Page 128 of 154
221
220
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ment and decision. Yet I am strongly opposed to taking a "stubborn", "short-sighted" and "selfish" attitude in dealing with Council matters. What we regret most is that the Council intends to further tighten its control on the members' statements concerning the policy and functions of the Council.
From now on, all statements on the Council's functions and policy will be subject to the "so-called reasonable control and supervision" of a sub-committee. There was a heated debate on this issue in which the supporters claimed that it was not the intention of the Council to control the freedom of speech of the Members while the objectors unanimously held the view that the so-called "reasonable control and supervision" was tantamount to censorship. Needless to say, the intention of the Council is self-evident. In today's democratic societies, including the Hong Kong Government, there is no longer any news censorship system nor any intention to gag the freedom of speech because they fully realise that it is more difficult to keep the mouths of the people shut than to prevent flooding. But the Urban Council, the only body in Hong Kong with elected representatives, has the effrontery to introduce such a surprising measure which is absolutely contrary to the basic principle of freedom of speech. It may be a little bit exaggerated or prematured if I arbitrarily assert that this is a "totalitarian" or "high-handed" measure. I firmly believe that those people dare not go too far. I am also confident that their painstakingly plotted move will bring them to nowhere, because the system and intention of gagging freedom of speech have long been spurned in democratic societies. Will it be revised in the Urban Council?
Now a senior member of the Council has criticised the Government in his speech by calling it a "semi-police" state. If there is such a case, I think that the Council is now racing with the Government in this respect and it is "hard to tell who will win". And if the Council continues to adopt such an attitude, I have reason to believe the Council will win out first in entering upon a "semi-police state". I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to the Council to abolish this "watch-dog" or "censorship" system at once in order to prevent the hard-earned reputation from falling into the abyss. The smokescreen thrown by the Council will not escape the notice of those with keen eyes nor will the gagging system bring to heel those who are not swayed by money and those who are unyielding to suppression. If the Council intends to safeguard and to enhance its reputation and to win the respect of the people, the only way to achieve this end is to get down to brass tacks with an open mind and a democratic spirit.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, I would like to make a few remarks on the work and aims of the Committee. Under the guidance of some of the senior Councillors and with the co-operation of the Committee Members, our work last year was not without result.
What is regrettable, however, is that we had arrived at a compromise and a satisfactory solution to the supply of "cheap meals" to the white and blue collars. Although several other Councillors and myself had suggested a number of compromise solutions with the two-pronged purposes of safeguarding public health and making possible the continual supply of cheap meals, regrettably, all these suggestions were not approved. Despite the fact that this is the need and demand of the majority of the consumers from the lower-middle income class, the Council had been very stubborn and refused to consider revising its policy. In my opinion, this is one of the examples of the Council's disregard of public opinion. For this, I must extend my apology to those who are in need of the supply of cheap meals.
To see that public opinions are not ignored and that the needs of the middle and low-income classes are catered for, I have the guts to once again call on the Council to re-consider the compromising suggestions previously brought up and some other new constructive proposals so that we will not fail in our responsibility towards the consumers of Hong Kong. Of course, we have to insist that adequate hygienic facilities are essential for food hygiene as this is the prime duty of the Select Committee. However, "stubborn" as we are, we will only make the poor local consumers turn to the "underground operators" for the supply of "cheap food" which is, needless to say, unhygienic. We, therefore, may do harm instead of good to public health and fail to achieve our aim to "ensure the hygienic standard of food for public consumption." This is something which deserves our attention.
In order to further safeguard the citizens from unhygienic food, the Food Hygiene Select Committee has recently been considering the enactment of new laws to require imported foodstuffs such as canned foods and frozen meat to be stamped with dates of expiry. This, if effected, will prevent over-kept foodstuffs from being sold in the market. Food that has passed the "date of expiry" is most injurious to health if consumed. The Committee is considering making the "date stamp" a requirement over all canned foods sold in Hong Kong.
The Committee is going to find out also why foreign countries are forbidding the import of Hongkong-made Chinese preserved sausages (non-canned sausages) but not those manufactured by countries such as Canada, so as to improve and promote the export of this commodity and similar goods. If the results of our investigation show that it is
Page 128 of 154
221
220
Page 128 of 154
221
220
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ment and decision. Yet I am strongly opposed to taking a "stubborn", "short-sighted" and "selfish” attitude in dealing with Council matters. What we regret most is that the Council intends to further tighten its control on the members' statements concerning the policy and functions of the Council.
