HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
65
get settled quickly. If something is not settled, we can ask their people to explain at the District Board.
I do not believe that government departments have remained stubborn. As Councillors, if we find them stubborn, we can ask the Urban Services Department to prosecute offenders. Don't say that the Department never prosecuted any cleaning contractor. The Department did prosecute. As for the question of responsibilities, we cannot set standards on who is to be responsible on behalf of other departments.
The comment ‘your amended motion speaks without acting' is easy. Does acting mean Councillors have to prosecute and manage so that they can sit back? If we have to set standards when we feel another department is not up to task, it will be a state of confused roles and responsibilities. That is not something to expect from an efficient government.
There is one thing the original mover is not clear about. Nowadays, many housing estates have set up advisory committees comprised of representatives of mutual aid committees, residents groups and District Board Members. These committees meet once every 2 to 3 months to assess overall management including cleanliness and environmental hygiene, and to give gradings to contractors on their performance. When it is time for contractors to renew contracts, the grading system will play a decisive role. So there is already a system in place. We should not think we are superior because we are Urban Councillors. Estate advisory committees are made up of people living in estates. Why can't we trust these committees and leave them to their job? Public opinion is represented there and District Board Members are there too. If you ask me, it is fair and open this way.
Mr. Chairman, if we set standards for everything, how should we go about it? Our standards may be challenged. People may ask us to set standards for ourselves to adhere to because there are problems with street cleanliness and rubbish in streets. How should we react to people asking us to set standards for ourselves first? So, in short, a patient Councillor serving the public actively will not allow the situation to worsen so much that prosecution becomes the solution. Whenever a problem is identified, it should be raised with the relevant authority for improvement. I hope Members will support the amended motion.
Mr. Lam Man-FAI (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I second.
Mr. Albert Lai Wing-lin (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman. I fully support classifying the cleanliness condition, but I think we need to give more thought to who is to do the grading.
We all know that cleaning work in public estates is contracted out. It is an undeniable fact that many estates have room for improvement in cleanliness. The monitoring role lies with the Housing Authority, as you have said. A Member
Page 67 of 654
Page 67 of 654
Page 67 of 654
Page 67 of 654
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
65
get settled quickly. If something is not settled, we can ask their people to explain at the District Board.
I do not believe that government departments have remained stubborn. As Councillors, if we find them stubborn, we can ask the Urban Services Department to prosecute offenders. Don't say that the Department_never prosecuted any cleaning contractor. The Department did prosecute. As for the question of responsibilities, we cannot set standards on who is to be responsible on behalf of other departments.
The comment ‘your amended motion speaks without acting' is easy. Does acting mean Councillors have to prosecute and manage so that they can sit back? If we have to set standards when we feel another department is not up to task, it will be a state of confused roles and responsibilities. That is not something to expect from an efficient government.
There is one thing the original mover is not clear about. Nowadays, many housing estates have set up advisory committees comprised of representatives of mutual aid committees, residents groups and District Board Members. These committees meet once every 2 to 3 months to assess overall management including cleanliness and environmental hygiene, and to give gradings to contractors on their performance. When it is time for contractors to renew contracts, the grading system will play a decisive role. So there is already a system in place. We should not think we are superior because we are Urban Councillors. Estate advisory committees are made up of people living in estates. Why can't we trust these committees and leave them to their job? Public opinion is represented there and District Board Members are there too. If you ask me, it is fair and open this way.
Mr. Chairman, if we set standards for everything, how should we go about it? Our standards may be challenged. People may ask us to set standards for ourselves to adhere to because there are problems with street cleanliness and rubbish in streets. How should we react to people asking us to set standards for ourselves first? So, in short, a patient Councillor serving the public actively will not allow the situation to worsen so much that prosecution becomes the solution. Whenever a problem is identified, it should be raised with the relevant authority for improvement. I hope Members will support the amended motion.
Mr. Lam Man-FAI (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I second.
Mr. Albert Lat Wing-lin (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman. I fully support classifying the cleanliness condition, but I think we need to give more thought to who is to do the grading.
We all know that cleaning work in public estates is contracted out. It is an undeniable fact that many estates have room for improvement in cleanliness. The monitoring role lies with the Housing Authority, as you have said. A Member
Page 67 of 654
Page 67 of 654
Page 67 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.