Page 289 of 312
552
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Chinese Affairs on action initiated by flat-dwellers in certain multi-storey buildings when faced with common problems of management, health hazards, etc. It was stated in the report that a number of Residents' Associations had been formed for this purpose. Whether this system will help to solve the problem remains to be seen.
For the reasons which I have stated, I consider that I must vote against the motion.
MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN:- Mr. Chairman, I was not prepared to speak at length on this motion, but since my friend Mr. BERNACCHI has quite rightly said that this is an election motion (Laughter) I think the Civic Association Elected Members will play the game and will refrain from speaking on it, particularly in view of the fact that we are not at all fully convinced as to the practicability of the motion.
MR. A. de O. SALES:- Mr. Chairman, may I say that just as Mr. CHEONG-LEEN has done, I am also refraining from speaking on this motion. However, we, the Appointed Members, have always said that we would like to see Hong Kong a cleaner place for all to live in but only to the extent that any proposal that is made in this Council must be practical and within our means. We consider that the motion before us, however meritorious its intent, is not feasible at this stage of development. In fact, I would like to suggest to Mr. BERNACCHI that he might consider amending his motion to include the request that not only communal parts of multi-storey buildings be swept by the Urban Services Department, but also private houses having regard to the serious domestic servant problem in Hong Kong. That should be our ambition. However, it cannot be satisfied. In a more serious vein, may I suggest that the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee Chairman is more conscious than anybody else in this Council, that the Urban Services Department is unable to meet its obligations in regard to roads and streets and other public places. Such being the case, it would seem logical to conclude that the scheme as proposed to this Council could not possibly be put into effect. Even were it passed it would remain another motion on paper without there being any hope of its ever being implemented. In the circumstances, short of this motion being withdrawn, I regret that my colleagues and I on this side of the table certainly have to oppose it, although we completely sympathize with Mr. BERNACCHI and Dr. LEE in their intention to make Hong Kong a cleaner place.
MR. BERNACCHI:- Mr. Chairman, I think that I can reply to your remarks and to Mr. SALES' remarks at the same time. They amount to this that whilst sympathetic with my motion it would cost too much. The figures given by you provide for another 2,000 labourers and another hundred supervisory staff. I ask you, oratorically of course, "Would that be too much to keep Hong Kong clear of rubbish?" This Council
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
553
has often been criticised for embarking on subjects which are not within the Council's jurisdiction and we have heard in editorials that we should concentrate on the clearance of rubbish. Now the editorials, of course, refer specifically to street rubbish, but in my submission the clearance of rubbish from communal parts of multi-storey buildings is just as heavy and tricky a problem as the clearance of street rubbish and, in my opinion and submission, the cost of 2,000 more labourers is not too heavy a cost for this Council to bear, or for Government to bear, in implementation of my motion.
In reply to Mr. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN, I acknowledge the quip that he was able to make out of my address, but, of course, I did not say that this is an election motion. I said that it had come to the candidates' notice because they were visiting voters in communal parts of multi-storey buildings and said, in fact, that this is one of the values of election, in that it forces elected members more than ever to go and see things for themselves. In fact, this is not the first time that the problem has been raised in this Chamber. It has been raised by questions, at least once-I think much more than once-and it is a fact that no one can deny, and no one has attempted to deny, that the communal parts of multi-storey buildings are a disgrace to Hong Kong, and the people who have to live in the flats and shops cannot be expected to tolerate them and yet pay the heavily inflated rates that they are being charged by Government. For those rates, I submit that they are entitled to have us or the Urban Services Department go in and clean the communal parts for them. Government has consented to the selling of buildings flat by flat, shop by shop, and this is a direct result of Government's consent and willingness to such sales. It was never the practice before the war to sell like that; the whole building was sold and then tenants were admitted to the shops and the flats. The position is totally different now and this Council must view the difference and deal with it in an appropriate way. I submit that the only appropriate way is for officers of the Urban Services Department to go in to sweep and clean the place.
MR. A. de O. SALES:- Mr. Chairman, may I exercise my right to clarify my position in consequence of the statement which Mr. BERNACCHI made just now in exercising his own right of reply as the proposer of the motion? First and foremost, at no time did I allude to the dollars and cents aspect of the matter. I made it very clear that I was concerned with the inability of the Urban Council to meet its fundamental obligation of keeping the streets and the public places clean. That was one of the points which deter us from supporting this motion. I do not say that we have no sympathy for the intention of the proposer but we must take into consideration whether the department is able to fulfil one of its primary functions before taking in further large-scale commitments. Indeed, I do not think the motion
Page 289 of 312
552
...
