170
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
So I was made the victim, and one or two other Members as well. Because he was so successful, so he is now embarking on the second attempt. I support his motion, but of course, today we have the presence of representatives from the Attorney General's Chamber, we can ask them to give us advice. Is it possible for us to pass a motion that we spend the money and we ask other people to foot the bill? This is doubtful. But I fully support the intention of Mr. SULKE. In fact, the harbour is extremely dirty. I support the spirit of the motion so the influential people should try to reflect our comments to the authority. We have to admit that the harbour is dirty, but unfortunately, the procedure is not correct, so I cannot give my full support. I can only support the spirit. Perhaps the matter should be referred to the relevant select committee for further discussion.
MR. LAWRENCE FUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I think the Council or the public owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. SULKE for having described so vividly, but at times a little bit exaggerated about the problem of water pollution of the harbour. (laughter) Had he had spoken at the Annual Conventional Debate. I am sure the whole Council would have supported his statement. But unfortunately, we have the Standing Order to abide by and I personally not convinced that the motion is within the functional jurisdiction of Urban Council although on a territorial basis, the harbour is part of the Urban Council territory. I will support Dr. Kim CHAM's amending motion purely on technical ground and not whether we have the money nor the capability to do a public job of cleansing the harbour. But on technical ground, I don't think the motion is the proper one. It is in conflict with the Standing Order 14, sub-paragraph (1).
MRS. CHOW (in English):―Just like Peter C. K. CHAN, I am also in support of the spirit of the motion, but at the same time, querying the legality of the motion put forward. But before I decide on whether the amendment is (of course the amendment as it stands is proposed by Dr. Kim CHAM) perfectly sensible one. but before I decide whether to vote for that, would it be in Order for me to put a question to chairman or previous ex-chairman of our Environmental Hygiene Select Committee whether the Council has at any point, in fact, looked into this problem as Mr. SULKE has informed us that he has been fighting this battle for the last 15 years. I am just wondering whether the Council has at any one stage looked into this problem of cleansing in the harbour and if not, then I would be perfectly happy to support Dr. CHAM's proposal.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-In other words, you are seeking clarification on this particular point.
MRS. CHOW (in English):-Yes, my point really is a very little point. Why do we throw it back to a committee if it has already been looked at by a committee before?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 101 of 194
171
CHAIRMAN (in English): Before I give the floor to Mr. SULKE, who would like to exercise his right of reply? Would the Chairman of the Keep Hong Kong Clean Committee like to answer that? Or the Chairman of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee?
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese):-Perhaps Mrs. CHOW would like me to answer her question. When I was the chairman of the Clean Hong Kong Committee, we showed our concern for harbour pollution. As a matter of fact, we gave our assistance to the Marine Department in asking for more allocation from the Government for the purchasing of more equipment and vessels. I think of course the Marine Department would like to see a cleaner harbour. But of course, the answer to the question lies with the financial situation of the Central Government. I think basically this is a matter involving funding and the Urban Council is even more concerned about the problem because we have the responsibility to clean up the entire urban area. So I think Mr. SULKE had raised a rather good proposal. I am prepared to support his motion, whether the Central Government agrees to that or not is another matter. We have to try.
MR. BERNACCHI (in English):---Could I add to this. I have been on the Council for a number of years, and from time to time, this matter has been discussed mainly in select committees of various sorts. No definite conclusion has ever been arrived at except that it is generally the Marine Department's business.
MR. YOUNG (in English):- I would like to assist Dr. Denny HUANG in giving a more direct reply to Mrs. Selina CHOW who asked whether this had been considered before. I can confirm that in the Clean Hong Kong Committee, which is in fact a sub-committee of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee, that Mr. SULKE did raise this point at a meeting, and also I can also confirm that the Marine Department does have a very capable representative sitting on this committee. I can furthermore confirm that during our discussion, the Marine Department representative also did make a point that keeping the harbour clean was not his main business. It is purely an adjunct to his main duties which is in his particular unit, anti-pollution. Of course, the Marine Department's major function is running the harbour. But as far as the Committee is concerned, no definite conclusion was reached.
MR. SULKE (in English):--I would like to deal with the points raised by Mr. Lau and Mr. FORSCATE, but first of all, Mr. Lawrence FUNG. S.U.C. and I took the precaution of checking whether we were within the law and legal advice was that we were, so I think we are not ultra vires in discussing this matter. Regarding the statements by Mr. FORSCATE, and also Mr. LAU, who are both colleagues of mine on E.P.C.O.M., I am fully aware that research is going forward, but this is not the first time that research is being carried out and I think it is quite wrong to say that the dirt which is in the harbour comes just from the nullahs. It comes from the sewage, it comes from reclamation. It comes from especially nylon