1995 — Page 47

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 47 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

for this purpose? So are there two standards in measuring the utilization rate? Is it true that hirers usage is more acceptable than Council's usage? Secondly, does the Ko Shan Theatre provide the same kind of facilities as a multi-purpose civic centre?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):--Mr. Li has just asked which kind of usage is accepted as utilization rate? I can say that all programmes held in the civic centre will be counted for the purpose of calculating utilization. I just hope to let Mr. Li understand the full picture by giving the analysis. It is not a matter of definition and I would just like to give more information to Mr. LI. That is the first question. We all understand that Ko Shan Theatre is essentially a theatre, and one of the main facilities of the civic centre is the theatre. The difference is in size only. The Ko Shan Theatre has a seating capacity of 1,000 and a theatre in a civic centre has a capacity of about 443. They are of the same type.

MR. TIM S. MANUEL CHAN (in Cantonese):--My question is related to paragraph 4. It is about the usage rate of small civic centres and the recommendation of the Director of Audit. The Director of Audit proposed a moratorium on all civic centres and the Sai Wan Ho Civic Centre is mentioned. Was the decision made without regard to geographical consideration and the population distribution? Is it because they have made a wrong decision to build a civic centre in a wrong place resulting in a low utilization rate? Since then, no consideration has been given to building civic centres in other areas. Have you considered Chai Wan which has a population of over 200,000? The decision made in 1988 or 1989 is already 7 years from now. One day if there are insufficient civic centre facilities for the general population, it may lead to discontent. By then, it will take over 10 years to build a new civic centre. I would like to ask whether the moratorium is an indefinite one or has the Department regularly reviewed the usage figures? Secondly, will you deal with the matter flexibly in view of changing circumstances?

Mr. Pao Ping-WING (in Cantonese):—First, I am not going to answer the question relating to Sai Wan Ho Civic Centre because this question is not related to Sai Wan Ho. It is a question concerning the Kwun Tong District. Secondly, generally speaking Government has accepted the Director of Audit's report in 1988. Since the funding comes from the Government, there is nothing the Council can do. If we look at the matter in a rational manner, we must give ample justifications and evidence to convince the Government to fund such projects. Concerning evidence, it does not mean that we have to rely on the figures in 1988. The Culture Select Committee can consider the matter further. The most important factors are utilization rate and demands. If the utilization is low, how can we convince others that there is a demand for another civic centre. So I hope that we can consider the matter in detail before we are confident to take this up with the Government.

Page 47 of 485

Edit History

2026-05-15 22:55:54 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 47 of 485 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 25 for this purpose? So are there two standards in measuring the utilization rate? Is it true that hirers usage is more acceptable than Council's usage? Secondly, does the Ko Shan Theatre provide the same kind of facilities as a multi-purpose civic centre? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):--Mr. Li has just asked which kind of usage is accepted as utilization rate? I can say that all programmes held in the civic centre will be counted for the purpose of calculating utilization. I just hope to let Mr. Li understand the full picture by giving the analysis. It is not a matter of definition and I would just like to give more information to Mr. LI. That is the first question. We all understand that Ko Shan Theatre is essentially a theatre, and one of the main facilities of the civic centre is the theatre. The difference is in size only. The Ko Shan Theatre has a seating capacity of 1,000 and a theatre in a civic centre has a capacity of about 443. They are of the same type. MR. TIM S. MANUEL CHAN (in Cantonese):--My question is related to paragraph 4. It is about the usage rate of small civic centres and the recommendation of the Director of Audit. The Director of Audit proposed a moratorium on all civic centres and the Sai Wan Ho Civic Centre is mentioned. Was the decision made without regard to geographical consideration and the population distribution? Is it because they have made a wrong decision to build a civic centre in a wrong place resulting in a low utilization rate? Since then, no consideration has been given to building civic centres in other areas. Have you considered Chai Wan which has a population of over 200,000? The decision made in 1988 or 1989 is already 7 years from now. One day if there are insufficient civic centre facilities for the general population, it may lead to discontent. By then, it will take over 10 years to build a new civic centre. I would like to ask whether the moratorium is an indefinite one or has the Department regularly reviewed the usage figures? Secondly, will you deal with the matter flexibly in view of changing circumstances? Mr. Pao Ping-WING (in Cantonese):—First, I am not going to answer the question relating to Sai Wan Ho Civic Centre because this question is not related to Sai Wan Ho. It is a question concerning the Kwun Tong District. Secondly, generally speaking Government has accepted the Director of Audit's report in 1988. Since the funding comes from the Government, there is nothing the Council can do. If we look at the matter in a rational manner, we must give ample justifications and evidence to convince the Government to fund such projects. Concerning evidence, it does not mean that we have to rely on the figures in 1988. The Culture Select Committee can consider the matter further. The most important factors are utilization rate and demands. If the utilization is low, how can we convince others that there is a demand for another civic centre. So I hope that we can consider the matter in detail before we are confident to take this up with the Government. Page 47 of 485 Page 47 of 485 Page 47 of 485

