1984 — Page 192

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 192 of 233

344

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

but praise for all the work it has done with very limited means and almost no support. The Labour Department's air pollution unit (a unit which deserves nothing but praise) was given powers to inspect the boilers in small industrial premises, kitchens etc. and almost invariably found that by preventing pollution they also lowered fuel consumption and made the productive processes cheaper. (Incidentally, this applies to smoking diesels. When a diesel smokes its fuel consumption goes up). Industry is always the first to use that very misleading argument about the need to stay competitive citing countries surrounding us, referring usually to Taiwan, South Korea and China, not spending money on pollution control. You note that very carefully they do not mention Japan because, of course, Japan spends more on pollution control and abatement than the total output of their motor car industry (something like US$50 billion per annum), and yet Japan is the most competitive industrial country in the World! There must be a message in that somewhere. Also, of course, pollution in cities like Beijing, Taipei and Seoul has become so bad that China, Taiwan and South Korea are beginning to spend very large sums of money on pollution control. In the end, I have mentioned this before, pollution control will improve the health of industry's workers. There will be less productivity lost through absenteeism because of illness. Social costs will decline which in turn will keep taxes low. So even if our industrialists want to ignore their social responsibility, I can assure them that there is a practical cost benefit to be gained from pollution control. Naturally, we must be careful to calculate such cost benefits and keep within reasonable cost parameters, but I am sure that in Hong Kong we are a long, long way from overspending on pollution control.

And one must emphasize again and again that the worse we let our pollution become, the more we will have to spend eventually to clean it up. We must now stop any further increases in pollution because if we don't, we will have a major problem on our hands, a problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop the increase of all forms of pollution. Let the city of Tokyo be a warning to us where some 15 years ago pollution got out of control to such an extent that it is estimated that they finally had to spend five times as much to keep the pollution within bounds than they would have had to spend if they had taken protective measures in the first place.

Nothing I have said so far is in any way new. Other members of the various special committees of EPCOM and SCAP have been saying the same sort of thing for years. And going back through my files, I can see these suggestions and the problems mentioned occurring again and again over the last ten years.

I don't think this speech will make very much difference either. All I can do is to emphasize again that pollution in Hong Kong has been steadily worsening over the years and, in spite of everything that some civil servants with good will and unofficial members inside and outside EPCOM have tried to do, it is now worse than it has ever been and I would like therefore to again appeal to Government, Industry, Business, and the population at large to cooperate now to at least stop any further increases in pollution. Let me repeat: If we don't do this, we will have a very major problem on our hands. A problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop all our forms of pollution from increasing.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.

MR. L. H. KWAN (in Cantonese): As Hong Kong is advancing towards open and democratic government, the Urban Council should follow the lead and open its committee meetings to the public.

So far, only the Council's monthly meetings and the Liquor Licensing Board's hearings on applications are open to the public. However, from the standpoint of the community, the Urban Council should take the initiative to let the public see what it is doing.

In a public hearing on liquor licence application in November last year involving a bar in City Garden, North Point, dozens of residents turned up for the case. Accessibility to Council meetings is definitely a way to induce feedbacks from and a sign of respect for the public.

At present, there are about 13 select committees of the Council, but aside from the Liquor Licensing Board, all the others are not open to the public. They have therefore no way of knowing how the Council or the councillors work. As the liberal local authorities whose services closely concern the people, the Urban Council should allow the public to see it at work.

Of the 13 select committees of the Council, those responsible for food hygiene, environmental hygiene, entertainment, finance and culture etc. are very important to the public. Their every decision directly affects the life and environment of the community. These committees should welcome public participation and attendance as all the District Boards do. Though the public gallery at District Board meetings is limited, it is obvious that members of the public are very interested in the District Board meetings. If the meetings are open to the public, the press may also cover the proceedings and enhance public understanding of the work of government.

I very much hope that the suggestion of opening Council meetings to the public will have the support of my colleagues. As for the necessary arrangements, such as the provision of a public gallery, we shall leave them to the Administration Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, with these words, I support the motion.

MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, my speech today may be a bit long, it may exceed 15 minutes and I shall delete part of the speech, but Mr. Secretary, could you have my whole speech recorded? If I run over 2 or 3 minutes, could you tolerate me and could the Chairman excuse me?

