Page 120 of 166
I age Izo UR
226
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
implemented over the next 10 years and proposes to spend not less than $20 billion to improve the polluted environment. Judging from the time it took to produce the white paper, the various measures which need to be implemented beyond 1997 to the end of this century and the immense amount of money put in, we can see that the Government is taking positive and determined actions to improve the environment.
Yet, it is a pity that the white paper did not come out at the right time. It was published the day after the June 4 Incident. The Hong Kong people were shocked and stunned by the 'Military Crackdown' in Beijing. How could they have the mood to study and discuss the white paper on the future measures against pollution? Even now, the general response is still apathetic. I once suggested that the Council should debate on the white paper in public, but the response was far from what I expected. I certainly shall not be surprised if there are citizens who say they haven't heard of such a white paper.
The policies of the Hong Kong Government have also to be re-orientated in the wake of the June 4 Incident. In the 89-90 Policy Address, the focus is on the development of infrastructure such as the building of the Chek Lap Kok Airport and the project of port development whereas the work of environmental protection is reduced to the narrow scope as that in early 80's. Thus, one can foresee that the Government has begun to lose zeal in environmental protection. The Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, Mr. G. BARNES, also remarked in November 1989 that the Government would freeze the size of the civil service. The Environmental Protection Department will be directly affected in respect of increasing manpower to carry out inspection and prosecution. With the shortage of staff, little progress can be expected in the improvement of the environment in the 1990's.
In less than six months after the white paper was published, it seems that the Government has already been sluggish in fulfilling the promises it has made. The manpower of the Environmental Protection Department is unlikely to be strengthened. Of course, when the financial position of the Government is sound and good, it matters little to spend $20 billion on fighting against pollution. But when the economy of Hong Kong keeps slowing down as result of the June 4 Incident and when the Government only gives emphasis to the new airport and other major infrastructure, will the budget of $20 billion be reduced? This is something worth our concern in the 90's.
It is worth noting that the Basic Law Drafting Committee decided at the session held in Guangzhou in December 1989 to introduce a provision about environmental protection into the Basic Law. Article 118 of the Basic Law states that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should also lay stress on environmental protection when formulating appropriate policies to promote and coordinate the development of various trades.' Although far from being specific, it is, after all, a provision ensuring the firm implementation of 'environmental protection' in Hong Kong.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
227
The late Governor Sir Edward YOUDE pointed out in 1983 that 'environmental pollution is bound to cause problems unless the Government and the community make a determined effort to prevent it.'
Sir David WILSON reiterated in his 89-90 Policy Address that 'Nor can the Government alone (solve our pollution problems). Each individual member of this community has a vital contribution to make in creating an environment that is safe and pleasant.'
I am in full agreement with what the two governors pointed out. Thus, for the Hong Kong community, an all-out effort to promote environmental protection is as important as the need to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
With regard to keeping Hong Kong clean, the Urban Council has since 1972 launched large-scale 'Keep Hong Kong Clean' campaigns in the territory and kept on making efforts to educate the community to keep Hong Kong clean and pay attention to environmental hygiene. The valuable experience drawn from various campaigns enables the Council to know how to formulate long-term programmes.
At the outset of the 80's, the Council held another territory-wide 'Keep Hong Kong Clean' campaign with the full support of the Government. This 14-month campaign, led by the Chief Secretary and opened by the then Governor Sir Murray MACLEHOSE, pushed the Urban Council to the front line again to strive for the goal.
Although the 'Keep Hong Kong Clean' Campaign from October 1981 to December 1982 did not completely solve the problems caused by refuse, the result could be considered good and satisfactory. There were obvious and immediate improvements to the living and working environments in most regions. The Urban Council was able to enforce various strict measures and commence the basic programmes that were newly devised, for example:
To clean up refuse black-spots on crown lands for the first time.
To enclose street refuse collection points with fibre planks.
To clean up massive refuse and junk and install new litter bins and fibre toilets in squatter areas.
To assist the Marine Department in collecting refuse from boat people in various typhoon shelters.
To draw up new legislation against lorry drivers and owners who dump refuse and junk illegally.
To increase the fine on littering from $1,000 to $5,000 plus 6-month imprisonment.
To computerize the particulars of all the litterbugs and to impose heavy penalty on repeated offenders etc.
It was also the first time that all districts in the New Territories responded to and participated in the campaign. The most impressive thing, I am sure, was the
Page 120
Page 121
Page 121 of 166