HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
to the various Resettlement Estates and pay particular attention to the complaints and appeals which they bring to light, either personally or in writing. If I may borrow a leaf from Mr. SALES' book—the Book of Ecclesiastes: "The words of the wise are as goads."
Mrs. ELLIOTT spoke with feeling of the overcrowding in Resettlement Estates. That is a situation of which we are very conscious and on which the department has recently put detailed information and proposals before the appropriate Select Committees. Once again, it is a question of priorities, for the more we reduce overcrowding among existing tenants, the less accommodation have we to offer to those waiting outside in the queue. Members have recommended a practical solution which will offer some alleviation of the present situation, but is, of necessity, a compromise between the conflicting needs of those already in the estates and of numerous others whom we would like to admit. I would propose that this decision should be reviewed once a year, or more frequently if circumstances so dictate.
I would like to end, Sir, on a note of optimism. Having had no part in what has been achieved in the way of rehousing over the last decade, I cannot be accused of self-congratulation if I take pride in now being associated with it. There can be few places in the world of a comparable size which have not only rehoused but also provided the hope of a better life to so many in so short a time. Much of the credit must go to this Council and to the Director of Public Works and his colleagues. But this is no time for looking back on what has been achieved. Let us rather look forward to the next ten years in hope and with determination to do even better.
Mr. Chairman, I have much pleasure in supporting the motion before this Council. (Applause).
DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE: Mr. Chairman, I should like if I may to refer to the subject of hawkers and hawking. I should first say that my Department is directly concerned only to the extent of recommending to this Council applications for fixed pitch hawker licences from families who are in pressing need of a means of livelihood; we have a long waiting list and receive many requests from individuals and through voluntary social welfare agencies; only a small fraction of those who need, and would like to secure, a fixed pitch for hawking can be satisfied, owing to the lack of vacant pitches in places where a reasonable income can be made. Nevertheless, the Council's acceptance of the recommendation in the Hawker Report of 1957 to grant fixed pitch hawker licences on welfare grounds has enabled since then many destitute families to make a living and to stand on their own feet, thus relieving the community of the responsibility to find other provision for them. It should be added, in relation to what follows, that approved fixed pitches are so placed as not normally to cause obstruction to the public.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
May I now make two general and connected points, at the risk of stating the obvious: firstly, in our congested and teeming cities there is the keenest possible competition for space in the public streets which is at a high premium; pedlar hawkers, who are licensed freely, have to compete for the pavements with pedestrians passing through the streets and seeking access to shops, offices, and dwellings; and for the roadways with traffic. Secondly, a degree of free and reasonably rapid movement is quite vital to the life of our cities; time is money not only for the taipan but also for the manual worker; if the flow of pedestrian and motor traffic is constantly obstructed this can represent quite a serious drag on the economy; in any case, it is reasonable for those who go about their daily tasks in the city, whether on foot or awheel, to be able to move freely. Mr. BERNACCHI put this situation clearly when he said that the hawkers themselves must understand that they are but a fraction of the total community of Hong Kong and cannot monopolize the streets to the exclusion of others. There is in fact an inescapable divergence of interest here: the hawkers want to operate in the busiest and most congested areas because they can do the most trade there; but it is precisely in these areas that hawking is liable to cause the most serious obstruction to the rest of the public.
This extreme "horizontal congestion" at street level would be greatly mitigated if pedestrian and motor traffic could be separated vertically onto two different levels, as modern town plans tend to do; but the expense of doing this in an area which is already heavily built up would be colossal, at least until such areas can be replanned and redeveloped. We could, however, make more use of different levels, for instance through composite structures with markets or hawker bazaars at street level and playgrounds, car parks, or housing above, as suggested by Mr. BERNACCHI, or through basement market or bazaar areas, as suggested by Mr. MARDEN earlier in this debate.
Mrs. ELLIOTT has spoken strongly about the struggle of the hawkers for a livelihood, which must not be unreasonably impeded. I would entirely agree, so long as they cannot make a living by other means; indeed, if hawkers can so operate that they do not on the one hand obstruct others unduly or take up too much of our priceless space in the streets and do not on the other hand endanger public health by unhygienic sale of food or dirty conditions around their stalls to which the Urban Services cleansing staff cannot get access, then they can claim not only to be earning an honest livelihood in highly competitive conditions but also to be giving those who need it a good, cheap retail service.
In the course of some remarks which I made in the 1960 Debate I suggested that with the rapid development of industry, there might well be a good opportunity to encourage a shift of labour away from
Page 162 of 194
306
307