1992 — Page 110

Page 110 of 126

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 110 of 126

193

192

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

We are grateful to the Public Relations Sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Eleanor LING, to arrange a performance appraisal by the public on the Council. It is encouraging and reassuring to learn from Mrs. LING'S speech that, based on the findings of the second benchmark survey on the Council, the public awareness of the Council's services, the usage they made of such services, and the satisfaction they achieved, have all improved to very high percentages. This is the best acknowledgement and encouragement the public could have given to us and the Department.

There is of course no room for complacency. Indeed, the survey findings also suggest that the public expectation on our performance has increased at the same time.

Next year we shall celebrate our 110 years anniversary. Our predecessors on the Council have contributed tremendously to the growth and development of the Council, paving the way for our success today. Making further improvements from such a high plane will not be easy, particularly in view of the zero growth policy now being enforced. We shall nevertheless make our best endeavours to sustain our improvements to match the increasing public expectation.

There are still many more points I wish to respond to. Unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. Please be assured that all your points will be given the most careful consideration and fully followed up.

Before ending my speech, I wish to thank members for their hard work during the year, and congratulate them over the success they have achieved on various fronts. I would also like to commend the support the Director of Urban Services and his staff have given to the Council. They have done a great deal of very hard work and achieved extremely satisfactory results. I am sure that during the ensuing years, we will continue to make progress and help to make this city of ours a better place for living and to enjoy.

The question was put.

The motion was carried unanimously.

QUESTIONS

1. MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT asked the following question (in Cantonese):-The 'Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign' has been publicized for many years, yet so far, it is found that the publicity has not brought about any actual effect, as we see that many people are still littering, paying no regard to social ethics.

Can the Council consider empowering officers of other grades and ranks to prosecute litterbugs, so as to intensify prosecution in this direction?

On the other hand, penalties for littering are too lenient. Can the Council request the Law ... that heavier penalties may be imposed for ...

MR. PAO PING-WING, CHAIRMAN OF THE Public Health Select COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, the question concerns the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign and is in three parts.

The first part concerns the effectiveness of the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign.

Mr. CHAN himself feels that the campaign is not very successful. First I would like to say that I cannot agree that the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign has had no effect. If we could recall the condition of our streets prior to 1972 and the condition of our streets now, the improvement is both obvious and dramatic. Indeed, visits to capital cities such as London and New York put the overall cleanliness of Hong Kong into a rather favourable perspective. There have been many factors in bringing about this improvement over the years. Whilst much credit in this regard must go to the efforts of the Council and Department, credit must also go to the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign.

For some years, the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign has been organised as a Major Publicity Campaign in a form of education, mass community involvement gatherings and enforcement. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Campaign in this respect, the Steering Committee commissioned the International Research Associates Hong Kong Limited (or INRA) to conduct a study in 1990/91.

The Research Report compiled by INRA in May 1991, was endorsed by the Steering Committee and ratified subsequently by the two Municipal Councils. It is fair to say that highlights on the survey results were made known to the public through the media. It is encouraging that according to the survey results, the majority view was that while there has been a huge influx of new comers to Hong Kong, generally Hong Kong is now cleaner than it was say, five to ten years ago. This was attributed to Hong Kong citizens being better educated as well as the impact of the Campaign's on-going publicity. All these facts prove that the campaign has been very successful.

The second part of the question concerns the delegation of power in taking out prosecutions against litter offences.

At present, 75 ranks of officers from 11 different Government departments are presently empowered to take legal action against litter offenders. These departments are, apart from officers from the two Municipal Councils, Housing Department, Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Marine Department, Buildings and Lands Department and Highways Department etc., and within the two Municipal Services Departments, in addition to Health Inspectorate and Supervisory Grade Staff, many other officers are involved e.g. Amenities Officers, Librarians, Cultural Services Managers, Curators and Transport Supervisors are also empowered in this respect.

It is considered that the delegation of power to these 75 ranks of officers is sufficient to deal with the littering offences in various situations and locations. Further delegation of power to other government officers is considered not ...

Page 110 of 126

Page 110

Page 111

Page 111 of 126

194

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

The third part of the question concerns the penalties for littering offences.

At present, the maximum penalty for littering offence is $10,000 plus 6 months' imprisonment. However, this penalty has never been imposed by the Court. Currently the average fine is $310. For recidivists the fine is about 20% higher than the average. Actually I agree to the views expressed by Mr. CHAN. Since the Keep Hong Kong Clean Steering Committee also feels that the fines have been relatively modest, therefore, in late 1991 we convened a meeting with the Chief Magistrate in a bid to impress upon him and through him the magistracy in general the need to increase fines to enhance deterrence. While the Chief Magistrate was not unsympathetic to Members' views in this regard, it must also be mentioned that many magistrates take the view that it is appropriate for them to take into account the following factors:-

-firstly, how much litter has been dumped and what sort of litter was dumped, whether it was cigarette end or a lorryload of rubbish, for example;

-secondly, the offender's ability to pay;

-thirdly, that littering, when compared with other offences, is a relatively petty crime.

We know that magistrates will take all these factors into account when imposing punishments. At the end of the day, since Hong Kong is a society ruled by law, so all we can do is to reflect our views to the magistrates for them to consider. We cannot exercise any influence on court judgments. And we also know that individual magistrates must exercise their own discretion in levying penalties without any constraints. Therefore we have tried our best to reflect Mr. CHAN's views to the magistracy and the Chief Magistrate also understands our stance.

All in all, we can say that the maximum penalty, i.e. $10,000 plus 6 months imprisonment, is sufficient to serve the purpose of deterring littering. If we try to increase the penalty prescribed in legislation, even if it is increased to $1,000,000, the magistrate may not levy the punishment according to the maximum penalty. Theoretically, so even if we increase the penalty it would not serve any practical purpose.

MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, what is actually happening is that after holidays, in barbecue places or beaches, there are all sorts of rubbish. After special festivals such as the Mid-Autumn Festivals, Christmas, or New Year, rubbish is lying all around in public places and parks. After Mid-Autumn Festival, we know that almost all our trees in Victoria Park have been burnt. In some places, streets have to be swept thrice everyday. So I wonder if this attests to the effectiveness of the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign. Whether we should be complacent about the result achieved by the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign. Is it true that the publicity and education launched by the campaign have made the wrong targets, thus creating this situation. Is it necessary for the Council to critically review our work in order to make improvement?

Page 111 of 126