Page 192 of 233

345

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Edit History

2026-05-15 13:21:21 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 192 of 233 344 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL but praise for all the work it has done with very limited means and almost no support. The Labour Department's air pollution unit (a unit which deserves nothing but praise) was given powers to inspect the boilers in small industrial premises, kitchens etc. and almost invariably found that by preventing pollution they also lowered fuel consumption and made the productive processes cheaper. (Incidentally, this applies to smoking diesels. When a diesel smokes its fuel consumption goes up). Industry is always the first to use that very misleading argument about the need to stay competitive citing countries surrounding us, referring usually to Taiwan, South Korea and China, not spending money on pollution control. You note that very carefully they do not mention Japan because, of course, Japan spends more on pollution control and abatement than the total output of their motor car industry (something like US$50 billion per annum), and yet Japan is the most competitive industrial country in the World! There must be a message in that somewhere. Also, of course, pollution in cities like Beijing, Taipei and Seoul has become so bad that China, Taiwan and South Korea are beginning to spend very large sums of money on pollution control. In the end, I have mentioned this before, pollution control will improve the health of industry's workers. There will be less productivity lost through absenteeism because of illness. Social costs will decline which in turn will keep taxes low. So even if our industrialists want to ignore their social responsibility, I can assure them that there is a practical cost benefit to be gained from pollution control. Naturally, we must be careful to calculate such cost benefits and keep within reasonable cost parameters, but I am sure that in Hong Kong we are a long, long way from overspending on pollution control. And one must emphasize again and again that the worse we let our pollution become, the more we will have to spend eventually to clean it up. We must now stop any further increases in pollution because if we don't, we will have a major problem on our hands, a problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop the increase of all forms of pollution. Let the city of Tokyo be a warning to us where some 15 years ago pollution got out of control to such an extent that it is estimated that they finally had to spend five times as much to keep the pollution within bounds than they would have had to spend if they had taken protective measures in the first place. Nothing I have said so far is in any way new. Other members of the various special committees of EPCOM and SCAP have been saying the same sort of thing for years. And going back through my files, I can see these suggestions and the problems mentioned occurring again and again over the last ten years. I don't think this speech will make very much difference either. All I can do is to emphasize again that pollution in Hong Kong has been steadily worsening over the years and, in spite of everything that some civil servants with good will and unofficial members inside and outside EPCOM have tried to do, it is now worse than it has ever been and I would like therefore to again appeal to Government, Industry, Business, and the population at large to cooperate now to at least stop any further increases in pollution. Let me repeat: If we don't do this, we will have a very major problem on our hands. A problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop all our forms of pollution from increasing. Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case. MR. L. H. KWAN (in Cantonese): As Hong Kong is advancing towards open and democratic government, the Urban Council should follow the lead and open its committee meetings to the public. So far, only the Council's monthly meetings and the Liquor Licensing Board's hearings on applications are open to the public. However, from the standpoint of the community, the Urban Council should take the initiative to let the public see what it is doing. In a public hearing on liquor licence application in November last year involving a bar in City Garden, North Point, dozens of residents turned up for the case. Accessibility to Council meetings is definitely a way to induce feedbacks from and a sign of respect for the public. At present, there are about 13 select committees of the Council, but aside from the Liquor Licensing Board, all the others are not open to the public. They have therefore no way of knowing how the Council or the councillors work. As the liberal local authorities whose services closely concern the people, the Urban Council should allow the public to see it at work. Of the 13 select committees of the Council, those responsible for food hygiene, environmental hygiene, entertainment, finance and culture etc. are very important to the public. Their every decision directly affects the life and environment of the community. These committees should welcome public participation and attendance as all the District Boards do. Though the public gallery at District Board meetings is limited, it is obvious that members of the public are very interested in the District Board meetings. If the meetings are open to the public, the press may also cover the proceedings and enhance public understanding of the work of government. I very much hope that the suggestion of opening Council meetings to the public will have the support of my colleagues. As for the necessary arrangements, such as the provision of a public gallery, we shall leave them to the Administration Select Committee. Mr. Chairman, with these words, I support the motion. MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, my speech today may be a bit long, it may exceed 15 minutes and I shall delete part of the speech, but Mr. Secretary, could you have my whole speech recorded? If I run over 2 or 3 minutes, could you tolerate me and could the Chairman excuse me? Page 192 of 233 345 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Baseline (Original)

