1996 — Page 76

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 76 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

the staging of risky activities at our venues. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fred Li for his questions.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): On the request of Mr. Ronnie WONG, I now recapitulate the discussion at that day's meeting. In fact, Mr. Ambrose Cheung has already responded to the question indirectly. If it is a risky act, will the Council encourage it? As a public political body, the Council is obliged to handle matters cautiously. Other organizations may adopt a more lenient approach.

In his second question, Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG asked whether it was feasible to stage the activity at other venues besides the stadium or a grass pitch. During the discussion on that day, it was observed that there was medical proof of the jumper suffering from bleeding of the cornea after jumping and our medical reports confirmed the activity to be a risky one. It was therefore suggested that the curtain wall construction of the Hong Kong Stadium could cause inconvenience when jumping, not that the activity itself should be banned in Hong Kong. As pointed out by Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG, if the activity could be conducted on a bridge above water, then in the untoward event that there was an accident, it would not be too dangerous for one to fall into the water. That was the discussion on that day. We were not banning the staging of this activity in Hong Kong; we just felt that it would be more appropriate to stage it at a venue other than the Hong Kong Stadium. On that day, the discussion focused on whether it would be appropriate to stage it at the Hong Kong Stadium.

MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese): Mr. CHEUNG also asked another question, i.e. whether it was the Council's stance not to support or encourage such risky activities. In fact, the Council provides a lot of activities to the public as well as manages many venues. I think that, from the perspective of the Council and the Recreation Select Committee, we do not encourage the staging of such risky activities. They are free to arrange such activities at other venues not under the management of the Council. From the standpoint of the Council, we do not encourage such new but highly risky activities.

The Hon. Li Wah-ming (in Cantonese): I am afraid I must cite examples of other activities held at Council venues before, like a boxing competition scheduled to be held at the Hong Kong Stadium which was subsequently cancelled by the organizer. Thai kick boxing competitions were held before at the Coliseum and the Queen Elizabeth Stadium, and they were very dangerous games that could result in casualties. I do not know why the Council gave approval for boxing bodies to hire our venues and yet rejected the application for bungy jumping on the ground of risk. Are we applying double standards? Will Mr. Ronnie Wong please answer this question?

Page 76 of 498

Edit History

2026-05-16 01:09:44 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 76 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 73 the staging of risky activities at our venues. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fred Li for his questions. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): On the request of Mr. Ronnie WONG, I now recapitulate the discussion at that day's meeting. In fact, Mr. Ambrose Cheung has already responded to the question indirectly. If it is a risky act, will the Council encourage it? As a public political body, the Council is obliged to handle matters cautiously. Other organizations may adopt a more lenient approach. In his second question, Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG asked whether it was feasible to stage the activity at other venues besides the stadium or a grass pitch. During the discussion on that day, it was observed that there was medical proof of the jumper suffering from bleeding of the cornea after jumping and our medical reports confirmed the activity to be a risky one. It was therefore suggested that the curtain wall construction of the Hong Kong Stadium could cause inconvenience when jumping, not that the activity itself should be banned in Hong Kong. As pointed out by Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG, if the activity could be conducted on a bridge above water, then in the untoward event that there was an accident, it would not be too dangerous for one to fall into the water. That was the discussion on that day. We were not banning the staging of this activity in Hong Kong; we just felt that it would be more appropriate to stage it at a venue other than the Hong Kong Stadium. On that day, the discussion focused on whether it would be appropriate to stage it at the Hong Kong Stadium. MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese): Mr. CHEUNG also asked another question, i.e. whether it was the Council's stance not to support or encourage such risky activities. In fact, the Council provides a lot of activities to the public as well as manages many venues. I think that, from the perspective of the Council and the Recreation Select Committee, we do not encourage the staging of such risky activities. They are free to arrange such activities at other venues not under the management of the Council. From the standpoint of the Council, we do not encourage such new but highly risky activities. The Hon. Li Wah-ming (in Cantonese): I am afraid I must cite examples of other activities held at Council venues before, like a boxing competition scheduled to be held at the Hong Kong Stadium which was subsequently cancelled by the organizer. Thai kick boxing competitions were held before at the Coliseum and the Queen Elizabeth Stadium, and they were very dangerous games that could result in casualties. I do not know why the Council gave approval for boxing bodies to hire our venues and yet rejected the application for bungy jumping on the ground of risk. Are we applying double standards? Will Mr. Ronnie Wong please answer this question? Page 76 of 498 Page 76 of 498

