1997 — Page 70

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 70 of 654

654

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

done by the Urban Services Department. The Urban Services Department answers to the Urban Council. We can ask the Department to monitor the situation and this channel will be more effective. If the Housing Authority is willing to take this up, problems should have been resolved at the Estate Management Advisory Committees and there should be no need to discuss it today. I hope Members will take a good look at which party is more effective or can reflect more realistic figures. Is it really more effective to let the Housing Authority and the Housing Department assess the standards of estates and reflect the real situation? I leave it to you to consider. Thank you.

Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—I just heard the proposal that the Housing Department is under the Housing Authority, not the Urban Council, so that we really have no say over the Department's administration of cleanliness matters.

Cinemas are not operated by the Urban Council. Why is it that we are their licensing authority? We do not operate restaurants or food premises. Why do we supervise hygiene in such places? Section 132 of the Municipal Services Ordinance is a part of Hong Kong Law. It is applicable anywhere and everywhere in Hong Kong. For sub-standard situations, we are empowered to prosecute. I am saying that we should not look to the Housing Department under the Housing Authority as a separate 'Kingdom'. If hygiene standards in that 'Kingdom' do not comply with existing hygiene laws of Hong Kong, why can't we monitor and prosecute?

In fact, Mr. LAI's motion is well intentioned. Last time, we passed a motion in June 1995 in this connection. The Urban Services Department could have met with a lot of difficulties in enforcement. That's why we asked for classification. There are standards for classification and they are objective standards too. However, we have been criticised for interfering in other people's affairs. As the law empowers the Urban Council to discharge duties in this respect, why shouldn't we go ahead? I find today's motion being one to urge the Urban Council to take up its duty. Some people may say that matters are improving and that the environment of estates is better today. In our survey which awards points on a scale of 0 to 100 points, 20 points denote a poor mark and above 60 the passing mark. 11 of the 18 estates in the survey fell between 20 to 60 points which denote an unsatisfactory condition. In other words, 60% belongs to this category. If one can be trusted to take the initiative, how come things have come to this?

Let's not go back too far. If you look at today's newspapers or if you have watched last night's cable TV broadcast, you must have seen the poor state of hygiene. Both from the survey and our observation, it is obvious that the hygiene situation in estates is a real cause for concern. I feel that the amended motion by Mr. Christopher CHUNG which ‘urges' in fact contains a plea. Mr. CHUNG is a good-natured person, but being good-natured merely spoils those

Page 70 of 654

- of 654

Page 70

Page 71

Page 71 of 654

Edit History

2026-05-16 02:46:14 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 70 of 654 654 68 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL done by the Urban Services Department. The Urban Services Department answers to the Urban Council. We can ask the Department to monitor the situation and this channel will be more effective. If the Housing Authority is willing to take this up, problems should have been resolved at the Estate Management Advisory Committees and there should be no need to discuss it today. I hope Members will take a good look at which party is more effective or can reflect more realistic figures. Is it really more effective to let the Housing Authority and the Housing Department assess the standards of estates and reflect the real situation? I leave it to you to consider. Thank you. Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—I just heard the proposal that the Housing Department is under the Housing Authority, not the Urban Council, so that we really have no say over the Department's administration of cleanliness matters. Cinemas are not operated by the Urban Council. Why is it that we are their licensing authority? We do not operate restaurants or food premises. Why do we supervise hygiene in such places? Section 132 of the Municipal Services Ordinance is a part of Hong Kong Law. It is applicable anywhere and everywhere in Hong Kong. For sub-standard situations, we are empowered to prosecute. I am saying that we should not look to the Housing Department under the Housing Authority as a separate 'Kingdom'. If hygiene standards in that 'Kingdom' do not comply with existing hygiene laws of Hong Kong, why can't we monitor and prosecute? In fact, Mr. LAI's motion is well intentioned. Last time, we passed a motion in June 1995 in this connection. The Urban Services Department could have met with a lot of difficulties in enforcement. That's why we asked for classification. There are standards for classification and they are objective standards too. However, we have been criticised for interfering in other people's affairs. As the law empowers the Urban Council to discharge duties in this respect, why shouldn't we go ahead? I find today's motion being one to urge the Urban Council to take up its duty. Some people may say that matters are improving and that the environment of estates is better today. In our survey which awards points on a scale of 0 to 100 points, 20 points denote a poor mark and above 60 the passing mark. 11 of the 18 estates in the survey fell between 20 to 60 points which denote an unsatisfactory condition. In other words, 60% belongs to this category. If one can be trusted to take the initiative, how come things have come to this? Let's not go back too far. If you look at today's newspapers or if you have watched last night's cable TV broadcast, you must have seen the poor state of hygiene. Both from the survey and our observation, it is obvious that the hygiene situation in estates is a real cause for concern. I feel that the amended motion by Mr. Christopher CHUNG which ‘urges' in fact contains a plea. Mr. CHUNG is a good-natured person, but being good-natured merely spoils those Page 70 of 654 - of 654 Page 70 Page 71 Page 71 of 654

