of 654
558
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
supplementary provision would be sought from the Government. This overall message is already there. Even if it is not included in today's discussion and motions, it is already there, but since it is included, it might result in a situation in which every future action is directly linked with the issue of financial sources. I consider this is uncalled for.
Mr. Chairman, these were my remarks on the four motions. In the end, I tend to support Ms. CHOW's amended motion. The only point is that Ms. CHOW's amended motion proposes to further examine the reduction of hire charges and rentals of the Council venues while I prefer focusing on rentals and licence fees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHOW Kwok-leung (in Cantonese):—There are three points I wish to add to explain why I support Mr. TAM Kwok-kiu's amended motion.
The first point is that the proposal in the motion of asking for funds to make up for the deficit is by no means a condition. We wish to point out clearly that because of the cut of more than $3b in the Government's financial provision to the Council, for the past couple of years the Council has been racking its brains in developing options which could improve its financial situation. Some projects have even been slashed or postponed because of the financial straits. This is why we support the request for supplementary provision from the Central Government. We are afraid that without this, more projects on municipal facilities now being studied would be affected. Funding for the UC Complex on Tung Chau Street, the UC Complex on Wing Hong Street and the extension of Lai Wan Market is needed. If we froze or reduced charges for the sake of sympathizing with the public and weathering these hard times with them, thereby causing further delay to these projects, it would not be in the interests of the public at all. If more funding was sought from the Government, it would be conducive to the provision of these facilities at an early date for public use.
Secondly, some organizations are already considering reduction of rentals for their shops. As an elected Council, we should consider reducing the rentals of some of our venues, especially markets and cooked food centres, or else our image would further be undermined. People would regard this group of elected Councillors to be indifferent. We should therefore consider reduction.
Thirdly, what we propose in the motion is not to stall for time or take our time in identifying items for rental reduction or the range of reduction. Rather we hope that reduction of certain items will be implemented immediately, especially markets and cooked food centres that we have mentioned. If we took our time in studying and re-discussing the issue or caused any further delay, another two to three months might lapse before anything could be done. This is inefficiency, or making an empty promise. I consider that the proposal for reduction in the motion should be implemented as quickly as possible. We have emphasized these two issues in the hope that the proposal for reduction
61 of 651
-£654
of 654
558
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
supplementary provision would be sought from the Government. This overall message is already there. Even if it is not included in today's discussion and motions, it is already there, but since it is included, it might result in a situation in which every future action is directly linked with the issue of financial sources. I consider this is uncalled for.
Mr. Chairman, these were my remarks on the four motions. In the end, I tend to support Ms. CHOW's amended motion. The only point is that Ms. CHOW's amended motion proposes to further examine the reduction of hire charges and rentals of the Council venues while I prefer focusing on rentals and licence fees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHOW KwOK-LEUNG (in Cantonese):—There are three points I wish to add to explain why I support Mr. TAM Kwok-kiu's amended motion.
The first point is that the proposal in the motion of asking for funds to make up for the deficit is by no means a condition. We wish to point out clearly that because of the cut of more than $3b in the Government's financial provision to the Council, for the past couple of years the Council has been racking its brains in developing options which could improve its financial situation. Some projects have even been slashed or postponed because of the financial straits. This is why we support the request for supplementary provision from the Central Government. We are afraid that without this, more projects on municipal facilities now being studied would be affected. Funding for the UC Complex on Tung Chau Street, the UC Complex on Wing Hong Street and the extension of Lai Wan Market is needed. If we froze or reduced charges for the sake of sympathizing with the public and weathering these hard times with them, thereby causing further delay to these projects, it would not be in the interests of the public at all. If more funding was sought from the Government. it would be conducive to the provision of these facilities at an early date for public use.
Secondly, some organizations are already considering reduction of rentals for their shops. As an elected Council, we should consider reducing the rentals of some of our venues, especially markets and cooked food centres, or else our image would further be undermined. People would regard this group of elected Councillors to be indisserent. We should therefore consider reduction.
Thirdly, what we propose in the motion is not to stall for time or take our time in identifying items for rental reduction or the range of reduction. Rather we hope that reduction of certain items will be implemented immediately. especially markets and cooked food centres that we have mentioned. If we took our time in studying and re-discussing the issue or caused any further delay, another two to three months might lapse before anything could be done. This is inefficiency, or making an empty promise. I consider that the proposal for reduction in the motion should be implemented as quickly as possible. We have emphasized these two issues in the hope that the proposal for reduction
61 of 651.
-£654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.