1997

Page 500 or 054

Page 388 of 654

I

384

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

of Hawker Control Officer and they are all authorized to carry out this job. They are patrolling our streets most of the time to check out illegal hawkers. When doing so, they are also on the lookout for litterbugs. They do prosecute littering offences.

Apart from USD staff, some members of other government departments such as the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Lands Department, Civil Aviation Department, Fire Services Department, Highways Department, Buildings Department, Labour Department, Marine Department or Transport Department are also authorized to prosecute litter offenders. Therefore, I think there are enough efforts on the prosecution side. Nevertheless, we are not being complacent. We are still stepping up our work on publicity and education.

As for question two on the throwing of rubbish out of vehicles and whether members of the public can prosecute by filling out forms, under existing regulations the Department can distribute forms for this purpose, but it may not be the best way to tackle the matter. There are bound to be negative impacts. If we do so, we rely on the integrity of the individuals taking out prosecution. To see that justice is maintained, we would not want the system to be abused and become a tool of personal vengeance.

MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese): After listening to Mr. CHAN, I have noticed certain figures in the reply document. They make me somewhat worried. We can see that 12,456 litterbugs were prosecuted in 1995. The figure rose to 13,344 in 1996. Up to October this year, 13,749 persons were prosecuted. If this trend continues from now, by the end of the year (end of December) there will have been 2,000 more cases. In other words, we can expect probably 15,000 to 16,000 prosecutions in 1997.

The prosecution figures suggest that we have not done enough in publicity and education. Mr. CHAN just said prosecution work was being properly done. Doesn't he think that the rising number of prosecutions signal insufficient publicity and education? I think if work in this respect is done well, the number of litterbug prosecutions should fall. I have also noticed that the Department has stepped up prosecution work.

I would like to ask Mr. Chan whether our present education and publicity work on keeping Hong Kong clean should be reviewed. Why are there so many litterbugs being prosecuted?

Bear in mind, Members, that we have already prosecuted 13,749 littering offenders up to the end of October. As I have said, we can expect 16,000 cases or more at the end of the year. Those are prosecution figures only. We have not taken into account the large number of offenders not prosecuted. I can tell you that there may be several times more. I wonder if there are insufficiencies in our current publicity and education efforts, or whether we are not doing...

Page 388 of 654

Page 500 or 054

Page 388 of 654

I

384

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

of Hawker Control Officer and they are all authorized to carry out this job. They are patrolling our streets most of the time to check out illegal hawkers. When doing so, they are also on the lookout for litterbugs. They do prosecute littering offences.

Apart from USD staff, some members of other government departments such as the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Lands Department, Civil Aviation Department, Fire Services Department, Highways Department, Buildings Department, Labour Department, Marine Department or Transport Department are also authorized to prosecute litter offenders. Therefore, I think there are enough efforts on the prosecution side. Nevertheless, we are not being complacent. We are still stepping up our work on publicity and education.

As for question two on the throwing of rubbish out of vehicles and whether members of the public can prosecute by filling out forms, under existing regulations the Department can distribute forms for this purpose, but it may not be the best way to tackle the matter. There are bound to be negative impacts. If we do so, we rely on the integrity of the individuals taking out prosecution. To see that justice is maintained, we would not want the system to be abused and become a tool of personal vengeance.

MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese): After listening to Mr. CHAN, I have noticed certain figures in the reply document. They make me somewhat worried. We can see that 12,456 litterbugs were prosecuted in 1995. The figure rose to 13,344 in 1996. Up to October this year, 13,749 persons were prosecuted. If this trend continues from now, by the end of the year (end of December) there will have been 2,000 more cases. In other words, we can expect probably 15,000 to 16,000 prosecutions in 1997.

The prosecution figures suggest that we have not done enough in publicity and education. Mr. CHAN just said prosecution work was being properly done. Doesn't he think that the rising number of prosecutions signal insufficient publicity and education? I think if work in this respect is done well, the number of litterbug prosecutions should fall. I have also noticed that the Department has stepped up prosecution work.

I would like to ask Mr. Chan whether our present education and publicity work on keeping Hong Kong clean should be reviewed. Why are there so many litterbugs being prosecuted?

Bear in mind, Members, that we have already prosecuted 13,749 littering offenders up to the end of October. As I have said, we can expect 16,000 cases or more at the end of the year. Those are prosecution figures only. We have not taken into account the large number of offenders not prosecuted. I can tell you that there may be several times more. I wonder if there are insufficiencies in our current publicity and education efforts, or whether we are not doing...

Page 388 of 654