Page 92 of 201
143
142
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
2. MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG, CHAIRPERSON OF THE FOOD HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion:—
'RESOLVED that the Frozen Confections (Urban Council) (Amendment) By-laws 1986 be made under section 56 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.'
She said (in Cantonese):---Mr. Chairman, as Chairperson of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, I rise to move the motion in my name that the Frozen Confections (Urban Council) (Amendment) By-laws 1986 be adopted.
The use of 'millilitre' as a unit of measurement in the statutory standard for frozen confections as prescribed under bylaw 6 of the existing Frozen Confections (Urban Council) By-laws is at variance with the internationally accepted metric unit 'gram', thereby causing difficulties to overseas manufacturers in their endeavour to comply with two different statutory standards for their products, one in their country of origin using 'gram' as a unit of measurement and the other using 'millilitre' as a unit if they intend to export their products to Hong Kong for sale.
Similarly, the requirement of 'coliform organism absent in 1/10th (0.1) of a millilitre' has been subject to criticism and complaints of being unreasonable and impracticable by both overseas and local manufacturers because of its deviation from the internationally recognized requirement.
The amendment bylaws will not only bring Hong Kong in line with international levels in the control of food hygiene and safety, but will also remove any hardship currently experienced by the trade. The amendment bylaws will also indirectly promote trade in Hong Kong.
Mr. Chairman, I beg to move.
MR. L. H. KWAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN of the FOOD HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, said (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.
(Dr. the Honourable Kim CHAM arrived at this point—3.10 p.m.)
The question was put.
The motion was carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
MRS. ELSIE TU moved the following motion:-
'RESOLVED that this Council conveys to the Government the opinions of Members on the Consultative Document on Redress of Grievances.'
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
She said (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the Motion:-
'RESOLVED that this Council conveys to the Government the opinions of Members on the Consultative Document on Redress of Grievances.'
2.
In any community, even one which provides democratic representation of all the adult population, it is inevitable that grievances against Government Departments must arise. The likelihood of such grievances occurring in an undemocratic system, where none of the members of the law-making body are directly elected, as in Hong Kong, is very much higher.
3.
The fact that in one year (according to records), some 20 000 complaints are dealt with by the various complaints bodies mentioned in this document, is a clear indication that many injustices exist, and these 20 000 are very likely to be only the tip of the iceberg. What the Green Paper fails to mention is how many of these complaints were satisfactorily resolved. This omission is probably deliberate, because from my own experience I know that complaints sent on to the higher bodies (CAPO and OMELCO) are very rarely successful, but are over 90% certain to be labelled 'unsubstantiated'. I find it deplorable that Paragraph 10 of the Green Paper states that there is no need to pursue the question of complaints against the police. The situation there is not improving, and if the recent proposals on Police supervision of convicted triads are adopted, complaints are likely to multiply considerably.
4. I would like to split the complaints bodies named in this paper into two groups:-
(1) Unofficial bodies, which include District Boards, Urban and Regional Councils, and OMELCO; and
(2) Official bodies, which include District Officers, ICAC, Courts, CAPO, the Governor and the Queen.
5. Looking at the records of DBs, UC, RC and OMELCO, it is easy to see that these schemes depend entirely on the interest of individual members. Some like to take part in the scheme dealing with public complaints, while others have not dealt with a single case since April of this year. The public gets only the service offered by those members who do it voluntarily, and a member who offers no service is not breaking any rules. I am not blaming individuals, but merely showing that these unofficial channels are not statutory in any way, either in receiving or dealing with complaints. They are purely voluntary, and should therefore not be considered a channel for the redress of grievances.
6. As to the official bodies named in the paper, the quality of their service is also questionable. District Officers who seek promotion are not likely to support complaints. CAPO is judge and jury in its own affairs. The ICAC cannot deal with complaints unless directly connected with corruption. The courts are independent and some do a good job on reviewing cases, but their jurisdiction is limited, and members of the public who cannot afford legal advice
Page 92 of 201
143
142