Page 44 of 154
57
56
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The promotion of the arts and public entertainment is the new horizon. It puts the Council on its mettle, as it were, to give Hong Kong a soul, if you like, and an interest other than just the pursuit of material success however basic and essential it may be for survival. Thus, for us, the question is simple. Either we are a body concerned only with the discharge of our statutory responsibilities and nothing more, or else we can do all that and still forge ahead with vigour and imagination to develop a leading role in culture, recreation and entertainment. Together such activities make life far more pleasant for our people in every district. The choice is ours. If so, then let us work to enrich the life of the community.
PAPER
The following paper was laid on the table:
Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the month of June, 1975.
QUESTIONS
(1) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question (in English):
Two complaints have recently been made against litter wardens at the San Po Kong Office.
What kind of investigation was made into these complaints?
Were the complainants interviewed?
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):
Mr. Chairman, two complaints have recently been made about litter wardens at the San Po Kong Office.
The first complaint was made by a Mr. LEUNG Yim-kwong of No. 466, Block 25, Wang Tau Hom Estate, on 7th May, 1975. Details of the case are as follows. On 7th May at 10.25 a.m. Mr. LEUNG Yim-kwong was seen throwing a cigarette and in front of No. 2, Block 11, Wang Tau Hom Estate. Mr. LEUNG was accordingly served with a summons in the presence of a Police Constable. Some fifteen minutes later, Mr. LEUNG met the anti-litter squad again on the street and requested the squad to go to the police station with him to "settle the dispute". This amounted to a denial of the charge and, since a summons had already been served, the proper course of action was to have the case heard by the court rather than to have it settled in a police station.
The complaint lodged by Mr. LEUNG to the department was that by failing to agree to go to the police station to "settle the dispute", our anti-litter warden had failed in his duties. Mr. LEUNG was interviewed jointly by the Urban Services Officer (Wong Tai Sin) and his deputy, who concluded that the anti-litter warden was quite right in refusing to settle the so-called dispute other than by having the case heard in court.
The second complaint was lodged by a Mr. NG Yip-cheung of No. 5, 5th Lane, Ngar Tsin Wai Village, on 13th June. On that day, Mr. NG was found throwing a piece of paper in front of No. 8, Choi Hung Road, San Po Kong, at about 12.10 p.m. and he was accordingly served with a summons. On 16th June, he complained to the Police that he had been assaulted. The complainant, accompanied by a Police Constable, was interviewed at the Wong Tai Sin Health Office by the Inspector-in-charge. The complaint of common assault was investigated by the Police and it is believed that no further action is contemplated by the Police. The complaint of common assault by anti-litter team members was also subsequently investigated by the Urban Services Officer (Wong Tai Sin). This revealed no valid grounds for further action. Members of the anti-litter squad have also subsequently issued a public statement denying that the complainant was beaten up.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I have one or two supplementaries. The first one is, when Dr. HUANG replied to this question, was he aware that contrary to orders, the Litter Wardens in both cases were not wearing uniforms and it doesn't appear in his paper.
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, maybe Mrs. ELLIOTT doesn't realize that many of our Anti-litter Wardens do not wear uniforms so that they will not be noticed by the community and it is easier for them to carry out their duties. Whether they should wear uniforms or not has been discussed in our Committee and there are
Page 44 of 154
57
56
Page 44 of 154
57
56
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The promotion of the arts and public entertainment is the new horizon. It puts the Council on its mettle, as it were, to give Hong Kong a soul, if you like, and an interest other than just the pursuit of material success however basic and essential it may be for survival. Thus, for us, the question is simple. Either we are a body concerned only with the discharge of our statutory responsibilities and nothing more, or else we can do all that and still forge ahead with vigour and imagination to develop a leading role in culture, recreation and enter- tainment. Together such activities make life far more pleasant for our people in every district. The choice is ours. If so, then let us work to enrich the life of the community.
PAPER
The following paper was laid on the table:
Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the month of June, 1975.
QUESTIONS
(1) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question (in English):
Two complaints have recently been made against litter wardens
at the San Po Kong Office.
What kind of investigation was made into these complaints?
Were the complainants interviewed?
DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):
Mr. Chairman, two complaints have recently been made about
litter wardens at the San Po Kong Office.
The first complaint was made by a Mr. LEUNG Yim-kwong of No. 466, Block 25, Wang Tau Hom Estate, on 7th May, 1975. Details of the case are as follows. On 7th May at 10.25 a.m. Mr. LEUNG Yim-kwong was seen throwing a cigarette and in front of No. 2, Block 11, Wang Tau Hom Estate. Mr. LEUNG was accordingly served with a summons in the presence of a Police Constable. Some fifteen minutes later, Mr. LEUNG met the anti-litter squad again on the street and requested the squad to go to the
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
police station with him to "settle the dispute". This amounted to a denial of the charge and, since a summons had already been served, the proper course of action was to have the case heard by the court rather than to have it settled in a police station.
The complaint lodged by Mr. LEUNG to the department was that by failing to agree to go to the police station to "settle the dispute", our anti-litter warden had failed in his duties. Mr. LEUNG was interviewed jointly by the Urban Services Officer (Wong Tai Sin) and his deputy, who concluded that the anti-litter warden was quite right in refusing to settle the so-called dispute other than by having the case heard in court.
The second complaint was lodged by a Mr. NG Yip-cheung of No. 5, 5th Lane, Ngar Tsin Wai Village, on 13th June. On that day, Mr. NG was found throwing a piece of paper in front of No. 8, Choi Hung Road, San Po Kong, at about 12.10 p.m. and he was accordingly served with a summons. On 16th June, he complained to the Police that he had been assaulted. The complainant, accom- panied by a Police Constable, was interviewed at the Wong Tai Sin Health Office by the Inspector-in-charge. The complaint of common assault was investigated by the Police and it is believed that no further action is con- templated by the Police. The complaint of common assault by anti-litter team members was also subsequently investigated by the Urban Services Officer (Wong Tai Sin). This revealed no valid grounds for further action. Mem- bers of the anti-litter squad have also subsequently issued a public statement denying that the complainant was beaten up.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I have one or two supplementaries. The first one is, when Dr. HUANG replied to this question, was he aware that contrary to orders, the Litter Wardens in both cases were not wearing uniforms and it doesn't appear in his paper.
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, may be Mrs. ELLIOTT doesn't realize that many of our Anti-litter Wardens do not wear uniforms so that they will not be noticed by the community and it is easier for them to carry out their duties. Whether they should wear uniforms or not has been discussed in our Committee and there are
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.