Page 392 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Allowing waste water from fish stalls or other shops to flow into public places is an act against the law. As for figures, I do not have them with me. If the Department has any such records, they will be supplied to Mr. LAI after the meeting.
MR. WONG KWOK-HING (Cantonese): - In fact, the public is very concerned about keeping Hong Kong clean and related prosecutions. If stepping up education efforts brings about more prosecutions, it will appear to some people that education has failed. However, I take the opposite view. I believe prosecution figures and education are not necessarily interrelated. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee whether the Department will be asked to prepare a document on the overall review of keeping Hong Kong clean and stepping up prosecution efforts so that this Council can have an overview on the prosecution of litter offenders. That is my first question.
Next, although there are 2600-odd people within the Department empowered to prosecute litter offenders, they do so only as secondary duties. Will there be fundamental improvements to this situation of not having staff specially assigned to prosecute litter offenders?
Thirdly, we often notice that unlicensed hawkers are out of sight when Hawker Control Officers are stationed around. This gives them time to look around and sometimes see the displays in shop windows. To make better use of resources, we may as well assign Hawker Control Officers stationed in streets to switch their secondary duty of prosecuting litter offenders to their main duty. Do you think we should review the present situation?
Last of all, I come to my fourth question. Looking at the breakdown of prosecution figures by districts, we can see there are insufficiencies in making prosecutions. You would expect that the Central district is much cleaner than the Eastern district, but prosecution figures show that far more people were prosecuted in Central district. The figures for Central were twice as much as Eastern. The Eastern district is actually much dirtier by comparison. Why were prosecution figures not reflective? The answer is that enforcement officers did not prosecute on the same standard as that for Central. On this, I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee if it will be covered in the overall review.
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese): - Mr. Chairman, we can indeed have an overall review. That is the answer to the first question.
On the second question about the need for a special grade of officers to prosecute litter offenders, I think if the Council decides it is necessary, we can go about an amendment. However, I do think we need to make good use of resources. The work to prosecute litter offenders on our streets may not take too much time. If so, the idea may not be seen as a good way to utilize resources.
Page 392 of 654
1 age 392 or 654
- age 392 of 654
Page 392 of 654
38S
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Allowing waste water from fish stalls or other shops to flow into public places is an act against the law. As for figures, I do not have them with me. If the Department has any such records, they will be supplied to Mr. LAI after the meeting.
MR. WONG KWOK-HING (Cantonese):-In fact, the public is very concerned about keeping Hong Kong clean and related prosecutions. If stepping up education efforts brings about more prosecutions, it will appear to some people that education has failed. However, I take the opposite view. I believe prosecution figures and education are not necessarily interrelated. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee whether the Department will be asked 10 prepare a document on the overall review of keeping Hong Kong clean and stepping up prosecution efforts so that this Council can have an overview on the prosecution of litter offenders. That is my first question.
Next, although there are 2 600-odd people within the Department empowered to prosecute litter offenders, they do so only as secondary duties. Will there be fundamental improvements to this situation of not having staff specially assigned to prosecute litter offenders?
Thirdly, we often notice that unlicensed hawkers are out of sight when Hawker Control Officers are stationed around. This gives them time to look around and sometimes see the displays in shop windows. To make better use of resources, we may as well assign Hawker Control Officers stationed in streets to switch their secondary duty of prosecuting litter offenders to their main duty. Do you think we should review the present situation?
Last of all. I come to my fourth question. Looking at the breakdown of prosecution figures by districts, we can see there are insufficiencies in making prosecutions. You would expect that the Central district is much cleaner than the Eastern district, but prosecution figures show that far more people were prosecuted in Central district. The figures for Central were twice as much as Eastern. The Eastern district is actually much dirtier by comparison. Why were prosecution figures not reflective? The answer is that enforcement officers did not prosecute on the same standard as that for Central. On this, I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee if it will be covered in the overall review.
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, we can indeed have an overall review. That is the answer to the first question.
On the second question about the need for a special grade of officers to prosecute litter offenders, I think if the Council decides it is necessary, we can go about an amendment. However, I do think we need to make good use of resources. The work to prosecute litter offenders on our streets may not take too much time. If so, the idca may not be seen as a good way to utilize
resources.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.