Page 568 of 654
508 of 654
Page 568 of 654
562
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
increased. This is because rentals are not necessarily increased in April. The rentals of each market are revised once every two to three years after its tenancy is signed. To exaggerate it, there are markets with their rentals being increased every two months or even every month. If we were to freeze the current rental increases, we must work out further as to how we should handle those stall lessees who have just had a rental increase. Should we reduce their rentals or should we do something else? I therefore consider that Ms. CHOW's motion on further examining the reduction of the various charges and rentals is in line with the objective factors and the principle of fairness, or else we would only be solving the problem of freezing rentals but not that concerning stall lessees who have just had a rental revision. I consider that the issue has to be objectively and thoroughly handled.
Just now I praised Ms. CHOW for being ready to shoulder the consequences. I consider that since it is the Council's decision, the Council should shoulder the consequences itself. It should maintain its services even without recovering the costs from the Central Government. I am sure all of us do not agree with the approach that there would be no freezing or further reduction of rentals if no supplementary provision was granted by the Central Government. Since we do not agree with this, there is no need to put forth the proposal. We should treat the issue of financial provision in a more comprehensive context, as a Member suggested just now, instead of tackling it piecemeal. I consider this to be a more appropriate approach. Just now a Member asked whether the actual cost of rental reduction had been worked out. As far as I understand, and as a colleague in fact mentioned, freezing rentals would mean a loss of $80m in revenue. As everyone is aware, this is by no means a piece of information collected by members of a certain political party. It has been generally known since the issue was raised for discussion, the same issue I talked about in the press. This is in fact a piece of information provided by the Assistant Director of Urban Services (Finance) at our request. I think we knew about this figure about two weeks ago. It is not some proactive move on the part of any political party or Member at all. It is something that everyone knows. Regarding our future action, as I have just said, in further examining the reduction of the various charges and rentals as proposed by Ms. CHOW, full implication on the Council's financial situation must be taken into consideration. I consider that to handle it this way would be more appropriate.
Because of the above reasons, I support Ms. CHOW's amended motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Shane Zee Sze-yong (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, in principle I support Ms. Chow's amended motion, because what is proposed in it can be regarded as an emergency measure and its objective is three-fold.
Firstly, if the motion was carried, the economic problems that the people of Hong Kong are experiencing would be solved. This is the first objective.
Page 568 of 654
508 of 654
Page 568 of 654
562
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
increased. This is because rentals are not necessarily increased in April. The rentals of each market are revised once every two to three years after its tenancy is signed. To exaggerate it, there are markets with their rentals being increased every two months or even every month. If we were to freeze the current rental increases, we must work out further as to how we should handle those stall lessees who have just had a rental increase. Should we reduce their rentals or should we do something else? I therefore consider that Ms. CHOW's motion on further examining the reduction of the various charges and rentals is in line with the objective factors and the principle of fairness, or else we would only be solving the problem of freezing rentals but not that concerning stall lessces who have just had a rental revision. I consider that the issue has to be objectively and thoroughly handled.
Just now I praised Ms. CHow for being ready to shoulder the consequences. I consider that since it is the Council's decision, the Council should shoulder the consequences itself. It should maintain its services even without recovering the costs from the Central Government. I am sure all of us do not agree with the approach that there would be no freezing or further reduction of rentals if no supplementary provision was granted by the central government. Since we do not agree with this, there is no need to put forth the proposal. We should treat the issue of financial provision in a more comprehensive context, as a Member suggested just now, instead of tackling it piecemeal. I consider this to be a more appropriate approach. Just now a Member asked whether the actual cost of rental reduction had been worked out. As far as I understand, and as a colleague in fact mentioned, freezing rentals would mean a loss of $80m in revenue. As everyone is aware, this is by no means a piece of information collected by members of a certain political party. It has been generally known since the issue was raised for discussion, the same issue I talked about in the press. This is in fact a piece of information provided by the Assistant Director of Urban Services (Finance) at our request. I think we knew about this figure about two weeks ago. It is not some proactive move on the part of any political party or Member at all. It is something that everyone knows. Regarding our future action, as I have just said, in further examining the reduction of the various charges and rentals as proposed by Ms. CHOW, full implication on the Council's financial situation must be taken into consideration. I consider that to handle it this way would be more appropriate.
Because of the above reasons, I support Ms. CHOW's amended motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Shane Zee Sze-yong (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, in principle I support Ms. Chow's amended motion, because what is proposed in it can be regarded as an emergency measure and its objective is three-fold.
Firstly, if the motion was carried, the economic problems that the people of Hong Kong are experiencing would be solved. This is the first objective.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.