1994 — Page 7

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 7 of 115

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

answer is so definite undertaking, why is that the answer is so definite. Why did Mr. LAU say that EPD undertook to monitor the noise level in the first three months of the opening of the Stadium? Is it that he just wants to explain things away to us? It should not have been written in the reply if it had not been so definite.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I think I will have to make use of this opportunity to remind members of what has happened. On the morning of the 30 March, the BOG held a meeting inviting all Urban Councillors to come to this Chamber to listen to the account of events given by Wembley. Nobody questioned the representatives of Wembley on that day about this verbal undertaking. So other Urban Councillors and I accepted the explanation of Wembley's representatives that there was a verbal undertaking between Wembley and EPD to jointly monitor the noise level at the Stadium for the first three months of the opening of the Stadium. I think it is up to Members to decide how reliable the information was.

MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):—I recall that meeting, Mr. Chairman. It is impossible for us to dispute over the information given by Wembley. But the EPD still continues to object to the holding of pop concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium. That is why we now doubt the reliability of the undertaking. Concerning the reply given by Wembley at that meeting, we doubt whether it was true that EPD really made an undertaking. In the reply given by Mr. LAU, it seems that EPD did make the undertaking but we really don't know whether EPD has made that undertaking.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—If Mr. San Stephen Wong is still discontent with the reply, I think I would have to probe into the matter further to see whether that was a firm undertaking. But on the 10 April Concerning the Famine 30 concert on the radio or on TV interviews with residents living in the vicinity, I heard a resident said that the noise level was now more acceptable. As for the participants of the concert, some said that the volume was too low and as a result those at the upper tier couldn't hear and they decided to return home. So I think in future, the BOG will have to investigate into all these issues in depth and by that time I can answer Mr. San Stephen WONG's question.

THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I hope Mr. Lau will tell us one thing. When we talk about people at the Stadium having a verbal understanding with the EPD, do we have evidence to show that apart from jointly monitoring the situation, they will also treat this as a grace period. In other words, there won't be any prosecution during this period of joint monitoring. We accept suggestions from EPD as to how to control noise and yet it may still be in excess of the prescribed limit. So would we be going back to that particular occasion? In other words, was there any misunderstanding on our part that if we followed what they said then there wouldn't be any prosecution?

Page 7 of 115

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—I have spoken at length in answering this question not because I want to show that the Urban Council is to be absolved of all responsibilities, but rather to show that the BOG has made it very clear to Wembley that it should co-operate very closely with EPD. In fact, Wembley and EPD have been working very closely together. I hope that the co-operation would continue. As an Urban Councillor, I don't think that it is appropriate to ask EPD not to prosecute us. I think we should emphasize co-operation.

THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, my question is not whether we should co-operate with EPD. I have no objection to cooperating with EPD because it is the noise control authority. My question is: Did the EPD promise that April to June should be a period for monitoring? Before the period expires, action taken by them would be quite different from that after the expiry of the period.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, neither Wembley nor the BOG asked that question. In other words, we did not ask for leniency or non-prosecution but rather there was an understanding during the three months' period that there would be joint monitoring. As to whether there would be any prosecution during the monitoring period, I am afraid I can't answer that question.

DR. STAN CHEUNG TSANG-KAY (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I am an appointed member. This is my second term already. Today, this question has lasted over 50 minutes. There are a lot of supplementary questions. As I recall, the duration is a record-breaking one. I am in full admiration of Mr. LAU's way in answering the question. May I have your permission to approach Mr. LAU and shake hands with him to congratulate him.

CHAIRMAN (in English):—All these are not questions. But I will grant you this special favour.

(2) MS. ANNA TANG KING-YUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese): As summer has come, the Department has reopened its swimming venues including beaches and swimming pools, and restored its lifeguard service. Half a year ago, when the police were investigating a case in which a 7-year-old child was drowned in a private swimming pool, fake lifeguard certificates were found. This was indeed shocking. I would like to ask: How does the Department recruit lifeguards to ensure that the lifeguards employed are well qualified?

MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—The question concerns the recruitment of lifeguards by the Urban Services Department and the measures taken to ensure that they are holders of formal life-saving certificates.

Page 7 of 115

Edit History

2026-05-15 22:12:36 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 7 of 115 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 12 answer is so definite undertaking, why is that the answer is so definite. Why did Mr. LAU say that EPD undertook to monitor the noise level in the first three months of the opening of the Stadium? Is it that he just wants to explain things away to us? It should not have been written in the reply if it had not been so definite. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I think I will have to make use of this opportunity to remind members of what has happened. On the morning of the 30 March, the BOG held a meeting inviting all Urban Councillors to come to this Chamber to listen to the account of events given by Wembley. Nobody questioned the representatives of Wembley on that day about this verbal undertaking. So other Urban Councillors and I accepted the explanation of Wembley's representatives that there was a verbal undertaking between Wembley and EPD to jointly monitor the noise level at the Stadium for the first three months of the opening of the Stadium. I think it is up to Members to decide how reliable the information was. MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):—I recall that meeting, Mr. Chairman. It is impossible for us to dispute over the information given by Wembley. But the EPD still continues to object to the holding of pop concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium. That is why we now doubt the reliability of the undertaking. Concerning the reply given by Wembley at that meeting, we doubt whether it was true that EPD really made an undertaking. In the reply given by Mr. LAU, it seems that EPD did make the undertaking but we really don't know whether EPD has made that undertaking. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—If Mr. San Stephen Wong is still discontent with the reply, I think I would have to probe into the matter further to see whether that was a firm undertaking. But on the 10 April Concerning the Famine 30 concert on the radio or on TV interviews with residents living in the vicinity, I heard a resident said that the noise level was now more acceptable. As for the participants of the concert, some said that the volume was too low and as a result those at the upper tier couldn't hear and they decided to return home. So I think in future, the BOG will have to investigate into all these issues in depth and by that time I can answer Mr. San Stephen WONG's question. THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I hope Mr. Lau will tell us one thing. When we talk about people at the Stadium having a verbal understanding with the EPD, do we have evidence to show that apart from jointly monitoring the situation, they will also treat this as a grace period. In other words, there won't be any prosecution during this period of joint monitoring. We accept suggestions from EPD as to how to control noise and yet it may still be in excess of the prescribed limit. So would we be going back to that particular occasion? In other words, was there any misunderstanding on our part that if we followed what they said then there wouldn't be any prosecution? Page 7 of 115 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 13 MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—I have spoken at length in answering this question not because I want to show that the Urban Council is to be absolved of all responsibilities, but rather to show that the BOG has made it very clear to Wembley that it should co-operate very closely with EPD. In fact, Wembley and EPD have been working very closely together. I hope that the co-operation would continue. As an Urban Councillor, I don't think that it is appropriate to ask EPD not to prosecute us. I think we should emphasize co-operation. THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, my question is not whether we should co-operate with EPD. I have no objection to cooperating with EPD because it is the noise control authority. My question is: Did the EPD promise that April to June should be a period for monitoring? Before the period expires, action taken by them would be quite different from that after the expiry of the period. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, neither Wembley nor the BOG asked that question. In other words, we did not ask for leniency or non-prosecution but rather there was an understanding during the three months' period that there would be joint monitoring. As to whether there would be any prosecution during the monitoring period, I am afraid I can't answer that question. DR. STAN CHEUNG TSANG-KAY (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I am an appointed member. This is my second term already. Today, this question has lasted over 50 minutes. There are a lot of supplementary questions. As I recall, the duration is a record-breaking one. I am in full admiration of Mr. LAU's way in answering the question. May I have your permission to approach Mr. LAU and shake hands with him to congratulate him. CHAIRMAN (in English):—All these are not questions. But I will grant you this special favour. (2) MS. ANNA TANG KING-YUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese): As summer has come, the Department has reopened its swimming venues including beaches and swimming pools, and restored its lifeguard service. Half a year ago, when the police were investigating a case in which a 7-year-old child was drowned in a private swimming pool, fake lifeguard certificates were found. This was indeed shocking. I would like to ask: How does the Department recruit lifeguards to ensure that the lifeguards employed are well qualified? MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—The question concerns the recruitment of lifeguards by the Urban Services Department and the measures taken to ensure that they are holders of formal life-saving certificates. Page 7 of 115

