162
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the rights of the stallholders. On 18 March 1987, the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee came to a decision. Letters were then sent to the stallholders of Wong Tai Sin Market to inform them of this. On 7 April 1987, USD staff explained the Council's arrangements in the stallholders' presence as follows:
(1) The contracts between the Council and stallholders were terminated as from 1 July;
(2) Ex-gratia allowance of $5,500 for a mini-stall, $22,000 for a market stall and $45,000 for a cooked food stall would be paid to all the stallholders;
(3) The stallholders may take part in the restricted tender for vacant stalls in UC or HA Kowloon Central markets; and
(4) If the Housing Authority constructs a permanent market at the re-development site in the future (it is agreed between HA and UC that the need for a market in that area will be re-examined in early 1988 before deciding whether a permanent market will be built in the vicinity of Tai Shing Street), the stallholders can reserve the right to take part in the restricted tender for the new market stalls irrespective of their acceptance of the arrangements in item (2) or (3) above.
Some of the Wong Tai Sin Market stall holders, however, insist on having a temporary market built inside the district, or have them all accommodated in an open space inside the district. They consider the stalls offered in item (3) 'totally unsuitable for business', and since most of the stalls are situated outside the district, they uphold the idea of having a temporary market built and seek help from District Board members, Urban Councillors as well as other bodies and individuals.
Despite mediations by the Wong Tai Sin District Office, District Board members concerned and Urban Councillors, and a number of 'concessions' and convenience the Council offered, dozens of stall holders lodged with us a petition on 28 July. Banners were put up while a minority of them stayed and slept the night in the covered sitting-out area beneath the Urban Council Chambers.
Throughout the incident, a number of special meetings had been held by the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee and the Working Party on the Central Kowloon Redevelopment Scheme. A number of negotiations had also been held among Urban Councillors, senior departmental officers-in-charge, the stall holders and their representatives. Having repeatedly discussed the stall holders' request in detail, we have made the following 'concessions' and convenience successively in order to solve the problem peacefully and smoothly:
(1) the date of closure of the Wong Tai Sin Market will be postponed for one month, i.e., until the end of July;
(2) ballots will be held for the Wong Tai Sin Market stall holders to bid, prior to the others, for the 60 stalls in Sheung Fung Street Market and the 23 stalls in Choi Hung Road Market;
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 86 of 185
163
(3) the Housing Authority will allocate a number of stalls in its new markets (for instance, 29 stalls of Chuk Yuen Estate) for restricted tender of the Wong Tai Sin Market stall holders;
(4) those who succeed in their bid for the stalls of the new UC markets to be completed within 18 months and have to move into other vacant stalls to operate temporarily will be offered rent-free operation for 3 months;
(5) the Urban Services Department will arrange restricted tender for the Wong Tai Sin Market stall holders if they are interested in the vacant stalls of UC markets and give USD only a few days' notice.
We have been insisting that markets, be it temporary or permanent, must be built according to the needs of the residents nearby. Central Kowloon is undergoing a large-scale redevelopment scheme at a rapid pace. In the past decade, the population of the district has decreased to one-half. And, with several markets under construction in the vicinity, it is obvious to all that the Wong Tai Sin Market before closure was non-viable with its stalls all doing a bleak business. Early next year, the Housing Authority will conduct a study in conjunction with the Urban Services Department and District Office to see whether there is a need to build a permanent market in the vicinity. Before obtaining a clear picture of the present and future demand, how can we explain to the public if several million dollars of public money is spent to build a temporary market to accommodate stall holders from a market which has an extremely low rate of usage with most of its stalls being closed in normal time, let alone the fact that there may not be any site acceptable to the district residents and at the same time conforming to our requirements governing the trading of vegetable, meat and poultry.
Before those people came to sleep outside the Urban Council Chambers, the Council had already announced its policy of not providing any temporary market and the special arrangements mentioned above. Moreover, all stall-holders have been informed of this in writing. We also explained to them directly through numerous meetings that this was the best possible arrangement for what the Council could make.
Only on 1 September, at the first meeting of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council after the summer recess, the Council unanimously reaffirmed that the above-mentioned arrangements were our ultimate concession and would not be changed. By that time, some of those who had the illusion of being accommodated in a temporary market gradually faced reality and a further progress of negotiation was made. However, there was some slight mishap at this final stage. It was rumoured that our Members were reluctant to meet those stallholders.
In fact, the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and all Members of the Urban Council as well as responsible USD staff of various ranks have paid much attention to the matter ever since it happened. According to my record, the