Page 73
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
51
Although USD has written to the Departments concerned, why it did not inform the Council of these developments well in advance? Why was the Council not alerted? The USD should be held responsible. One of the most important points in the paper is that the USD proposed not to grant the contract for Lai Chi Kok Park for two reasons. First, the contract was worth $105 m, if the Park's usage was for only 1 year it was against public interest and not cost effective. Secondly, if the Department proposes to proceed despite the fact that there was a potential conflict between the Lai Chi Kok Park project and the railway, there would be strong public reaction and the Department would be severely criticized by the mass media. That is the conclusion of the USD. Mr. Chairman, if I am in the capacity to vet the content of the paper put forth by the USD, I would not have allowed this paper to be drafted along this line. If the USD is the executive arm of the Council, or is working in partnership with the Urban Council and if it is not defending other departments, then I cannot see how such conclusion could be drawn in the paper. The Urban Council should not be criticized for acting contrary to public interest and it is the Hong Kong Government, and the Lands Department which allocated the land to the Urban Council. I would like to ask the Director of the Urban Services and the officials concerned to review their policies. In future, when they draft papers they should consult the Council well in advance, and they should protect the interests of the Council instead of that of other departments. DUS together with other departmental officers should carry out the policies formulated by the Council and work in partnership with the Council. I would like to second Mr. NG's motion and I hope Members can support Mr. NG's motion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The motion has been duly moved and duly seconded. I will call on those who have indicated their wishes to speak according to the list. First Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG.
Mr. Ambrose Cheung (in Cantonese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. On Mr. NG Wing-fai's motion Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with it on the question of procedure first. In accordance with Standing Order 15(c) the Council can refer any matter before the Council to a Committee. Now I would like to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee in accordance with Standing Order 15(e). The main reason for doing so is that both the mover and the seconder said that the motion or the subject matter has been discussed repeatedly twice. At present, we have already expressed some worries and discontent. During the past two occasions, we have got some positive results. We have set up a Working Party and in the next 3 months it will be working hard to find a positive solution to solve the problem. The motion moved by Mr. NG, actually is a motion of censure, because in the motion it asks the Council to express regret and strong discontent over the issue. Actually we have to trace the culprit. Up to this moment we are still unable to find out the culprit. And this motion asks the Council to express its view at this point in time. This is not an appropriate time, so in accordance
Page 73 of 485
Page 73 01 405
Page 73 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
51
Although USD has written to the Departments concerned, why it did not inform the Council of these developments well in advance? Why was the Council not alerted? The USD should be held responsible. One of the most important points in the paper is that the USD proposed not to grant the contract for Lai Chi Kok Park for two reasons. First, the contract was worth $105 m, if the Park's usage was for only 1 year it was against public interest and not cost effective. Secondly, if the Department proposes to proceed despite the fact that there was a potential conflict between the Lai Chi Kok Park project and the railway, there would be strong public reaction and the Department would be severely criticized by the mass media. That is the conclusion of the USD. Mr. Chairman, if I am in the capacity to vet the content of the paper put forth by the USD, I would not have allowed this paper to be drafted along this line. If the USD is the executive arm of the Council, or is working in partnership with the Urban Council and if it is not defending other departments, then I cannot see how such conclusion could be drawn in the paper. The Urban Council should not be criticized for acting contrary to public interest and it is the Hong Kong Government, and the Lands Department which allocated the land to the Urban Council. I would like to ask the Director of the Urban Services and the officials concerned to review their policies. In future, then they draft papers they should consult the Council well in advance, and they should protect the interests of the Council instead of that of other departments. DUS together with other departmental officers should carry out the policies formulated by the Council and work in partnership with the Council. I would like to second Mr. NG's motion and I hope Members can support Mr. NG's motion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-The motion has been duly moved and duly seconded. I will call on those who have indicated their wishes to speak according to the list. First Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG.
Mr. Ambrose Cheung (in Cantonese):-Thank you Mr. Chairman. On Mr. NG Wing-fai's motion Mr. Chairman 1 would like to deal with it on the question of procedure first. In accordance with Standing Order 15(c) the Council can refer any matter before the Council to a Committee. Now I would like to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee in accordance with Standing Order 15(e). The main reason for doing to is that both the mover and the seconder said that the motion or the subject matter has been discussed repeatedly twice. At present, we have already expressed some worries and discontent. During the past two occasions, we have got some positive results. We have set up a Working Party and in the next 3 months it will be working hard to find a positive solution to solve the problemn. The motion moved by Mr. NG, actually is a motion of censure, because in the motion it asks the Council to express regret and strong discontent over the issue. Actually we have to trace the culprit. Up to this moment we are still unable to find out the culprit. And this motion asks the Council to express its view at this point in time. This is not an appropriate time, so in accordance
Page
Page 73 of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.