Page 89 of 606
Page 89 of 606
Page 89 of 606
110
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Document has neglected to provide 5 basic kinds of information and facts, and therefore, I feel that no pragmatic consultation can be carried out. (Please refer to pages 3-4 of the 10 000-word paper.)
The second part explores whether the duties of this Council in regard to food safety and environmental hygiene should be abolished. I have tried to give my analysis from two aspects. First of all, 5 examples are quoted to prove that Government is presently in charge of food safety and environmental hygiene so that the mode of operation is still executive-led. (Please refer to pages 5-6 of the 10 000-word paper.)
The view of centralising work in fact misleads the public and is a far cry from the truth. I believe it is already quite clear under existing operations that food safety and environmental hygiene are the responsibility and decision of government departments. If there is any spreading out, the spread is among government departments. The essence of the proposal in the Consultation Document to cut food safety and environmental hygiene functions from the two municipal councils is in fact to strip the two municipal councils of their attempt to monitor, supervise, consult and reflect public opinion by means of motion debates and urge Government to delegate policy making powers on these two fronts.
Since most members of the two municipal councils are elected by the one man one vote system, taking away actual responsibilities from the two councils in fact undermines public power of knowing, monitoring, policy devising and power of commenting on food safety and environmental hygiene.
As for the second aspect, I want to point out that there were 12 cases on food hygiene that generated wide public concern and media reports during the past 18 months. I shall analyse the causes of the 12 incidents. (Please refer to pages 7-8 of the 10 000-word paper and the attached table on page 12.)
Five points of observation have been concluded when analysing the 12 food hygiene cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
None of the 12 cases was caused by the difference in policies of the two municipal councils;
In most of the 12 cases, food imported from outside Hong Kong was the cause;
For the local cause of these 12 cases, the problem mainly lied in not having a quarantine system for imported food beforehand. We are still relying on hygiene certification from export countries or areas or random sampling at the retail level;
Most of the 12 cases were caused by new virus or virus seldom found in Hong Kong in the past;
5. The two municipal councils contributed positively in the 12 cases. For myself, I participated directly in at least 8 aspects concerned. (Please refer to pages 8-9 of the 10 000-word paper.)