1964 — Page 226

428

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 226 of 312

429

Now I come back to the question of the adequacy and the strength of the staff in the Urban Services Department.

First and foremost, there is that conspicuous absence of a Deputy Director in this Department, a Department which is second to very few in size and in the variety of matters under its control; and a Department whose Director has to act concurrently as Chairman of a most hard-working Council. (Cries of Hear, Hear) (Laughter). A Deputy Director is called for here, to shoulder the routine administrative and executive burdens.

The diversity of interest and the technical "know-how" involved in this Department also call for recruitment of more high-grade officers.

I am very glad that a new post, Principal Officer for Parks and Playgrounds has been created, to be responsible for the work which has hitherto been undertaken by the Superintendent of Gardens. I would go further to advocate for one or two more sub-heads with the rank of Assistant Directors. For example, instead of only one Assistant Director in charge of Amenities and General Services, it might be justifiable, in view of the scope of work he has to cope with, to have two Assistant Directors,-one for amenities and one for the general service. I also fully support Mr. Wilfred WONG who emphasized on the importance of the quality of our health inspectors. I would go further to say it applies to all other supervisory staff, and I would like also to echo Mr. SALES by bringing to the department's attention that we are indeed very far behind in the employment of modern machines in our method of cleansing.

With these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to support the motion.

MR. CHEUNG WING-IN:-Mr. Chairman, from the Quarterly Progress Reports and the Statement of Aims and Objects for discussion to-day, it is clear to the whole community that considerable progress has been made in the variegated functions of the Council during the previous year.

This progress may fairly be contributed to the hard work and high efficiency both of the Council and of the Department. However, there is one aspect of the work which it is our duty to do and which I may say we have failed badly over the years. I refer to our failure to introduce by-laws to regulate and control Advertisements.

Advertisements. Whilst the Department procrastinates and delays, advertisement signs in our city streets are getting bigger and nearer to the centre of our streets each day, blocking each other and even our street signs. In many cases, these signs adversely affect the very appearance of the urban areas that we are trying to improve.

As an illustration of the urgency of our problem, a certain funeral parlour proprietor has included in his building plan, a huge neon sign facing King's Road, projecting 5 feet out into the street and reaching from the first floor right up to the roof of his multi-storey building. Members of the Cemeteries, Crematoria and Funeral Parlours Select Committee considered such a sign in a busy thoroughfare distasteful, but no amount of persuasion or coercion on the part of the Committee, or of the Department, to reduce the size or change the location of the sign has proved of any avail.

This problem has impelled me as the Chairman of that Committee to consider the legal position of the Council in regard to such signs. As early as 1912, under the Advertisement Regulations Ordinance, the Urban Council was authorized to make by-laws with regard to the licensing, control, prohibition and removal of advertisements of any kind whatsoever and the prescribing of fees to be charged in connexion with these matters. In 1920, by-laws were made controlling sky signs and prohibiting advertisements that disfigure the beauty of any scenery or affect injuriously the amenities of any locality. It is these by-laws made 44 years ago, and as you may expect quite inadequate for present day requirements, that the Urban Council is applying to-day.

The Advertisements Regulations which made the Urban Council the sole authority in regard to advertisement signs, subject to certain rights of appeal, was in 1960 repealed and replaced by Part IX of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance. Whether this measure was brought about by the failure of the Urban Council to put advertisement signs under proper control, or whether it was done at the request and with the full consent of the Council, I can only hazard a guess.

The fact remains that under the re-enactment, the Urban Council has lost its original position as the principal authority in regard to advertisements. In fact the Council has been relegated to the position of being an executive arm of the Building Authority in cases where a sign becomes dangerous, and of the Fire Services Department when a sign constitutes a fire risk. Upon the issuance of a certificate by either Department, the Council is to serve notice on the owner of the sign to effect the necessary removal or repairs. One feature of the re-enactment in which we can still take some consolation, is the reservation of power for the Council to make by-laws, but the power for prescribing charges for advertisements has not been retained.

On account of the urgency of the matter and of the long delay of 4 years from 1960 when the new Ordinance was passed, I urge that no