1971 — Page 241

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

(10) MR. CHARLES C. C. SIN asked the following question:-

It has been reported in the issue of China Mail of the 22nd February, 1972 (Page 5) that "$100 note gang" is menacing people in Kwun Tong, Ngau Tau Kok and Tsz Wan Shan Resettlement estates, can this Council be informed of what measures have been or will be taken to protect the residents living in estates?

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:

Mr. Chairman, this Press item, like many others, is highly speculative and appears to rest more on rumour than on fact. It claimed (I quote) that "the Police are probing the existence" of such a gang; that the "Police investigation started after about a dozen pedestrians were robbed”; and that the "Police are worried", etc. etc.

The Police tell me that they have had no reports whatsoever of this kind and no evidence of the existence of any such gang, and this fact might encourage the public not to take too seriously the lurid stories which some of the Press take so much delight in recounting. Rumours of this kind are of course difficult to kill once they have been widely circulated in newspapers.

In the circumstances, then, no question of special Police protection arises for the residents of these estates.

MR. LO TAK-SHING : Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary? Does the Commissioner for Resettlement consider crimes of this kind a matter within his concern, or is it purely a matter within the jurisdiction of the Police?

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: —Mr. Chairman, law and order is clearly a matter within the Police concern.

MR. LO TAK-SHING:--Does he feel that it is really correct for him to make a reply to this question this afternoon?

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I think so, Mr. Chairman. It is a reply which has been cleared with the Police and we were trying to provide some helpful information which we would hope would reassure the public, at least in respect of these reports.

MR. LO TAK-SHING:-May I take it that such reassurances will feature in our Annual Report relating to resettlement?

CHAIRMAN:---The question is out of order, Mr. Lo.

MR. LO TAK-SHING:-Will it be recorded?

Page 242

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

463

(11) MR. CHARLES C. C. SIN asked the following question:

Is it correct to say that in January 1972 there were 6 restaurants in operation for over two years without a licence and that there were restaurants in operation for over 3 years without a licence, if so, can this Council be informed as to why these restaurants were allowed to operate for such a long period of time without a licence?

MR. PETER P. K. NG, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD AND FOOD PREMISES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-

The figures quoted in the question relate to outstanding applications reported in the January monthly report. One or two of the applicants have not opened for business and it is not, therefore, correct to say that all the restaurants referred to were in operation without a licence. Of the six restaurants shown as outstanding for over two years, two were licensed in January and one in February of this year. Of the remaining three, one is not in operation at the moment although it had opened for business previously without a licence. The remaining two are operating without a licence.

Of the nine restaurants which were shown as outstanding for over three years in the January report, one has yet to start business; two were licensed in January and two in February this year. The remaining four are operating without a licence.

All restaurants operating without a licence are prosecuted in accordance with an agreed prosecution procedure, although I myself am not entirely satisfied that the procedure is applied properly in all cases, which is now under review by a special sub-committee set up for this purpose. Prosecution is made difficult in some cases due to frequent changes of applicants and restaurants which keep opening and closing over a long period. In the case of one of the applications shown as being outstanding for over three years, the business closed in November 1970 and re-opened in November 1971; a period of a year when the application remained outstanding but the applicant was not in breach of the law. Another difficulty in ensuring the closure of an unlicensed restaurant is the limitation imposed by ordinance which restricts the closure of premises which are also used for domestic purposes. The sub-committee will no doubt review the failings of the present procedure and ordinance so that more effective action can be taken against unlicensed concerns.

Page 241 of 242

462