The Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM) has allegedly left a shop owner puzzled with regard to the legal procedures with which residents must abide while cleaning the exterior of their properties.
The Times has become aware that a small local shop has not long ago been fined by the IAM for disposing foul water in public spaces.
According to the female owner, who requested to stay anonymous, the dog excrement was not from her dog. In fact, she does not own one. “It’s my first time dealing with a dog stool. I really didn’t have any idea,” she explained.
She clarified that she wanted to clean the dried and malodorous excrement which had even been stepped upon, with flies flying around. “Given the condition, it couldn’t be just picked up or swept away,” she explained.
That is why, according to the woman, she needed to splash water on it in order to clean it. While she was about to retrieve other tools to clean the area, two IAM officers approached her and issued her with a fine ticket.
Feeling perplexed about why the IAM officers could not instruct her on the correct method of cleaning, the shop owner filed an appeal to the IAM. It was also stressed that, as per her understanding, she was doing something positive and acting in good faith.
“I’m feeling quite helpless about the matter,” the shop owner noted. “If I only want to clean up the place but got fined, it will confuse residents on the definition of ‘good practice.’”
At the IAM, the officer told her that in such a situation, she should have used the IAM Connect app to notify the bureau. But she was confused by this requirement, as she understands the bureau staff may be busy and cannot attend to each case right away.
“The IAM team may not handle each inquiry immediately,” said the shop owner. “Is it implied that operations should be halted until the IAM team handles the situation?”
The shop owner highlighted that IAM staff, when questioned on the suggestion of more practical ways, did not provide her with any advice.
It seems a situation of “lesson failed, lesson learned” to her. It was only after this incident that she was “educated” that the IAM should be notified to clean up in such a situation. Therefore, she suggested the bureau work more on the promotion of the “legal procedures.”
The IAM told the shop owner that the appeal will take about two months to conclude.
“To a common resident, the two-month period will generate mental stress,” the shop owner remarked.
Should the result of the appeal stand against her, she may consider filing a judicial appeal against the decision, and her justification is simple: she was acting in good faith with good intentions.
She stressed that she is not trying to seek revenge against the government entity. Instead, running a takeaway food establishment, the shop owner complimented the bureau for its diligence in safeguarding food hygiene. “I have been trusting their judgments and professionalism,” the shop owner stressed.
Comment from the IAM on the matter was sought, but no reply was received by press time.
Public places under
gov’t’s management
Lawyer Vítor Tang has pointed out that, according to the law, public places are under the management of the government. This means that, in general, shop owners, despite standing adjacent to their business establishments, have no responsibility for restoring the cleanliness of the public space not within their establishments, although Tang stressed that keeping public places clean is a legal requirement.
When asked by the Times about what the law actually says, Tang provided the clause which he found relevant. Stipulations in the General Regulations Governing Public Places, originally in Chinese and Portuguese only, state that business operators “should keep the location(s) under their occupation and the public space(s) adjacent and connected to which clean, including [ensuring] the absence of residues such as grease and oil generated by the economic activities.”
There can be tricky situations, such as when there are dirty materials outside a commercial establishment and the situation discourages customers from entering, in which case it is logical that the owner or the operator wants to clean it away, to which Tang agreed.
Tang reminds people to view and abide with the law when in such situations.
No Comments