Page 24
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
question that the Council should take up, and we should at least set a standard for ourselves to decide whether certain publications are objectionable or not. Mr. Shum said a moment ago that we can cancel their licence if the publications are found to be objectionable by law and he also said that we should be a little bit lenient and should do so after a number of convictions, but can we also follow the example of the Food Hygiene Select Committee's procedure and can we just suspend their licence and not to cancel their licence, can this be done or can this act as a deterrent?
CHAIRMAN (in English):—The supplementaries get rather long, it is really difficult for the answerer to remember everything you said, Mr. SHUM will you try?
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, as to objectionable publications and definition, at the moment the Urban Council still has no power to do so. As to suspending the licence of a hawker, if the Urban Council feels that this is necessary, it can be done.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—This is your expertise, of course?
MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):—Could I suggest one thing? Now legally there is one thing we can do, we are issuing our licence to the hawkers to sell newspapers and magazines, can we suggest to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee and also Mrs. ELLIOTT's Working Party to restrict their licence to selling of newspapers only, and also perhaps very cultural and intellectual magazines approved by the Urban Council. As to adult publications, we can go through those and see whether they are very cultural and intellectual enough, and then we can decide. This is, of course, a very debatable question and if the Working Party can really put that under their agenda and go through that, it is something that can be done. I wonder if Mr. SHUM and Mrs. ELLIOTT would agree with me and agree to take up the responsibility.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—I am sure Peter would have an opportunity in the Working Party to express his views, I think your stretch is a little bit elastic and rather long actually.
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. CHAN raised a question a moment ago whether the Working Party would look into this and separate the selling of newspapers and magazines. This has actually been looked at by the Working Party already, but we will have to wait for the findings and the report. The second question is to identify the more cultural and intellectual publications, and adult publications, whether it is intellectual, artistic or pornographic. It is very often a complicated question and the standard changes with the time. You know that the censorship for films finds it very difficult to set the standard, too. Now we are talking about the moral standard of our young people and I do not think it is included in the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, but if it is only under the Objectionable Publications Ordinance, then I think it is ultra vires.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Remind members that it is somewhere in the Standing Orders the questions should not form the subject of a debate, today is rather well actually. I will allow one more supplementary and make it short and snappy, Mr. Frederick FUNG will you please?
MR. FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. SHUM said that this is ultra vires, could we change it somehow? I still feel that we should take the initiative, go around and look at the sort of magazines that they are selling in the second paragraph which have a lot of adjectives. Now how many of such publications would meet the description, and should we look at those and then tell the Police, is this more positive in a way?
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I feel that it will be best to hand it to the Working Party to look into this, because they are looking into the question anyway. (laughter)
7.
MRS. MARGARET LI asked the following question (in English):—I have noticed that Council controlled open space, parks, playgrounds etc. is frequently alienated by Government Departments and Public Utilities. I should be grateful to know:—
(1) What are the criteria for the granting of permanent alienation?
(2) what area of land has been given up over the past 5 years, and what compensatory land granted to Council in the same period?
(3) Are requests for permanent and temporary alienation increasing?
(4) What is the effect of such alienation of our facilities on keeping Hong Kong Green and provision of public facilities?
(5) Is there need to tighten up on our policy so as to make it clear that such approval of alienation is by no means a rubber stamp?
MR. KENNETH T. C. LO, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION Select Committee, replied as follows (in English):—This question concerns the alienation of Urban Council's facilities and is in five parts. The first part asks what are the criteria for the granting of permanent alienation. It asks what area of land has been given up over the past five years and what compensatory land has been granted to Council; it asks whether the requests for permanent and temporary alienation are increasing; it asks what is the effect of such alienation of Urban Council's facilities on keeping Hong Kong Green and provision of public facilities; and finally it asks whether there is any need to tighten up on the policy on such alienation so as to make it clear that approval of the alienation is by no means a rubber stamp.
