Page 89 of 135
139
"
138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
While meat produced in the Council's abattoirs meets all hygienic standards, it is perhaps very important to note that illegal slaughtering is prevailing in the New Territories jeopardizing the health and well-being of the consumers there. In my view, all abattoir facilities throughout the Colony should come under the control of the Council irrespective of where the facilities are physically located. No citizens in Hong Kong would like to see two possibly different standards of meat production and to see cost duplication with two sets of staff under separate bosses to govern the same aspect of technical activity which involves no political implications. Let all residents in the New Territories enjoy the full benefit of our abattoir services.
Feeding the community is not an easy task. Not only does it involve the production of hygienic and fresh meat but also the delivery of this meat to retail outlets. Housewives prefer to walk a short distance for their meat and other fresh provision requirements. This is understandable and the Council has to recognize and to meet this need. Although Hong Kong is a highly developed industrial and financial city, the old eating habits and hence habits of shopping for food do not change materially as in other cities. Take-home food, partially-prepared food in packages, frozen food, and shopping meat and fresh provision requirements in supermarkets have gained popularity gradually, but shopping at doorsteps or round street corners is extremely common and preferable, thus creating our nearly uncontrollable hawker problem. This problem erodes our labour force as well as our environmental hygiene and beauty and, at the same time, reduces industrial productivity. Coming to dollar and cents, it costs rate-payers a sum of nearly $37.5 million per year.
Although we are the statutory authority, solving the hawker problem is not really a 100% Urban Council responsibility but requires a united effort—just like our Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign and any other community campaigns. We cannot ask our housewives to go to a market 200 yards away while hawkers are available in 10 yards. Hawkers are here to stay for many years to come as they serve a convenience.
In the past, we probably have ignored the element of education, that is, educating the housewives to patronize our markets and other legalized fresh provision outlets and then to confine shopping to their requirements there.
Education, if effective, would take time. Our immediate approach, therefore, would be to build new markets and to reprovision old ones to make them convenient to housewives. If we fail to persuade them to come to our markets, we will make our markets go to them. Therefore, it is both a necessity as well as an advantage that the Council goes into a joint venture with Central Government, Housing Society, and Housing Authority to build joint-user and multi-purpose markets—in this way, we can reactivate our market building program in double-quick time. This will serve a dual purpose as far as finance is concerned. One way, we can obtain economic rents from our new market stalls, and on the other, we can save expenses in hawker control. If we are able to maintain efficient control on the ground now and, at the same time, we speed up our market building program (our target by the middle of the 1980s: 25 multi-purpose and 13 joint-user markets), we may probably solve our hawker problem, thereby discharging this statutory function. This is a demonstration that straightforward and practical financial and business principles may serve us well.
These straightforward and practical business and financial principles are really the backbone of what professional managers describe as Cost-benefit or Cost-Effectiveness Analyses. These analyses are gradually gaining importance in the Council as the Council may face financial problems in 1980 and beyond. Even the Abattoir will be unable to bring in income for the Council by then.
In the coming months, the Budget Sub-committee of the Council will be endeavouring to submit suggestions to various Select Committees that may affect the long-term planning of Council services. In my view, to make plans for Urban Council services, it is necessary (1) to determine what priority would be given to each type of service, (2) to assess the benefits and, at the same time, the costs of providing them, and (3) to achieve a given level of performance at minimum costs.
In any long-term planning, computerization plays an important part in the thinking process both in the commercial world and in any institution. Computerization must be played with caution. Members of the Council may feel it an advantage to draw on the benefits of experience in the commercial world outside. Attempts to computerize building engineering made 8 firms out of 10 bankrupt, even firms with huge resources. We should not computerize for computerization's sake. Simple questions to ask are (1) whether there is a need, (2) what kind of people we are going to serve, (3) whether computerization can improve the quality of services (it generally can, but computerization generally does not save money). The common-sense approach would be to ascertain whether there is an alternative. If we are short of badminton courts, let us build more of them and not engage a computer firm to ascertain really how many badminton players are there in the Colony and to computerize admission. If there is a long queue for certain best-selling books, buy more of these books. In dollars and cents, we may save.
The Urban Services Department will soon provide an analysis of how Urban Council money is being used directly or indirectly in the New Territories. In due course, the Government, by simple logic and good sense, will repay the Council. But it remains a question regarding those experts we have trained and those staff we sent abroad for broadening and specialization of knowledge at our expense. I think the Council should be consulted on the allocation and transfer of these expert staff. We should discuss with the government a formula so that all the cream will be allocated in the right manner.
