Page 91 of 606
112
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
image of the two municipal councils are tarnished as intended, will food safety and environmental hygiene change for the better with the cancellation of these functions from the councils? Will ciguatoxin from fish disappear altogether? Will problems with monitoring the quality of sea water for fish culture be solved so simply? Will the bird flu virus disappear altogether? Will problems with monitoring shellfish be solved? Frankly, if severing food safety and environmental hygiene functions from the two municipal councils can easily solve problems with food safety and food hygiene, we have no reason to stall. If that assumption really stands, I will be the first one to welcome the proposal to take away food safety and environmental hygiene functions from the two municipal councils.
As regards other parts of my position paper, please refer to the text. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. JENNIFER Chow Kit-BING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the bitter lesson of our new airport put frost on the icy situation of our economy. The business community suffered great loss; members of the public complained; the international image of Hong Kong was tarnished and many people of Hong Kong were deeply disappointed. It was a heavy price indeed. That is why I think new things may not be good and haste to put forth things may bring undesirable results.
If we look at the Review of District Organisations from a detached angle, we can see that the options given by the Government are to make changes for the sake of changes. Unfortunately, these changes may not be good for our society. The suggestion to recall the hundred year old supervisory role of the Council on food hygiene and vest it with a new department to be established leaves us worried. The work of municipal councils involve a lot of expenditure and our services go into every part of the livelihood of our citizens. The two municipal councils employ more than 30,000 people and hence, are among the largest employers in Hong Kong.
The annual expenditure of food hygiene work under the ambit of the Urban Council is in the region of $3.5 billion. Staff on this job numbers 10,000-odd. They serve over 3 million of our people. By putting forward the review document rashly without careful thinking beforehand and trying to create the impression in the process of consultation that there are insufficiencies in the Council's role over food hygiene, Government is disregarding the Council's mission for more than a hundred years. Personally, I think this whole process of dishing out options and starting consultation is an intentional act to smear the Council in order to clear the way for recalling powers to Government.
Several days ago, a number of independent Members put forth a fifth counter-proposal. It is the One Council and One Department Three Functions as referred to by the Chairman just now. We feel that at this time of economic recession when Government operations meet with mishaps and public
Page 91 of 606
Page 91 of 606
112
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
image of the two municipal councils are tarnished as intended, will food safety and environmental hygiene change for the better with the cancellation of these functions from the councils? Will ciguatoxin from fish disappear altogether? Will problems with monitoring the quality of sea water for fish culture be solved so simply? Will the bird flu virus disappear altogether? Will problems with monitoring shellfish be solved? Frankly, if severing food safety and environmental hygiene functions from the two municipal councils can easily solve problems with food safety and food hygiene, we have no reason to stall. If that assumption really stands, I will be the first one to welcome the proposal to take away food safety and environmental hygiene functions from the two municipal councils.
As regards other parts of my position paper, please refer to the text. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. JENNIFER Chow Kit-BING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the bitter lesson of our new airport put frost on the icy situation of our economy. The business community suffered great loss; members of the public complained; the international image of Hong Kong was tarnished and many people of Hong Kong were deeply disappointed. It was a heavy price indeed. That is why I think new things may not be good and haste to put forth things may bring undesirable results.
If we look at the Review of District Organisations from a detached angle, we can see that the options given by the Government are to make changes for the sake of changes. Unfortunately, these changes may not be good for our society. The suggestion to recall the hundred year old supervisory role of the Council on food hygiene and vest it with a new department to be established leaves us worried. The work of municipal councils involve a lot of expenditure and our services go into every part of the livelihood of our citizens. The two municipal councils employ more than 30 000 people and hence, are among the largest employers in Hong Kong.
The annual expenditure of food hygiene work under the ambit of the Urban Council is in the region of $3.5 billion. Staff on this job numbers 10 000-odd. They serve over 3 millions of our people. By putting forward the review document rashly without careful thinking beforehand and trying to create the impression in the process of consultation that there are insufficiencies in the Council's role over food hygiene, Government is disregarding the Council's mission for more than a hundred years. Personally, I think this whole process of dishing out options and starting consultation is an intentional act to smear the Council in order to clear the way for recalling powers to Government.
Several days ago, a number of independent Members put forth a fifth counter proposal. It is the One Council and One Department Three Functions as referred to by the Chairman just now. We feel that at this time of economic recession when Government operations meet with mishaps and public
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.