HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Ladies and gentlemen, I would like, in your name to congratulate Mr F. K. Hu on his appointment as a Member of the Legislative Council from 1 September 1979. (Applause).
HONOURABLE F. K. Hu (in English):-Thank you.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 1979 were confirmed.
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-To throw or not to throw. The answer here is of the same, or so it seems. Discard refuse indiscriminately. Even from vehicles and high buildings, at picnic sites and on public beaches. And probably, with impunity too. The motive is selfish: it is not what is for the community but what is convenient for the person. Hence, there is litter everywhere. It is still a common sight after years of education and exhortation. It is the Council's constant aim to keep Hong Kong clean. It has been a major pre-occupation for more years than can be remembered. The Urban Services Department has studied what other places have done and has adapted their programmes to local conditions. New and imaginative schemes have been devised also. They have all helped. Still, the uneven improvement does not match the persistent effort at high cost to the community. The situation is worse in most densely populated areas where overcrowded conditions make it even more important that a good standard of public sanitation should be maintained.
In this decade alone, with the support of many Government Departments and through intensive action on the ground by the Urban Services Department, the Council has carried out many diversified campaigns and has followed them up systematically with sustained activities. It has not given up. It uses the press, radio, television, posters and handbills and works with numerous neighbourhood and other public-spirited organizations to persuade the people to refrain from dumping their lap-saap on roads and pavements and even on the heads of street-sweepers as they go quietly by, working hard and creditably to keep Hong Kong clean. The Council appeals to the people's civic pride and resorts to novel gimmickry to attract attention. Short of stiff penalties and shameful public exposure, every measure to win the support of the community is used but progress is patchy for some districts are tolerably clean while others are well below par. By social education in the first place and enforcement action in the last resort, every citizen must know by now that to have a clean city is to his own benefit in every way.
Page 41 of 136
The cost to the rate-payer is very heavy. In the last six years, $8.3 m has been spent on campaigns alone, not counting staff and equipment involved. There are now 1,968 men and women who sweep the streets daily and they earn $26.1 m this year. In addition, there are 43 street washing gangs and a fleet of 33 mechanical sweeping and 29 street washing vehicles, with 20 more gangs for special operations. Whenever they all stop working even for a day, the conditions are appalling. All urban districts are swept at least twice a day. Some from four to eight times daily. Still, there are problem areas requiring even more frequent manual cleansing operations, perhaps ten times on occasions. Thus, it is sad to admit but it has to be said publicly, if Hong Kong is seemingly free of litter in the main public places, it is simply because of the enormous work done manually at high cost.
In fact, every reasonable means has been tried, but all without full and lasting success. There remains of course the imposition of far heavier court fines. In desperation, many advocate hitting the pocket hard. It is believed to be the only deterrent left. It might jog Hong Kong's social apathy. But, then, such punitive action against a stubborn anti-social habit is beyond executive initiative. It is for the judiciary to exercise discretion in the common interest. Has this been done up to community expectations in all anti-litter courts? Yes, in one specially, but not generally. There were over 47,000 prosecutions last year alone. It entailed an enormous amount of work by the Urban Services Department, but the offenders were mostly let off rather lightly, obviously to everybody's chagrin who cares about a clean Hong Kong. In the event, there may be the need for a public explanation. Perhaps it is time after these many years to consider stiff mandatory fines once again, however hard the measure might be for some quarters to accept. All else has not succeeded in practice. The filthy condition is a discredit to the community. To clean up the mess is also a needless waste of scarce resources which could be used to better advantage in other ways but it has to be done, cost what it may. There must be somewhere an effective substitute for the missing social conscience which can wilfully wallow in refuse.
PAPER
The following papers were laid on the table:-
(1) Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the months of July and August 1979.
QUESTIONS
1. MRS E. ELLIOTT asked the following question (in English):-The Conservancy Association has called for the preservation of the hill and main...
