Page 252 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
247
with no more hope for proving its innocence. If such is the case, I feel I am personally obliged to clarify this issue.
With the Council formed mostly by elected members, full transparency has been achieved. As such, it is very easy to find fault with the two Councils. As the saying goes, 'He who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find his stick.' However, the Councils can be blamed for anything, but never for the avian flu, because it is absolutely not the fact. I have five major reasons:
(1) The very person who recommended the poultry quarantine system was me. When I put forth the recommendation at a meeting of the Urban Council, the official representing the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, whose name I shall withhold but whose attendance is on record, rejected outright to accept the proposal of the Provisional Urban Council. It was before the killing of chickens. It is very clear as to who should be held responsible and whom the right is vested in. This is the first fact. (This can be found in the record of proceedings.) (2) When we visited the Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Market managed by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department (AFD), we saw there were dead rats, dead chickens, dead ducks around. We advised the officials of the Urban Services Department accompanying us that AFD should be prosecuted. However the Urban Services Department told us that it could not institute any proceedings against AFD and could only keep the department informed. This clearly shows that the problem lies in the overlapping of the functions of departments. We cannot give any advice at all. Why should those who wish to give advice be penalized? (3) The series of incidents involving food safety following the avian flu in
the past 18 months have been listed out in the "thousand word letter" which I believe Members have already read, but then it is not surprising that some have not-those cases for which the Urban Council is responsible.
(4) As far as this is concerned, I made a public statement and wrote to the Chief Executive stating that if anyone could prove that the Provisional Urban Council should be held responsible for the above-mentioned issues, I would resign from the Vice-chairmanship of the Public Health Select Committee. The fact is that I am still occupying this position and have not resigned from it, because the Chief Executive replied me in writing as follows:
With reference to your letter dated 26 July this year to the Chief Executive (CE) giving your views on the consultation paper on Review of District Organizations and the recent incidents involving food hygiene, I have been instructed by CE to extend his gratitude to you. CE is deeply grateful for your efforts in promoting food hygiene, This was the reply given by CE's Deputy Private Secretary. It clearly indicated that the Urban Council should not be held responsible and therefore I need not resign.
Page 252 of 606
Page 252 of 6
Page 252 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
247
with no more hope for proving its innocence. If such is the case, I feel I am personally obliged to clarify this issue.
With the Council formed mostly by elected members, full transparency has been achieved. As such, it is very easy to find fault with the two Councils. As the saying goes, 'He who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find his stick.' However, the Councils can be blamed for anything, but never for the avian flu, because it is absolutely not the fact. I have five major reasons:
(1) The very person who recommended the poultry quarantine system was me. When I put forth the recommendation at a meeting of the Urban Council, the official representing the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, whose name I shall withhold but whose attendance is on record, rejected outright to accept the proposal of the Provisional Urban Council. It was before the killing of chickens. It is very clear as to who should be held responsible and whom the right is vested in. This is the first fact. (This can be found in the record of proceedings.) (2) When we visited the Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Market managed by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department (AFD), we saw there were dead rats, dead chickens, dead ducks around. We advised the officials of the Urban Services Department accompanying us that AFD should be prosecuted. However the Urban Services Department told us that it could not institute any proceedings against AFD and could only keep the department informed. This clearly shows that the problem lies in the overlapping of the functions of departments. We cannot give any advice at all. Why should those who wish to give advice be penalized? (3) The series of incidents involving food safety following the avian flu in
the past 18 months have been listed out in the "thousand word letter- which I believe Members have already read, but then it is not surprising that some have not-those cases for which the Urban Council is responsible.
(4) As far as this is concerned, I made a public statement and wrote to the Chief Executive stating that if anyone could prove that the Provisional Urban Council should be held responsible for the above-mentioned issues, I would resign from the Vice-chairmanship of the Public Health Select Committee. The fact is that I am still occupying this position and have not resigned from it, because the Chief Executive replied me in writing as follows:
With reference to your letter dated 26 July this year to the Chief Executive (CE) giving your views on the consultation paper on Review of District Organizations and the recent incidents involving food hygiene, I have been instructed by CE to extend his gratitude to you. CE is deeply grateful for your efforts in promoting food hygiene, This was the reply given by CE's Deputy Private Secretary. It clearly indicated that the Urban Council should not be held responsible and therefore I need not resign.
Paro 250
fcor
Page 252 of 606
Page 252 of 6
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.