1995 — Page 117

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 117 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

question of confrontation and we have to consider the interests of half of the population in Hong Kong who are living in public housing estates. I don't think Members have visited these areas, they are just saying that we should not adopt a confrontational approach but have they considered the interests of public housing residents? They are facing the problem of mis-management on environmental hygiene, why should they be asked to tolerate the situation? What action can we take if the Housing Department do not take heed of our advice? Being an elected member, I think this might be the last resort but Mr. CHEUNG was saying that we should only urge or even beg the Housing Department to do something about it. As an elected member, I cannot accept the toning down of the motion by Mr. CHEUNG who has in fact changed it to a very weak motion.

Ms. Au YUK-HAN (in Cantonese): I cannot support Mr. CHEUNG's amended motion either. My views are very similar to those put forward by Mr. Fred Li. It is because we believe that whoever breaches the law will be prosecuted, be they government departments or not. Under this principle, I fail to see why we should grant exemptions because the USD in the past has not enforced the relevant Ordinance in public housing estates managed by the Housing Department or the Hong Kong Housing Society. We should not tolerate any Department which has repeatedly breached the law.

We have actually received many complaints from residents, over half of these are related to housing estate management problems, especially those concerning public toilets which is a matter of concern to our Chairman, the cleanliness of refuse collection chambers and pest. I think the Housing Department has failed to urge its staff members to take follow-up actions on these matters. Also on rodent control, it has also failed to do its job. In the course of such complaints, we have never taken out any prosecution against the Housing Department and we cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel and we cannot see any improvement. If this is a resource problem, I don't think this can hold water. If the USD is saying that we do not have enough manpower to carry out regular inspection and prosecution, it is also unacceptable.

To cite the Ngau Tau Kok Lower Estate in Kwun Tong as an example, Some time ago the District Office of USD wrote to the Housing Managers in charge of Block 1 and Block 2 asking them to carry out some structural improvement in respect of the design of some refuse collection chambers and flower beds and to the spacing in meter rooms to prevent the spread of rodent. But up to now, we cannot see any significant improvements made by the Housing Department. When we visited the estate again last month, the Department wrote to the Housing Department again urging them to take action. We will await to see if any action is taken by them. If they do not take actions for 2 or 3 years, should we still tolerate the situation? I think we should enforce the legislation by prosecuting the Housing Department. I agree that liaison and communication are necessary. However, when they are breaching the law repeatedly, should we do something about it?

Page 117 of 485

Edit History

2026-05-15 23:15:40 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 117 of 485 94 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL question of confrontation and we have to consider the interests of half of the population in Hong Kong who are living in public housing estates. I don't think Members have visited these areas, they are just saying that we should not adopt a confrontational approach but have they considered the interests of public housing residents? They are facing the problem of mis-management on environmental hygiene, why should they be asked to tolerate the situation? What action can we take if the Housing Department do not take heed of our advice? Being an elected member, I think this might be the last resort but Mr. CHEUNG was saying that we should only urge or even beg the Housing Department to do something about it. As an elected member, I cannot accept the toning down of the motion by Mr. CHEUNG who has in fact changed it to a very weak motion. Ms. Au YUK-HAN (in Cantonese): I cannot support Mr. CHEUNG's amended motion either. My views are very similar to those put forward by Mr. Fred Li. It is because we believe that whoever breaches the law will be prosecuted, be they government departments or not. Under this principle, I fail to see why we should grant exemptions because the USD in the past has not enforced the relevant Ordinance in public housing estates managed by the Housing Department or the Hong Kong Housing Society. We should not tolerate any Department which has repeatedly breached the law. We have actually received many complaints from residents, over half of these are related to housing estate management problems, especially those concerning public toilets which is a matter of concern to our Chairman, the cleanliness of refuse collection chambers and pest. I think the Housing Department has failed to urge its staff members to take follow-up actions on these matters. Also on rodent control, it has also failed to do its job. In the course of such complaints, we have never taken out any prosecution against the Housing Department and we cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel and we cannot see any improvement. If this is a resource problem, I don't think this can hold water. If the USD is saying that we do not have enough manpower to carry out regular inspection and prosecution, it is also unacceptable. To cite the Ngau Tau Kok Lower Estate in Kwun Tong as an example, Some time ago the District Office of USD wrote to the Housing Managers in charge of Block 1 and Block 2 asking them to carry out some structural improvement in respect of the design of some refuse collection chambers and flower beds and to the spacing in meter rooms to prevent the spread of rodent. But up to now, we cannot see any significant improvements made by the Housing Department. When we visited the estate again last month, the Department wrote to the Housing Department again urging them to take action. We will await to see if any action is taken by them. If they do not take actions for 2 or 3 years, should we still tolerate the situation? I think we should enforce the legislation by prosecuting the Housing Department. I agree that liaison and communication are necessary. However, when they are breaching the law repeatedly, should we do something about it? Page 117 of 485 Page 117 of 485

Baseline (Original)

