1961 — Page 23

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 23 of 110

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

not supervise the cleaning of these areas they become filthy, revolting-looking places. It seems strange that people who can afford to pay $400-$500 per month rent or to pay $40,000 or $50,000 or more dollars to buy a flat, have no pride in their surroundings and have no civic consciousness about flinging rubbish out of the windows and out on to the stairways and passages. Of course the design of many of these buildings seems to fall short of what would be expected to be normal health standards or architectural standards, yet the Building Authority does not seem to object. I am speaking particularly of the narrow funnel-like shaft which occurs in the centre of these buildings, ostensibly for ventilation, on to which kitchen and bathroom windows open from four flats from ground floor to the roof, 14 or 15 or more stories up. The water pipes and waste pipes descend and ascend through this shaft which is usually about 10 feet square or even less, these pipes are often leaking and cause the whole area to be damp and wet. Every flat seems to have one or more occupants who throw some sort of rubbish from the kitchen or bathroom window and these airwells or funnels or shafts (or whatever they are technically called) become stinking cesspits, breeding flies and mosquitoes and gradually no one will dare to open a kitchen or a bathroom window because of the stench, especially in the hot weather, and so of course ventilation is non-existent. It would appear that this is a problem initially for the Building Authority who must vet all plans in order to prevent this state of affairs and in those buildings already erected in such a fashion the health staff must step in to enforce regular cleansing; possibly part of the increase in property tax will off-set the cost of the health staff used for this purpose.

vote.

When the block vote of $1,000,000 was granted for urban amenities, parks and playgrounds we were disappointed that it was not double the amount, and yet we were pleased to have this amount to spend until we found that our hands were tied by the restriction that no project costing over $100,000 could be undertaken out of the block vote. The reason soon became apparent, namely, that the Public Works Department was unable to carry out any large project whenever we required; the net result has been and will continue to be delay in any really big worth-while park or playground project and the spending of the block vote on numerous small projects all of some value and which improve existing facilities and improve a few odd corners here and there and a few round-abouts are beautified but the really big new items are not being attacked fairly and squarely, and at a time when economy is being advocated I personally feel that our block vote should be spent each year on a few main items of which the Public Works Department should be specifically requested to ensure the completion within the particular financial year. I take as examples of this delay such projects as are mentioned on page 4 paragraph 29 of the Progress Statement which have been outstanding for a number of years

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

and upon which work is only just starting or about to start, namely, Li Cheng Uk playground, Fa Hui playground and Fortress Hill playground; the money for these projects has been there but the ability of the Public Works Department to proceed with such important projects has been lacking. The lack of suitable playgrounds in these areas influenced the Council in their selection for order of priority but apparently the Public Works Department regards children's playgrounds and recreational areas of secondary importance only and quite worth while delaying in favour of more commercially worth while enterprises. However let honour be given where honour is due; therefore let me not fail to offer my congratulations that a start is ensured this year on the building of the two new abattoirs and that the City Hall is scheduled for completion in March, 1962!

With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I lend my full support to the statement of our policy for 1962.

MR. J. L. MARDEN:---Mr. Chairman, the first paragraph of the Statement of Progress and Policy lists the various functions which are controlled by the Urban Council, over twenty in number; functions which are so commonplace that they are only noticed in the main when they are not performed, so that the Council is seldom praised and often kicked and criticized through noms de plume in the correspondence columns of the local press. However, when you consider that the population of the urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon, for which this Council is responsible, as shown by the figures given in the Census make it the second largest city in the Commonwealth, excluding London, we must take off our hats to the various sections of the Council which keep the City ticking.

The estimates this year for the Council, including Annual recurrent expenditure, come to some $34,000,000, an increase of some $2,000,000 over last year. This works out at a little over $10 a head per annum of the total urban population, a figure which compares favourably with those for other large urban areas. One thing is certain, that all these various functions have to be done quickly and, in most cases daily. We must make sure, therefore, that these services are efficiently run and maintained, and an investigation by experts into departmental procedure should be welcomed, so that we know that the maximum effective effort is produced from the department. We must remember that we are dealing mainly with people and not machines in this department, so that the words of a leading management expert in the Colony recently are most appropriate "the activity of managing

was an art of getting things done through people". This applies particularly to the Council; as it must not be forgotten that including supernumerary posts, the Council employs over 9,500 people, or nearly twenty per cent of the total employed by Government, we must