Page 192 of 233 344 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL but praise for all the work it has done with very limited means and almost no ago the Labour Department's air pollution unit (a unit which deserves nothing support in mitigating air pollution, constantly fighting a losing battle but always willing to have a go) was given powers to inspect the boilers in small industrial premises, kitchens etc. and almost invariably found that by prevent- ing pollution they also lowered fuel consumption and made the productive processes cheaper. (Incidentally, this applies to smoking diesels. When a diesel smokes its fuel consumption goes up). Industry is always the first to use that very misleading argument about the need to stay competitive citing countries surrounding us, referring usually to Taiwan, South Korea and China, not spending money on pollution control. You note that very carefully they do not mention Japan because of course Japan spends more on pollution control and abatement than the total output of their motor car industry (something like US$50 billion per annum), and yet Japan is the most competitive industrial country in the World! There must be a message in that somewhere. Also, of course, pollution in cities like Beijing, Taipei and Seoul has become so bad that China, Taiwan and South Korea are beginning to spend very large sums of money on pollution control. In the end, I have mentioned this before, pollution control will improve the health of industry's workers. There will be less productivity lost through absenteeism because of illness. Social costs will decline which in turn will keep taxes low. So even if our industrialists want to ignore their social responsibility I can assure them that there is a practical cost benefit to be gained from pollution control. Naturally, we must be careful to calculate such cost benefits and keep within reasonable cost parameters, but I am sure that in Hong Kong we are a long long way from overspending on pollution control. And one must emphasize again and again that the worse we let our pollution become, the more we will have to spend eventually to clean it up. We must now stop any further increases in pollution because if we don'e we will have a major problem on our hands, a problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop the increase of all forms of pollution. Let the city of tokyo be a warning to us where some 15 years ago pollution got out of control to such an extent that it is estimated that they finally had to spend five times as much to keep the pollution within bounds than they would have had to spend if they had taken protective measures in the first place. Nothing I have said so far is in any way new. Other members of the various special committees of EPCOM and SCAP have been saying the same sort of thing for years. And going back through my files I can see these suggestions and the problems mentioned occurring again and again over the last ten years. I don't support this speech will make very much difference either. All I can do is to emphasize again that pollution in Hong Kong has been steadily worsening over the years and in spite of everything that some civil servants with good will and unofficials inside and outside EPCOM have tried to do, it is now HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 192 of 233 345 worse than it has ever been and I would like therefore to again appear to Government, Industry, Business, and the population at large to cooperate now to at least stop any further increases in pollution. Let me repeat: If we don't do this we will have a very major problem on our hands. A problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop all our forms of pollution from increasing. Ladies and Gentlemen I rest my case. MR. L. H. KWAN (in Cantonese): As Hong Kong is advancing towards open and democratic government, the Urban Council should follow the lead and open its committee meetings to the public. So far, only the Council's monthly meetings and the Liquor Licensing Board's hearings on applications are open to the public. However, from the standpoint of the community, the Urban Council should take the initiative to let the public see what it is doing. In a public hearing on liquor licence application in November last year involving a bar in City Garden, North Point, dozens of residents turned up for the case. Accessibility to Council meetings is definitely a way to induce feedbacks from and a sign of respect for the public. At present, there are about 13 select committees of the Council, but aside from the Liquor Licensing Board, all the others are not open to public. They have therefore no way of knowing how the Council or the councillors work. As the liberal local authorities whose services closely concern the people, the Urban Council should allow the public to see it at work. Of the 13 select committees of the Council, those responsible for food hygiene, environmental hygiene, entertainment, finance and culture etc. are very important to the public. Their every decision directly affects the life and environment of the community. These committees should welcome public participation and attendance as all the District Boards do. Though the public gallery at district board meetings are limited, it is obvious that members of the public are very interested in the District Board meetings. If the meetings are open to the public, the press may also cover the proceedings and enhance public understanding of the work of government. I very much hope that the suggestion of opening Council meetings to the public will have the support of my colleagues. As for the necessary arrange- ments, such as the provision of public gallery, we shall leave them to the Administration Select Committee. Mr. Chairman, with these words, I support the motion. MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, my speech today may be a bit long, it may exceed 15 minutes and I shall delete part of the speech, but Mr. Secretary, could you have my whole speech recorded. If I run over 2 or 3 minutes, could you tolerate me and could the Chairman excuse me?

