Page 642 of 654
054
632
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
out that the resolution is meant to be a long-term or short-term measure. If it was meant to be a long-term measure, would it mean that the Council's established policies would have to be changed, or would it mean that every time when a facility or an activity is planned, this would have to be taken into consideration?
As for the Council's functions, everyone is aware that they are to effectively take care of the livelihood of the people with a view to improving the quality of urban living.
The Council is operating on the principle of ploughing back to the people what it gets from them. Out of the revenue from the rates paid by the people, the Council provides not only municipal and hygienic services, but also cultural and recreational facilities in its commitment to upgrade the cultural and artistic standards and quality of living in Hong Kong. The targets of our services are basically the people of Hong Kong.
However, what the motion recommends seems to have deviated from the Council's essential functions and changed the main recipients of our services. If the rationale behind the motion was to propose some short-term measures to indirectly help boost the tourist industry, which is suffering from a downturn, with the Council's available resources, I would have no objection.
The Council has all along been supporting and taking part in activities indirectly promoting tourism, such as the Clean Hong Kong Campaign and the public toilet improvement scheme. These are all aimed at giving overseas visitors a good impression of Hong Kong, which is conducive to the development of tourism.
It has been my deep concern to promote the economy of Hong Kong and particularly at this time when tourism is on the downturn, I agree that we should do our best in helping boost the tourist industry. I would further suggest that the Government consider setting up a Tourism Bureau to be fully responsible for the reviewing of and planning for the promotion of the tourist industry. I must stress that I am not objecting to the idea that the Council may attend to the promotion of tourism as a sideline in addition to its primary functions and services, but this is not the main use of our resources, or else in terms of the Council's functions, which are to service the local public, it would be putting the cart before the horse and have its role confused. Moreover, given the limited resources of the Council, we should all the more accord priority to our main targets and functions in the use and allocation of our resources. Accordingly, I doubt whether we can afford to allocate additional resources to the resolution made in the motion without undermining the quality of our services for the local people. I am very worried about this too. I am therefore opposed to the original motion.
I wish to stress here that it is our duty to promote the economy of Hong Kong and to save the tourist industry. I would suggest that the Government
Page 642 of 654
Page 642 of 654
Page 642 of 654
054
632
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
out that the resolution is meant to be a long-term or short-term measure. If it was meant to be a long-term measure, would it mean that the Council's established policies would have to be changed, or would it mean that every time when a facility or an activity is planned, this would have to be taken into consideration?
As for the Council's functions, everyone is aware that they are to effectively take care of the livelihood of the people with a view to improving the quality of urban living.
The Council is operating on the principle of ploughing back to the people what it gets from them. Out of the revenue from the rates paid by the people, the Council provides not only municipal and hygienic services, but also cultural and recreational facilities in its commitment to upgrade the cultural and artistic standards and quality of living in Hong Kong. The targets of our services are basically the people of Hong Kong.
However, what the motion recommends seems to have deviated from the Council's essential functions and changed the main recipients of our services. If the rationale behind the motion was to propose some short-term measures to indirectly help boost the tourist industry, which is suffering from a downturn, with the Council's available resources, I would have no objection.
The Council has all along been supporting and taking part in activities indirectly promoting tourism, such as the Clean Hong Kong Campaign and the public toilet improvement scheme. These are all aimed at giving overseas visitors a good impression of Hong Kong, which is conducive to the development of tourism.
It has been my deep concern to promote the economy of Hong Kong and particularly at this time when tourism is on the downturn, I agree that we should do our best in helping boost the tourist industry. I would further suggest that the Government consider setting up a Tourism Bureau to be fully responsible for the reviewing of and planning for the promotion of the tourist industry. I must stress that I am not objecting to the idea that the Council may attend to the promotion of tourism as a sideline in addition to its primary functions and services, but this is not the main use of our resources, or else in terms of the Council's functions, which are to service the local public, it would be putting the cart before the horse and have its role confused. Moreover, given the limited resources of the Council, we should all the more accord priority to our main targets and functions in the use and allocation of our resources. Accordingly, I doubt whether we can afford to allocate additional resources to the resolution made in the motion without undermining the quality of our services for the local people. I am very worried about this too. I am therefore opposed to the original motion.
I wish to stress here that it is our duty to promote the economy of Hong Kong and to save the tourist industry. I would suggest that the Government
Page 642 of 654
Page 642 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.