1989 — Page 122

Page 122 of 166

230

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

So much is said these days about attitudes and strategies for surviving the next 7 years and beyond that there is a tendency to forget that the strength of Hong Kong lies not so much in its power of political argument as in its potential for success.

Hong Kong will stand a much better chance in its marriage to the Mainland in 1997 if it is strong, stable and successful. Why else do you think brides bedeck themselves in all their jewelry and fine clothes? What chance would a girl have who presented herself as a neglected down-and-out frump?

Yet so much of the news these days is devoted to factors which militate against our successful image. The brain-drain may be sapping our strength, lack of confidence could undermine our stability, and the signs of recession such as reduction of growth cast doubts upon our continued success.

Let us therefore dwell a moment on what has contributed to our success in the past and see if we are neglecting any opportunities in our effort to pre-empt possible politico/marital problems.

In a word it's all about money. What useful citizen is going to join the brain-drain if there is a fortune to be made in Hong Kong? Did you ever meet a multi-millionaire who lacked confidence? And as for recession - whoever walks backwards into the bank?

Now there are two ways of becoming rich. One is to make more money than you spend. The other is to spend less money than you make. If there are signs of a decline in economic growth perhaps it would be profitable to look at the second.

Hong Kong spends a lot of money generating energy and it spends a whole lot more disposing of its wastes.

Take energy. How much do we waste and how much can we save?

In 1981 Japan started a five-year save energy campaign. Despite an industrial growth of 22%, imports of oil dropped from 275 million kilolitres to 196 million kilolitres, a reduction of 29%. Overall, the growth in total energy consumption was held at zero for the five years. Why can't we do the same? There are lots of innovative ideas from all over the world for saving energy. In buildings, for example, processor-controlled chillers and fans for air-conditioning, ice banks, sophisticated insulation and solar heating are not fully used in Hong Kong. Greater use of information technology could reduce travel efficiently. (Note that I do not regard the over-simple expedient of swingeing taxation as necessarily an EFFICIENT reduction in travel.) What about a more positive approach of offering bonuses or tax reductions for industries that can show a real energy saving. Like the case elsewhere of the walnut factory that derives its entire energy requirements by burning the nutshells. Surely there is much that can be done in the ingenious working environment of Hong Kong.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

231

Then I mentioned waste disposal. How much more efficient can we make that? Hong Kong people are particularly thoughtless in their waste disposal habits. Refuse is too wet and too smelly therefore expensive to dispose of. Education of the public could reduce costs. Organic wastes are mainly dumped at sea. Countries which recycle their organic wastes to their forests derive as much as 60% of their energy costs from those forests. We dump solid wastes in landfills and lose them forever. Countries which recycle their solid wastes derive enough value from them to make significant cuts in rates and taxes. The word 'abolish' has actually been used in this connection.

That is not to say Hong Kong has not made some headway in waste recycling. The Hong Kong Productivity Council had made great strides in helping small firms in this respect. For example, a gold plating company that started to recover gold from its effluent repaid its capital costs in one year. But this is not a nationwide effort.

To save money on this scale would require a campaign by a central authority comparable to the 'Keep Hong Kong Clean' campaign. But there is no time to lose. We need to do it NOW. Perhaps we should call it 'Save Hong Kong's Inheritance Today', or for short 'S-H-I-T'.

I recommend to the Council that serious efforts to save energy and recycle wastes could be major steps towards maintaining our strength and stability, towards a successful journey through the 1990s and in the end a happy marriage.

With these words, Mr. Chairman, I beg to support the motion.

(Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG Wing-sum left the meeting at 4:52 p.m.)

DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English): Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, following upon the maiden speech made by our fellow Councillor Vicky CHAN in 1986 on control of smoking, I have continued for the past two years to address on this topic of tobacco sponsorship of arts and sports. I made no apology for helping on a same tone again this year because I believe smoking is a single most important preventable cause of mortality and morbidity, and hence, there is an immense and significant relationship to our public health work in the Council. My topic for today is to answer the question, 'Why is tobacco levy system necessary in Hong Kong?'

1. Necessity to ban tobacco promotion.

It is well recognized that cigarette smoking is dangerously harmful to health. The Hong Kong Government has been wisely and firmly committed to a policy of discouraging people from smoking. The fact that the government does not take the radical measures to ban its sale as in the case of narcotics is because the ill effects will not be manifested after a long latency period of say 20 to 30 years. The public health danger will not be so immediately apparent to the public and the policy makers. Indeed, this serious danger only came to light in the recent

Page 123 of 166