Page 319 of 654
19 of 654
Page 319 of 654
316
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, this is nonetheless a very good proposal. It is hoped that this wishful thinking will come true. Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. KAM Nai-wai (in Cantonese):—It was not my intention to speak, but just now when Mr. Mok Ying-fan spoke, he quoted some examples and considered that the lack of effective communication between the two Councils had resulted in wastage of resources and manpower.
There are a few points which I think differently. Certainly, some of his views are correct, such as those on orchestra performances. If these functions were jointly held by the two councils and coordination could be made, it would be a desirable thing. Hence I support in principle the motion that there should be communication between both.
However, it is reasonable that different policies are formulated by the two councils in response to district characteristics, if they are different. Let me quote two of the examples given by Mr. Mok Ying-fan. The first one is about the effective dates of the legislation on sashimi and sushi, that is, the reason why the legislation of the Regional Council came into effect on 1 February while that of the Urban Council did not come into effect until 1 March. My understanding is that it was due to the number of shops. It was probable that there were more shops in the urban area selling sashimi and sushi while the number of such shops within the jurisdiction of the Regional Council was less. This accounted for the different effective dates and there is nothing to be surprised at. This is the first point.
The second point is about the issue of itinerant hawkers' licences. Land resource was the reason why the Urban Council cancelled the licences of itinerant hawkers while the Regional Council adopted the policy of natural wastage. As every one of us knows, in the urban area the population is more centralized while the streets are narrower. The situation of some itinerant hawkers was far from satisfactory too. As a result, the option of cancelling the licences of itinerant hawkers was adopted, which was different from the policy of the Regional Council. It was precisely because of the limited land resource that different policies were adopted. I don't share Mr. Mok Ying-fan's view that there was wastage of resources or manpower.
As to the problem concerning activities, I too consider that there should be communication and an established system between the two. As far as I understand, the Regional Council has carried a similar motion. They carried a similar motion at their meeting. Hence, Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut was worrying about something that did not exist, because they too hoped that there was communication between the two councils.
With these remarks, I support the motion. Thank you, Chairman.
Page 319 of 654
19 of 654
Page 319 of 654
316
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, this is nonetheless a very good proposal. It is hoped that this wishful thinking will come true. Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. KAM NA1-Wat (in Cantonese):—It was not my intention to speak, but just now when Mr. Mok Ying-fan spoke, he quoted some examples and considered that the lack of effective communication between the two Councils had resulted in wastage of resources and manpower.
There are a few points which I think differently. Certainly, some of his views are correct, such as those on orchestra performances. If these functions were jointly held by the two councils and coordination could be made, it would be a desirable thing. Hence I support in principle the motion that there should be communication between both.
However, it is reasonable that different policies are formulated by the two councils in response to district characteristics, if they are different. Let me quote two of the examples given by Mr. Mox Ying-fan. The first one is about the effective dates of the legislation on sashimi and sushi, that is, the reason why the legislation of the Regional Council came into effect on 1 February while that of the Urban Council did not come into effect until 1 March. My understanding is that it was due to the number of shops. It was probable that there were more shops in the urban area selling sashimi and sushi while the number of such shops within the jurisdiction of the Regional Council was less. This accounted for the different effective dates and there is nothing to be surprised at. This is the first point.
The second point is about the issue of itinerant hawkers' licences. Land resource was the reason why the Urban Council cancelled the licences of itinerant hawkers while the Regional Council adopted the policy of natural wastage. As every one of us knows, in the urban area the population is more centralized while the streets are narrower. The situation of some itinerant hawkers was far from satisfactory too. As a result, the option of cancelling the licences of itinerant hawkers was adopted, which was different from the policy of the Regional Council. It was precisely because of the limited land resource that different policies were adopted. I don't share Mr. MoK Ying-fan's view that there was wastage of resources or manpower.
As to the problem concerning activities, I too consider that there should be communication and an established system between the two. As far as I understand, the Regional Council has carried a similar motion. They carried a similar motion at their meeting. Hence, Mr. Joseph CHAN Yuek-sut was worrying about something that did not exist, because they too hoped that there was communication between the two councils.
With these remarks, I support the motion. Thank you, Chairman.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.