188
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Services Department takes over the cleansing of Hong Kong waters. This is staffed. Last month, Mr. Walter SULKE moved a motion to the effect that the Urban Council being considered by the Council. I do not intend today to go into all the questions raised by the motion. However, I would wish to put forward my own view on this particular problem. I believe that once the Lap Sap gets into the water, it will be very difficult and costly to remove it. The problem should be tackled at the other end. We should prevent Lap Sap getting into the water in the first place. Of course, it will require research to determine where the Lap Sap comes from and how to prevent it getting into the sea. Unless this can be done, I fear that the cleansing of Hong Kong waters will not be a success.
Still on the subject of refuse collection, I would like to refer to a pilot scheme which has recently been started in the Wan Chai District. The scheme involves the use of plastic bags for holding refuse prior to collection. These bags are not any old shopping bags but are specially designed for containing household refuse.
If the proper bags are generally used, they will solve a number of problems which now plague us. They are easily sealed off with a bit of wire. There should be no smell or droppings. Refuse collection points will no longer be the malodorous places they now are.
However, these bags will not be used unless drastic action is taken. Their use must be made compulsory. Refuse will not be collected unless they are in proper bags. The bags cannot be handed out free, but to be fair, they should be supplied at a very cheap price by the Council, possibly cheaper than cost.
At present, most refuse is collected by private refuse collectors operating in multi-storeyed buildings, who then cart the refuse to a refuse collection point. The enforcement procedure will have to be done through them. It could be made an offence for them to deposit refuse at a refuse collection point, otherwise than in a litter bag. This measure may seem harsh, but if carried out will result in a general improvement to our living environment.
Having made these remarks, I am happy to support the motion before the Council.
(The Hon. Selina CHOW left at this point—3.15 p.m.)
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman,
Where is the Urban Council going?
With the year 1984 just begun and the new lunar year coming in three weeks' time, we all should be very cheerful at this time of new spring, yet my feelings are mixed, and my heart, very heavy.
We have just had some jolly good time celebrating the Centenary of the Urban Council, but since the past few months, quite a number of people are making arrangements for the Council's funeral as if it is coming to an end. It does not really matter if only a few District Board Members say so, but when officials of the City and New Territories Administration do not deny but rather acquiesce in such, then things are not so simple.
The Urban Council as a district administrative body
A hundred years ago, the Sanitary Board was formed comprising 3 government officials. 3 years later, elected Members were included in the Board which was subsequently reconstituted as the Urban Council. It was, all along, a growing district administrative body. In 1966, the then Governor, Sir David Trench, announced the expanded jurisdiction of the Council and a 'District Administration Working Party' headed by an Assistant Colonial Secretary was immediately set up. When the Council was re-organized in 1973, of course, I must point out that the matter of re-organization was not one that we welcome, however, the then Chairman of the Council referred, at a ceremony, to the restructuring as a 'fundamental change in district administration'. The Governor at that time also attended the ceremony and, in his address, expressed his blessings for the future of the Council.
As a matter of fact, although the jurisdiction of the Council is quite limited, it is nevertheless part of the district administrative system common to many countries.
Government diverging from the proper channel to set up the District Boards
In June 1980, Government published a Green Paper entitled 'A Pattern of District Administration in Hong Kong' and in January the following year, a White Paper was issued, listing out a series of measures in relation to the setting up of District Boards in all districts in Hong Kong. However, even in this White Paper, Government still mentioned the functions of the Council which are mainly concerned with environment, public health, recreation and amenities, and the provision of cultural services. The functions of District Boards, on the other hand, are solely advisory.
If Government wishes to expand and improve 'district administration', why does it not expand and strengthen the existing Urban Council which is a district administration body, but resort to the formation of District Boards which are not under the Urban Council—the original district administrative body, and the discussion topics of the District Boards are mainly within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council.
Conspiracy by Government and the District Boards to abolish the Urban Council
Since the past few months, several District Board Members have, one after another, demanded the right to manage the various facilities in their district. Some have even expressed the idea that 'the Urban Council should be abolished'. I have also heard Members of the New Territories District Boards expressed the same view and also the same view expressed by urban District
Page 111 of 194
189