Page 142 of 146
238
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
3. DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion:—
"THAT this Council urges greater support by the community for the Clean Hong Kong Campaign."
He said (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I move that this Council urges greater support by the community for the Clean Hong Kong Campaign.
The first two phases of the new Clean Hong Kong Campaign have come and gone, but there is still much room for improvement in public behaviour and attitude towards the campaign. There are still too many careless and complacent individuals littering our city, and no matter how much we educate people through schools or the media, education has a doubtful effect on complacency, though it may make some inroads into carelessness.
A cleaner environment is in everyone's interest—this is currently and particularly appreciated by Housing estate residents and the boat dwellers in the typhoon shelters, where there has been considerable community involvement. But this involvement is not yet extending far enough into the streets, in spite of the considerable involvement of the district C.H.K. committees. It is the man in the street that must concern himself more with this problem. Cleanliness should be a way of life, for a cleaner environment goes hand-in-hand with social and economic security. We should therefore take more pride in our city, and as we, the public, hope for its continued prosperity, so should we also ensure we contribute to a cleaner environment for ourselves and our future generations.
(Mr. CHAN Chi-kwan, Mr. Augustine CHUNG and Mr. Francis CHAINE left during Dr. Denny HUANG's address.)
MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG seconded (in English):—Mr. Chairman, the New Clean Hong Kong Campaign is about to enter its fifth month. During its initial phases the U.S.D. launched massive block-to-block clean-up operations. Clean Hong Kong Committees were established in every district, and community events organised throughout the urban areas. The phrase 'H.K. is watching' was coined, and the eyes are everywhere. A tougher approach was instituted towards littering, and U.S.D. and the Police have been pursuing determined prosecution strategies. The Courts also supported the campaign to the extent that in its first month, the C.S.D. prosecuted 3,617 offenders netting an average fine of almost $180. In the urban areas the Police also summonsed a further 2,264 offenders for litter-related offences. This compares favourably to the 4,243 offenders that Singapore fined $226,170 in the first 10 months of 1981. Hard work, publicity, enforcement, and participation are the four prongs of attack, though the degree of success in each varies.
There was no doubt that in phases I and II of the campaign higher standards of cleanliness were achieved, but mostly because of the massive effort that the Council and Government put into it. The people responsible for cleaning up have put in a lot of hard work and sweat, yet still people litter. Gutters are still full of paper bags, drains choked with filth, pavements blocked with obstructions, hawker areas soiled with refuse, back lanes covered with illegal extensions. The man in the street is still not responding positively, and this is the most crucial part of participation we need. We are all men in the street, and we must all concern ourselves with this problem. The Council and the Government cannot achieve this alone, and our city needs more than an efficient cleansing service and tough prosecution. It needs the continuing concern, co-operation, and participation of the community. I urge everyone to take as much pride in the city's environs as they would their own home. I urge pedestrians to use litter-bins, shopkeepers to keep their pavements clean, hawkers to use the receptacles required of them by law, recreationalists to clear up before clearing out. I urge the public to involve itself more in the Clean Hong Kong Campaign by setting an example today.
To reinforce the campaign and bring the message home more forcefully, perhaps we also need to step up publicity to make the eyes even more visible, and hopefully, this will help bring about more participation.
Sir, I second the motion.
(Mr. Edmund CHOW left during Mr. Howard YOUNG's address.)
MR. H. M. G. FORSGATE seconded (in English):—Mr. Chairman, in rising to support Dr. HUANG's well-timed motion, I should like to draw attention to 2 aspects of the general effort to clean up our environment and keep it that way.
The first is comparatively simple but requires a little effort and expenditure on the part of the householder. I refer to the question of household waste. Under By-Law 19 of the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances By-Laws of 1972, householders are required to place their household waste in a dustbin of approved size and deliver it to the nearest refuse collection point. However, we are also encouraging the use of suitable plastic bags, which are easier to handle and more convenient, and I emphasize the use of the word 'suitable'. But what do we observe around many of the affluent areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon? Mountains of refuse, not packed in proper suitable plastic bags, but spilling out of inadequate plastic shopping bags, which provide easy picking for rats, cats, and packs of dogs. The mess is an unnecessary burden on our street cleansing staff and makes a mockery of rodent prevention. So I recommend that stiff warnings should be issued, followed up by fines on the culprits.
My second point concerns the filthy state of squatter areas. A recent visit by the Clean Hong Kong Campaign Committee to squatter areas in North East Kowloon was an eye-opener for many of us. Mountains of muck, choking up the stream running through a storm drain, which oozed a filthy black effluent on its way to add to the odour of the well-publicized Kai Tak Nullah, which greets every traveller landing at the airport. Rats running around in daylight, picking over refuse in front of us like so many household pets.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 142 of 146