Page 89 of 135
Page 89 of 135
Page 89 of 135
139
"
138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
While meat produced in the Council's abattoirs meets all hygienic standards, it is perhaps very important to note that illegal slaughtering is prevailing in the New Territories jeopardizing the health and well being of the consumers there. In my view, all abattoir facilities throughout the Colony should come under the control of the Council irrespective where the facilities are physically located. No citizens in Hong Kong would like to see two possibly different standards of meat production and to see cost duplication with two sets of staff under separate bosses to govern the same aspect of technical activity which involves no political implications. Let all residents in the New Territories enjoy the full benefit of our abattoir
services.
Feeding the community is not an easy task. Not only does it involve the production of hygienic and fresh meat but also the delivery of this meat to retail outlets. Housewives prefer to walk a short distance for their meat and other fresh provision requirements. This is understandable and the Council has to recognize and to meet this need. Although Hong Kong is a highly de- veloped industrial and financial city, the old eating habits and hence habits of shopping for food do not change materially as in other cities. Take-home food, partially-prepared-food in packages, frozen food and shopping meat and fresh provision requirements in supermarkets have gained popularity gradually but shopping at door steps or round street corners is extremely common and preferable, thus creating our nearly uncontrollable hawker problem. This problem erodes our labour force as well as our environmental hygiene and beauty and, at the same time, reduce industrial productivity. Coming to dollar and cents, it costs rate-payers a sum of nearly $37.5 million per year.
Although we are the statutory authority, solving the hawker problem is not really a 100% Urban Council responsibility but requires a united effort- just like our Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign and any other community campaigns. We cannot ask our housewives to go to a market 200 yards away while hawkers are available in 10 yards. Hawkers are here to stay for many years to come as they serve a convenience.
In the past, we probably have ignored the element of education, that is, educating the housewives to patronize our markets and other legalized fresh provision outlets and then to confine shopping their requirements there.
Education, if effective, would take time. Our immediate approach, there- fore, would be to build new markets and to reprovision old ones to make them convenient to housewives. If we fail to persuade them to come to our markets, we will make our markets go to them. Therefore, it is both a necessity as well as an advantage that the Council goes joint venture with Central Government, Housing Society and Housing Authority to build joint user and multi-purpose markets-in this way we can reactivate our market building program in double quick time. This will serve a dual purpose as far as finance is concerned. One way, we can obtain economic rents from
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
our new market stalls and on the other, we can save expenses in hawker control. If we are able to maintain efficient control on the ground now and, at the same time, we speed up our market building program, (our target by middle 1980's; 25 multi-purpose and 13 joint-user markets) we may probably solve our hawker problem thereby discharging this statutory function. This is a demonstration that straightforward and practical financial and business
principles may serve us well.
These straightforward and practical business and financil principles are really the backbone of what the professional managers' describe as Cost benefit or Cost Effectiveness Analyses. These analyses are gradually gaining
importance in the Council as the Council may face financial problems in 1980 and beyond. Even the Abattoir will be unable to bring in income for
the Council by then.
In the coming months, the Budget Sub-committee of the Council will be endeavouring to submit suggestions to various Select Committees that may affect long term planning of Council services. In my view, to make plans for Urban Council services, it is necessary (1) to determine what priority would be given to each type of services, (2) to assess the benefits and at the same time the costs of providing them, and (3) to achieve a given level of performance at minimum costs.
In any long term planning, computerization plays an important part in the thinking process both in the commercial world and in any institution. Computerization must be played with caution. Members of the Council may feel it an advantage to draw the benefits of experience in the Commercial world outside. Attempts to computerize building engineering made 8 firms out of 10 bankrupt even firms with huge resources. We should not com- puterize for computerization's sake. Simple questions to ask are (1) whether there is a need (2) what kind of people we are going to serve (3) whether computerization can improve the quality of services (It generally can, but computerization generally does not save money. The common-sense approach would be to ascertain whether there is an alternative. If we are short of badminton courts, let us build more of them and not to engage a computer firm to ascertain really how many badminton players are there in the Colony and to computerize admission. If there is a long queue for certain best selling books, buy more of these books. In dollars and cents, we may save.
The Urban Services Department will soon provide an analysis how Urban Council money is being used directly or indirectly in the New Territories. In due course, the Government, by simple logic and good sense, will repay the Council. But it remains a question regarding those experts we have trained and those staff we sent abroad for broadening and specialization of knowledge at our expense. I think the Council should be consulted on the allocation and transfer of these expert staff. We should discuss with the government for a formula so that all the cream will be allocated in the right-manner.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.