202
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
and sub-committees. Hence, the Council is a beehive of beneficial activity for Hong Kong. Full discussion takes place spontaneously in a free and frank exchange of views. When an item on the agenda calls for debate, it gets under way without let or hindrance.
Participation
There is the actual participation of representatives of a good number of government departments and public organizations in all committees where warranted. In addition, there is the active attendance of the Council's own staff. Their daily accountability has perhaps no parallel in the public administration here. In fact, expert opinion is heard on any given subject under consideration. There is no hesitation on the Council's part to attract some of the most experienced and authoritative persons in Hong Kong to assist in a broad spectrum of interests and activities. It is debatable whether all such expert opinions would be as uninhibited and outside assistance as freely given for the public good as is generally the case at present, should the ordinary working sessions be thrown open to the gallery. Thus, while others preach the open society, this Council practises it every day as it joins hands with a multitude of concerned citizens for the advancement of Hong Kong. This is the positive way the community likes to work. And, Hong Kong is pre-eminently successful against all odds.
What do the people want?
There is the prime obligation to determine in which direction lies on balance the real interest of the place at this stage of its development. To satisfy the ambitions of the few or to serve the cause of the community? To put it bluntly, how do the busy and pragmatic people here really want the Council to work for their best advantage? Should it be a potentially contentious and do-nothing talk-shop? It is now an effective and well-ordered city administration moving ahead by leaps and bounds in the service of the community. Is this not what the people want?
PAPER
The following paper was laid on the table:-Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the month of January 1979.
QUESTIONS
1 MR HOWARD H. W. YOUNG asked the following question (in English):- In view of the various locations in the Urban Areas where pig breeding takes place, what is the Council doing to curtail this sort of activity in Urban Areas which brings environmental health hazards to the public that probably outweigh the private financial gains?
MRS GRACE HO, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-This question concerns action to curtail pig breeding in the urban areas. The legal responsibility for controlling pig breeding rests with the Government and not the Urban Council and the authority for this purpose is the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance. A decision to curtail pig breeding in the urban areas does not therefore lie with the Urban Council. However, the Urban Services Department has conveyed the views of the Council on this subject to the Government on several occasions and will continue to press for action to be taken. One of the Statement of Aims for 1979/80 for the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee reads 'To press for the elimination of pig-breeding and pig-keeping in the urban areas in the interests of public health and for the abatement of nuisance'.
The present position is that there has been a gradual reduction in pig breeding as development proceeds, but there are no plans at present to speed this process by banning pig breeding in the urban areas or by relocating piggeries to the New Territories. There are over 1,000 pigsties in the urban areas.
As long as pig breeding continues, there will be sanitary problems and the Urban Council and the Urban Services Department will be responsible for dealing with them. Piggeries in the urban areas are regularly inspected by District Health Inspectors. Anti-fly Gangs also make periodic inspections in accordance with a fixed programme for dealing with fly breeding. Special operations by both District Health Inspectors and Anti-fly Gangs are also conducted from time to time when specific cases come to the notice of the Department.
2 MR HOWARD H. W. YOUNG asked the following question (in English): With the imminent completion of the promenade along the Central District waterfront, is it possible for the Urban Council to consider covering the Central District Bus Terminal with a pavilion as well in order to provide an additional amenity to the public to complement the central promenade and elevated pedestrian walkway?
MR H. M. G. FORSGATE, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-This matter has been discussed with the Transport Department to which the site of the Central District Bus Terminus has been allocated. The bus passenger shelters at the departure platforms there were provided at the bus company's expense. It is understood that there is a proposal to extend the present bus terminus slightly eastwards on to a portion of the existing Parcel Office which is due to be resited in about 2 years' time. The intention is to develop the enlarged site into a bus-cum-maxicab terminus, with buses on the ground level and maxicabs on a deck above.
Page 203
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 121 of 135
Page 121 of 135