Page 178 of 233
316 Recreation and Sport
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
In addition to Culture, Recreation and Sport is another main area where Urban Council plays an important part in the enrichment of the quality of life. The coming Spring will be when we take the Government's Recreation and Sports Service under our wing in the Urban Area. Although RSS is coming under Urban Council, I wish to stress that it is extremely important to preserve the sense of dedication and high morale of this organization which has been built up through many years of hard work. Rather than being seen as a 'take over', I would like to see it as an integration, or merger. I also think there is merit in maintaining at least part of its nomenclature and separate identity in one form or another.
In addition to the provision of services in Recreation and Sport through our staff, I would like to see some improvements in physical facilities too. One point in mind is the running track at Mong Kok Stadium. Although there is space earmarked for field and track facilities at the planned reclamation off Yau Ma Tei, this will probably not happen until well into the 1990's. The whole of West Kowloon lacks a good running track, especially when one looks at the number of schools in the vicinity. Although I do not advocate a territory-wide facility like Wan Chai Sports Ground at Mong Kok Stadium, I feel that we should at least upgrade the rather dilapidated track to a synthetic one.
Another area of controversy in recreational facilities last year has been the decision to move the barbeque pits at Repulse Bay. Part of the reason for residents and beach-goers to complain about such pits is the unsightliness caused by the burnt charcoal and the smell it brings while being lit. During a recent trip to Australia by Urban Services Department staff, they observed barbeque pits that were electrically heated. I also recall seeing in Australia some years ago, before I joined the Council, public barbeque pits that were fitted with L.P. Gas and coin boxes. I urge the Council to follow up these ideas that seem to work well in other countries to see whether we can seek a good compromise by fulfilling the needs of young people who enjoy barbequeing at suitable locations not too far from the urban area, the needs of residents to have a quiet environment and the needs of the Urban Council to keep barbeque sites clean all at the same time.
Hawkers
One of the biggest headaches for the Urban Council is hawker management. Less than half the money we spend on hawker management is recovered from licence fees, and every year tens of millions of rate payers' dollars is spent on subsidizing the unenviable task of controlling hawkers, half of whom are not licensed. You might argue that, like recreation and culture, there is a social need for hawkers. Of course, there is a demand for their services, otherwise they wouldn't exist, but we mustn't forget that unlike our recreation and cultural services, hawkers are a private business too and they are out to make profits. There is nothing wrong with making profits, but it should not be at public expense.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
317
Without pre-empting any careful deliberations that the working party on hawker policy might have, I pose a few questions for thought:
(1) Is it logical for hawkers carrying out the same business in different areas to pay the same level of licence fee? Business men in similar businesses pay different rents according to the supply and demand for premises in different areas. Market stall holders bid for and pay different rents in different markets that are judged by them to have different degrees of viability.
(2) Is it logical for half the hawker population to pay licence fees while the other half hawks illegally free of charge?
(3) Is it logical for businessmen and restaurant owners to pay both rates and rent to carry on business, and to pay tax on profits while hawkers mostly pay no rates, no tax and use public land for their own gain and profit?
(4) Is it logical for hawkers who hawk only at night in controlled streets causing the same degree of obstruction to road traffic as hawkers who trade during the day?
Mr. Chairman, I personally think the answer to all four of these is NO. Hong Kong is a place where we preach the value of market forces and the price mechanism, and even China today is paying great attention to market demand and price. Should we not practice what we preach? I pray that this will be the way we go when reviewing our hawker policy.
With these words, I support the motion.
THE HONOURABLE Maria W. C. Tam (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I have spoken on other occasions on the very important topics at the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the White Paper on Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong, and I had the opportunity to take part in preparing the Education Commission's first report. Today I shall speak on the development in new licensing procedures of food premises.
In the early part of 1984, there were complaints by operators and licensees of several factory canteens in Aberdeen and Kwun Tong areas to the effect that they were licensed by the Urban Services Department to operate factory canteens but they were prevented by the Building Authority to do so, or were found to be in breach of Crown Lease conditions. The criticism levelled at the various government departments involved were that there was no co-ordination between the policies they practised and that a government department, such as the Urban Services Department, having issued a licence, should allow the factory canteen to carry on its business. It is not obvious to them or the public that we are obliged by law to issue a licence to a food business premises on application as long as the operators have complied with public health and hygiene requirements.
Another long-standing criticism on our licensing procedure is the time it takes to process them. The real reason for the delay is the need for referrals between,
Page 178 of 233