Page 167
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
were visited from time to time by health inspectors and would be subject to prosecution if a health hazard was found. What sort of deterrent is this? The fine is likely to be of the order of $50.00 to $100.00.
The existence of these clubs weakens our case, when we demand higher fines and stronger measures against unlicensed restaurants. I therefore urge that proprietary clubs be made subject to the same requirements as if they were restaurants.
I would now like to say something about the site for the new museum. After all the debates and arguments on this subject, I trust that this is no longer a controversial issue. There are indications that Government will make available a site on or near the present Kowloon Railway Terminus and such a site has found general acceptance. This of course is dependent on the removal of the railway terminus, which in its turn is dependent on the completion of the new terminus. The Honourable Director of Public Works has indicated March 1975 as the target date for the removal of the present Kowloon Canton Terminus. This being the case, we must plan for the site to be available by that date.
The building of the new museum is an opportunity which is unlikely to recur again. It must, therefore, be carefully planned well in advance to ensure that it is the best that can be designed and built on the site. Government must come to a decision as soon as possible. It will not be sufficient just to decide in principle that there should be a museum built on or near the present railway terminus. A decision must be reached as to which area precisely is to be allocated for the building. We do not want to be left in the position where the railway terminus has been removed but the planning for the new museum has not yet been completed, so that work cannot be started. We want to get on with the job as soon as the site is made available.
Finally a word about the Anti Litter Campaign due to take place next year.
The Campaign Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Denny HUANG has a big problem on its hands. Of that there can be no doubt. They will need all the help they can get if they are to succeed, and succeed they must if our living environment is to match up to the rising aspirations of our population.
Today, I will confine myself only to one aspect, that is concerning the so-called presumption clause in the proposed new Anti Litter legislation. It is evident that the present law requires amendments if the Campaign is to be effective. Judging from the experience of Singapore, it appears that one of the most important changes required is the presumption clause. This will place the responsibility on the occupier of ground floor premises to keep clear the area adjoining his premises. I cannot understand why there should be any legal difficulty about this. It does not seem to me to offend any principle of English law. If litter is found in front of a shop, it is not even necessary to presume that the occupier of that shop was responsible for depositing it there. We merely have to place the responsibility upon him for clearing such litter away whether he or some other person altogether put it there in the first place. So despite the name which has been given to the clause, there is no need for any presumption of guilt at all.
Page 168
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
315
premises. I cannot understand why there should be any legal difficulty about this. It does not seem to me to offend any principle of English law. If litter is found in front of a shop, it is not even necessary to presume that the occupier of that shop was responsible for depositing it there. We merely have to place the responsibility upon him for clearing such litter away whether he or some other person altogether put it there in the first place. So despite the name which has been given to the clause, there is no need for any presumption of guilt at all.
There are already similar provisions in our existing laws. For instance, if there is litter or refuse in my garden, which causes a nuisance then I am responsible. It will be no defence to say that I did not deposit it there myself. Similarly, a person may be guilty of an offence for permitting mosquitoes to breed, even though the receptacles where the mosquitoes are breeding were placed on his premises by someone else.
Without the presumption clause, or some similar legislation, the Campaign Committee will be gravely handicapped. I sincerely hope that this extra and unnecessary obstacle will not be placed in the path of the Committee.
With these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the motion. (Applause).
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG:-Sir, I wish to make a few comments in support of the motion:
I. White Paper on Local Government Reform
The Government started talking about enlarging the scope of this Council early in 1966, and an Ad Hoc Committee on that subject submitted its report in August that year, and when I made my first speech here in 1967, I was full of confidence that our Government was serious about the project and would honour its promise. Year after year I have become anxious and frustrated and to-day I am indeed furious after reading the White Paper.
Thirty-five years after this Council was created in its present form and after five years' talk on its future scope, the White Paper came out with virtually no recommendation on enlargement of scope at all. While all relevant reports on this subject, two submitted by this Council and one by the Colonial Secretariat, agreed that there should be a gradual increase in Elected Members and a gradual decrease in appointed members, the White Paper recommends an increase of two seats each. This recommendation is not only against the principle that later Members of this Council should be predominantly elected but also will cause practical difficulties in carrying out our duties.