Baseline (Original)

Page 7 of 115 Page 7 of 115 12 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL answer is so definite undertaking, why is that the answer is so definite. Why did Mr. LAU say that EPD undertook to monitor the noise level in the first three months of the opening of the Stadium? Is it that he just wants to explain things away to us? It should not have been written in the reply if it had not been so definite. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I think I will have to make use of this opportunity to remind members of what has happened. On the morning of the 30 March, the BOG held a meeting inviting all Urban Councillors to come to this Chamber to listen to the account of events given by Wembley. Nobody questioned the representatives of Wembley on that day about this verbal undertaking. So other Urban Councillors and I accepted the explanation of Wembley's representatives that there was a verbal undertaking between Wembley and EPD to jointly monitor the noise level at the Stadium for the first three months of the opening of the Stadium. I think it is up to Members to decide how reliable the information was. MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):-I recall that meeting, Mr. Chairman. It is impossible for us to dispute over the information given by Wembley. But the EPD still continues to object to the holding of pop concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium. That is why we now doubt the reliability of the undertaking. Concerning the reply given by Wembley at that meeting, we doubt whether it was true that EPD really made an undertaking. In the reply given by Mr. LAU, it seems that EPD did make the undertaking but we really don't know whether EPD has made that undertaking. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-If Mr. San Stephen Wong is still discontent with the reply, I think I would have to probe into the matter further to see whether that was a firm undertaking. But on the 10 April Concerning the Famine 30 concert on the radio or on TV interviews with residents living in the vicinity, I heard a resident said that the noise level was now more acceptable. As for the participants of the concert, some said that the volume was too low and as a result those at the upper tier couldn't hear and they decided to return home. So I think in future, the BOG will have to investigate into all these issues in depth and by that time I can answer Mr. San Stephen WONG's question. THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I hope Mr. Lau will tell us one thing. When we talk about people at the Stadium having a verbal understanding with the EPD, do we have evidence to show that apart from jointly monitoring the situation, they will also treat this as a grace period. In other words, there won't be any prosecution during this period of joint monitoring. We accept suggestions from EPD as to how to control noise and yet it may still be in excess of the prescribed limit. So would we be going back to that particular occasion? In other words, was there any misunderstanidng on our part that if we followed what they said then there wouldn't be any prosecution? Page 7 of 115 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 13 MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-I have spoken at length in answering this question not because I want to show that the Urban Council is to be absolved of all responsibilities, but rather to show that the BOG has made it very clear to Wembley that it should co-operate very closely with EPD. In fact, Wembley and EPD have been working very closely together. I hope that the co-operation would continue. As an Urban Councillor, I don't think that it is appropriate to ask EPD not to prosecute us. I think we should emphasize co-operation. THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, my question is not whether we should co-operate with EPD. I have no objection to cooperating with EPD because it is the noise control authority. My question is: Did the EPD promise that April to June should be a period for monitoring? Before the period expires, action taken by them would be quite different from that after the expiry of the period. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, neither Wembley nor the BOG asked that question. In other words, we did not ask for leniency or non prosecution but rather there was an understanding during the three months' period that there would be joint monitoring. As to whether there would be any prosecution during the monitoring period, I am afraid I can't answer that question. DR. STAN CHEUNG TSANG-KAY (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I am an appointed member. This is my second term already. Today, this question has lasted over 50 minutes. There are a lot of supplementary questions. As I recall, the duration is a record breaking one. I am in full admiration of Mr. LAU's way in answering the question. May I have your permission to approach Mr. LAU and shake hands with him to congratulate him. CHAIRMAN (in English):-All these are not questions. But I will grant you this special favour. (2) MS. ANNA TANG KING-YUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese): As summer has come, the Department has reopened its swimming venues including beaches and swimming pools, and restored its lifeguard service. Half a year ago, when the police were investigating a case in which a 7-year-old child was drowned in a private swimming pool, fake lifeguard certificates were found. This was indeed shocking. I would like to ask: How does the Department recruit lifeguards to ensure that the lifeguards employed are well qualified? MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-The question concerns the recruitment of lifeguards by the Urban Services Department and the measures taken to ensure that they are holders of formal life-saving certificates. Page 7 of 115

