Page 152 of 243
280
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
even if it is collecting filth and causing rats and cats and mosquitoes and fouls smell to invade the first floor premises above the shade. Even if the shade has been the subject of many bitter complaints from first floor occupants all that can happen is that the owner of the shade may be prosecuted for causing a nuisance or a health hazard but the shade may remain.
The matter was referred in June of this year to the legal department to have the ordinances of the Urban Council, the Public Works Department and Fire Services Department examined to see whether there was, in fact, any existing powers to remove illegal shades, and to advise on what additional legislation was necessary to enable the Urban Council to do so. Absolutely no further information has been forthcoming although it has been asked for. Meanwhile, owners of first floor premises are having serious annoyance and discomfort from shades erected by ground floor tenants, who already, have the advantages of a backyard, but who do not want the disadvantages of having to clean up the rubbish, which is thrown down from upper floors, they merely shove this problem up to the first floor! I have been tempted to suggest to one complainant that she and the upper floors should also erect shades, perhaps then some action might be taken to remove illegal shades. I have enlarged upon this to make public, the extraordinary obstruction and delay which can be caused to the Council and its committees by Government departments, resulting frequently in the Council being accused and blamed by the public and the press for not taking action. The same applies to Policy on Hawkers as Mr. BERNACCHI has just said.
The Cleaning of Communal areas in the multi-storey buildings, was originally urged by the Reform Club in this Council as long as 10 years ago. I see from the papers the Legislative Council now agitating about this too. The Environmental Hygiene Committee has examined a draft bill for legislation to cover the Voluntary management of multi-storey buildings and we are told we will be given a further amended Bill to study as soon as it is ready. I have grave doubts that voluntary management of multi-storey tenement buildings will work. These doubts have been enhanced rather than allayed by the draft legislation, which threatens much punishment for default of the Committee or the Secretary in addition to the benefit of legal rights it gives to the Committee. Personally, I still think that ratepayers should be entitled to have the communal parts of these large multi-storey buildings cleaned by the Urban Services Department.
Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Hygiene Committee learned with dismay that the programme which the department put forward for the renovation of public latrines has been slowed up, by extending it over five years instead of completing it in three years as was asked for and $150,000 per year has been allowed instead of $250,000. A great deal of money and talk is spent on pleasing tourists and visitors to Hong Kong, but one constant criticism which I hear from such visitors, and also from many residents of this town, is about the disgusting, filthy and smelly state of our public toilets. Why then is Government so short-sighted and block-nosed as to slow down a programme designed to rapidly improve these inadequate and at present revolting facilities. I must take this opportunity too, to point out once again that the toilet facilities in places licensed by the Urban Council, restaurants, cinemas etc. are grossly inadequate and badly looked after as regards plumbing and cleanliness and frequently are situated close to the kitchens of restaurants. Even the toilets in our city hall and in this building would be considered pretty disgraceful in most health conscious communities. I would urge government to allow the programme of renovation to proceed as originally requested.
(Mr. Wilson T. S. WANG arrived at this point).
The co-operation of the public is still much needed to help keep litter from the streets and public places and especially is it needed in the New Territories where people go to picnic. I suggest that people would co-operate much quicker if there were some on the spot fines for dumping and throwing litter. Losing money is something which hurts in Hong Kong and people would be much more likely to use the litter bin if it was going to cost them $25 not to use it. I would start at the vehicular ferry terminals and at the picnic spots and beaches with such an on the spot fine system and I am sure there would be a vast difference in no time at all.
The Resettlement Policy Committee has had a busy and somewhat frustrating year. Many matters in the recent report of the Housing Board which is not yet published should have been submitted to us direct, and I do not see that we should have disagreed with the suggestions, but instead they were submitted direct to the Housing Board, presumably by somebody in the Resettlement Department.
I do not think that enough is being done to relieve overcrowding in our older Resettlement Estates. Too many people are being expected to live too crowded together. There are many thousands in our estates living at densities of much less than 24 sq. feet per person, and a child under 10 years of age is still counted as only half a person, although this Council has pressed very hard that if, because of restricted accommodation in older estates a child must be counted as half then that should be from the age of 6 years downwards only. I think the new urban estate of Pak Tin, should be entirely used to relieve overcrowding in our older estates and I think it is wrong to slow up any immediate relief of overcrowding to await long term conversion of rooms in the older estates. I urge Government not to delay relief of overcrowding.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
281
Page ...
...
Page