into things they have done. I think they have learnt a lesson. They have learnt a great deal with experience. And I think we should give them a longer time to assure us that they can be trusted. CHAIRMAN (in English):-Thank you. Does any other member wish to speak? I notice Mr. WONG Siu-yee wants to speak, but according to the Standing Order 21(9)—limitation of number of speeches no member may speak more than once on any question. The mover of any motion may, however, reply at the close of the debate, and any member may explain himself if he has been misapprehended. Since Mr. WONG Siu-yee is the seconder of the motion, he has no right to reply. The right of reply would go to the mover of the motion, the Hon. Li Wah-ming. MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): But according to Standing Order, if my point has been misinterpreted, I can explain the situation. That is Standing Order 9. CHAIRMAN (in English):-Yes, but then in that case, it must be conditional upon that such explanation must not introduce new matter. This can only be exercised if any member has been misapprehended in any essential statements. So I would like to know whether any essential statements has been misapprehended. Page 20 of 115 Page 20Page 21 Page 21 of 115
2026-05-15 22:17:23 · Baseline
View content

Page 20 of 115

Page 20 of 115

39

¡

38

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, originally I registered to speak, but since I found that other members have said more or less the same that I wish to say, therefore I decided not to speak. But now I have changed my mind again. First, I will give you my stance and explain why I think so. I support Mr. Fred Lr's motion conditionally i.e. if it complies with two conditions that I now raise, then I will support his motion. I wish to make this clear. As to my conditions, the Council has a lot of debates. Some are agreed, some may be opposed, but so long as there is no personal attack, we needn't be afraid of debates. Very seldom does the Urban Council have such debates. I am very happy about this. That is the reason why I have absented myself from a Legislative Council meeting to be here. Moreover, this motion does not involve the abolition of the BOG. The BOG perhaps also has suggestions as to how it can improve its functioning. But what we are proposing here is to set up a working group under the SCWC to deal with questions raised by some other Urban Councillors who feel that they are not satisfied with what is happening at the Hong Kong Stadium. There is something wrong on the relationship between BOG and some other Members. Perhaps within two months, it is expected that the working group can make recommendations for the consideration of the BOG. As to whether they will be accepted and be able to make the decision of SCWC and the BOG, my two conditions are as follows: first, we will not be talking about dissolving the BOG and we will not be re-electing the BOG members unless we find that some have not been up to the mark, otherwise we should allow them to remain till their current terms expire. Secondly, since BOG members are also Urban Councillors, I don't think we should keep them out of this proposed working group. For instance, if I want to talk to my wife about our relationship, I have to talk to her. I can't talk to myself and so it is just the same as our relationship with the BOG. So we won't be dissolving the BOG and we won't be changing members unless we find that there has been inadequacy. We should also allow them to join the working group. I would explain why it is necessary to set up a working group. First, I agree that time is very tight. We have taken over the Hong Kong Stadium for only a short time, and yet we have to perform a lot of tasks. It is because we have to do so many things within such a short period that we expose all the shortcomings in the mechanism and system. These shortcomings and loopholes need careful deliberations. Secondly, we must admit one point-because of such shortcomings, it does not merely affect the UC or the BOG or the relationship between UC and BOG, but also people living in the vicinity. Because people who came to petition today also talked about transport, law and order problems. On one occasion, there was an event at the Stadium on the one hand, but on the other, there was a horse racing at the Happy Valley. So there were a lot of people coming to that direction. It begs the question why the BOG can't direct the relevant departments to handle this issue better. The third point is that: in the whole process from the taking over of the Stadium, the BOG or USD which is supposed to be accountable to the Urban Council, has created dissatisfaction among a lot of Urban Councillors who are not BOG members. It is not an isolated incident that we ask for details on a lot of things and yet

Page 20 of 115

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

they keep turning us down. So all communication was blocked. We have heard that the BOG is willing to circulate minutes and also hold meetings in public. I don't know whether that is a formal decision by the BOG. In the Urban Council, under the SCWC, there is already a working party responsible for reviewing the Stadium. Since so many problems have emerged, to consider having another working group together with some BOG members to find out what has happened is understandable. If we can come up with recommenda- tions, then we can go back to the BOG for decision. If no recommendation for change is being proposed, the position will remain as it is. So the impact of this working group won't be that great. It won't really create problems. So my conditions are: firstly, not to disband BOG; secondly, not to change BOG members; thirdly, to accept BOG members as members of the working group. So in this way, non-BOG members of this Council will be able to give views to the BOG and also express their feelings in relation to the Stadium. If we can do this well, then we will minimise future disputes.

DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak either. But after listening to other members, I just get the feeling.... They are saying if you employ someone to do the job, you must trust him. If you don't trust him, don't employ him. We set up the BOG because we trust those people. As far as we can see they have done their job properly. What has happened has not been their fault. They have had a very difficult task to face. They faced a lot of criticisms from the public, criticisms they did not deserve. I really think that they have tried to act responsibly. I don't think it is fair to set something up to investigate into things they have done. I think they have learnt a lesson. They have learnt a great deal with experience. And I think we should give them a longer time to assure us that they can be trusted.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-Thank you. Does any other member wish to speak? I notice Mr. WONG Siu-yee wants to speak, but according to the Standing Order 21(9)—limitation of number of speeches no member may speak more than once on any question. The mover of any motion may, however, reply at the close of the debate, and any member may explain himself if he has been misapprehended. Since Mr. WONG Siu-yee is the seconder of the motion, he has no right to reply. The right of reply would go to the mover of the motion, the Hon. Li Wah-ming.

MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): But according to Standing Order, if my point has been misinterpreted, I can explain the situation. That is Standing Order 9.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-Yes, but then in that case, it must be conditional upon that such explanation must not introduce new matter. This can only be exercised if any member has been misapprehended in any essential statements. So I would like to know whether any essential statements has been misapprehended.

Page 20 of 115

Page 20Page 21

Page 21 of 115

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.