Page 23 of 110

Edit History

2026-05-13 16:54:18 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 23 of 110 30 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL not supervise the cleaning of these areas they become filthy, revolting-looking places. It seems strange that people who can afford to pay $400-$500 per month rent or to pay $40,000 or $50,000 or more dollars to buy a flat, have no pride in their surroundings and have no civic consciousness about flinging rubbish out of the windows and out on to the stairways and passages. Of course the design of many of these buildings seems to fall short of what would be expected to be normal health standards or architectural standards, yet the Building Authority does not seem to object. I am speaking particularly of the narrow funnel-like shaft which occurs in the centre of these buildings, ostensibly for ventilation, on to which kitchen and bathroom windows open from four flats from ground floor to the roof, 14 or 15 or more stories up. The water pipes and waste pipes descend and ascend through this shaft which is usually about 10 feet square or even less, these pipes are often leaking and cause the whole area to be damp and wet. Every flat seems to have one or more occupants who throw some sort of rubbish from the kitchen or bathroom window and these airwells or funnels or shafts (or whatever they are technically called) become stinking cesspits, breeding flies and mosquitoes and gradually no one will dare to open a kitchen or a bathroom window because of the stench, especially in the hot weather, and so of course ventilation is non-existent. It would appear that this is a problem initially for the Building Authority who must vet all plans in order to prevent this state of affairs and in those buildings already erected in such a fashion the health staff must step in to enforce regular cleansing; possibly part of the increase in property tax will off-set the cost of the health staff used for this purpose. vote. When the block vote of $1,000,000 was granted for urban amenities, parks and playgrounds we were disappointed that it was not double the amount, and yet we were pleased to have this amount to spend until we found that our hands were tied by the restriction that no project costing over $100,000 could be undertaken out of the block vote. The reason soon became apparent, namely, that the Public Works Department was unable to carry out any large project whenever we required; the net result has been and will continue to be delay in any really big worth-while park or playground project and the spending of the block vote on numerous small projects all of some value and which improve existing facilities and improve a few odd corners here and there and a few round-abouts are beautified but the really big new items are not being attacked fairly and squarely, and at a time when economy is being advocated I personally feel that our block vote should be spent each year on a few main items of which the Public Works Department should be specifically requested to ensure the completion within the particular financial year. I take as examples of this delay such projects as are mentioned on page 4 paragraph 29 of the Progress Statement which have been outstanding for a number of years HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 31 and upon which work is only just starting or about to start, namely, Li Cheng Uk playground, Fa Hui playground and Fortress Hill playground; the money for these projects has been there but the ability of the Public Works Department to proceed with such important projects has been lacking. The lack of suitable playgrounds in these areas influenced the Council in their selection for order of priority but apparently the Public Works Department regards children's playgrounds and recreational areas of secondary importance only and quite worth while delaying in favour of more commercially worth while enterprises. However let honour be given where honour is due; therefore let me not fail to offer my congratulations that a start is ensured this year on the building of the two new abattoirs and that the City Hall is scheduled for completion in March, 1962! With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I lend my full support to the statement of our policy for 1962. MR. J. L. MARDEN:---Mr. Chairman, the first paragraph of the Statement of Progress and Policy lists the various functions which are controlled by the Urban Council, over twenty in number; functions which are so commonplace that they are only noticed in the main when they are not performed, so that the Council is seldom praised and often kicked and criticized through noms de plume in the correspondence columns of the local press. However, when you consider that the population of the urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon, for which this Council is responsible, as shown by the figures given in the Census make it the second largest city in the Commonwealth, excluding London, we must take off our hats to the various sections of the Council which keep the City ticking. The estimates this year for the Council, including Annual recurrent expenditure, come to some $34,000,000, an increase of some $2,000,000 over last year. This works out at a little over $10 a head per annum of the total urban population, a figure which compares favourably with those for other large urban areas. One thing is certain, that all these various functions have to be done quickly and, in most cases daily. We must make sure, therefore, that these services are efficiently run and maintained, and an investigation by experts into departmental procedure should be welcomed, so that we know that the maximum effective effort is produced from the department. We must remember that we are dealing mainly with people and not machines in this department, so that the words of a leading management expert in the Colony recently are most appropriate "the activity of managing was an art of getting things done through people". This applies particularly to the Council; as it must not be forgotten that including supernumerary posts, the Council employs over 9,500 people, or nearly twenty per cent of the total employed by Government, we must Page 23 of 110

