1966 — Page 195

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

While we are still on the subject of licence, I would also like to touch upon the very difficult question of hawker licence in relation to the Hawker Control Force. The problem of Hawker Control has been very much in our minds these days. Nobody has yet come up with a ready-made solution, and any plan we may formulate or hope to carry out with any degree of success and effectiveness must take into consideration the relative functions of the Control Force now that they are in existence. My point in this case is the necessity of extending the function and authority of the Control Force so that on the one hand they can assist the licensed hawkers to maintain law and order within the controlled areas and at the same time be able to restrict and, when necessary, to prosecute illegal hawking without a licence. The present system tends to penalize the honest and encourage illegal hawking, because a hawker without a licence is outside the jurisdiction of the Control Force and so has only to run from the police, while an honest licensed hawker has the police and the Control Force to contend with.

The above points conclude my theme on good house-keeping and efficient management by streamlining, overhauling, and overall planning of the entire licensing system.

I cannot leave this Council today without again touching on my pet subject of Chinese gardens and the preservation of places of historical interest. Only 2 or 3 weeks ago, many rural organizations have taken up this subject by suggesting that Government preserves certain areas in Castle Peak in commemoration of Dr. SUN Yat Sen, and also the preservation of the old fort in Lantau.

None of us can fail to see that the rapid industrial development in the Colony, especially in Kowloon and the New Territories, is destroying every day important historical landmarks as well as our way of life, which attracted every year, in the past, tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world. Very soon, what is left of a beautiful city of Eastern charm, ageless culture, and graceful living will become but another concrete jungle with ugly tall buildings, smoking factories, and Resettlement Estates. If we are to continue to develop our tourist trade, overall planning by Government to preserve our natural beauty of the countryside and places of historical value is of imperative importance and urgency. If and when Government decides to set up a Council or a Committee to implement the proposals of the Talbot Report, I suggest that the preservation of historical landmarks be included in their terms of reference.

Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I beg to support the motion before the Council. (Applause).

Page 362

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

363

DR. A. M. S. BELL:- Mr. Chairman, our Statement of Aims is rather like a Hong Kong School Text Book; every year a new edition is printed, and now the 1967 edition once again contains a few minor amendments to the text, and most importantly, one new chapter headed General Policy, which in this edition only runs to one paragraph (23), leaving much scope for addition next year. In previous years, we have had a Summary of Statement of Aims, and not just a Statement of Aims; I prefer to regard this Statement today as still a Summary, and therefore to enlarge upon some of the sections.

Environmental Hygiene:

In Environmental Hygiene, we aim to continue house inspection, paying particular attention to the problem of multi-storey buildings. I hope that one of the problems which is going to exercise the Government is the presence in such multi-storey buildings, which were designated as domestic dwellings, of small factories and workshops, which, because they don't use any power-driven machinery, are not the concern of the Labour Department under its present Ordinance, and are not the concern of the Fire Brigade if they do not store more than a permitted amount of inflammable substances, and are not the concern of the Police if they don't disturb the peace or break the law, and are not the concern of this Council if they don't cause a provable health hazard or a prosecutable nuisance, but they are very much the concern of the unfortunate domestic owners or tenants of the other flats in these buildings. Many of these tenants have put their savings into the purchase of a nice domestic flat, which has other nice domestic flats above, below, and next to it, only to find that in a short time, one of these other flats becomes a printing factory, or a tailor's workshop, or a food factory, etc. These places create smell, dirt, noise, nuisance, and inconvenience to other domestic dwellers of the building. The environs are changed and ruined, and the value of the property and individual flats is decreased. When the unfortunate domestic flat dwellers make a complaint, it is turned down by every department as not being their concern. But it must be someone's concern! The Building Authority authorizes the use to which accommodation may be put when the occupation permit is issued. Do they follow up in any way to see whether that permission is being abused? The Rating and Valuation Office assess rates; do they investigate whether, in fact, the premises are domestic, as permitted, or have been converted into factories and workshops, which should surely be assessed differently? Does this Council refuse to issue a food factory or other types of licence, even if the health requirements can be made satisfactory, if the premise itself has a domestic dwelling occupation certificate? Is there any law which can be enacted or amended to protect people against this type of detrimental and all too frequent misuse of domestic premises? I urge that Government should set up a committee to investigate this problem and to find a solution to remove

Page 195

Page 196

of 279