$82
Page 104 of 382
186
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. Lo:-Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation, may I answer Mr. FORSGATE's question that although the members of the Golf Club are members of the public, the public are not all members of the Golf Club. (Laughter). Golf Club members can park their cars outside on the road but the public cannot park their cars inside the enclosed area.
MR. BERNACCHI :-If there are no more supplementaries, Mr. Chairman, I ask question No. 23, the only question standing in my own name on the order paper today.
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, surely that is no reflection on Mr. BERNACCHI's ability to ask questions. (Laughter).
(23) MR. B. A. BERNACCHI asked the following question :-
Mr. Chairman, I refer to a report in the Kung Sheung Yat Po of the 19th June of this year to the effect that a female hawker was being sent from pillar to post, including the Urban Services Department, when she was trying to recover her goods which apparently the Magistrate had ordered to be returned to her. Apparently, however, the goods in question at all material times were not even in existence, having been disposed of already. I would ask for a detailed explanation of the course of events leading to this position including whether she was in fact sent to the Urban Services Department and, if so, who sent her there? Why, and generally what she was told at the different places she visited?
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
I have been informed by the Commissioner of Police that after the female hawker in question, LAM Wai-lin, was fined $10 by the Magistrate at Kwun Tong Court on 10th June, for exposing 8 ducks and 2 plucked chickens for sale without a permit from the Urban Council, she was made aware before she left the court that the goods no longer existed and that the Magistrate had advised her to seek compensation.
At 2 p.m. on 11th June she saw the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Wong Tai Sin Division, who explained to her through an interpreter the contents of Section 86 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance 1960 and pointed out that the goods had been disposed of legally, and that although she had a right to claim against the Commissioner of Police or the Authority (i.e., the Urban Council) she was not entitled to compensation as she had been convicted on the charge of selling restricted foods. She asked for the address of the Urban Council and was informed that it was located in the Central Government Offices, 12th floor.
She called at the Urban Services Department's headquarters the same afternoon, was told by Senior Inspector Wall of the Hawker Control Force that there had been a misunderstanding on the part of the Police, and was sent back with a note to Wong Tai Sin police station. At 4 o'clock that same afternoon she was seen again by the Sub-Divisional Inspector at Wong Tai Sin, who again advised her of the position regarding compensation and told her to seek further advice from the Magistrate at Kwun Tong. The Commissioner of Police avers that these were the only occasions on which LAM Wai-lin visited the Wong Tai Sin police station.
The sum of $70 was paid to LAM Wai-lin as compensation on 24th June.
MR. BERNACCHI:-I cannot, Sir, ask you for your opinion on the advice that the inspector of Wong Tai Sin gave Madam LAM but I do ask you, Sir, was the compensation of $70 paid under Section 86, sub-section 2, of the Public Health & Urban Services Ordinance or ex gratia?
CHAIRMAN:-Sir, from the papers which I have I regret that it is impossible for me to answer your question and I can only say that I will follow it up and let you know later.
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask you a few questions. About the 7th line of the second paragraph. (Quotes "and that although she had a right to claim against the Commissioner of Police or the Authority (i.e., the Urban Council) she was not entitled to compensation as she had been convicted on the charge of selling restricted foods"). That, do you agree with me Mr. Chairman, is the wrong statement of the position. It is wrong-the police officer is wrong.
CHAIRMAN: -Sir, I would like to point out to you that the purport of this question was to establish whether this lady was sent needlessly, as the question says, from pillar to post. I have repeated in my answer the information conveyed to me by the Commissioner of Police and in the answer I am not really concerned with whether the advice given to Madam LAM was legally correct or not. I am trying to establish that she was sent from Wong Tai Sin to the Urban Services Department and then back again to Wong Tai Sin in the same afternoon and that that apparently was the extent of her travels. The question whether the
Page 105 of 382
187
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
188
da me da ..