Page 142 of 241
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It shows no concern for the terrible conditions in which most residents live, and is not only reducing its own housing programme, but is encouraging landlords to keep rents at a level aimed at filling their pockets (no doubt for foreign investment), without a care for the people who cannot afford to pay exorbitant rents. The Government is allowing shop and factory rents to rise so high that many are losing their means of livelihood. There is now a glut of landlords applying to evict their tenants on the excuse that they need the flats for their own families. Consequently more and more workers' families are having to accept resites for huts, and the squatter problem is on the increase. All this talk about providing homes for squatters has been exposed as a great pretence.
And last of all I should like to talk about Traffic and Transport which should be under the Urban Council. This is one matter on which I think we can all agree, though drivers will always blame pedestrians and pedestrians will always blame drivers. The fact is that there is no attempt to solve the problem of traffic on a long-term basis. We are told that flyovers will do so much for us, but as far as I can see the flyovers only aggravate the situation by making routes longer and pushing the traffic jams to the next corner. Roads are repaired at the speed of a tortoise, and before one section is repaired the next section is up. Look for example at the road from Prince Edward Road to San Po Kong! It is utter chaos and a headache to everyone who uses it. Apart from the accidents this area has caused, think of all the wasted man-hours of the people travelling in that area! I do not know if the P.W.D. has a total plan here but if it has it is hard to see. I would like to ask if it is not possible to speed things up.
A problem connected with traffic is transport. The bus company on the Kowloon side has proved itself totally incapable of dealing with public transport. The Government's reticence to cancel the monopoly in Kowloon has brought about such a chaotic situation that it is probably too late to do anything about it. But still no attempt is even made. Travelling on a K.M.B. bus is a torture that no worker or student should be called upon to endure. People's necks are being stretched gazing for buses, numerous persons are being injured, and passengers are having to put up with intolerable treatment as they travel on these buses. Only the patience of the Chinese people could have put up with this situation for so long, but I really do not know how much longer this patience can hold out.
The solution must be an underground system at least to the more crowded urban areas, thus relieving the roads for other traffic and saving the public the torture of being thrown around on buses. Until this is done, I suggest that an Urban Council bus service should be introduced to take people to the new housing estates which are the most neglected of all by K.M.B. The Commissioner of Transport should get down at once to solving this most urgent problem.
With these words, Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. (Applause).
MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo:- Mr. Chairman, one of our aims for 1971 as set out in the Statement of Aims is to raise the standard of hygiene in all food premises by intensifying prosecution of unlicensed food premises and physical closure of the premises wherever practicable. Prosecution is the proper and most appropriate and should be the most effective way of enforcing laws and regulations. In order to be an effective deterrent however, two conditions must be satisfied. The first is to carry out a successful prosecution and to obtain a conviction. The second is for an appropriate fine to be imposed. I say an appropriate fine because too heavy a fine would be unjust and too small a fine would be ineffective. The department must step up its prosecutions against offenders against the laws and regulations concerning food businesses but it is discouraging to note that the fines imposed in such cases have been so small as to be no deterrent to the operators of food businesses. What is the use of fining owners of unlicensed restaurants $25 or $50 each time when their income is likely to be several thousand dollars a month? In the absence of a system of minimum fine I would ask the Judiciary to reconsider their attitude to these particular offences and to impose fines which are really punishments and really hurt the pockets of the offenders.
In any case, the work of enforcing our laws and regulations is difficult enough, because of the number of Law Enforcement agencies concerned. For instance, a person who operates an unlicensed restaurant in a permanent building would be dealt with by the Health staff of the U.S.D. whereas a cooked food hawker who operates in the streets would be dealt with by the Hawker Control Force in areas where they operate, otherwise he will be dealt with by the Police. Now if a person were to sell food or serve meals not from a permanent building but from a flimsy structure which he has set up, is he to be dealt with as carrying on an unlicensed restaurant or is he to be regarded as a cooked food hawker? Alternatively, should he be prosecuted by the Police for causing an obstruction? Let us go a step further and suppose that all this takes place within the resettlement estate. In that case, perhaps, it would be the duty of the Resettlement Department to demolish the illegal structure. This is only one example where the exact division of responsibility is not clear. There are others but I do not think I need elaborate any further. In view of this, it is inevitable that a certain amount of passing the buck will go on. Each department may legitimately consider that action should not be taken by them.
