MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, I agree with the Policy Address that in order to build a liveable city, urban landscape has to be conserved and renewed continuously. In this speech, I will express my views on urban development from the perspective of the tourism industry.

 

First of all, with regard to the planning of Invigorating Island South, the Chief Executive proposed for the first time the Invigorating Island South initiative to develop the Southern District into a place full of vibrancy and vigour for people to work, live, explore new ideas and have fun. A proposal for the rebirth of Ocean Park is included. The Chief Executive stated that the experience gained from the Energizing Kowloon East initiative will be drawn on in implementing the Invigorating Island South. However, the positionings of the two initiatives are actually different. The Kowloon East initiative is business-oriented aiming at developing a second CBD, while Invigorating Island South is a community planning with innovation and leisure as the main features. As I have said before, there is no systematic planning on tourism in Hong Kong. Tourism facilities and investments are relatively scattered, which is obviously inadequate when compared with Sentosa in Singapore and Hengqin Island in Zhuhai. This time, the Government has taken the initiative to put forward the concept of Invigorating Island South, which is worthy of recognition. I hope the Government will draw up expeditiously the specific details and timetable of the plan so that Hong Kong people can see the new face of Island South.

 

As an important element of Invigorating Island South, the Ocean Park has to be preserved and developed. The Government has just announced the proposal for the rebirth of Ocean Park in which the biggest changes include repositioning the theme park into a resort destination, providing free access to the lower park area and upgrading the facilities at the upper park area so as to address persistent losses and future development. As a matter of fact, the transformation of the Ocean Park is long overdue. Its attendance has been stagnant or even on the decline in recent years in the face of competition from Zhuhai, ageing facilities and uncompetitive admission fee. Even with the number of tourists reaching record highs in recent years, the Ocean Park has still recorded losses for several years in a row. I hope the Government and the management of the Ocean Park will make a summing-up and a better planning according to its new positioning and formulate a long-term conservation direction for future development which I believe will obtain public support.

 

I think there are several points worth noting in the transformation plan of the Ocean Park. First, the future development plan has to be devised properly in order to avoid further capital injections by the Government. Second, appropriate arrangements have to be made for the some 2 000 existing employees who have brought joy to the public and contributed to the tourism industry and the park over the years. The Ocean Park should avoid layoffs as far as possible. It can arrange for its employees to be transferred to other suitable posts through enhanced training, or asked its contractors to give priority to employing existing employees. Third, the Ocean Park should take appropriate cut-off measures during the transition period in order to allay public concern. Fourth, the Government will allocate a total of $1.12 billion to the Ocean Park for the promotion of conservation and education. The Ocean Park should formulate plans as soon as possible. Apart from continuing the effective current practices, more importantly, innovative thinking should be adopted in promoting conservation in the community and schools so as to benefit our next generation and achieve value for money.

 

Moreover, on community conservation, the Policy Address only mentions the development of old urban areas and conservation of environment, but not the conservation and revitalization of heritage sites. Recently, a 100-year-old cistern has been unearthed during a demolition project at Bishop Hill in Sham Shui Po. Some stone columns and ceilings of the Romanesque cistern have been damaged, showing the omissions and inadequacies of the current heritage conservation efforts in Hong Kong. The reform on heritage conservation and revitalization mechanism in Hong Kong is a question for the authorities to ponder on. In fact, a number of heritage sites scattered in various districts and country parks are not properly preserved, let alone revitalized. In addition to the architecture that was almost destroyed this time, there are many forgotten heritage sites. For instance, the Devil's Peak cannon and fort ruins in Yau Tong have been left unmanaged for a long time. The Kwun Tong District Council has carried out improvement works and built access roads to the site, but the damaged areas were only fenced off with barbed wire and no repair and conservation works have been done to this valuable site according to heritage standard. The site is now completely unrecognizable due to damages and illegal conversion.

 

Another example is the Wun Yiu Kiln Site, a declared monument in Tai Po with more than 400 years of history. The Government has set up an exhibition area showcasing the archaeological artefacts. However, the kiln site is only enclosed with a simple fence which is left unrepaired after being damaged. A large number of broken pieces of blue-and-white porcelain from the Ming and Qing dynasties were there for people to pick up. The site is now overgrown with weeds and hardly noticed by passers-by. We can only rely on pictures to recall how the site used to look like.

 

The above mentioned examples show that the Government has to carry out heritage conservation systematically and draw on overseas experience. Properly repaired heritage sites should be kept intact and retain their historical values. More importantly, they should be revitalized and turned into tourism resources to enhance their appreciation values and increase the interest of the public and tourists through various publicity efforts. Some successful examples in Hong Kong include Tai Kwun and Jao Tsung-I Academy. Surely, it is indeed difficult to make additional investment in the conservation and revitalization of some remote or less well-known heritage sites. Nevertheless, the Government may take into account the local conditions and combine the surrounding country parks and other tourism resources to package the heritage sites into tourist routes in collaboration with the Hong Kong Tourism Board and the tourism industry. They can then be promoted to overseas and local visitors according to their characteristics through various channels so as to give full play to their potentials.

 

President, the Policy Address points out that there is no conflict between increasing land supply and building a quality living environment. I opine that there is also no conflict in incorporating tourism elements into building a quality living environment. Tourism brings people flow, vitality and jobs to the districts. The development of tourism can coexist with district needs as long as the Government can draw up better urban planning and consult various districts and major stakeholders. In this way, sustainable urban development can definitely be achieved.

 

With these remarks, President, I support the Motion of Thanks.