1998 — Page 444

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 444 of 606

5o 444 of 606

432

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

the reply. I want to know how many applications were turned down for the reason that their staff had not attended the food hygiene course.

Mr. WONG Kwok-hing (in Cantonese): With regard to Mr. Li's first and second questions on the number of places on food hygiene courses, enrolment situation and percentage of enrolment, I will supply information to him later on.

As for Mr. Li's third question, information in hand shows that none of the applications is rejected because the applicant or staff has not attended a food safety course.

THE HON. LI WAI-MING (in Cantonese): Maybe Mr. WONG doesn't quite understand my question. I am aware that the reply states that no applicant was refused a licence solely on the ground that he or his staff did not attend a required course. My question is how many cases were turned down because of not having attended a food hygiene course as one of the reasons.

MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): From information supplied by the Department, the answer is none.

THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, when I was the Designated Member for the issue of licences last month, I found that one of the reasons for rejecting 8 applications among the 10 applications was that the staff were not sent to attend the food hygiene course. The reasons of rejections totalling over 10 and the 5 reasons offered by Mr. WONG today were the most common, e.g. fire services layout not matching the actual layout, etc. However, not having sent staff to attend the required course was clearly one of the reasons. For the applications signed by me, that problem existed. I don't know why the Department told Mr. WONG there was no such case.

MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Information supplied by the Department shows no case was turned down solely because the applicant or his staff did not attend such a course. If Mr. Li has doubts on this, I can follow it up after the meeting.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Since there is difference between the two, it has to be followed up after the meeting. The third question will be asked by Mr. Stanley NG Wing-fai.

(3) MR. STANLEY NG WING-FAI asked the following question (in Cantonese): In the past three years, has the Council prosecuted members of the public under the Summary Offences Ordinance? If yes, please list the most commonly cited five sections in the Ordinance and the respective prosecution figures.

of 606

Edit History

2026-05-16 07:44:16 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 444 of 606 Page 444 of 606 5o 444 of 606 432 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL the reply. I want to know how many applications were turned down for the reason that their staff had not attended the food hygiene course. Mr. WONG Kwok-hing (in Cantonese): With regard to Mr. Li's first and second questions on the number of places on food hygiene courses, enrolment situation and percentage of enrolment, I will supply information to him later on. As for Mr. Li's third question, information in hand shows that none of the applications is rejected because the applicant or staff has not attended a food safety course. THE HON. LI WAI-MING (in Cantonese): Maybe Mr. WONG doesn't quite understand my question. I am aware that the reply states that no applicant was refused a licence solely on the ground that he or his staff did not attend a required course. My question is how many cases were turned down because of not having attended a food hygiene course as one of the reasons. MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): From information supplied by the Department, the answer is none. THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, when I was the Designated Member for the issue of licences last month, I found that one of the reasons for rejecting 8 applications among the 10 applications was that the staff were not sent to attend the food hygiene course. The reasons of rejections totalling over 10 and the 5 reasons offered by Mr. WONG today were the most common, e.g. fire services layout not matching the actual layout, etc. However, not having sent staff to attend the required course was clearly one of the reasons. For the applications signed by me, that problem existed. I don't know why the Department told Mr. WONG there was no such case. MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Information supplied by the Department shows no case was turned down solely because the applicant or his staff did not attend such a course. If Mr. Li has doubts on this, I can follow it up after the meeting. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Since there is difference between the two, it has to be followed up after the meeting. The third question will be asked by Mr. Stanley NG Wing-fai. (3) MR. STANLEY NG WING-FAI asked the following question (in Cantonese): In the past three years, has the Council prosecuted members of the public under the Summary Offences Ordinance? If yes, please list the most commonly cited five sections in the Ordinance and the respective prosecution figures. of 606

Baseline (Original)

Page 444 of 606 Page 444 of 606 5o 444 of 606 432 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL the reply. I want to know how many applications were turned down for the reason that their staff had not attended the food hygiene course. Mr. WONG Kwok-hing (in Cantonese):-With regard to Mr. Li's first and second questions on the number of places on food hygiene courses, enrolment situation and percentage of enrolment, I will supply information to him later on. As for Mr. Li's third question, information in hand shows that none of the applications is rejected because the applicant or staff has not attended a food safety course. THE HON. LI WAI-MING (in Cantonese):-Maybe Mr. WONG doesn't quite understand my question. I am aware that the reply states that no applicant was refused a licence solely on the ground that he or his staff did not attend a required course. My question is how many cases were turned down because of not having attended a food hygiene course as one of the reasons. MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese):-From information supplied by the Department, the answer is none. THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, when I was the Designated Member for the issue of licences last month, I found that one of the reasons for rejecting 8 applications among the 10 applications was that the staff were not sent to attend the food hygiene course. The reasons of rejections totalling over 10 and the 5 reasons offered by Mr. WONG today were the most common, e.g. fire services layout not matching the actual layout, etc. However, not having sent staff to attend the required course was clearly one of the reasons. For the applications signed by me, that problem existed. I don't know why the Department told Mr. WONG there was no such case. MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese):-Information supplied by the Department shows no case was turned down solely because the applicant or his staff did not attend such a course. If Mr. Li has doubts on this, I can follow it up after the meeting. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Since there is difference between the two, it has to be followed up after the meeting. The third question will be asked by Mr. Stanley NG Wing-fai. (3) MR. STANLEY NG WING-FAI asked the following question (in Cantonese):—In the past three years, has the Council prosecuted members of the public under the Summary Offences Ordinance? If yes, please list the most commonly cited five sections in the Ordinance and the respective prosecution figures. of 606

2026-05-16 07:44:16 · Baseline

View content

Page 444 of 606

5o 444 of 606

432

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

the reply. I want to know how many applications were turned down for the reason that their staff had not attended the food hygiene course.

Mr. WONG Kwok-hing (in Cantonese):-With regard to Mr. Li's first and second questions on the number of places on food hygiene courses, enrolment situation and percentage of enrolment, I will supply information to him later

on.

As for Mr. Li's third question, information in hand shows that none of the applications is rejected because the applicant or staff has not attended a food safety course.

THE HON. LI WAI-MING (in Cantonese):-Maybe Mr. WONG doesn't quite understand my question. I am aware that the reply states that no applicant was refused a licence solely on the ground that he or his staff did not attend a required course. My question is how many cases were turned down because of not having attended a food hygiene course as one of the reasons.

MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese):-From information supplied by the Department, the answer is none.

THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, when I was the Designated Member for the issue of licences last month, I found that one of the reasons for rejecting 8 applications among the 10 applications was that the staff were not sent to attend the food hygiene course. The reasons of rejections totalling over 10 and the 5 reasons offered by Mr. WONG today were the most common, e.g. fire services layout not matching the actual layout, etc. However, not having sent staff to attend the required course was clearly one of the reasons. For the applications signed by me, that problem existed. I don't know why the Department told Mr. WONG there was no such case.

MR. WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese):-Information supplied by the Department shows no case was turned down solely because the applicant or his staff did not attend such a course. If Mr. Li has doubts on this, I can follow it up after the meeting.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Since there is difference between the two, it has to be followed up after the meeting. The third question will be asked by Mr. Stanley NG Wing-fai.

(3) MR. STANLEY NG WING-FAI asked the following question (in Cantonese):—In the past three years, has the Council prosecuted members of the public under the Summary Offences Ordinance? If yes, please list the most commonly cited five sections in the Ordinance and the respective prosecution figures.

1998 — Page 444

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note