Page 582 of 606
502
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
MR. FRANCIS TANG CHI-HO (in Cantonese):-Another colleague emphasized again and again whether we would treat obstruction activities of political parties and other groups the same way. Unfortunately, that colleague has left the meeting, I can tell him that for street activities of political parties, application to the relevant authorities for a permit is required. There are laws to abide by. What we are talking about now is street obstruction that violates the law, so we need to take legal action in response. On this, we should support the motion and make staff of the Urban Services Department clearly aware of their duties. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WEN CHOY-BON (in Cantonese):-Concerning my speech on the original motion, I was actually in support of the procedural motion. The main reason is that I feel we have not considered thoroughly what the original motion involved. If it is telecommunications companies that we are pinpointing, hadn't we better move another motion for the Department to take action against others such as property developers who caused a large problem some time ago? Are we saying that we have to take action against such activities? On this basis, I support the spirit of the original motion, but I must say there has not been sufficient consideration of the situation. That's why I have reservations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Does anyone want to speak? If not, will the mover of the original motion exercise his right of reply? Mr. NG, please.
MR. STANLEY NG WING-FAI (in Cantonese):-I never expected such a heated debate today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Members of this Council. In fact, we are all very concerned about the practice of telecommunications companies. At the same time, I want to register strong criticism against the Urban Services Department in muddling through and shifting responsibilities over this case. I say muddling through because when I repeatedly questioned about this in past months, the Department indicated that the companies could not be treated as hawkers and at times added that the Department would need additional manpower if action was expected to be taken. The Department responded to the Council in a muddling through manner. I say the Department shifted responsibilities because the ordinance actually permits staff to take action, but they did not. Along the same line, if the Council tolerates the Department in taking action, the Council is also shifting our responsibilities.
None of our Members felt the telecommunications companies were not causing obstruction. A survey by the Democratic Party shows that the majority of our people consider persons responsible for these activities should be prosecuted.
There are Members who feel the content of the motion is incomplete because certain political parties sell their political ideas too and certain kaifong
Page 582 of 606