1971 — Page 168

Page 168 of 242

316

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

The slighting way that the White Paper has treated the future scope of this Council will obviously make the already apathetic attitude of our electors towards Urban Council elections worse and fewer and fewer able persons will be interested in contesting seats on this Council.

What makes me even more dismayed about the future of this Council is some of my colleagues both appointed and elected have expressed their contentment with the present scope of this Council and felt that no further extension of power is necessary.

Any one with some knowledge of a democratic set up knows that social welfare, traffic, primary and secondary education, town planning, health services etc. always lie within the scope of a local authority. Even if there may be some overlapping of power between the local and central authorities in some of the fields mentioned above, this is no valid reason for us not to claim what we are entitled to, as there is no single elected person at the central government level.

It is quite understandable that the general public of Hong Kong should mistakenly criticize us for being "over-ambitious". As there is no course in civics taught in any of our schools, few can be expected to know the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. But persons appointed or elected to this Council must at least have a clear idea of the functions and responsibilities of a true local council.

Of those who may argue that Hong Kong is, after all, still a colony, may I ask, isn't it true that the British Government scrapped its colonial office years ago and isn't it also true that the continued existence of this "colony" is not solely due to the protection given to us by the British armed forces but rather is the result of a very complex international political situation?

I therefore earnestly appeal to all my Unofficial colleagues on both sides not to be content with our present status but to fight to have more power accorded to this Council so as to make it not just a show window item but a real working force.

I wish to point out that our politically awakening younger generation has already expressed its utter dissatisfaction with the powerlessness of the Council, and the extremely unwise decision of our government in refusing to give more power to the people, may in future prove to be a tragic one.

We unofficial members of this Council have the responsibility to so advise Government and help it amend its unrealistic attitude.

II.

The Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign

The anti-social habit of littering public places has caused great concern to the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee for a long time, not only because tourism ranks second on our list of income earners so that we should at least make our streets presentable to visitors, but much more importantly because of our duty to protect the health of the public. Over the years a number of "Keep Your District Clean Campaigns" were launched combined with extensive anti-litter health education but painfully little improvement has been achieved. In spite of the fact that the existing maximum fine for litterbug is HK$500, the average fine imposed on convicted offenders in the last three years has been HK$10.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

317

With the population constantly increasing in an already over-crowded city this unsatisfactory situation has been getting worse each year and has aroused a good deal public outcry. A senior officer, now the assistant director of the Urban Services Department (Cleansing) was sent to Singapore in 1969 to study their successful Keep Singapore Clean Campaign and the following year the then Deputy Director of Government Information Services went there on the same mission. Both of them emphasized in their reports the importance of the full co-operation of all government departments in achieving the object and the swift enforcement of a strong law against offenders to go in hand with health education.

The Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign Committee was formed in June this year with two Legislative Councillors, three Urban Councillors (including myself) and senior officials from fourteen Government Departments, in most cases the Deputy Director or Assistant Director, and convened its first meeting on June 12. There was a bad omen in that the Legal Department refused to be represented on the Committee. Thereafter, an Executive Committee and several working groups were formed and met a number of times. At a meeting of the Campaign Committee on 23rd of August, members adopted a carefully planned, detailed working programme to start the campaign in April next year and accepted a rough estimate of the budget and unanimously agreed that a strong law is absolutely essential for the success of the campaign.

Early last month, I understand, the Legal Department flatly refused to consider a minimum fine of HK$30 and would not agree to the Presumption Clause providing that the ground floor occupiers should be responsible for any litter found around the house unless they prove otherwise but proposed a alternative measure, the Liability Clause. This new suggestion is now under investigation by a special working group but as a result of this development the campaign has had to be postponed for at least six months so as to avoid the typhoon season.

I am still puzzled by the decision of the Legal Department to reject both amendments of legislation, which have played a decisive role in the success of the Keep Singapore Clean Campaign. As we all know,

Page 169 of 242