2026-05-15 22:12:36 · Baseline

View content

Page 7 of 115

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I think I will have to make use of this opportunity to remind members of what has happened. On the morning of the 30 March, the BOG held a meeting inviting all Urban Councillors to come to this Chamber to listen to the account of events given by Wembley. Nobody questioned the representatives of Wembley on that day about this verbal undertaking. So other Urban Councillors and I accepted the explanation of Wembley's representatives that there was a verbal undertaking between Wembley and EPD to jointly monitor the noise level at the Stadium for the first three months of the opening of the Stadium. I think it is up to Members to decide how reliable the information was.

MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):-I recall that meeting, Mr. Chairman. It is impossible for us to dispute over the information given by Wembley. But the EPD still continues to object to the holding of pop concerts at the Hong Kong Stadium. That is why we now doubt the reliability of the undertaking. Concerning the reply given by Wembley at that meeting, we doubt whether it was true that EPD really made an undertaking. In the reply given by Mr. LAU, it seems that EPD did make the undertaking but we really don't know whether EPD has made that undertaking.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-If Mr. San Stephen Wong is still discontent with the reply, I think I would have to probe into the matter further to see whether that was a firm undertaking. But on the 10 April Concerning the Famine 30 concert on the radio or on TV interviews with residents living in the vicinity, I heard a resident said that the noise level was now more acceptable. As for the participants of the concert, some said that the volume was too low and as a result those at the upper tier couldn't hear and they decided to return home. So I think in future, the BOG will have to investigate into all these issues in depth and by that time I can answer Mr. San Stephen WONG's question.

THE HON. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I hope Mr. Lau will tell us one thing. When we talk about people at the Stadium having a verbal understanding with the EPD, do we have evidence to show that apart from jointly monitoring the situation, they will also treat this as a grace period. In other words, there won't be any prosecution during this period of joint monitoring. We accept suggestions from EPD as to how to control noise and yet it may still be in excess of the prescribed limit. So would we be going back to that particular occasion? In other words, was there any misunderstanidng on our part that if we followed what they said then there wouldn't be any prosecution?

Page 7 of 115

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-I have spoken at length in answering this question not because I want to show that the Urban Council is to be absolved of all responsibilities, but rather to show that the BOG has made it very clear to Wembley that it should co-operate very closely with EPD. In fact, Wembley and EPD have been working very closely together. I hope that the co-operation would continue. As an Urban Councillor, I don't think that it is appropriate to ask EPD not to prosecute us. I think we should emphasize co-operation.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, neither Wembley nor the BOG asked that question. In other words, we did not ask for leniency or non prosecution but rather there was an understanding during the three months' period that there would be joint monitoring. As to whether there would be any prosecution during the monitoring period, I am afraid I can't answer that question.

DR. STAN CHEUNG TSANG-KAY (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I am an appointed member. This is my second term already. Today, this question has lasted over 50 minutes. There are a lot of supplementary questions. As I recall, the duration is a record breaking one. I am in full admiration of Mr. LAU's way in answering the question. May I have your permission to approach Mr. LAU and shake hands with him to congratulate him.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-All these are not questions. But I will grant you this special favour.

MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-The question concerns the recruitment of lifeguards by the Urban Services Department and the measures taken to ensure that they are holders of formal life-saving certificates.

1994 — Page 7

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note