Page 117 of 485 Page 117 of 485 Page 117 of 485 94 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL question of confrontation and we have to consider the interests of half of the population in Hong Kong who are living in public housing estates. I don't think Members have visited these areas, they are just saying that we should not adopt a confrontational approach but have they considered the interests of public housing residents? They are facing the problem of mis-management on environ- mental hygiene, why should they be asked to tolerate the situation? What action can we take if the Housing Department do not take heed of our advice? Being an elected member. I think this might be the last resort but Mr. CHEUNG was saying that we should only urge or even beg the Housing Department to do something about it. As an elected member, I cannot accept the toning down of the motion by Mr. CHEUNG who has in fact changed it to a very weak motion. Ms. Au YUK-HAR (in Cantonese);-I cannot support Mr. CHEUNG's amended motion either. My views are very similar to those put forward by Mr. Fred Li. It is because we believe that whoever breache the law will be prosecuted, be they government departments or not. Under this principle, I fail to see why we should grant exemptions because the USD in the past has not enforced the relevant Ordinance in public housing estates managed by the Housing Depart- ment or the Hong Kong Housing Society. We should not tolerate any Depart- ment which has repeatedly breached the law. We have actually received many complaints from residents, over half of these are related to housing estate management problems, especially those concerning public toilets which is a matter of concern to our Chairman, the cleanliness of refuse collection chambers and pest. I think the Housing Department has failed to urge its staff members to take follow-up actions on these matters. Also on rodent control, it has also failed to do its job. In the course of such complaints. we have never taken out any prosecution against the Housing Department and we cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel and we cannot see any improvement. If this is a resource problem, I don' think this can hold water. If the USD is saying that we do not have enough manpower to carry out regular inspection and prosection, it is also un-acceptable. To cite the Ngau Tau Kok Lower Estate in Kwun Tong as an example. Some time ago the District Office of USD wrote to the Housing Managers in charge of Block 1 and Block 2 asking them to carry out some structural improvement in respect of the design of some refuse collection chambers and flower beds and to the spacing in meter rooms to prevent the spread of rodent. But up to now, we cannot see any significant improvements made by the Housing Department. When we visited the estate again last month, the Department wrote to the Housing Department again urging them to take action. We will await to see if any action is taken by them. If they do not take actions for 2 or 3 years, should we still tolerate the situation? I think we should enforce the legislation by prosecuting the Housing Department. I agree that liaision and communication are necessary. However, when they are breaching the law repeatedly, should we do something about it? Page 117 of 485

2026-05-15 23:15:40 · Baseline

View content

Page 117 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

question of confrontation and we have to consider the interests of half of the population in Hong Kong who are living in public housing estates. I don't think Members have visited these areas, they are just saying that we should not adopt a confrontational approach but have they considered the interests of public housing residents? They are facing the problem of mis-management on environ- mental hygiene, why should they be asked to tolerate the situation? What action can we take if the Housing Department do not take heed of our advice? Being an elected member. I think this might be the last resort but Mr. CHEUNG was saying that we should only urge or even beg the Housing Department to do something about it. As an elected member, I cannot accept the toning down of the motion by Mr. CHEUNG who has in fact changed it to a very weak motion.

Ms. Au YUK-HAR (in Cantonese);-I cannot support Mr. CHEUNG's amended motion either. My views are very similar to those put forward by Mr. Fred Li. It is because we believe that whoever breache the law will be prosecuted, be they government departments or not. Under this principle, I fail to see why we should grant exemptions because the USD in the past has not enforced the relevant Ordinance in public housing estates managed by the Housing Depart- ment or the Hong Kong Housing Society. We should not tolerate any Depart- ment which has repeatedly breached the law.

We have actually received many complaints from residents, over half of these are related to housing estate management problems, especially those concerning public toilets which is a matter of concern to our Chairman, the cleanliness of refuse collection chambers and pest. I think the Housing Department has failed to urge its staff members to take follow-up actions on these matters. Also on rodent control, it has also failed to do its job. In the course of such complaints. we have never taken out any prosecution against the Housing Department and we cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel and we cannot see any improvement. If this is a resource problem, I don' think this can hold water. If the USD is saying that we do not have enough manpower to carry out regular inspection and prosection, it is also un-acceptable.

To cite the Ngau Tau Kok Lower Estate in Kwun Tong as an example. Some time ago the District Office of USD wrote to the Housing Managers in charge of Block 1 and Block 2 asking them to carry out some structural improvement in respect of the design of some refuse collection chambers and flower beds and to the spacing in meter rooms to prevent the spread of rodent. But up to now, we cannot see any significant improvements made by the Housing Department. When we visited the estate again last month, the Department wrote to the Housing Department again urging them to take action. We will await to see if any action is taken by them. If they do not take actions for 2 or 3 years, should we still tolerate the situation? I think we should enforce the legislation by prosecuting the Housing Department. I agree that liaision and communication are necessary. However, when they are breaching the law repeatedly, should we do something about it?

1995 — Page 117

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note