Page 21 of 115
41
40
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):- Yes, a major point. May I speak then?
CHAIRMAN (in English): According to the Standing Order, in speaking for the second time, you can only explain some of your essential statements which might have been misapprehended, and you must not introduce new matters.
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):- May I therefore explain? A member misunderstood my point and seemed to think that when we moved this motion it might be pre-mature and there might be duplication. I hope that our intention of moving the motion can be properly understood. I have put forward a number of points and the BOG in fact has not really answered any of the points I raised. Actually we started to raise these issues since November last year but the BOG has failed to answer my questions. That is the reason why we are moving this motion today. We have been misunderstood and they have said that this is pre-mature. I wish to clarify the situation. Is the BOG really performing its duties? Is it placing itself above the SCWC? We have not been able to get answers. That is the reason why we need a working party to look at the situation and the issues.
CHAIRMAN (in English):- What you have restated is only a fact which everybody already knows. It is not a clarification of a statement which might have been misapprehended by Members. I would ask the mover of the motion whether he would exercise the right of reply.
THE HON. LI Wah-ming (in Cantonese):- Yes, I would like to respond to some views expressed by Members. Some Members said that a lot of work could not be completed within two months' time, and so they object to the motion. I think what is most important is whether you agree that a working group should be set up. If the working group can't complete its work within two months, we can ask for an extension of the two months' period from the SCWC. So don't object to the motion just because the working group can't complete its work within two months' time. And concerning Mr. K. K. FUNG's conditions, I want to say that initially I wanted to move the motion to dissolve the BOG, but now this is no longer the intention of this motion. I am not now proposing to dissolve the BOG. Mr. FUNG says that BOG members should also be included in the working group. I can consider this. At this morning's meeting, it was decided that BOG members should not be allowed to join that working party. Mr. Stephen LAU said that it should be the collective responsibility of the SCWC rather than the BOG. Yes, I agree. But then I think the BOG has not allowed the SCWC to shoulder all responsibility. You, Mr. Chairman, are also the Chairman of the BOG. It is unfair for you to shoulder all the blame. I hope that the BOG should also review its work. I don't want to attack the BOG. But in fact, at a closed meeting I said that the BOG was negligent in respect of the noise issue. I don't want to repeat those points now. As Mr. WONG Siu-yee has correctly pointed out, since the SCWC approved of fitting-out cost of $170 million last year, no significant improvements have been made. As a result, as Mr. K. K. FUNG has pointed out, many of us are discontent. Problems keep coming. If there are no problem, then why do I have to put forward this motion? The noise issue may not be the responsibility of the BOG, but the BOG should not say that it is none of its business. The BOG is responsible for managing the Stadium and has a role to play. The proposed working group is an ad hoc one. It will submit a report to the SCWC for discussion. The working group will not have any power to tell the BOG what to do and what not to do. The working group will communicate with the BOG. The working group will try to find out the relationship between the BOG and the USD. The working group will try to find out the relationship between the BOG and Wembley to see whether this relationship is proper. The SCWC is in a position to make final decision but not the working group. If two months is not adequate, the working group can apply for more time to do its work. Members said that we should allow the BOG more time to monitor the financial operation of the Hong Kong Stadium. We are not concerned about financial operation now. It is not that we are concerned about the deficit now. I think the BOG has not learnt from experience even after the emergence of so many problems. Today, Mr. LAU says that in fact he didn't intend to speak on this motion. It seems that he has just very casually released a decision by the BOG to distribute minutes of the BOG to members from April onwards. I think the working group should be set up as soon as possible to help the Council and the BOG to review all problems associated with the management of the Hong Kong Stadium and to make recommendations for improvement from a wider angle. So I am not trying to attack the BOG members. I am not suggesting that we should dissolve the BOG. The BOG should continue its work. The SCWC should appoint a working group to look at issues other than the work of the BOG.
The question was put.
The motion was lost with 8 votes for and 18 votes against.
CHAIRMAN (in English):- That concludes the business of today's meeting. Council stands adjourned until Tuesday, 10 May 1994 at 2.30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT 5.36 p.m.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, HONG KONG
Page 21 of 115
Page 21 of 115
41
40
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):-Yes, a major point. May I speak then?
