[KnowItAll]

Folllowing up on this thread - about the cost of the membership to various clubs.

Aussie Expats in Hong Kong - want to start a club

Here's an interesting discussion from Legco:

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary
mentioned in part (a) of the main reply that one of the main factors considered by
the Administration in determining whether land grants would be given was
whether the applicant had adopted a non-discriminatory membership policy.
Nevertheless, we can see from the table that many organizations, such as the
Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club, the Royal Hong Kong Golf Club, the Hong Kong
Country Club and the Hong Kong Jockey Club which have been granted
government land for such purposes, are charging their members exorbitant
membership fees, with some being even as high as one million dollars or more.
For instance, if a person wishes to become a member of the Hong Kong Jockey
Club, he has to be acquainted with some relevant persons and can only gain the
membership through such personal connections. In other words, only the very
rich may afford to join these clubs. May I ask whether this is discriminatory?
May I ask why the Secretary considers the membership policies of these clubs
non-discriminatory?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President,
under a non-discriminatory membership policy, the priority of a person who
applies for membership of a certain organization should not be affected on the
grounds of race, religion, sex or other forms of discrimination. The only
exception is that a certain sports association may give priority to a person who
would take part in sports games for the club, that is, that person has achieved a
certain level in a certain sport and may even represent the association and win
prizes for the association. Another exception is that a debenture holder who
proposes to change the nomination of a member may be granted priority in his
membership application. Besides, the provision of memberships should not
carry any racial, sexual or religious discrimination. In order to ensure the
acceptance of these non-discriminatory membership policies, private clubs or
applicants should, in submitting their land grant applications, prove that there is
no discriminatory element in the enrollment provisions in their memorandum and
articles of association.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not
explained why the policy, which only grants membership to the rich instead of the
penniless, should not be considered discriminatory.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, the
differences in membership fees or other charges of private clubs are subject to
the provision of facilities, the service level and the types of sports activities of
different clubs. However, all of them would make use of the funds and
resources in the development, management and provision of facilities.
Therefore, the level of various charges set by each club should be acceptable to
its members and users. All along, the Government has not interfered with the
fees and charges of private clubs. But as all new applicants are non-profitmaking
independent bodies, we therefore expect the level of charges set by the
relevant organizations for the use of services and facilities should be acceptable
to the public.

MR LEUNG FU-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary
mentioned in part (a)(iii) of the main reply that one of the considerations was
whether the application was supported by the Home Affairs Bureau or other
relevant Policy Bureaux. May I ask the Secretary whether another
consideration would be added, such as whether employees of these organizations
are given fair treatments insofar as their rights are concerned? Madam
President, I would like to cite an example to illustrate my supplementary. With
regards to the Hong Kong Golf Club, which is shown in item 66 in the table in
the Annex of the main reply and which has been established for 21 years and
occupies over 1.7 million sq m of land, over 10 accidents of caddies sustaining
serious injuries have happened in the past five years, but the injured caddies
have never received any pecuniary compensation. Accordingly, if the relevant
policy is reviewed in the future, will the Administration consider adding the
above-mentioned factor before determining whether approval should be granted
and support given?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, we
will take the circumstances of each applicant into consideration. The Bureau
has to take many factors into consideration, such as whether the organization is a
non-profit-making body, whether it represents broad sections of the public, the
membership system, the objects of the applicant, and whether the proposal is of
value and long-term benefit to the promotion of sports and recreational activities
among the public. Since every sports association has to make use of part of the
resources for the development of its own business, therefore the financial
viability, financial strength and administrative competence of the applicant would
be the criteria for land grants and renewal of land lease under consideration. As
for the internal operation mentioned by Mr LEUNG Fu-wah, we would also take
it into consideration, but it will not be the only factor of our consideration.


