1983 — Page 99

Page 99 of 194

167

166

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

I will give one other instance of costs. The other day by chance I was in one of our better shipyards and noticed four boats, including one belonging to the British Army and one belonging to Government, all having their shafts changed. All these boats had picked up floating debris, specifically cut thick nylon ropes at the same time. To change a shaft like that usually costs around HK$50,000 (in the old days the hemp ropes used to absorb water and sink, but modern progress is such that the nylon ropes now used don't absorb water and therefore don't sink), and these thick nylon ropes wrapped around the propeller shaft bend the propeller shaft so that replacement becomes necessary. I believe H.Y.F. Ferry Company probably could give us similar figures about the need to change propellers because I know they frequently hit floating debris, as do the Hydrofoils, while the Jetfoils suffer frequent delays because their waterjets ingest plastic bags. I understand also that many of our large buildings close to the waterfront have to spend hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to maintain their air conditioning plant, which invariably, being seawater cooled, suck in floating plastic bags which lead to breakdowns of the air conditioning system.

At the moment, the cleaning of our waters is the responsibility of the Marine Department. However much the Marine Department shows goodwill and tries to do their best, they are dreadfully short of money and even shorter of skilled personnel. For instance, I have been suggesting for five years to all and sundry in Government willing to listen to me that at least the Marine Department should put together an expert delegation to study how other Harbours tackle similar problems. I have looked at San Francisco, Hamburg, Southampton, and many more harbours, and none of them are as dirty as ours. So what do they know that we don't, and why can't we send a delegation to find out? The answer is very simple: nobody is willing to give the Marine Department the money for such a trip, just as nobody is willing to give the Marine Department the money to get proper equipment. The Seawitches, which are now being used to clean the Harbour, are far too small and far too slow and inefficient to handle such a job, and the solitary locally designed catamaran, which does a better job, cannot by itself do the job. But whenever the Marine Department asks for more resources, no money is forthcoming. In any case, it isn't the job of a Marine Department to clean a harbour.

The Council, I believe, has done a very good job in cleansing the streets and keeping Hong Kong tidy. The U.S.D. has a great deal of expertise in cleaning in all sorts of conditions. The example of the clean-up after Typhoon Ellen shows what they can do when pushed.

I am now asking all members to support me in tackling this very grave pollution problem by transferring the responsibility for cleaning the Harbour to us and the U.S.D., with Government footing the bill, because obviously we cannot afford the extra expense since we are already short of money. But if we are given the funds, I am sure that the Committee, which is chaired by Dr. HUANG and of which I have the honour to be Vice-Chairman, and the Clean Hong Kong Committee, of which Mr. YOUNG, who is a seconder of this motion, is Chairman, together with the expert help of the U.S.D., can make a dent in this problem in a very short space of time. I personally have waited for 15 years for Government to do something, and so far they haven't. It is time that this Council took the bull by the horns and gave a proper lead to Government to show what can be done when there is the will to do it. With these words, Mr. Chairman, I ask all Councillors present to support my motion.

MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG seconded (in Cantonese):— Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to second the motion raised by Mr. SULKE. I am sure no one can deny that our harbour has to be cleaned up, as put by Mr. SULKE. He has waited for 15 years, but unfortunately the result is not significant. Maybe I can supplement here that when about 15 to 20 years ago I used to cross the harbour, I noticed the water was jade green, but the water now is either grey or dark in colour, so it shows that within the past 15 to 20 years, the quality of water in our harbour has deteriorated. Mr. SULKE has again also pointed out that the floating refuse, which affects the ships sailing and increases their maintenance costs, and indirectly is a burden to the taxpayers. At the same time, even if the organizations affected are private organizations, they would have to take the costs into consideration and have them reflected in their tariffs. Mr. SULKE has raised the point that we can learn from the experience of other harbours. Apart from harbours mentioned by Mr. SULKE, I think Tokyo is another place from which we can learn, because about 10 years ago, Tokyo was facing a similar problem, but I have heard that the situation has greatly improved recently.

Every year the U.S.D. sends out study missions to other parts of the world to learn from the experience of other countries, so maybe when these people are going on future trips, they can extend their briefs and learn how other countries deal with this problem. I don't think that is difficult.

Another thing is that I think we don't have good co-ordination on the control of floating refuse. In fact, the Marine Department conducted a survey about two years ago to try to ascertain whether refuse is generated by fishermen or the floating population, and the conclusion they had arrived at was that the major part of refuse was not, in fact, generated by the floating population. Of course, they are responsible for part of the refuse. The main source of this refuse is in fact from the nullahs leading to the sea. Since the Urban Council is responsible for land cleanliness, perhaps that has a relationship with the floating refuse problem. Perhaps we are better organized and are thus the best organization to co-ordinate the work. On the point of financing, whether we are creating any precedent by asking the Central Government to allocate money for that work, I remembered that when we first started the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign, we were given an allocation of $3 million for the cleansing of crown land by the Central Government. So, I believe, it is possible for us to get an allocation from the Central Government again on this occasion, and we can incorporate the work within the U.C. and U.S.D. Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.

Page 99 of 194