Page 290 of 312
553
12
Page 289 of 312
552
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Chinese Affairs on action initiated by flat-dwellers in certain multi-storey buildings when faced with common problems of management, health hazards, etc. It was stated in the report that a number of Residents' Associations had been formed for this purpose. Whether this system will help to solve the problem remains to be seen.
For the reasons which I have stated, I consider that I must vote against the motion.
MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, I was not prepared to speak at length on this motion, but since my friend Mr. BERNACCHI has quite rightly said that this is an election motion (Laughter) I think the Civic Association Elected Members will play the game and will refrain from speaking on it, particularly in view of the fact that we are not at all fully convinced as to the practicability of the motion.
MR. A. de O. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, may I say that just as Mr. CHEONG-LEEN has done, I am also refraining from speaking on this motion. However, we, the Appointed Members, have always said that we would like to see Hong Kong a cleaner place for all to live in but only to the extent that any proposal that is made in this Council must be practical and within our means. We consider that the motion before us, however meritorious its intent, is not feasible at this stage of develop- ment. In fact, I would like to suggest to Mr. BERNACCHI that he might consider amending his motion to include the request that not only communal parts of multi-storey buildings be swept by the Urban Ser- vices Department, but also private houses having regard to the serious domestic servant problem in Hong Kong. That should be our ambition. However, it cannot be satisfied. In a more serious vein, may I suggest that the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee Chairman is more conscious than anybody else in this Council, that the Urban Services Department is unable to meet its obligations in regard to roads and streets and other public places. Such being the case, it would seem logical to conclude that the scheme as proposed to this Council could not possibly be put into effect. Even were it passed it would remain another motion on paper without there being any hope of its ever being implemented. In the circumstances, short of this motion being with- drawn, I regret that my colleagues and I on this side of the table cer- tainly have to oppose it, although we completely sympathize with Mr. BERNACCHI and Dr. LEE in their intention to make Hong Kong a cleaner place.
MR. BERNACCHI:-Mr. Chairman, I think that I can reply to your remarks and to Mr. SALES' remarks at the same time. They amount to this that whilst sympathetic with my motion it would cost too much. The figures given by you provide for another 2,000 labourers and another hundred supervisory staff. I ask you, oratorically of course, "Would that be too much to keep Hong Kong clear of rubbish?" This Council
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
553
has often been criticised for embarking on subjects which are not within the Council's jurisdiction and we have heard in editorials that we should concentrate on the clearance of rubbish. Now the editorials, of course, refer specifically to street rubbish, but in my submission the clearance of rubbish from communal parts of multi-storey buildings is just as heavy and tricky a problem as the clearance of street rubbish and, in my opinion and submission, the cost of 2,000 more labourers is not too heavy a cost for this Council to bear, or for Government to bear, in implementation of my motion.
In reply to Mr. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN, I acknowledge the quip that he was able to make out of my address, but, of course, I did not say that this is an election motion. I said that it had come to the candi- dates' notice because they were visiting voters in communal parts of multi-storey buildings and said, in fact, that this is one of the values of election, in that it forces elected members more than ever to go and see things for themselves. In fact, this is not the first time that the problem has been raised in this Chamber. It has been raised by questions, at least once-I think much more than once-and it is a fact that no one can deny, and no one has attempted to deny, that the communal parts of multi-storey buildings are a disgrace to Hong Kong, and the people who have to live in the flats and shops cannot be expect- ed to tolerate them and yet pay the heavily inflated rates that they are being charged by Government. For those rates, I submit that they are entitled to have us or the Urban Services Department go in and clean the communal parts for them. Government has consented to the selling of buildings flat by flat, shop by shop, and this is a direct result of Government's consent and willingness to such sales. It was never the practice before the war to sell like that; the whole building was sold and then tenants were admitted to the shops and the flats. The position is totally different now and this Council must view the difference and deal with it in an appropriate way. I submit that the only appropriate way is for officers of the Urban Services Department to go in to sweep and clean the place.
MR. A. de O. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, may I exercise my right to clarify my position in consequence of the statement which Mr. BERNACCHI made just now in exercising his own right of reply as the proposer of the motion? First and foremost, at no time did I allude to the dollars and cents aspect of the matter. I made it very clear that I was concerned with the inability of the Urban Council to meet its fundamental obligation of keeping the streets and the public places clean. That was one of the points which deter us from supporting this motion. I do not say that we have no sympathy for the intention of the proposer but we must take into consideration whether the depart- ment is able to fulfil one of its primary functions before taking in further large-scale commitments. Indeed, I do not think the motion
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.