Page 82 of 132
166
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the motion.
THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I think the motion debates in the Urban Council will soon be like those of the Legislative Council with less and less Councillors attending. Very few Councillors are present even now. I originally intended to talk about restaurants today, but Mr. Poon has just now asked me not to be boring so as to achieve the real objective of debate and not just reading out a speech. In the Annual Debate, Councillors may not necessarily talk about matters directly related to the Urban Council. Thus I have heard some very interesting views expressed by many Councillors. When I listened to the speech of Mr. Joseph CHAN Yuek-sut, I thought I was listening to some New China News Agency press releases or Wen Wei Po editorials. Are political reforms great scourges like fierce floods and savage beasts as some Councillors described? Are they serious crimes initiated by Mr. PATTEN, ‘a sinner condemned through the ages'? The Hong Kong people must keep their stance and must not fall into the trap of the Sino-British struggle. It is disadvantageous to the Hong Kong people to please either side casually. As a Hong Kong citizen and a core member of a Hong Kong political party, I think the Hong Kong people must be really careful. Being situated in the middle, we should not make any move which can be used by either side as chips in the bargain.
In fact it does not matter much whether we talk about democracy for two years more or two years less. I myself do not support full direct election in 1995 because we have to give due recognition to the Basic Law. In fact, the electoral proposals such as 'single vote, single seat' now being considered by the Legislative Council should not pose any serious problems, especially for the Urban Council and District Boards. It is because the electoral system adopted by the Urban Council has been 'single vote, single seat' all along since the implementation of general direct election, i.e. making the election open to all in 1983. The most controversial part, which is also of great concern to fellow Councillors, is the abolition of appointed membership. Many Councillors are dissatisfied with this proposal and a lot of surveys have been conducted. In the Urban Council, I am in the minority group, but I fully respect the Council's views. While I do not agree with most Councillors who favour the retention of appointed seats, I do not think political reform is horrible or should be withdrawn. Even if a quarter or one-third of the appointed seats in the Urban Council or the District Boards are retained, the future of Hong Kong will not be better-off or worse-off because of this. I think we should not be influenced by our personal feelings in discussing this issue. If the public accept the retention of one quarter of appointed seats, I am willing to support this view. The public have not commented on this issue much. When Mr. PATTEN's package was put forward, it gained wide public support. However, following China's strong reactions to it, the initial support began to wane. Today only half of the people support Mr. PATTEN. Of course, most of them have not made up their minds yet, but I think those opposing have increased to 20-30%. If you ask the public what the three violations and three accords are, I believe most of them do not know.
Page 82 of 132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 82 of 132
167
If an Urban Councillor considers appointed membership worth supporting, he or she should put forward more justifications. With the proposed increase of the Urban Council membership to over 30, there will be one seat for every 100 000 people. I believe the appointed members, with their expertise and good performance in the Council, will have no problem at all in winning public support. In order to give the public more alternatives, many colleagues deserve my support in standing for election. If the appointment system is retained, they will have to wait for re-appointment. This is a passive way to stay in the Council. Why do they not consider getting more public support and complementing it with their expertise so that they can function even better in the Council? Well, let us stop talking about politics. I would like to present three challenges to the Urban Council. Mr. Lu Ping has challenged the Governor and now I am putting forward three challenges to the Urban Council.
I feel very strongly about the first challenge. I have lived in Kwun Tong district for many years and have seen some restaurants violate the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance at all times. If Mr. Chairman or any fellow Councillor visits this shop during its business hours from the morning to 1 or 2 a.m., you will learn that the shop owner is violating the law. He places LPG and kerosene stoves on the pavement and cooks there. He also places a large number of tables and chairs there, thus causing serious pollution and noise nuisance. We have failed to put a stop to this all these years. According to the Urban Services Department district office staff, prosecution action can be taken against him until he gets full demerit points and then his license will be suspended. However, the shop soon changes hands. Is this not a loophole in the law which allows the shop to continue business so long as it changes owners after 15 full demerit points are registered? The public will ask if the Urban Council has done anything and why are these problems allowed to exist even after so many years? I really do not know what to say when I receive these complaints. When I bring up this issue with the Department, the staff can only reply that they have already tried their best to prosecute the offenders and impose fines. The fine each time is only $800, $1,000 or $600, and the shop can definitely earn more than ten times this amount in one day. When will these problems be resolved? This is my first challenge.
The second challenge is night-time illegal hawking at black spots like Mong Kok, Sham Shui Po and Kwun Tong. Obviously, the USD is also aware of these black spots, and it is true that there has been slight improvements. I raised this problem last year. Although there has been some improvement this year, the problem is still serious. The situation has changed from 'extremely serious' to 'serious'. I hope the Council and the Department will accept this challenge and continue to reduce the seriousness of this problem until it is finally resolved.
The third challenge unfortunately is also about our Kwun Tong District. There are two markets in the district. Of all the 26 markets in Kowloon, the one which receives the most summonses from USD staff for illegally extending business areas to public places was our Ngau Tau Kok Market and the one who...
Page 82 of 132