From now on, all statements on the Council's functions and policy will be subject to the "so-called reasonable control and supervision" of a sub-committee. There was a heated debate on his issue in which the supporters claimed that it was not the intention of the Council to control the freedom of speech of the Members while the objectors unanimously held the view that the so-called "reasonable control and supervision" was tantamount to censorship. Needless to say, the intention of the Council is self-evident. In today's democratic societies including the Hong Kong Government, there is no longer any news censorship system nor any intention to gag the freedom of speech because they fully realise that it is more difficult to keep the mouths of the people shut than to prevent flooding. But the Urban Council, the only body in Hong Kong with elected representatives, has the effrontery to introduce such sur- prising measure which is absolutely contrary to the basic principle of freedom of speech. It may be a little bit exaggerated or pre-matured if I arbitrarily assert that this is a "totalitarian" or "high-handed" measure. I firmly believe that those people dare not go too far. I am also con- fident that their pain-takingly-plotted rude will bring them to nowhere, because the system and intention of gaging freedom of speech have long been spurned in the democratic societies. Will it be revised in the Urban Council?
Now a senior member of the Council has criticized the Government in his speech by calling it a "semi-police" state. If there is such a case, I think that the Council is now racing with the Government in this respact and it is "hard to tell who will win". And if the Council con- tinues to adopt such an attitude, I have reason to believe the Council will win out first in entering upon a "semi-police state". I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to the Council to abolish this "watch-dog" or "censorship" system at once in order to prevent the hard-earned reputation from falling into the abyss. The smokescreen thrown by the Council will not escape the notice of those with keen eyes nor will the gaging system bring to kneel those who are not swayed by money and those who are unyielding to suppression. If the Council intends to safeguard and to enhance its reputation and to win the respect of the people, the only way to achieve this end is to get down to brass tacks with an open mind and a democratic spirit.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, I would like to make a few remarks on the work and aims of the Committee. Under the guidance of some of the senior Councillors and with the co-operation of the Committee Members, our work in last year was not without result.
What is regrettable, however, is that we had arrived at a compromise and a satisfactory solution to the supply of "cheap meals" to the white and blue collars. Although several other Councillors and myself had suggested a number of compromise solutions with the two- pronged purposes of safeguarding public health and making possible the continual supply of cheap meals, regrettably, all these suggestions were not approved. Despite the fact that this is the need and demand of the majority of the consumers from the lower-middle income class, the Council had been very stubborn and refused to consider revising its policy. In my opinion, this is one of the examples of the Council's disregard of public opinion. For this, I must extend my apology to those who are in need of the supply of cheap meals.
To see that public opinions are not ignored and that the needs of the middle and low income classes are catered for, I have the guts to once again call on the Council to re-consider the compromising sugges- tions previously brought up and some other new constructive proposals so that we will not fail in our responsibility towards the consumers of Of course, we have to insist that adequate hygienic Hong Kong. facilities are essential for food hygiene as this is the prime duty of the Select Committee. However, "stubborn" as we are, we will only make the poor local consumers turn to the "underground operators" for the supply of "cheap food" which is, needless to say, unhygienic. We, therefore, may do harm instead of good to public health and fail to achieve our aim to "ensure the hygienic standard of food for public consumption." This is something which deserves our attention.
In order to further safeguard the citizens from unhygienic food, the Food Hygiene Select Committee has recently been considering over the enactment of new laws to require imported foodstuffs such as canned foods and frozen meat to be stamped with dates of expiry. This, if effected, will prevent over kept foodstuffs from being sold in the market. Food that has passed the "date of expiry" is most injurious to health if consumed. The Committee is considering making the “date stamp" a requirement over all canned foods sold in Hong Kong.
The Committee is going to find out also why foreign countries are forbidding the import of Hongkong-made Chinese preserved sausages (non-canned sausages) but not those manufactured by countries such as Canada, so as to improve and promote the export of this commodity and similar goods. If the results of our investigation show that it is
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.