1995 — Page 113

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 113 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Services Ordinance to see whether there is any binding power on the Government. My understanding is that it has no binding power and it is not clear whether it is binding on the Hong Kong Government. In fact, section 66 of Chapter of the Laws of Hong Kong says that there are two ways to ascertain whether a law is binding on the Crown. The first is that it is therein expressly provided, and the second is that by necessary implementation that the Crown is bound thereby. This of course is my personal view. My suggestion is that we should find out from our legal adviser whether Chapter 132 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, is binding on Government.

Secondly, on the difficulty in administration. Mr. LAI has cited some examples about refuse, refuse collection chambers, syringes, sanitation and environment and so on. These are fairly general points about poor hygienic and sanitary conditions which had been stated in the motion. If you cite the Sham Shui Po public housing estate as an example, there are already 14 public housing estates in Sham Shui Po. If you refer to sewage, drainage pipes, rodent, hawkers, refuse collection, public health, food establishments and so on, the area covered is really very wide. If you specify prosecuting the Housing Department, it is very difficult. You can obviously sue the Housing Authority because it is a statutory body, and also the Housing Society but perhaps not the Housing Department. From what the speeches of the two speakers, I cannot detect any figures on manpower resources required or the methods of implementation which the Department can adopt to carry out such a massive exercise. Perhaps later on in the debate there will be figures cropping up, but I think that we have to be careful in estimating the number of manpower needed to monitor the work and to carry out prosecution action. The original motion does not give a target but only a general direction. Of course, I agree with the general direction.

Another reason for my amendment is that I do not think that prosecution is the only way to solve the problem. The original motion seems to suggest that prosecution is the only effective way. I would like to cite an example to prove that prosecution cannot solve the problem. If we pass the original motion, the USD with more than 15-16,000 staff members, and probably the second largest department is going against the Housing Department, perhaps the third or fourth largest department. In so doing, instead of fostering co-operation, we are putting one government department against another. Several months ago, I read from the newspapers that the Council wished to delegate the power to control hawkers to the Housing Department and to give the Housing Department the power to prosecute and arrest hawkers within the public housing estates. My understanding is that we are progressing along these lines. It is an example of cooperation rather than confrontation.

In view of the above two points, I suggest that my amendment be adopted. My amendment does not rule out that the USD and Urban Council, after obtaining legal advice, may prosecute the Housing Authority, the Hong Kong Housing Society, the Housing Department or the cleansing contractors if necessary. We do not rule out this possibility. The advantage is that we still have the way to cooperate to arrive at a consensus.

Page 113 of 485

Edit History

2026-05-15 23:14:59 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 113 of 485 Page 113 of 485 Page 113 of 485 90 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Services Ordinance to see whether there is any binding power on the Government. My understanding is that it has no binding power and it is not clear whether it is binding on the Hong Kong Government. In fact, section 66 of Chapter of the Laws of Hong Kong says that there are two ways to ascertain whether a law is binding on the Crown. The first is that it is therein expressly provided, and the second is that by necessary implementation that the Crown is bound thereby. This of course is my personal view. My suggestion is that we should find out from our legal adviser whether Chapter 132 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, is binding on Government. Secondly, on the difficulty in administration. Mr. LAI has cited some examples about refuse, refuse collection chambers, syringes, sanitation and environment and so on. These are fairly general points about poor hygienic and sanitary conditions which had been stated in the motion. If you cite the Sham Shui Po public housing estate as an example, there are already 14 public housing estates in Sham Shui Po. If you refer to sewage, drainage pipes, rodent, hawkers, refuse collection, public health, food establishments and so on, the area covered is really very wide. If you specify prosecuting the Housing Department, it is very difficult. You can obviously sue the Housing Authority because it is a statutory body, and also the Housing Society but perhaps not the Housing Department. From what the speeches of the two speakers, I cannot detect any figures on manpower resources required or the methods of implementation which the Department can adopt to carry out such a massive exercise. Perhaps later on in the debate there will be figures cropping up, but I think that we have to be careful in estimating the number of manpower needed to monitor the work and to carry out prosecution action. The original motion does not give a target but only a general direction. Of course, I agree with the general direction. Another reason for my amendment is that I do not think that prosecution is the only way to solve the problem. The original motion seems to suggest that prosecution is the only effective way. I would like to cite an example to prove that prosecution cannot solve the problem. If we pass the original motion, the USD with more than 15-16,000 staff members, and probably the second largest department is going against the Housing Department, perhaps the third or fourth largest department. In so doing, instead of fostering co-operation, we are putting one government department against another. Several months ago, I read from the newspapers that the Council wished to delegate the power to control hawkers to the Housing Department and to give the Housing Department the power to prosecute and arrest hawkers within the public housing estates. My understanding is that we are progressing along these lines. It is an example of cooperation rather than confrontation. In view of the above two points, I suggest that my amendment be adopted. My amendment does not rule out that the USD and Urban Council, after obtaining legal advice, may prosecute the Housing Authority, the Hong Kong Housing Society, the Housing Department or the cleansing contractors if necessary. We do not rule out this possibility. The advantage is that we still have the way to cooperate to arrive at a consensus. Page 113 of 485