MR LEUNG FU-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not
answered my supplementary. Of course internal management is one thing, but
the accidents actually took place and caddies did sustain head or mouth injuries.
The Policy Bureau cannot possibly not consider such incidents of unfairness.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I
have nothing to add.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, how does the
Government define sports and recreational purposes? I have raised this
supplementary because I wish to know whether the Government adopts the same
criteria to process applications made by other bodies, such as cultural bodies.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President,
sports and recreational purposes mean purposes in relation to the training of the
body and mind of the general public, which include popular sports activities and
the relevant facilities. At present, the purpose by the name of cultural facility is
not in place yet.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, has your supplementary not
been answered?

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, will the
Government consider future applications made by cultural bodies on the same
principle?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am sorry, Mr MA Fung-kwok, as your
supplementary did not include this part, you are not allowed to raise your
follow-up.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am very much
disappointed by part (c) of the main reply. We can see from the Annex that most
of the 66 clubs are private clubs and their membership fees are exorbitant,
therefore it would be very difficult for the common people to afford the
membership fees and use those facilities. At present, although the Government
is facing immense fiscal deficits, it still gives privileges to private clubs and treats
those affluent members generously at the expense of the Government by means of
granting government land to private clubs at nominal premium. I am really
baffled. Can the Secretary tell us why the criteria cannot be reviewed under the
current circumstances as the Government is facing enormous fiscal deficits?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President,
applications for land grants or renewal of leases are subject to a special condition
which requires the grantees to permit the use of the sites and specified facilities
by outside bodies. In the past three years, the Leisure and Cultural Services
Department (LCSD) has co-hosted 59 contests and 1 039 training courses with
various national sports associations in the facilities and sites provided by 10
private recreational bodies and clubs. Private clubs are required to set time
slots for the public to use their sites and facilities.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, of course the
Bureau and LCSD would follow these matters up and see whether these sites are
open to the public, but the core of my supplementary is: As most of the members
of these clubs have actually paid a lofty sum of membership fees, I believe if they
were asked, they would probably not mind the proposal of asking the clubs to pay
the Government a certain percentage of the land premium of the clubs as one of
the measures to increase government revenue to resolve the immense fiscal
deficits. Can the Government explain why it briefly stated in part (c) of the
main reply that it had no plan to review the policy in that respect?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I
have explained in part (a) of my main reply that the applicant should be a nonprofit-
making body, and all of the charges and fees collected by a non-profitmaking
body will be used for internal operation purposes and the provision of
facilities to its members.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is stated in part (a)
of the main reply that the grant of land was for clubhouse facilities purpose. In
this connection, how should the Government monitor the financial position of
these clubs? For example, a lot of improper cash transactions were found in the
past in relation to the operation of temples, therefore, will the Government
monitor these situations?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President,
certain criteria should be met in the applications for land grants or renewal of
leases. That is, the grantee is obliged to submit a detailed report of the
recreational facilities of the sites concerned as required by the Secretary for
Home Affairs. Moreover, internal matters concerning membership,
memorandum and articles of association and so forth have to be submitted to the
Secretary for Home Affairs for examination. If there is a need to amend the
articles of association or any specific circumstance arises, prior approval of the
Director of Lands should be sought. Therefore, these grantees are certainly
subject to supervision.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I asked if the
Government would monitor their financial position.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, it is about financial position.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, as
far as financial position is concerned, if the relevant club goes bankrupt or
becomes a profit-making body, the authority shall have the right to examine its
articles of associations and financial position.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than 16 minutes on
this question. This is the last supplementary question.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, among the 60-odd
organizations listed in the Annex, with the exception of some being welfare
organizations which will organize activities for public participation, the rest of
them are mostly organizations for the well-off or idle rich, and apparently, the
grant of land is subsidizing the pleasure-seeking affluent people at the expense of
the public. Given that most of the people are living in destitution today, should
such a policy be reviewed? Should such a land grant policy with a strong tone
of colonialism be reviewed too?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, the
grant of land for recreational and sports purposes has a long history of about 100
years, and the practice of granting government land for such purposes can be
traced back as early as the year 1884. Therefore, the lease terms of some of the
granted land are quite long. We conducted a review in 1979, and the current
policy was formulated after the 1979 review, and it has been serving the
community at large well. Should there be a need in society, we would surely
listen to public voices.