Page 175 of 237
326
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo:- Mr. Chairman, during the past year, the hawker problem has assumed large proportions and I would like to start with a few comments on this.
We only need to walk down a few streets which are occupied by hawkers to see the extent of the problem. Some of the streets are blocked to such an extent that even pedestrians can hardly pass through let alone motor traffic. In addition, the litter and refuse deposited by the hawkers and their customers constitute a menace to public health.
In the past, we have not been successful in tackling this problem mainly for the lack of man-power. Now with the co-operation of the Police and other Government departments, we can hope that some progress can be made. However, we will be deluding ourselves if we think this problem can be dealt with over-night. Any progress made will inevitably be slow.
Our approach should be to clear one street or area at a time. Having dealt with one area, the essential thing is to keep it clear. This is the crux of the problem. Hawkers can be kept away from the cleared street firstly by providing them with suitable alternative sites and secondly by making it unprofitable for them to return. Once the hawkers realize that we really mean business, they will keep away. We must have an effective deterrent. The fines which are usually imposed in the magistrates' courts are small. It is obvious that they do not deter hawkers in the least. Moreover, some parents who hawk will run away at the approach of authority, leaving a child nominally in charge, so that if arrested, the fine will be even smaller.
Obviously, we would not want to imprison hawkers more especially if the persons arrested are children. Is there any other deterrent, apart from fine or imprisonment, which we can adopt? I suggest that one solution would be confiscation of goods and paraphernalia. Confiscation must be compulsory and not a matter of discretion for the magistrate. Streets and areas which have been cleared should be proclaimed to be prohibited to hawking and compulsory confiscation would apply to these areas. It is distasteful to take away anyone's means of livelihood but I believe it is justifiable in this case. In practice, the power of confiscation will not have to be resorted to very often. Hawkers will be aware of the situation and will keep clear of the prohibited areas. The success of the recent operation in Marble Road is a good omen for the future and is an indication that the Hawker Policy and Hawker Management Committees are thinking along the right lines.
Talking of hawkers leads me to my next subject which is the problem of litter. I should think Hong Kong must be one of the worst places in the world in this respect. I am told that recently in Singapore, they have had a very successful anti-litter drive and that streets in Singapore are much cleaner than those in Hong Kong, though they are just as crowded. We should be ashamed of this. The anti-social habit of depositing litter and refuse in public places must be eradicated. There is nothing more disappointing than to go to a beautiful picnic spot only to find it spoiled by empty bottles, tins, and dirty newspapers littered about. Surely the public can be made to realize that they are spoiling their own living environment. With very little effort from each person, litter can be completely eliminated. We must persevere with our various anti-litter campaigns. I fully support the aims of the Keep Your District Clean and Keep Your City Clean Campaigns. However, will the sponsors consider a change of names? To urge someone to keep his district clean implies that he need not bother if he is in some other district. It is like telling a resident of Tsim Sha Tsui that it is wrong to deposit litter in Tsim Sha Tsui but alright to do so in Kwun Tong. Similarly, a Keep Your City Clean Campaign implies that litter may freely be left in the country. Why not a Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
327
I now turn to Food and Food Premises. The introduction of the Central Licensing Unit has streamlined the Council's system for licensing. The application for the various Licences and Permits which are issued by the Council are now processed generally in a shorter time than before, but we still have a problem as regards the licensing of general restaurants. These generally take months to complete and in some cases years. In some instances, there is a marked reluctance to comply with the requirements laid down by the Council. Nevertheless, some applicants will start business although their restaurants have not been licensed. The measures which are available to us and which we can take against these unlicensed restaurants have generally proved ineffective. Last year, I referred to this same problem and proposed a system of minimum fines for repeated offences. This suggestion was not well received but as things are at present, I can hold out little hope of dealing effectively with this problem.
If Members would refer to the Statement of Aims concerning Food and Food Premises, they will see that it is our aim to raise the standard of hygiene and to maintain effective enforcement of regulations in all food premises. The expression of our intention to enforce our regulations has been added since last year. It shows the importance which the Food and Food Premises Select Committee attaches to hygiene. Members will surely agree with this aim.
During the past year, we have had put before us proposals to allow hawkers to sell cooked food and fresh fish. Surely, this is inconsistent with our aim to raise the standard of hygiene. Nevertheless, factory and other workers do need to be supplied with food cooked outside their own homes. This is especially so in the
Page 175
Page 176
Page 176 of 237