HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Kong Chinese Orchestra and the Hong Kong Dance Company also should not have their performances restricted to Hong Kong and Kowloon. With the opening of the Mass Transit Railway and the electrification of the Kowloon Canton Railway, people in the New Territories no longer live a rural life. Moreover, following the completion of an increasing number of modern housing estates in the New Territories, local residents who regularly travel between rural and urban areas have in fact disregarded any difference between the two areas.
Such being the case, the Urban Council should negotiate with the Government for further expanding the scope of our services for the people. It will enable us to evolve longer term policy on work and avoid unnecessary duplication in personal management for the whole municipal service. Efficiency can thus be ensured.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman,
Clean Hong Kong
As Chairman of the Clean Hong Kong Committee, I suppose I should give members a briefing of the Clean Hong Kong Campaign. People like to compare Hong Kong with Singapore, and there is no doubt that the latter has really made a name for itself in achieving 'Cleanliness is a Way of Life'.
Singapore has roughly half of Hong Kong's population, and the total size of the territory is about half too, but those who have actually been there realize Singapore probably has twice as much flat land as we do. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that our population density in built-up areas is at least 4 times as high as Singapore. This means that if everyone throws a piece of litter on to the pavement or out of the window, the visual effect on our environment is four times as serious.
More than one quarter of the Urban Council's expenditure is spent on keeping our city clean. It is inevitable that refuse is generated, in fact the amount of rubbish generated daily in the Urban areas exceeds 1.5 pounds per person per day. There is nothing wrong with this in itself. If all this rubbish were placed in rubbish bins or refuse collection points for U.S.D. staff to convey to incinerators with mechanical equipment, the total cost would be less than the $211 million a year we are spending on cleaning-what is heartbreaking is that a large portion of this rubbish (some estimate it to be as high as 30%) is indiscriminately thrown on to the streets where it can only be swept manually using non-mechanical means such as sweat, hard work and a broom.
Our Urban Services Department beat sweepers are amongst the most efficient and hardworking people doing this type of job anywhere in the world. Most cities in the world do not sweep their streets more than twice a day and certainly not 364 days a year like we do. What causes the eyesore in our streets is not inadequacies of beat-sweepers. I personally visited a street that was swept 6 times a day from 7 a.m. in the morning up till 10 p.m. at night, which is an average of 2.5 hours an interval, but it still became disgustingly filthy by 7 a.m. the next morning again.
Page 168
Page 169
The root of the problem is the anti-social habits of our people, and unless drastic measures are taken, the backbone of this bad habit cannot be broken, and our beat sweepers will continue to be perpetual nannies forever embroiled in the vicious cycle of sweeping up what other people have discarded only to have it repeated again in a matter of hours.
Before the start of the current Campaign, the average fine for littering was in the region of $100, while the cost of manpower and time in prosecuting a litter-bug was $152. This meant that not only was the ratepayer paying over one third of his rates to clean the city, the public purse was also subsidizing the villains that were caught in littering our city. I am glad to say that since the beginning of the campaign, average fines on Hong Kong Island rose almost immediately to $200 or more, and Kowloon has recently approached the same level. Unlike 1972 when litter fines were sometimes criticized by some people as being a waste of manpower and 'money-grabbing' by the authorities, public sentiments have now changed and the majority of the population, that is the public that do care about our environment, in particular the younger and more well-educated people, are welcoming tougher measures to make Hong Kong a better place to live in.
I must thank the tremendous support we have had from the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, the Housing Department, Marine Department and other authorities who have played a significant role in the enforcement of anti-litter laws from the very beginning of the campaign.
Determination by the Government and Urban Council is not enough to make the campaign a success, the vital factor is support from the public. Littering is a social disease, but it is not incurable, and it really boils down to changing habits of life. Members will recall that when the bus companies introduced one-man buses and dispensed with conductors, there were outcries of inconvenience. Events have proven that habits can change and regular bus-commuters today are seldom caught without coins to pay fares. Likewise, old habits of smoking and new habits of twanging tickets were curbed quickly on the Mass Transit Railway (and to a great extent, so I may add, littering as well), when a policy of tough enforcement was coupled with positive education. This is exactly the way we hope to achieve results in the Clean Hong Kong Campaign and I hope the public will respond.
In order to implement further the policy of strict enforcement with positive education, there are two measures to be brought into effect in the near future.
Page 106 of 146
Page 106 of 14