Page 21 of 107
26
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
more units in a flatted factory located within his re-settlement area which might well mean that other settlers in the area would also gain employment. Work and homes are, to my mind, equal necessities.
The range of trades at present accommodated in our resettlement factory buildings is somewhat limited. I feel that I must point out that, whilst some of the small factories which have to be cleared from squatter areas are admittedly unsuitable, it is by no means easy for these displaced-factory owners, who are invariably short of capital, to change their trades as they are required to do at present. Not only would they require new machinery in place of their old plant which they would have to dispose of cheaply, they would have to learn completely new techniques and train their workers accordingly. Their limited capital will almost certainly not allow this.
I hope, in the circumstances, that it will be possible to re-examine the list of industries permitted in re-settlement factories with a view to widening the range in an effort to afford more employment for those in real hardship.
The importance of keeping in operation factories that are being cleared from squatter areas is well emphasized in Chapter IX Para. 113 of the Resettlement Departmental Reports 1957/58. Consequently, I suggest that we should examine the designs of future re-settlement factories to increase their usefulness and to enlarge their scope.
There are also many other factories not necessarily in squatter areas but still on Crown Land, which will have to be moved sooner or later to make room for permanent development. I think that they also should be given a chance to move into re-settlement factories so as to give more employment opportunities for settlers.
Speaking of Offensive Trades, it is true that this Council, through the Offensive Trades Select Committee, has given much thought during the past years to the need to remove the bone factories, now in Kennedy Town, away from residential areas. That this problem has not yet been solved, is no doubt due, in large part, to the lack of alternative sites for these factories. Not only are these bone factories preventing much-needed redevelopment of that part of the urban area, they are really most offensive and, for this reason, should not be allowed to remain there. It is therefore a matter of urgency that an alternative site be found with as little delay as possible.
It now gives me much pleasure to support your motion. (Applause).
MR. C. Y. KWAN:-I rise to support your motion. In doing so, I wish to say a few words about the Law Revision, which you have mentioned in your Statement of Progress and Policy. At the last Annual Meeting of the Council held on the 1st day of April, 1958
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
27
I mentioned that the Law Revision Select Committee, of which I was the Chairman, had completed its consideration of the proposed Bill for a new ordinance intended to be known as the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, and that a good number of the by-laws that would be required in order to carry out the provisions of the proposed new ordinance, had been finalized or more or less finalized by my Committee. The object of the proposed ordinance is to consolidate and improve the law now contained in the following Ordinances, namely the Public Health (Food) Ordinance, the Adulterated Food and Drug Ordinance, the Public Health (Sanitation) Ordinance, the Playgrounds and Bathing Places Ordinance, the Hawkers Ordinance, the Advertisement Regulations Ordinance and the Boarding House Ordinance, so as to safeguard and improve the public health here. The draft of the proposed Public Health and Urban Services Bill was duly approved by this Council on the 5th day of August 1958 and was forwarded by this Council to the Secretariat in the same month, with a request that it be submitted to Government for consideration and for its being placed before the Legislative Council for enactment into law as soon as possible. I have been informed that, in spite of the lapse of over 7 months, the Bill is nowhere near the Legislative Council. This delay is most unsatisfactory and lamentable. (Hear, hear). In the interest of the community I cannot over-emphasize the great importance of having the new legislation passed as soon as possible; the existing law is antiquated and inadequate to cope with the present day standard requirement for public health, and should be repealed and replaced without further delay by a more comprehensive legislation, such as our proposed ordinance, which is to be supplemented by a large number of by-laws and regulations. I, therefore, urge you, Sir, as Chairman of this Council, to make the strongest possible representation to the appropriate quarters for immediate action to have the Bill introduced into the Legislative Council for consideration soonest possible. If your representation should prove fruitless, then it is my intention to move in due course this Council to lodge a protest with Government on the subject matter.
I may mention for the information of the public that there are now 27 sets of various by-laws and regulations ready to be laid before this Council for approval as soon as the proposed new ordinance has been passed by the Legislature. As you are aware, the by-laws and regulations cannot be made legally enforceable until the proposed new ordinance has become law, from which the legal authority will be derived.
It may be of interest to you to know, if you have not already read about it, that a certain candidate for the last election made the revision of the existing public health law as part of his platform. He rightly criticized our present public health law as being antiquated.
Page 21 of 107