Page 264
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
265
241
Page 142 of 241
264
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It shows no concern for the terrible conditions in which most residents live, and is not only reducing its own housing programme, but is encouraging landlords to keep rents at a level aimed at filling their pockets (no doubt for foreign investment), without a care for the people who cannot afford to pay exorbitant rents. The Government is allowing shop and factory rents to rise so high that many are losing their means of livelihood. There is now a glut of landlords applying to evict their tenants on the excuse that they need the flats for their own families. Consequently more and more workers' families are having to accept resites for huts, and the squatter problem is on the increase. All this talk about providing homes for squatters has been exposed as a great pretence.
And last of all I should like to talk about Traffic and Transport which should be under the Urban Council. This is one matter on which I think we can all agree, though drivers will always blame pedestrians and pedestrians will always blame drivers. The fact is that there is no attempt to solve the problem of traffic on a long-term basis. We are told that flyovers will do so much for us, but as far as I can see the flyovers only aggravate the situation by making routes longer and pushing the traffic jams to the next corner. Roads are repaired at the speed of a tortoise, and before one section is repaired the next section is up. Look for example at the road from Prince Edward Road to San Po Kong! It is utter chaos and a headache to everyone who uses it. Apart from the accidents this area has caused, think of all the wasted man-hours of the people travelling in that area! I do not know if the P.W.D. has a total plan here but if it has it is hard to see. I would like to ask if it is not possible to speed things up.
A problem connected with traffic is transport. The bus company on the Kowloon side has proved itself totally incapable of dealing with public transport. The Government's reticence to cancel the monopoly in Kowloon has brought about such a chaotic situation that it is probably too late to do anything about it. But still no attempt is even made. Travelling on a K.M.B. bus is a torture that no worker or student should be called upon to endure. People's necks are being stretched gazing for buses, numerous persons are being injured, and passengers are having to put up with intolerable treatment as they travel on these buses. Only the patience of the Chinese people could have put up with this situation for so long, but I really do not know how much longer this patience can hold cut.
The solution must be an underground system at least to the more crowded urban areas, thus relieving the roads for other traffic and saving the public the torture of being thrown around on buses. Until this is done, I suggest that an Urban Council bus service should be
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
265
introduced to take people to the new housing estates which are the most neglected of all by K.M.B. The Commissioner of Transport should get down at once to solving this most urgent problem.
With these words, Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. (Applause).
MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo:-Mr. Chairman, one of our aims for 1971 as set out in the Statement of Aims is to raise the standard of hygiene in all food premises by intensifying prosecution of unlicensed food premises and physical closure of the premises wherever practicable. Prosecution is the proper and most appropriate and should be the most effective way of enforcing laws and regulations. In order to be an effective deterrent however, two conditions must be satisfied. The first is to carry out a successful prosecution and to obtain a conviction. The second is for an appropriate fine to be imposed. I say an appropriate fine because too heavy a fine would be unjust and too small a fine would be ineffective. The department must step up its prosecutions against offenders against the laws and regulations concern- ing food businesses but it is discouraging to note that the fines imposed in such cases have been so small as to be no deterrent to the operators of food businesses. What is the use of fining owners of unlicensed restaurants $25 or $50 each time when their income is likely to be several thousand dollars a month? In the absence of a system of minimum fine I would ask the Judiciary to reconsider their attitude to these particular offences and to impose fines which are really punish- ments and really hurt the pockets of the offenders.
In any case, the work of enforcing our laws and regulations is difficult enough, because of the number of Law Enforcement agencies concerned. For instance, a person who operates an unlicensed res- taurant in a permanent building would be dealt with by the Health staff of the U.S.D. whereas a cooked food hawker who operates in the streets would be dealt with by the Hawker Control Force in areas where they operate, otherwise he will be dealt with by the Police. Now if a person were to sell food or serve meals not from a permanent building but from a flimsy structure which he has set up, is he to be dealt with as carrying on an unlicensed restaurant or is he to be regarded as a cooked food hawker? Alternatively, should he be prosecuted by the Police for causing an obstruction? Let us go a step further and suppose that all this takes place within the resettlement estate. In that case, perhaps, it would be the duty of the Resettlement Department to demolish the illegal structure. This is only one example where the exact division of responsibility is not clear. There are others but I do not think I need elaborate any further. In view of this, it is inevitable that a certain amount of passing the buck wll go on. Each depart- ment may legitimately consider that action should not be taken by them
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.