Page 123 of 126
298
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
increased substantially since 1982. So I think the Department should think of ways to deal with this problem. I would like to ask, has the Department considered in areas where a lot of foreign hawkers hawk, putting up signs in English to tell them that they should not hawk illegally there. If they do so, they are liable to prosecution because it seems that no such sign has been put up there. At the Star Ferry Concourse, I have seen some foreign hawkers hawking there. Second question, has the Department considered stepping up liaison with the Immigration Department, or asked the Immigration Department to give us more information on the actual method to be adopted by them if we institute prosecutions to foreign illegal hawkers?
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese): ----Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mok mentioned whether we should put up signs at places where many foreign hawkers hawk. It is a good suggestion. But I don't think that will have a great effect because many foreign hawkers do know that hawking is illegal and they are liable to prosecution. Actually a lot of foreign hawkers who are prosecuted by the Department are in breach of immigration rules. They are only charged for a fixed penalty of $300 and $200 for obstructions to the street. If they intend to make money by way of hawking, they will treat the fines as operational cost, unless as Mr. Mok pointed out in his second point that the Immigration Department could deal with this seriously. In other words, for repeated offenders, when the lists are handed over to the Immigration Department, action will be taken not to extend or renew their visa or refuse their entry to Hong Kong. Then, there will be a great deterrent effect on these hawkers. So in response to Mr. Mok's second point, from 1986 till now, every month we have handed over the lists of prosecution of foreign hawkers to the Immigration Department. Actually in 1991 alone, there were two cases of foreigners who had been prosecuted three times, and some of them had been prosecuted twice. It is a duty for the Immigration Department to refuse entry or to extend their visas. The USD can only give advice to the Immigration Department. All along we have been liaising closely with the Immigration Department and expressed our concern over these foreign illegal hawkers. I think we should not waste tax payers' money to manage or disperse foreign illegal hawkers.
THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I have three questions. First, if we look at the figures of the arrest in 1991, there were altogether 270 and for referrals to the Immigration Department, there were altogether 190. Some 80 of them had not been referred to the Immigration Department. What is the reason for that? Second question, earlier on, in a TV interview, the Immigration Department representative said that the USD had not referred such cases to his Department. That is why it was difficult for them to carry out any follow-up action. I am rather confused because we can see that there are altogether 190 referrals, so what is the problem? Perhaps could Mr. CHAN answer my question? My third question is: since some of the foreign hawkers do sell souvenirs or cooked food, are we adopting a policy similar to that of local illegal hawkers i.e. will first priority be given to combat foreign illegal cooked food hawkers?
Page 123 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 123 of 126
299
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese): Thank you for Mr. LI's questions. There are three parts to his question. I will try to answer it part by part. First, on the figure of arrest in 1991, only 190 were referred to the Immigration Department. The number of 270 only refers to the number of arrest, only convicted cases are referred to the Immigration Department. The reason is that because most of the foreigners are visitors to Hong Kong and before we could take them to court, many of them had already left Hong Kong. The second question, Mr. LI mentioned on the TVB news the Assistant Director of Immigration Department talked about the liaison with USD. He agreed that we did refer such cases to Immigration Department, but probably that the prosecution was not adequate. In other words, he felt that we could step up prosecution for repeated offenders. If more than three convictions are recorded, they will take follow-up actions against these people. Thirdly, on the priority with dealing with hawkers, I agree with Mr. LI's suggestion, that the Department has all along adopted the same policy, i.e., to first deal with cooked food hawkers because they are posing a greater environmental and health hazard to the society.
MR. STEPHEN LAU Man-Lung (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I will try to be careful in order not to be in breach of the Standing Orders. In the reply, it says that the priority of the GDTs will still be in line with the seriousness of the individual cases. I would like to ask the guidelines for these priorities because over the past couple of weeks, I also went by the Statue Square, I also saw a lot of hawkers hawking there obstructing pedestrian traffic. So I would like to know the guidelines or the criteria for taking action. Secondly, there were 190 referrals made to the Immigration Department. Was there any follow-up action? Although I understand that it is not the responsibility of UC/USD to deal with that problem, because I am very concerned about the obstruction of an urban amenity, could Mr. CHAN ask the Immigration Department on our behalf to enquire what are the follow-up actions to be taken by the Immigration Department?
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the criteria especially in Statue Square and Star Ferry Concourse, I can assure Mr. LAU that actually the Council and the Department have worked very hard to concentrate our manpower to these areas especially during weekends and public holidays. In Central, we now have four teams of GDTs. We have two teams both day and night and they work mostly in Statue Square during public holidays and weekends. One more team from the Regional Headquarters has been deployed to station in Statue Square and Star Ferry Concourse and also Chater Road, because we do not want the foreign illegal hawkers to obstruct the subways or footbridges or main traffic in the area. This is our priority in terms of Statue Square. Another question raised by Mr. LAU concerns the 190 referrals. As regards whether their visas will not be extended or their entry be refused is a matter for the Immigration Department to decide. Recently, the Department has taken the initiative of contacting the Immigration Department by asking it to supply us with the information on follow-up actions against
Page 123 of 126