Baseline (Original)

Page 47 of 485 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 25 for this purpose? So are there two standards in measuring the utilization rate? Is it true that hirers usage is more acceptable than Council's usage? Secondly, does the Ko Shan Theatre provide the same kind of facilities as a multi-purpose civic centre? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):--Mr. Li has just asked which kind of usage is accepted as utilization rate? I can say that all programmes held in the civic centre will be counted for the purpose of calculating utilization. I just hope to let Mr. Lt understand the full picture by giving the analysis. It is not a matter of definition and I would just like to give more information to Mr. LI. That is the first question. We all understand that Ko Shan Theatre is essentially a theatre, and one of the main facilities of the civic centre is the theatre. The difference is in size only. The Ko Shan Theatre has a seating capacity of 1 000 and a theatre in a civic centre has a capacity of about 443. They are of the same Lype. MR. TIM S. MANUEL CHAN (in Cantonese):--My question is related to para- graph 4. It is about the usage rate of small civic centres and the recommendation of the Director of Audit. The Director of Audit proposed a moratorium on all civic centres and the Sai Wan Ho Civic Centre is mentioned. Was the decision made without regard to geographical consideration and the population distribution? Is it because they have made a wrong decision to build a civic centre in a wrong place resulting in a low utilization rate? Since then, no consideration has been given to building civic centres in other areas. Have you considered Chai Wan which has a population of over 200 000? The decision made in 1988 or 1989 is already 7 years from now. One day if there are insufficient civic centre facilities for the general population, it may lead to discontent. By then, it will taken over 10 years to build a new civic centre. I would like to ask whether the moratorium is an indefinite one or has the Department regularly reviewed the usage figures? Secondly, will you deal with the matter flexibly in view of changing circumstances? Mr. Pao Ping-WING (in Cantonese):—First, I am not going to answer the question relating to Sai Wan Ho Civic Centre because this question is not related to Sai Wan Ho. It is a question concerning the Kwun Tong District. Secondly, generally speaking Government has accepted the Director of Audit's report in 1988. Since the funding comes from the Government, there is nothing the Council can do. If we look at the matter in a rational manner, we must give ample justifications and evidence to convince the Government to fund such projects. Concerning evidence, it does not mean that we have to rely on the figures in 1988. The Culture Select Committee can consider the matter further. The most important factors are utilization rate and demands. If the utilization is low, how can we convince others that there is a demand for another civic centre. So I hope that we can consider the matter in detail before we are confident to take this up with the Government. Page 47 of 485 Page 47 of 485 Page 47 of 485-

2026-05-15 22:55:54 · Baseline

View content

Page 47 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):--Mr. Li has just asked which kind of usage is accepted as utilization rate? I can say that all programmes held in the civic centre will be counted for the purpose of calculating utilization. I just hope to let Mr. Lt understand the full picture by giving the analysis. It is not a matter of definition and I would just like to give more information to Mr. LI. That is the first question. We all understand that Ko Shan Theatre is essentially a theatre, and one of the main facilities of the civic centre is the theatre. The difference is in size only. The Ko Shan Theatre has a seating capacity of 1 000 and a theatre in a civic centre has a capacity of about 443. They are of the same Lype.

MR. TIM S. MANUEL CHAN (in Cantonese):--My question is related to para- graph 4. It is about the usage rate of small civic centres and the recommendation of the Director of Audit. The Director of Audit proposed a moratorium on all civic centres and the Sai Wan Ho Civic Centre is mentioned. Was the decision made without regard to geographical consideration and the population distribution? Is it because they have made a wrong decision to build a civic centre in a wrong place resulting in a low utilization rate? Since then, no consideration has been given to building civic centres in other areas. Have you considered Chai Wan which has a population of over 200 000? The decision made in 1988 or 1989 is already 7 years from now. One day if there are insufficient civic centre facilities for the general population, it may lead to discontent. By then, it will taken over 10 years to build a new civic centre. I would like to ask whether the moratorium is an indefinite one or has the Department regularly reviewed the usage figures? Secondly, will you deal with the matter flexibly in view of changing circumstances?

1995 — Page 47

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note