CHAIRMAN (in English): According to the Standing Order, in speaking for the second time, you can only explain some of your essential statements which might have been misapprehended, and you must not introduce new matters.
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):-May I therefore explain? A member misunderstood my point and seemed to think that when we moved this motion it might be pre-mature and there might be duplication. I hope that our intention of moving the motion can be properly understood. I have put forward a number of points and the BOG in fact has not really answered any of the points I raised. Actually we started to raise these issues since November last year but the BOG has failed to answer my questions. That is the reason why we are moving this motion today. We have been misunderstood and they have said that this is pre-mature. I wish to clarify the situation. Is the BOG really performing its duties? Is it placing itself above the SCWC? We have not been able to get answers. That is the reason why we need a working party to look at the situation and the issues.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-What you have restated is only a fact which everybody already knows. It is not a clarification of a statement which might have been misapprehended by Members. I would ask the mover of the motion whether he would exercise the right of reply.
THE HON. LI Wah-ming (in Cantonese):-Yes, I would like to respond to some views expressed by Members. Some Members said that a lot of work could not be completed within two months' time, and so they object to the motion. I think what is most important is whether you agree that a working group should be set up. If the working group can't complete its work within two months, we can ask for an extension of the two months' period from the SCWC. So don't object to the motion just because the working group can't complete its work within two months' time. And concerning Mr. K. K. FUNG's conditions, I want to say that initially I wanted to move the motion to dissolve the BOG, but now this is no longer the intention of this motion. I am not now proposing to dissolve the BOG. Mr. FUNG says that BOG members should also be included in the working group. I can consider this. At this morning's meeting, it was decided that BOG members should not be allowed to join that working party. Mr. Stephen LAU said that it should be the collective responsibility of the SCWC rather than the BOG. Yes, I agree. But then I think the BOG has not allowed the SCWC to shoulder all responsibility. You, Mr. Chairman, are also the Chairman of the BOG. It is unfair for you to shoulder all the blame. I hope that the BOG should also review its work. I don't want to attack the BOG. But in fact, at a closed meeting I said that the BOG was negligent in respect of the noise issue. I don't want to repeat those points now. As Mr. WONG Siu-yee has correctly pointed out, since the SCWC approved of fitting-out cost of $170 million last year, no significant improvements have been made. As a result, as
Page 21 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. K. K. FUNG has pointed out, many of us are discontent. Problems keep coming. If there are no problem, then why do I have to put forward this motion? The noise issue may not be the responsibility of the BOG, but the BOG should not say that it is none of its business. The BOG is responsible for managing the Stadium and has a role to play. The proposed working group is an ad hoc one. It will submit a report to the SCWC for discussion. The working group will not have any power to tell the BOG what to do and what not to do. The working group will communicate with the BOG. The working group will try to find out the relationship between the BOG and the USD. The working group will try to find out the relationship between the BOG and Wembley to see whether this relationship is proper. The SCWC is in a position to make final decision but not the working group. If two months is not adequate, the working group can apply for more time to do its work. Members said that we should allow the BOG more time to monitor the financial operation of the Hong Kong Stadium. We are not concerned about financial operation now. It is not that we are concerned about the deficit now. I think the BOG has not learnt from experience even after the emergence of so many problems. Today, Mr. LAU says that in fact he didn't intend to speak on this motion. It seems that he has just very casually released a decision by the BOG to distribute minutes of the BOG to members from April onwards. I think the working group should be set up as soon as possible to help the Council and the BOG to review all problems associated with the management of the Hong Kong Stadium and to make recommendations for improvement from a wider angle. So I am not trying to attack the BOG members. I am not suggesting that we should dissolve the BOG. The BOG should continue its work. The SCWC should appoint a working group to look at issues other than the work of the BOG.
The question was put.
The motion was lost with 8 votes for and 18 votes against.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-That concludes the business of today's meeting. Council stands adjourned until Tuesday, 10 May 1994 at 2.30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT 5.36 p.m.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, HONG KONG
Page 21 of 115
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.