Page 75 of 146
108
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
therefore suggested that the litter offence records be computerized. This would enable the Prosecution Officers to provide Magistrates with histories of previous convictions in deciding fines on repeated litter offenders. Hopefully, heavier fines for the repeated offender would serve as a deterrent against such anti-social offences. The principle of computerization of litter offence was thus accepted by the Council.
As the Clean Hong Kong Campaign is now in progress, speedy and cost effective implementation is essential in support of the campaign. Thus, the Council has also agreed to investigate the use of a service bureau to handle the records of litter offences. While the system has not been designed at the present moment, two points have emerged in the discussion within Council.
First, due consideration would be given to prevent unauthorized access and release of data in the system. Given safeguards built into the hardware and software aspects, a reputable computer service bureau should, as a matter of course, handle the records of litter offences in a confidential manner according to requirements specified by the Council. After all, the clientele of service bureaux includes large organizations and banks which do demand a high level of data security.
In the second place, while the Council intends to use the litter offence records in the context of the courts, it is debatable to what extent confidentiality is valid in the present case. The prosecution of litter offenders is dealt with in open court and details of both offences and offenders are frequently published by the media. Indeed, it is official policy to draw public attention to those cases which will enhance public awareness of the Clean Hong Kong Campaign and encourage self-discipline against littering in our city.
Undoubtedly, the Administration Select Committee and Computerization Sub-Committee will consider the technical aspect of data security before processing litter offence records by computer. It remains for the Council to reconcile its security needs for recording these open court cases with its anxiety for more effective penalties and fines to keep our city clean.
3. MR. AMBROSE K. C. CHOI asked the following question (in Cantonese):- May the Council be informed when will the Council take over the Victoria Barracks and when will the Flagstaff House therein be converted into a Museum?
MR. LAWRENCE H. L. FUNG, CHAIRMAN OF THE CAPITAL WORKS SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-This question concerns the date on which the Council will take over Victoria Barracks and the date for the conversion of Flagstaff House into a museum. These are really two separate matters and ones that come under the responsibilities of two separate Select Committees. I will deal with the first part of the question and I trust that Mrs. Ho will deal with the second.
In the first part of the question, the Government has not, as yet, allocated any part of Victoria Barracks to the Urban Council except for Flagstaff House and Rawlinson House. The Council has been pressing the Government for an early decision so that a development programme can be agreed as soon as possible.
The position at present is that about 11.25 hectares in the Victoria Barracks area have been earmarked for recreation and leisure purposes. However, there are a number of Government buildings within this area and, before proper designs for its development can be drawn up, it is necessary to know whether the Government intends to retain or demolish these buildings.
The Government engaged consultants on recreation and leisure usage of Victoria Barracks has drawn up a master design plan in February 1980. Pending the Government's final decision, the Urban Council intends to develop the area in three stages.
Stage I covers the Western section of Victoria Barracks and it includes: an aviary, children play area, rest garden, the conversion of Flagstaff House into a museum with a Suzhou Garden adjacent to it and the conversion of Rawlinson House into an administration block. In fact, the conversion of the latter has already been completed. While the master design of the Stages II and III covering the Central and Eastern portions have been drawn up, detailed planning cannot be carried out until precise details of the development of the adjacent areas are known.
MRS. GRACE Ho, CHAIRMAN OF THE MUSEUMS SELECT COMMITTEE replied as follows (in Cantonese):-In answer to the second part of the question, the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements makes it quite clear that the planning, financing and construction of museum facilities are Government commitments and not that of Council and bearing this in mind, Government has agreed in principle to convert Flagstaff House into a museum. A consultant has been engaged to study the viability of the conversion and I understand that the consultant's proposals have been considered by the Public Works Sub-Committee and that the Government's proposals will be sent to the Council for consideration in the near future. Although it is not possible to give a definite answer at present, I hope that Flagstaff House will be in operation as a branch museum of the Museum of Art towards the end of 1982 or in early 1983.
4. MR. AMBROSE K. C. CHOI asked the following question (in Cantonese):- Every Hawker Permitted Area is usually covered with refuse, especially after the business hours of the hawkers. Is it possible for the Council to enforce the licensed hawkers to use plastic bags for the disposal of their own refuse and then deliver them to refuse collection points?
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-This question concerns the removal of refuse, especially after business hours, from areas where there are concentrations of hawkers.
109
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 75 of 146
Page 76 of 146
Page 75
Page 76