Baseline (Original)

Page 113 of 485 Page 113 of 485 age 113 of 485 90 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Services Ordinance to see whether there is any binding power on the Govern- ment. My understanding is that it has no binding power and it is not clear whether it is binding on the Hong Kong Government. In fact, section 66 of Chapter of the Laws of Hong Kong says that there are two ways to ascertain whether a law is binding on the Crown. The first is that it is therein expressly provided, and the second is that by necessary implementation that the Crown is bound thereby. This of course is my personal view. My suggestion is that we should find out from our legal adviser whether Chapter 132 of the Public Health and Muncipal Services Ordinance, is binding on Government. Secondly, on the difficulty in administration. Mr. LAI has cited some examples about refuse, refuse collection chambers, syringes, sanitation and environment and so on. These are fairly general points about poor hygienic and sanitary conditions which had been stated in the motion. If you cite the Sham Shui Po public housing estate as an example, there are already 14 public housing estates in Sham Shui Po. If you refer to sewage, drainage pipes, rodent, hawkers, refuse collection, public health, food establishments and so on, the area covered is really very wide. If you specify prosecuting the Housing Department, it is very difficult. You can obviously sue the Housing Authority because it is a stautory body, and also the Housing Society but perhaps not the Housing Department. From what the speeches of the two speakers, I cannot detect any figures on manpower resources required or the mothods of implementation which the Department can adopt to carry out such a massive exercise. Perhaps later on in the debate there will be figures cropping up, but I think that we have to be careful in estimating the number of manpower needed to monitor the work and to carry out prosecution action. The original motion does not give a target bul only a general direction. Of course, I agree with the general direction. Another reason for my amendment is that I do not think that prosecution is the only way to solve the problem. The original motion seems to suggest that prosecution is the only effective way. I would like to cite an example to prove that prosecution cannot solve the problem. If we pass the original motion, the USD with more than 15-16 000 staff members, and probably the second largest department is going against the Housing Department, perhaps the third or fourth largest department. In so doing, instead of fostering co-operation, we are putting one government department against another. Several months ago, I read from the newspapers that the Council wished to delegate the power to control hawkers to the Housing Department and to give the Housing Depart- ment the power to prosecute and arrest hawkers within the public housing estates. My understanding is that we are progressing along these lines. It is an example of cooperation rather than confrontation. In view of the above two points, I suggest that my amendment be adopted. My amendment does not rule out that the USD and Urban Council, after obtaining legal advice, may prosecute the Housing Authority, the Hong Kong Housing Society, the Housing Department or the cleansing contractors if necessary. We do not rule out this possibility. The advantage is that we still have the way to cooperate lo arrive at a consensus. Page 113 of 485

2026-05-15 23:14:59 · Baseline

View content

Page 113 of 485

age 113 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Services Ordinance to see whether there is any binding power on the Govern- ment. My understanding is that it has no binding power and it is not clear whether it is binding on the Hong Kong Government. In fact, section 66 of Chapter of the Laws of Hong Kong says that there are two ways to ascertain whether a law is binding on the Crown. The first is that it is therein expressly provided, and the second is that by necessary implementation that the Crown is bound thereby. This of course is my personal view. My suggestion is that we should find out from our legal adviser whether Chapter 132 of the Public Health and Muncipal Services Ordinance, is binding on Government.

Secondly, on the difficulty in administration. Mr. LAI has cited some examples about refuse, refuse collection chambers, syringes, sanitation and environment and so on. These are fairly general points about poor hygienic and sanitary conditions which had been stated in the motion. If you cite the Sham Shui Po public housing estate as an example, there are already 14 public housing estates in Sham Shui Po. If you refer to sewage, drainage pipes, rodent, hawkers, refuse collection, public health, food establishments and so on, the area covered is really very wide. If you specify prosecuting the Housing Department, it is very difficult. You can obviously sue the Housing Authority because it is a stautory body, and also the Housing Society but perhaps not the Housing Department. From what the speeches of the two speakers, I cannot detect any figures on manpower resources required or the mothods of implementation which the Department can adopt to carry out such a massive exercise. Perhaps later on in the debate there will be figures cropping up, but I think that we have to be careful in estimating the number of manpower needed to monitor the work and to carry out prosecution action. The original motion does not give a target bul only a general direction. Of course, I agree with the general direction.

Another reason for my amendment is that I do not think that prosecution is the only way to solve the problem. The original motion seems to suggest that prosecution is the only effective way. I would like to cite an example to prove that prosecution cannot solve the problem. If we pass the original motion, the USD with more than 15-16 000 staff members, and probably the second largest department is going against the Housing Department, perhaps the third or fourth largest department. In so doing, instead of fostering co-operation, we are putting one government department against another. Several months ago, I read from the newspapers that the Council wished to delegate the power to control hawkers to the Housing Department and to give the Housing Depart- ment the power to prosecute and arrest hawkers within the public housing estates. My understanding is that we are progressing along these lines. It is an example of cooperation rather than confrontation.

1995 — Page 113

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note