HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
541
for more than three weeks in May and June from 7-10 p.m. each night for a football competition. Is this reasonable? If we support the motion today, does it mean we have accepted the application? I do not think it is a reasonable arrangement to lease out the pitches for so long, thus barring other organizations from the use of the venue. This is my first point and I would like you to think about it.
The second point is that we do not have a list of the activities to be held. So if we carry the motion today, we are falling into a bottomless pit. The Urban Council will have to spend a lot on celebration activities. The Democratic Party observes that the government has put in $230 million. As another Member just mentioned, $40 million has been earmarked for some recreational and community development activities. If the Council puts in more money for celebrations, are we seriously thinking about the interest of the community? Mr. IP said all Chinese people are happy to see the return of Hong Kong, I think we should look at this from the standpoint of Hong Kong citizens. Do we all want to see the Council barring other organizations from the use of our venue and at the same time falling into a bottomless pit? The Democratic Party opposes today's motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to speak initially. However, after listening to Mr. KAM, I must make the following points.
Mr. Chairman, I support this motion not in the capacity as a member of the Association for the Celebration of the Return of Hong Kong, but on a matter of principle. The words used in the motion are co-operation, assistance and organizing.
Mr. KAM has two worries. The first one is that support for the motion bars other organizations from the chance to hold activities. I have read the motion, but I do not share that view about the motion because other organizations can still apply for use of other venues under the management of the Council. I think the motion states the Council's attitude in principle and that in principle, we support this historical turn of events.
The second point of worry for Mr. Kam is public interest. He says the motion will lead to a bottomless pit, meaning the Council will have to accept even if the Association proposes a budget of $1 billion for celebration activities. I do not see that meaning in the motion. Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. I understand and it is my absolute understanding that the motion seeks support in principle, other matters such as venue, dates, financial arrangements will be handled by the Standing Committee or relevant Select Committees. Under such circumstances, Mr. KAM's worry will be removed. If we state this clearly, I don't think they will vote against the motion. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the original mover state the above clearly when he exercises his right of reply later on to remove worries. As for myself, as I
Page 493 of 498
Page 493
Page 493 of 498
Page 493 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
541
ffor more than three weeks in May and June from 7-10 p.m. each night for a football competition. Is this reasonable? If we support the motion today, does iit mean we have accepted the application? I do not think it is a reasonable carrangement to lease out the pitches for so long, thus barring other corganizations from the use of the venue. This is my first point and I would like
you to think about it.
The second point is that we do not have a list of the activities to be held. So if we carry the motion today, we are falling into a bottomless pit. The Urban Council will have to spend a lot on celebration activities. The Democratic Party observes that the government has put in $230 million. As another Member just mentioned, $40 million has been earmarked for some recreational and community development activities. If the Council puts in more money for celebrations, are we seriously thinking about the interest of the community? Mr. IP said all Chinese people are happy to see the return of Hong Kong, I think we should look at this from the standpoint of Hong Kong citizens. Do we all want to see the Council barring other organizations from the use of our venue and at the same time falling into a bottomless pit? The Democratic Party opposes today's motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to speak initially. However, after listening to Mr. KAM, I must make the following points.
Mr. Chairman, I support this motion not in the capacity as a member of the Association for the Celebration of the Return of Hong Kong, but on a matter of principle. The words used in the motion are co-operation, assistance and organizing.
Mr. KAM has two worries. The first one is that support for the motion bars other organizations from the chance to hold activities. I have read the motion. but I do not share that view about the motion because other organizations can still apply for use of other venues under the management of the Council. I think the motion states the Council's attitude in principle and that in principle. we support this historical turn of events.
The second point of worry for Mr. Kam is public interest. He says the motion will lead to a bottomless pit, meaning the Council will have to accept even if the Association proposes a budget of $1 billion for celebration activities. I do not see that meaning in the motion. Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. I understand and it is my absolute understanding that the motion seeks support in principle, other matters such as venue, dates, financial arrangements will be handled by the Standing Committee or relevant Select Committees. Under such circumstances, Mr. KAM's worry will be removed. If we state this clearly, I don't think they will vote against the motion. Therefore. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the original mover state the above clearly when he exercises his right of reply later on to remove worries. As for myself, as I
Page 493 01 490
Page 493 of 498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.