Baseline (Original)

Page 76 of 498 Page 76 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 73 the staging of risky activities at our venues. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fred Li for his questions. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-On the request of Mr. Ronnie WONG, I now recapitulate the discussion at that day's meeting. In fact, Mr. Ambrose Cheung has already responded to the question indirectly. If it is a risky act, will the Council encourage it? As a public political body, the Council is obliged to handle matters cautiously. Other organizations may adopt a more lenient approach. In his second question, Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG asked whether it was feasible to stage the activity at other venues besides the stadium or a grass pitch. During the discussion on that day, it was observed that there was medical proof of the jumper suffering from bleeding of the cornea after jumping and our medical reports confirmed the activity to be risky one. It was therefore suggested that the curtain wall construction of the Hong Kong Stadium could cause inconvenience when jumping, not that the activity itself should be banned in Hong Kong. As pointed out by Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG, if the activity could be conducted on a bridge above water, then in the untoward event that there was an accident, it would not be too dangerous for one to fall into the water. That was the discussion on that day. We were not banning the staging of this activity in Hong Kong; we just felt that it would be more appropriate to stage it at a venue other than the Hong Kong Stadium. On that day, the discussion focused on whether it would be appropriate to stage it at the Hong Kong Stadium. MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. CHEUNG also asked another question, i.e. whether it was the Council's stance not to support or encourage such risky activities. In fact, the Council provides a lot of activities to the public as well as manages many venues. I think that, from the perspective of the Council and the Recreation Select Committee, we do not encourage the staging of such risky activities. They are free to arrange such activities at other venues not under the management of the Council. From the standpoint of the Council, we do not encourage such new but highly risky activities. The Hon. Li Wah-ming (in Cantonese):—I am afraid I must cite examples of other activities held at Council venues before, like a boxing competition scheduled to be held at the Hong Kong Stadium which was subsequently cancelled by the organizer. Thai kick boxing competitions were held before at the Coliseum and the Queen Elizabeth Stadium, and they were very dangerous games that could result in casualties. I do not know why the Council gave approval for boxing bodies to hire our venues and yet rejected the application for bungy jumping on the ground of risk. Are we applying double standards? Will Mr. Ronnie Wong please answer this question? Page 76 of 498 Page 76 of 498

2026-05-16 01:09:44 · Baseline

View content

Page 76 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

the staging of risky activities at our venues. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fred Li for his questions.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-On the request of Mr. Ronnie WONG, I now recapitulate the discussion at that day's meeting. In fact, Mr. Ambrose Cheung has already responded to the question indirectly. If it is a risky act, will the Council encourage it? As a public political body, the Council is obliged to handle matters cautiously. Other organizations may adopt a more lenient approach.

In his second question, Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG asked whether it was feasible to stage the activity at other venues besides the stadium or a grass pitch. During the discussion on that day, it was observed that there was medical proof of the jumper suffering from bleeding of the cornea after jumping and our medical reports confirmed the activity to be risky one. It was therefore suggested that the curtain wall construction of the Hong Kong Stadium could cause inconvenience when jumping, not that the activity itself should be banned in Hong Kong. As pointed out by Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG, if the activity could be conducted on a bridge above water, then in the untoward event that there was an accident, it would not be too dangerous for one to fall into the water. That was the discussion on that day. We were not banning the staging of this activity in Hong Kong; we just felt that it would be more appropriate to stage it at a venue other than the Hong Kong Stadium. On that day, the discussion focused on whether it would be appropriate to stage it at the Hong Kong Stadium.

MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. CHEUNG also asked another question, i.e. whether it was the Council's stance not to support or encourage such risky activities. In fact, the Council provides a lot of activities to the public as well as manages many venues. I think that, from the perspective of the Council and the Recreation Select Committee, we do not encourage the staging of such risky activities. They are free to arrange such activities at other venues not under the management of the Council. From the standpoint of the Council, we do not encourage such new but highly risky activities.

The Hon. Li Wah-ming (in Cantonese):—I am afraid I must cite examples of other activities held at Council venues before, like a boxing competition scheduled to be held at the Hong Kong Stadium which was subsequently cancelled by the organizer. Thai kick boxing competitions were held before at the Coliseum and the Queen Elizabeth Stadium, and they were very dangerous games that could result in casualties. I do not know why the Council gave approval for boxing bodies to hire our venues and yet rejected the application for bungy jumping on the ground of risk. Are we applying double standards? Will Mr. Ronnie Wong please answer this question?

1996 — Page 76

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note