Baseline (Original)

Page 23 of 110 30 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL not supervise the cleaning of these areas they become filthy, revolting- looking places. It seems strange that people who can afford to pay $400-$500 per month rent or to pay $40,000 or $50,000 or more dollars to buy a flat, have no pride in their surroundings and have no civic consciousness about flinging rubbish out of the windows and out on to the stairways and passages. Of course the design of many of these buildings seems to fall short of what would be expected to be normal health standards or architectural standards, yet the Building Authority does not seem to object. I am speaking particularly of the narrow funnel-like shaft which occurs in the centre of these buildings, osten- sibly for ventilation, on to which kitchen and bathroom windows open from four flats from ground floor to the roof, 14 or 15 or more stories up. The water pipes and waste pipes descend and ascend through this shaft which is usually about 10 feet square or even less, these pipes are often leaking and cause the whole area to be damp and wet. Every flat seems to have one or more occupants who throws some sort of rubbish from the kitchen or bathroom window and these airwells or funnels or shafts (or whatever they are technically called) become stinking cesspits, breeding flies and mosquitoes and gradually no one will dare to open a kitchen or a bathroom window because of the stench, especially in the hot weather, and so of course ventilation is non-existent. It would appear that this is problem initially for the Building Authority who must vet all plans in order to prevent this state of affairs and in those buildings already erected in such a fashion the health staff must step in to enforce regular cleansing; possibly part of the increase in property tax will off-set the cost of the health staff used for this purpose. vote. When the block vote of $1,000,000 was granted for urban ameni- ties, parks and playgrounds we were disappointed that it was not double the amount, and yet we were pleased to have this amount to spend until we found that our hands were tied by the restriction that no project costing over $100,000 could be undertaken out of the block The reason soon became apparent, namely, that the Public Works Department was unable to carry out any large project whenever we required; the net result has been and will continue to be delay in any really big worth-while park or playground project and the spending of the block vote on numerous small projects all of some value and which improve existing facilities and improve a few odd corners here and there and a few round-abouts are beautified but the really big new items are not being attacked fairly and squarely, and at a time when economy is being advocated I personally feel that our block vote should be spent each year on a few main items of which the Public Works Department should be specifically requested to ensure the com- pletion within the particular financial year. I take as examples of this delay such projects as are mentioned on page 4 paragraph 29 of the Progress Statement which have been outstanding for a number of years HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 31 and upon which work is only just starting or about to start, namely, Li Cheng Uk playground, Fa Hui playground and Fortress Hill play- ground; the money for these projects has been there but the ability of the Public Works Department to proceed with such important projects has been lacking. The lack of suitable playgrounds in these areas influenced the Council in their selection for order of priority but apparently the Public Works Department regards children's play- grounds and recreational areas of secondary importance only and quite worth while delaying in favour of more commercially worth while enterprises. However let honour be given where honour is due; there- fore let me not fail to offer my congratulations that a start is ensured this year on the building of the two new abattoirs and that the City Hall is scheduled for completion in March, 1962! With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I lend my full support to the statement of our policy for 1962. MR. J. L. MARDEN:---Mr. Chairman, the first paragraph of the Statement of Progress and Policy lists the various functions which are controlled by the Urban Council, over twenty in number; functions which are so commonplace that they are only noticed in the main when they are not performed, so that the Council is seldom praised and often kicked and criticized through noms de plume in the corre- spondence columns of the local press. However, when you consider that the population of the urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon, for which this Council is responsible, as shown by the figures given in the Census make it the second largest city in the Commonwealth, excluding London, we must take off our hats to the various sections of the Council which keep the City ticking. The estimates this year for the Council, including Annual recurrent expenditure, come to some $34,000,000, an increase of some $2,000,000 over last year. This works out at a little over $10 a head per annum of the total urban population, a figure which compares favourably with those for other large urban areas. One thing is certain, that all these various functions have to be done quickly and, in most cases daily. We must make sure, therefore, that these services are efficiently run and maintained, and an investigation by experts into departmental procedure should be welcomed, so that we know that the maximum effective effort is produced from the department. We must remember that we are dealing mainly with people and not machines in this department, so that the words of a leading management expert in the Colony recently are most appropriate "the activity of managing was an art of getting things done through people". This applies particularly to the Council; as it must not be forgotten that including supernumerary posts, the Council employs over 9,500 people, or nearly twenty per cent of the total employed by Government, we must