Page 169
242
Page 167 of 242
314
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
were visited from time to time by health inspectors and would be subject to prosecution if a health hazard was found. What sort of deterrent is this? The fine is likely to be of the order of $50.00 to $100.00.
The existence of these clubs weakens our case, when we demand higher fines and stronger measures against unlicensed restaurants. I therefore urge that proprietary clubs be made subject to the same requirements as if they were restaurants.
I would now like to say something about the site for the new museum. After all the debates and arguments on this subject, I trust that this is no longer a controversial issue. There are indications that Government will make available a site on or near the present Kowloon Railway Terminus and such a site has found general acceptance. This of course is dependent on the removal of the railway terminus, which in its term is dependent on the completion of the new terminus. The Honourable Director of Public Works has indicated March 1975 as the target date for the removal of the present Kowloon Canton Terminus. This being the case, we must plan for the site to be available by that date.
The building of the new museum is an opportunity which is un- likely to recur again. It must, therefore, be carefully planned well in advance to ensure that it is the best that can be designed and built on the site. Government must come to a decision as soon as possible. It will not be sufficient just to decide in principle that there should be a museum built on or near the present railway terminus. A decision must be reached as to which area precisely, is to be allocated for the building. We do not want to be left in the position where the railway terminus has been removed but the planning for the new museum has not yet been completed, so that work cannot be started. We want to get on with the job as soon as the site is made available.
Finally a word about the Anti Litter Campaign due to take place next year.
The Campaign Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Denny HUANG has a big problem on its hands. Of that there can be no doubt. They will need all the help they can get if they are to succeed, and succeed they must if our living environment is to match up to the rising aspirations of our population.
Today, I will confine myself only to one aspect, that is concern- ing the so called presumption clause in the proposed new Anti Litter legislation. It is evident that the present law requires amendments if the Campaign is to be effective. Judging from the experience of Singapore, it appears that one of the most important changes required is the presumption clause. This will place the responsibility on the occupier of ground floor premises to keep clear the area adjoining his
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
315
premises. I cannot understand why there should be any legal difficulty about this. It does not seem to me to offend any principle of English law. If litter is found in front of a shop, it is not even necessary to presume that the occupier of that shop was responsible for depositing it there. We merely have to place the responsibility upon him for clearing such litter away whether, he or some other person altogether put it there in the first place. So despite the name which has been given to the clause, there is no need for any presumption of guilt at all.
There are already similar provisions in our existing laws. For instance, if there is litter or refuse in my garden, which causes a nuisance then I am responsible. It will be no defence to say that I did not deposit it there myself. Similarly, a person may be guilty of an offence for permitting mosquitoes to breed, even though the recep- tacles where the mosquitoes are breeding were placed on his premises by some one else.
Without the presumption clause, or some similar legislation, the Campaign Committee will be gravefully handicapped. I sincerely hope that this extra and unnecessary obstacle will not be placed in the path of the Committee.
With these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the motion. (Applause).
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG:-Sir, I wish to make a few comments in support of the motion:
I. White Paper on Local Government Reform
The Government started talking about enlarging the scope of this Council early in 1966, and an Ad Hoc Committee on that subject submitted its report in August that year, and when I made my first speech here in 1967, I was full of confidence that our Government was serious about the project and would honour its promise. Year after year I have become anxious and frustrated and to-day I am indeed furious after reading the White Paper.
Thirty-five years after this Council was created in its present form and after five years' talk on its future scope, the White Paper came out with virtually no recommendation on enlargement of scope at all. While all relevant reports on this subject, two submitted by this Council and one by the Colonial Secretariat, agreed that there should be a gradual increase in Elected Members and a gradual decrease in appointed members, the White Paper recommends an increase of two seats each. This recommendation is not only against the principle that later Members of this Council should be predominantly elected but also will cause practical difficulties in carrying out our duties.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.