Baseline (Original)

Page 70 of 654 654 68 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL done by the Urban Services Department. The Urban Services Department answers to the Urban Council. We can ask the Department to monitor the situation and this channel will be more effective. If the Housing Authority is willing to take this up, problems should have been resolved at the Estate Management Advisory Committees and there should be no need to discuss it today. I hope Members will take a good look at which party is more effective or can reflect more realistic figures. Is it really more effective to let the Housing Authority and the Housing Department assess the standards of estates and reflect the real situation? I leave it to you to consider. Thank you. Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—I just heard the proposal that the Housing Department is under the Housing Authority, not the Urbar Council, so that we really have no say over the Department's administrative of cleanliness matters. Cinemas are not operated by the Urban Council. Why is it that we are their licensing authority? We do not operate restaurants or food premises. Why do we supervise hygiene in such places? Section 132 of the Municipal Service: Ordinance is a part of Hong Kong Law. It is applicable anywhere anc everywhere in Hong Kong. For sub-standard situations, we are empowered to prosecute. I am saying that we should not look to the Housing Departmen under the Housing Authority as a separate 'Kingdom'. If hygiene standards i that 'Kingdom' do not comply with existing hygiene laws of Hong Kong, why can't we monitor and prosecute? In fact, Mr. LAI's motion is well intentioned. Last time, we passed a motion in June 1995 in this connection. The Urban Services Department could hav met with a lot of difficulties in enforcement. That's why we asked fo classification. There are standards for classification and they are objective. standards too. However, we have been criticised for interfering in othe people's affairs. As the law empowers the Urban Council to discharge duties in this respect, why shouldn't we go ahead? I find today's motion being one t urge the Urban Council to take up its duty. Some people may say that matter are improving and that the environment of estates are better today. In ou survey which awards points on a scale of 0 to 100 points, 20 points denote: poor mark and above 60 the passing mark. 11 of the 18 estates in the surve fell between 20 to 60 points which denote an unsatisfactory condition. In othe words, 60% belongs to this category. If one can be trusted to take the initiative how come things have come to this? Let's not go back too far. If you look at today's newspapers or if you hav watched last night's cable TV broadcast, you must have seen the poor state o hygiene. Both from the survey and our observation, it is obvious that th hygiene situation in estates is a real cause for concern. I feel that the amende motion by Mr. Christopher CHUNG which ‘urges' in fact contains a plea. M CHUNG is a good natured person, but being good natured merely spoils thos Page 70 of 654 - of 654 Page 70Page 71 Page 71 of 654

2026-05-16 02:46:14 · Baseline

View content

Page 70 of 654

654

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—I just heard the proposal that the Housing Department is under the Housing Authority, not the Urbar Council, so that we really have no say over the Department's administrative of cleanliness matters.

Cinemas are not operated by the Urban Council. Why is it that we are their licensing authority? We do not operate restaurants or food premises. Why do we supervise hygiene in such places? Section 132 of the Municipal Service: Ordinance is a part of Hong Kong Law. It is applicable anywhere anc everywhere in Hong Kong. For sub-standard situations, we are empowered to prosecute. I am saying that we should not look to the Housing Departmen under the Housing Authority as a separate 'Kingdom'. If hygiene standards i that 'Kingdom' do not comply with existing hygiene laws of Hong Kong, why can't we monitor and prosecute?

In fact, Mr. LAI's motion is well intentioned. Last time, we passed a motion in June 1995 in this connection. The Urban Services Department could hav met with a lot of difficulties in enforcement. That's why we asked fo classification. There are standards for classification and they are objective. standards too. However, we have been criticised for interfering in othe people's affairs. As the law empowers the Urban Council to discharge duties in this respect, why shouldn't we go ahead? I find today's motion being one t urge the Urban Council to take up its duty. Some people may say that matter are improving and that the environment of estates are better today. In ou survey which awards points on a scale of 0 to 100 points, 20 points denote: poor mark and above 60 the passing mark. 11 of the 18 estates in the surve fell between 20 to 60 points which denote an unsatisfactory condition. In othe words, 60% belongs to this category. If one can be trusted to take the initiative how come things have come to this?

Let's not go back too far. If you look at today's newspapers or if you hav watched last night's cable TV broadcast, you must have seen the poor state o hygiene. Both from the survey and our observation, it is obvious that th hygiene situation in estates is a real cause for concern. I feel that the amende motion by Mr. Christopher CHUNG which ‘urges' in fact contains a plea. M CHUNG is a good natured person, but being good natured merely spoils thos

Page 70 of 654

- of 654

Page 70Page 71

Page 71 of 654

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.