Page 24 of 23
233
397
4116
396
Page 24 of 23
233
397
4116
396
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
question that the Council should take up, and we should at least set a standard for ourselves to decide whether certain publications are objectionable or not. Mr. Suum said a moment ago that we can cancel their licence if the publications are found to be objectionable by law and he also said that we should be a little bit lenient and should do so after a number of convictions, but can we also follow the example of the Food Hygiene Select Committee's procedure and can we just suspend their licence and not to cancel their licence, can this be done or can this act as a deterrent?
CHAIRMAN (in English):--The supplementaries get rather long, it is really difficult for the answerer to remember everything you said, Mr. SHUM will you try?
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, as to objectionable publications and definition, at the moment the Urban Council still has no power to do so. As to suspending the licence of a hawker, if the Urban Council feels that this is necessary, it can be done.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—This is your expertise, of course?
MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):—Could I suggest one thing? Now legally there is one thing we can do, we are issuing our licence to the hawkers to sell newspapers and magazines, can we suggest to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee and also Mrs. ELLIOTT's Working Party to restrict their licence to selling of newspapers only, and also perhaps very cultural and intellectual magazines approved by the Urban Council. As to adult publications, we can go through those and see whether they are very cultural and intellectual enough, and then we can decide. This is, of course, a very debatable question and if the Working Party can really put that under their agenda and go through that, it is something that can be done. I wonder if Mr. SHUм and Mrs. ELLIOTT would agree with me and agree to take up the responsibility.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—I am sure Peter would have an opportunity in the Working Party to express his views, I think your stretch is a little bit elastic and rather long actually.
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, Mr. CHAN raised a question a moment ago whether the Working Party would look into this and separate the selling of newspapers and magazines. This has actually been looked at by the Working Party already, but we will have to wait for the findings and the report. The second question is to identify the more cultural and intellectual publications, and adult publications, whether it is intellectual, artistic or pornographic. It is very often a complicated question and the standard changes with the time. You know that the censorship for films finds it very difficult to set the standard, too. Now we are talking about the moral standard of our young
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
people and I do not think it is included in the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, but if it is only under the Objectionable Publications Ordinance, then I think it is ultra vires.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—Remind members that it is somewhere in the Standing Orders the questions should not form the subject of a debate, today is rather well actually. I will allow one more supplementary and make it short and snappy, Mr. Frederick FUNG will you please?
MR. FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. SHUM said that this is ultra vires, could we change it somehow? I still feel that we should take the initiative, go around and look at the sort of magazines that they are selling in the second paragraph which have a lot of adjectives. Now how many of such publications would meet the description, and should we look at those and then tell the Police, is this more positive in a way?
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I feel that it will be best to hand it to the Working Party to look into this, because they are looking into the question any way. (laughter)
7.
MRS. MARGARET LI asked the following question (in English):-—I have noticed that Council controlled open space, parks, playgrounds etc. is frequently alienated by Government Departments and Public Utilities. I should be grateful to know:-
(1) What are the criteria for the granting of permanent alienation?
(2) what area of land has been given up over the past 5 years, and what
compensatory land granted to Council in the same period?
(3) Are requests for permanent and temporary alienation increasing? (4) What is the effect of such alienation of our facilities on keeping Hong Kong
Green and provision of public facilities?
(5) Is there need to tighten up on our policy so as to make it clear that such
approval of alienation is by no means a rubber stamp?
MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATion Select Committee, replied as follows (in English):-This question concerns the alienation of Urban Council's facilities and is in five parts. The first part asks what are the criteria for the granting of permanent alienation. It asks what area of land has been given up over the past five years and what compensatory land has been granted to Council; it asks whether the requests for permanent and temporary alienation are increasing; it asks what is the effect of such alienation of Urban Council's facilities on keeping Hong Kong Green and provision of public facilities; and finally it asks whether there is any need to tighten up on the policy on such alienation so as to make it clear that approval of the alienation is by no means a rubber stamp.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.