Page 8 of 95
10
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
for over 40 years with two family members as assistants, has occupied the same pitch but has been told by the Council to remove his stall from Mong Kok; to Kowloon City, failing which his licence will not be renewed. I understand that the matter arose as the result of a complaint from a new proprietor of a shop in front of which the licensee has his stall, despite an offer by the licensee to reduce the size of his stall. There has been no redevelopment of the property or any other good reason requiring the licensee to move as far as I can ascertain. I should be grateful to know:
(a) why the licensee has been required to move?
(b) if undue weight has been given to the shop proprietor's complaint? and (c) if the case has been handled in accordance with Council's policy?
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE MARKETS AND STREET TRADERS SELECT COMMITTEE replied as follows (in English):-Mr. Chairman, The question concerns the resiting of the newspaper stall at No. 4, Sai Yeung Choi Street.
The licensee submitted on 27 March 1990 an application for review against the decision of the Council not to renew the newspaper hawker licence under Section 125(9) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132).
Arrangements are under way to have the case heard by the Markets and Street Traders Review Sub-Committee.
Therefore it would not be appropriate for me to make a reply in public at this stage.
MR. DANIEL WONG KWOK-TUNG (in English):-—Mr. Chairman, well I expect to get the similar answer when I first ask the question. But I can hardly swallow this kind of answer and I would further ask: what concern does the Council have in deciding not to disclose the existing policy in this matter pending appeal? It does not appear to me that the coming appeal would be prejudiced by a disclosure of the policy governing in this matter. On the contrary, I think the public have the right to know the existing policy, namely, how will be Council strike a balance between the commercial interests and the livelihood of a hawker and where should we draw a bottom line between the effort and devotion of a hawker in his life time and the interest of new owners who purchase the property with full knowledge of the existence of that particular hawker? As I understand, apart from these particular hawkers, there are some other hawkers whose licences have been cancelled merely because of the complaints of the shop owners. Since they don't realize their right of appeal, their life time efforts have become vanished. To avoid further misfortune, I think a clear disclosure of the existing policy to the public is absolutely necessary.
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):-Mr. Chairman, consideration will be given to the views expressed by Mr. Daniel WONG. But in regard to this
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 8 of 95
11
particular case, I can only say that it is not appropriate for me to make a reply in public at this stage and during the lunch hour, I discussed the legal aspect with the Director of Urban Services and he fully agrees with what I have just said.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English): --Mr. Chairman, may I enquire whether the stall has been moved or is it still operating there pending the appeal?
CHAIRMAN (in English):-This is a new issue.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English):-Mr. Chairman, this is new, but I think as the Chairman of the Appeal Committee for 3 consecutive years, it is a usual practice that if the case like this is under appeal, it is not removed until the outcome of the appeal has been decided.
CHAIRMAN (in English):--What I mean is, of course, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN may not have the information available, in which case he can find out and let you know. Mr. CHEONG-LEEN, do you have it?
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I think a reply can be sent in writing to Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN and Mr. Daniel WONG when the information is available.
6. MR. MA LEE-WO asked the following question (in Cantonese):—Since its opening in April 1982, the Cheung Sha Wan Cooked Food Market, which was originally intended to be temporary, has been in use for 8 years now. Inadequate ventilation within the Market has always been the cause of complaint by stallholders and customers, particularly during summer when such problems as poor ventilation and exceptionally high temperature are felt within the Market. In 1984, stallholders of the Market jointly petitioned the Council for improvement of the ventilation system. Their request was recognized and accepted by the Council. However, according to the stallholders, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department's proposal to install exhaust hoods was not accepted by the Council because of the high cost. Instead, a simpler exhaust system and 10 wall-mounted fans were installed. Last summer, many stallholders complained these facilities cannot effectively improve the ventilation with the Market. As summer is approaching, the ventilation problem will definitely arise again if no improvement is to be made.
I would like to ask:
(1) Will the Cheung Sha Wan Cooked Food Market be regarded as permanent facilities? If not, when will it be demolished?
(2) What is the present required standard of the facilities for cooked food centres in general?
(3) Are the facilities of the Cheung Sha Wan Cooked Food Market up to standard? What improvements are required?
Page 9 of 95