1967 — Page 86

150

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 86 of 259

151

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES:-Mr. Chairman, I will give Mr. CHEONG-LEEN that assurance with pleasure.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Thank you.

MR. BERNACCHI:-Perhaps whilst giving that assurance you could also assure that the sugar factory has a fair deal?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES:-Mr. Chairman, I also give that assurance with pleasure.

(5) MR. HENRY H. L. Hu asked the following question:

Complaints were received by me that one would be punished if one spits in a public place. What measures would be taken by this Council or the Urban Services Department to reduce the nuisance caused by the dogs' defecating on the streets or other public places?

THE CHAIRMAN, URBAN COUNCIL, replied as follows: -

Short of banishing dogs from our streets and public places there is no way of preventing such nuisance. The department's beat sweepers have instructions to sweep up and dispose of the offensive matter in the normal way. This does reduce the nuisance. If there is any particular locality you have in mind, Sir, I will have it investigated.

MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, thank you for your very short answer. (Laughter). As a matter of fact, the complainants are not quite happy, because they feel that, whilst spitting on streets is an offence, they find a lot of dogs fouling the streets. The particular locality which they have in mind, Mr. Chairman, is Victoria Park, and other places and streets where lovers usually go. (Laughter). Mr. Chairman, would you kindly look into Victoria Park and other parks and streets in the Colony?

MR. SALES: Sir, with your permission, I cannot answer for the quiet streets where lovers congregate, but I do answer for Victoria Park, and, that is, that a dogs' corner at Victoria Park was ready in July according to the schedule of work carried out under the block amenities vote. There is already a dogs' corner in the Chatham Road Garden, and another one is being planned for the Kowloon Tsai Park. I hope that, with the question which our colleague, Mr. Hu, has asked to-day, the other members of the Parks Recreation and Amenities Select Committee will support the creation of even more dogs' corners in the parks and playgrounds of Hong Kong.

MR. HU:-Thank you Mr. SALES. Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary to ask. Could we consider raising the licensing fee for dogs? At present what is the licensing fee for a dog per year?

CHAIRMAN:-The licence fee is $10 a year.

MR. HU:-Could we raise it so that we could have more sweepers on the streets to clean up after dogs?

CHAIRMAN:-The licence fee for dog licences is not fixed by the Council, but I shall be glad to pass your suggestion on to the right quarter.

MR. HU:-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, since dogs cannot spit but can only defecate, can you advise Members of this Council from the Department's point of view which is worse, a human being spitting in a public place or a dog defecating in a public place?

CHAIRMAN:-Sir, that is asking for an expression of opinion on which I am protected by Standing Orders. (Laughter).

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Sir, this is a matter of public health, not an expression of opinion.

(6) MR. PETER P. K. NG asked the following question:

Can the Commissioner for Resettlement advise the Council that:

(a) Since January 1967 how many MARK I Resettlement Estates have been converted to self-contained units?

(b) How many people have been decanted or moved to places of better living conditions because of such improvements?

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:-

In reply to the first part of this question, no Mark I blocks have yet been converted to provide self-contained units. I am in the process of formulating proposals for a start to be made with the conversion of some particularly over-crowded blocks, but any such programme will require the support of the Housing Board since it will obviously have implications for the resettlement building programme.

Although therefore the answer to the second part of the question is, necessarily, that nobody has achieved better living conditions as a result of the conversion of Mark I blocks,