2026-05-13 16:54:18 · Baseline

View content

Page 23 of 110

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

not supervise the cleaning of these areas they become filthy, revolting- looking places. It seems strange that people who can afford to pay $400-$500 per month rent or to pay $40,000 or $50,000 or more dollars to buy a flat, have no pride in their surroundings and have no civic consciousness about flinging rubbish out of the windows and out on to the stairways and passages. Of course the design of many of these buildings seems to fall short of what would be expected to be normal health standards or architectural standards, yet the Building Authority does not seem to object. I am speaking particularly of the narrow funnel-like shaft which occurs in the centre of these buildings, osten- sibly for ventilation, on to which kitchen and bathroom windows open from four flats from ground floor to the roof, 14 or 15 or more stories up. The water pipes and waste pipes descend and ascend through this shaft which is usually about 10 feet square or even less, these pipes are often leaking and cause the whole area to be damp and wet. Every flat seems to have one or more occupants who throws some sort of rubbish from the kitchen or bathroom window and these airwells or funnels or shafts (or whatever they are technically called) become stinking cesspits, breeding flies and mosquitoes and gradually no one will dare to open a kitchen or a bathroom window because of the stench, especially in the hot weather, and so of course ventilation is non-existent. It would appear that this is problem initially for the Building Authority who must vet all plans in order to prevent this state of affairs and in those buildings already erected in such a fashion the health staff must step in to enforce regular cleansing; possibly part of the increase in property tax will off-set the cost of the health staff used for this purpose.

vote.

When the block vote of $1,000,000 was granted for urban ameni- ties, parks and playgrounds we were disappointed that it was not double the amount, and yet we were pleased to have this amount to spend until we found that our hands were tied by the restriction that no project costing over $100,000 could be undertaken out of the block The reason soon became apparent, namely, that the Public Works Department was unable to carry out any large project whenever we required; the net result has been and will continue to be delay in any really big worth-while park or playground project and the spending of the block vote on numerous small projects all of some value and which improve existing facilities and improve a few odd corners here and there and a few round-abouts are beautified but the really big new items are not being attacked fairly and squarely, and at a time when economy is being advocated I personally feel that our block vote should be spent each year on a few main items of which the Public Works Department should be specifically requested to ensure the com- pletion within the particular financial year. I take as examples of this delay such projects as are mentioned on page 4 paragraph 29 of the Progress Statement which have been outstanding for a number of years

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

and upon which work is only just starting or about to start, namely, Li Cheng Uk playground, Fa Hui playground and Fortress Hill play- ground; the money for these projects has been there but the ability of the Public Works Department to proceed with such important projects has been lacking. The lack of suitable playgrounds in these areas influenced the Council in their selection for order of priority but apparently the Public Works Department regards children's play- grounds and recreational areas of secondary importance only and quite worth while delaying in favour of more commercially worth while enterprises. However let honour be given where honour is due; there- fore let me not fail to offer my congratulations that a start is ensured this year on the building of the two new abattoirs and that the City Hall is scheduled for completion in March, 1962!

With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I lend my full support to the statement of our policy for 1962.

MR. J. L. MARDEN:---Mr. Chairman, the first paragraph of the Statement of Progress and Policy lists the various functions which are controlled by the Urban Council, over twenty in number; functions which are so commonplace that they are only noticed in the main when they are not performed, so that the Council is seldom praised and often kicked and criticized through noms de plume in the corre- spondence columns of the local press. However, when you consider that the population of the urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon, for which this Council is responsible, as shown by the figures given in the Census make it the second largest city in the Commonwealth, excluding London, we must take off our hats to the various sections of the Council which keep the City ticking.

1961 — Page 23

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note