2026-05-15 13:21:21 · Baseline

View content

Page 192 of 233

344

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

but praise for all the work it has done with very limited means and almost no ago the Labour Department's air pollution unit (a unit which deserves nothing support in mitigating air pollution, constantly fighting a losing battle but always willing to have a go) was given powers to inspect the boilers in small industrial premises, kitchens etc. and almost invariably found that by prevent- ing pollution they also lowered fuel consumption and made the productive processes cheaper. (Incidentally, this applies to smoking diesels. When a diesel smokes its fuel consumption goes up). Industry is always the first to use that very misleading argument about the need to stay competitive citing countries surrounding us, referring usually to Taiwan, South Korea and China, not spending money on pollution control. You note that very carefully they do not mention Japan because of course Japan spends more on pollution control and abatement than the total output of their motor car industry (something like US$50 billion per annum), and yet Japan is the most competitive industrial country in the World! There must be a message in that somewhere. Also, of course, pollution in cities like Beijing, Taipei and Seoul has become so bad that China, Taiwan and South Korea are beginning to spend very large sums of money on pollution control. In the end, I have mentioned this before, pollution control will improve the health of industry's workers. There will be less productivity lost through absenteeism because of illness. Social costs will decline which in turn will keep taxes low. So even if our industrialists want to ignore their social responsibility I can assure them that there is a practical cost benefit to be gained from pollution control. Naturally, we must be careful to calculate such cost benefits and keep within reasonable cost parameters, but I am sure that in Hong Kong we are a long long way from overspending on pollution control.

And one must emphasize again and again that the worse we let our pollution become, the more we will have to spend eventually to clean it up. We must now stop any further increases in pollution because if we don'e we will have a major problem on our hands, a problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop the increase of all forms of pollution. Let the city of tokyo be a warning to us where some 15 years ago pollution got out of control to such an extent that it is estimated that they finally had to spend five times as much to keep the pollution within bounds than they would have had to spend if they had taken protective measures in the first place.

Nothing I have said so far is in any way new. Other members of the various special committees of EPCOM and SCAP have been saying the same sort of thing for years. And going back through my files I can see these suggestions and the problems mentioned occurring again and again over the last ten years.

I don't support this speech will make very much difference either. All I can do is to emphasize again that pollution in Hong Kong has been steadily worsening over the years and in spite of everything that some civil servants with good will and unofficials inside and outside EPCOM have tried to do, it is now

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 192 of 233

345

worse than it has ever been and I would like therefore to again appear to Government, Industry, Business, and the population at large to cooperate now to at least stop any further increases in pollution. Let me repeat: If we don't do this we will have a very major problem on our hands. A problem which will be very much more expensive to tackle than anything we may now have to spend in order to control and stop all our forms of pollution from increasing.

Ladies and Gentlemen I rest my case.

MR. L. H. KWAN (in Cantonese): As Hong Kong is advancing towards open and democratic government, the Urban Council should follow the lead and open its committee meetings to the public.

At present, there are about 13 select committees of the Council, but aside from the Liquor Licensing Board, all the others are not open to public. They have therefore no way of knowing how the Council or the councillors work. As the liberal local authorities whose services closely concern the people, the Urban Council should allow the public to see it at work.

Of the 13 select committees of the Council, those responsible for food hygiene, environmental hygiene, entertainment, finance and culture etc. are very important to the public. Their every decision directly affects the life and environment of the community. These committees should welcome public participation and attendance as all the District Boards do. Though the public gallery at district board meetings are limited, it is obvious that members of the public are very interested in the District Board meetings. If the meetings are open to the public, the press may also cover the proceedings and enhance public understanding of the work of government.

I very much hope that the suggestion of opening Council meetings to the public will have the support of my colleagues. As for the necessary arrange- ments, such as the provision of public gallery, we shall leave them to the Administration Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, with these words, I support the motion.

MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, my speech today may be a bit long, it may exceed 15 minutes and I shall delete part of the speech, but Mr. Secretary, could you have my whole speech recorded. If I run over 2 or 3 minutes, could you tolerate me and could the Chairman excuse me?

1984 — Page 192

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note