48
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Ladies and gentlemen, I would like, in your nam to congratulate Mr F. K. Hu on his appointment as a Member of the Legis
tive Council from 1 September 1979. (Applause).
HONOURABLE F. K. Hu (in English):-Thank you.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 1979 were confirmed.
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
passing
goo
CHAIRMAN (in English):-To throw or not to throw. The answer here is of the same, or so it seems. Discard refuse indiscriminately. Even from vehicles and high buildings, at picnic sites and on public beaches. An probably, with impunity too. The motive is selfish: it is not what is for the community but what is convenient for the person. Hence, there is litte everywhere. It is still a common sight after years of education and exhortation It is the Council's constant aim to keep Hong Kong clean. It has been: major pre-occupation for more years than can be remembered. The Urba Services Department has studied what other places have done and has adapte their programmes to local conditions. New and imaginative schemes hav been devised also. They have all helped. Still, the uneven improvement: date does not match the persistent effort at high cost to the community. Th situation is worse in most densely populated areas where overcrowded condi tions make it even more important that a good standard of public sanitati should be maintained.
In this decade alone, with the support of many Government Department and through intensive action on the ground by the Urban Services Depart ment, the Council has carried out many diversified campaigns and has fol lowed them up systematically with sustained activities. It has not given up It uses the press, radio, television, posters and handbills and works with numerous neighbourhood and other public-spirited organizations to persuad: the people to refrain from dumping their lap-saap on roads and pavement and even on the heads of street-sweepers as they go quietly by, working hard and creditably to keep Hong Kong clean. The Council appeals to the people's civic pride and resorts to novel gimmickry to attract attention. Short of stif penalties and shameful public exposure, every measure to win the support the community is used but progress is patchy for some districts are tolerabl clean while others are well below par. By social education in the first platt and enforcement action in the last resort, every citizen must know by now that to have a clean city is to his own benefit in every way.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 41 of 136
49
The cost to the rate-payer is very heavy. In the last six years, $8.3 m has them and what commercial and other sponsors have also given. There are now been spent on campaigns alone, not counting staff and equipment involved in 1,968 men and women who sweep the streets daily and they earn $26.1 m this year. In addition, there are 43 street washing gangs and a fleet of 33 mechanical sweeping and 29 street washing vehicles, with 20 more gangs for special operations. Whenever they all stop working even for a day, the conditions are appalling. All urban districts are swept at least twice a day. Some from four to eight times daily. Still, there are problem areas requiring even more frequent manual cleansing operations, perhaps ten times on oc- casions. Thus, it is sad to admit but it has to be said publicly, if Hong Kong is seemingly free of litter in the main public places, it is simply because of the enormous work done manually at high cost.
In fact, every reasonable means has been tried, but all without full and lasting success. There remains of course the imposition of far heavier court fines. In desperation, many advocate hitting the pocket hard. It is believed to be the only deterrent left. It might jog Hong Kong's social apathy. But, then, such punitive action against a stubborn anti-social habit is beyond executive initiative. It is for the judiciary to exercise discretion in the common interest. Has this been done up to community expectations in all anti-litter courts? Yes, in one specially, but not generally. There were over 47,000 prosecutions last year alone. It entailed an enormous amount of work by the Urban Serv- ices Department, but the offenders were mostly let off rather lightly, obviously to everybody's chagrin who cares about a clean Hong Kong. In the event, there may be the need for a public explanation. Perhaps it is time after these many years to consider stiff mandatory fines once again, however hard the measure might be for some quarters to accept. All else has not succeeded in practice. The filthy condition is a discredit to the community. To clean up the mess is also a needless waste of scarce resources which could be used to better advantage in other ways but it has to be done, cost what it may. There must be somewhere an effective substitute for the missing social conscience which can wilfully wallow in refuse.
PAPER
The following papers were laid on the table:-
(1) Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the months of July and August 1979.
QUESTIONS
1 MRS E. ELLIOTT asked the following question (in English):-The Con- servancy Association has called for the preservation of the hill and main
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.