85
226
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I note with interest that the Department has taken cognizance of the importance of Health Education and has created a new post in the Inspectorate to deal with Health Education instead of only concerning itself with enforcing Urban Council laws. By teaching the lay public the fundamental problems of Health Education, we would in the long run improve the general standard of health. I have said it once and I now say it again that the multi-storey buildings in the resettlement estates are the very place where health education should be started first.
On reviewing the proposed projects submitted to the Public Works Department, I find that there are some projects which have remained in the low category for several years without any possibility of their being put up on the priority list. Certainly, Sir, the projects proposed by the Urban Services Department should be considered as of first importance to the well-being of the Colony. I remember when the Latrines and Public Bath-Houses Select Committee met to consider the proposed 15 latrines and bath-houses, every member of the Committee wanted to put up his favourite latrine on the top of the list. (Laughter). It was the general opinion of the Committee, and also of the staff present at the meeting, that if we should succeed in getting 5 latrines approved, we would be lucky. Surely all the latrines proposed should be examined as one item concerning public health and not as individual projects?
I fail to see the argument put up by the Government for not approving the Urban Council to take over additional licensing duties. The Urban Council, as it is said, should only control public health measures. If we are allowed to control the hawkers who are at present operating under most unhygienic conditions, then why can't we for health and sanitary reasons control the licensing of the dancing halls and boarding houses?
CHAIRMAN:-If no other member wishes to speak on these papers it falls to me to speak briefly to answer a few points which have been raised. The final point made by you, Dr. Woo, on the subject of licensing duties is not one which I can very well answer. As you know a letter was tabled from the Colonial Secretary laying down the principle that for the time being the function of licensing any establishment should be carried out by the Department responsible for the form of control for which the licence is primarily designed. That was the principle embodied
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
227
in the Government ruling and I think it in no way would prevent this Council from asking for certain conditions or regulations relating to health to be applied to the type of establishment which you mention, without the licence being necessarily issued by my Department. Beyond that I am not in a position to comment on the ruling. It is perhaps only very indirectly connected with the papers on which we are speaking.
Mr. Li I think I understand to have commented in general terms with satisfaction, but he expressed some misgivings on the Parks and Playgrounds programme. I can only say that the Estimates as they now stand do provide for the expenditure of something of the order of $13 million on capital works to be spent on the Parks and Playgrounds programme in the financial year 1957/58, and in that connexion I am fairly certain that my friend Mr. Forbes would agree that it would be physically impossible to spend very much more than that in that time. In this connexion Mr. Kwok Chan's remarks are very much to the point.
I may
I was gratified to hear Mr. Bernacchi speak in terms of satisfaction with the Draft Estimates as they now stand. He propounded one thesis, one possible explanation, of the reason why the draft has been virtually left unchanged this year. perhaps be permitted to say that it is not the only possible explanation. At all events we should perhaps be better advised to be happy with the fact rather than to indulge in recrimination or arguments as to how the position has arisen. He referred to only one specific case, pest control foremen and labourers. He may have given a somewhat misleading explanation. It was proposed to cut out from the proposed increase 8 foremen and 16 labourers. I immediately wrote to the Government pointing out certain factors which perhaps had not been made sufficiently clear and asking whether the matter might be reconsidered, and I reported to the Estimates Select Committee that I had done so. The Government having considered the new facts put forward, agreed that the original number should stand.
The most difficult remarks to answer are those of my friend Mr. Kwok Chan, who asked in effect whether we are not biting off somewhat more than we can chew. I am unable to give a positive assurance that everything which is envisaged in these Estimates can necessarily be achieved. The question reminds me of a question Mr. Bernacchi asked in the Estimates Select Com-
Page 11
of
3
85
226
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I note with interest that the Department has taken cognizance of the importance of Health Education and has created a new post in the Inspectorate to deal with Health Education instead of only concerning itself with enforcing Urban Council laws. By teach- ing the lay public the fundamental problems of Health Education, we would in the long run improve the general standard of health. I have said it once and I now say it again that the multi-storey buildings in the resettlement estates are the very place where health education should be started first.
On reviewing the proposed projects submitted to the Public Works Department, I find that there are some projects which have remained in the low category for several years without any possibility of their being put up on the priority list. Certainly, Sir, the projects proposed by the Urban Services Department should be considered as of first importance to the well-being of the Colony. I remember when the Latrines and Public Bath- Houses Select Committee met to consider the proposed 15 latrines and bath-houses, every member of the Committee wanted to put up his favourite latrine on the top of the list. (Laughter). It was the general opinion of the Committee, and also of the staff present at the meeting, that if we should succeed in getting 5 latrines approved, we would be lucky. Surely all the latrines proposed should be examined as one item concerning public health and not as individual projects?
I fail to see the argument put up by the Government for not approving the Urban Council to take over additional licensing duties. The Urban Council, as it is said, should only control public health measures. If we are allowed to control the hawkers who are at present operating under most unhygienic conditions, then why can't we for health and sanitary reasons control the licensing of the dancing halls and boarding houses?
CHAIRMAN :-If no other member wishes to speak on these papers it falls to me to speak briefly to answer a few points which have been raised. The final point made by you, Dr. Woo, on the subject of licensing duties is not one which I can very well answer. As you know a letter was tabled from the Colonial Secretary laying down the principle that for the time being the function of licensing any establishment should be carried out by, the Department responsible for the form of control for which the licence is primarily designed. That was the principle embodied
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
227
in the Government ruling and I think it in no way would prevent this Council from asking for certain conditions or regulations relating to health to be applied to the type of establishment which you mention, without the licence being necessarily issued by my Department. Beyond that I am not in a position to comment on the ruling. It is perhaps only very indirectly connected with the papers on which we are speaking.
Mr. Li I think I understand to have commented in general terms with satisfaction, but he expressed some misgivings on the Parks and Playgrounds programme. I can only say that the Estimates as they now stand do provide for the expenditure of something of the order of $13 million on capital works to be spent on the Parks and Playgrounds programme in the financial year 1957/58, and in that connexion 1 am fairly certain that my friend Mr. Forbes would agree that it would be physically im- possible to spend very much more than that in that time. In this connexion Mr. Kwok Chan's remarks are very much to the point.
I may
I was gratified to hear Mr. Bernacchi speak in terms of satisfaction with the Draft Estimates as they now stand. He propounded one thesis, one possible explanation, of the reason why the draft has been virtually left unchanged this year. perhaps be permitted to say that it is not the only possible ex- planation. At all events we should perhaps be better advised to be happy with the fact rather than to indulge in recrimination or arguments as to how the position has arisen. He referred to only one specific case, pest control foremen and labourers. He may have given a somewhat misleading explanation. It was proposed to cut out from the proposed increase 8 foremen and 16 labourers. I immediately wrote to the Government pointing out certain factors which perhaps had not been made sufficiently clear and asking whether the matter might be reconsidered, and I reported to the Estimates Select Committee that I had done so. The Government having considered the new facts put forward, agreed that the original number should stand.
The most difficult remarks to answer are those of my friend Mr. Kwok Chan, who asked in effect whether we are not biting off somewhat more than we can chew. I am unable to give a positive assurance that everything which is envisaged in these Estimates can necessarily be achieved. The question reminds me of a question Mr. Bernacchi asked in the Estimates Select Com-
Page 11 of 3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.