Page 50 of 126
82
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):―This two-part question concerns protection whilst in transit of open food such as bread, siu mei, frozen meat and milk etc. The first part enquires whether there are any legislative controls to protect such food during transportation and delivery.
Provisions already exist under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) governing the protection of open food while in transit. For instance, Bylaw 12 of the Food Business (Urban Council) Bylaws requires that during transport such food should be adequately protected from risk of contamination or deterioration. Bylaw 10 in the same Bylaws requires every person engaged in any food business to take all necessary steps to protect food, including those on delivery, from risk of contamination and deterioration.
In addition, there are specific provisions to safeguard those foods which are particularly vulnerable to contamination or deterioration, such as milk. Bylaw 12 of the Milk (Urban Council) Bylaws requires that proper precautions should be taken to prevent contamination; Bylaw 13 requires milk and milk beverage to be kept below 10 degrees Celsius during transport or pending sale; Bylaw 13A also requires milk and milk beverage in transit to be kept in suitable and hygienic containers to prevent contamination.
The second part of the question asks whether the Department will strengthen its prosecution action in these respects in the course of its current operations designed to improve the hygienic conditions of licensed food premises.
This series of planned operations, each focusing on a specific topic, does not specifically include the aspect of hygienic transportation of food. Nevertheless, District Health Inspectors are paying considerable attention to this particular aspect during their regular inspections of licensed food premises. Dedicated blitz operations are also carried out periodically and any offenders failing to properly protect open food during delivery are liable to prosecution. In the past twelve months, a total of 48 prosecutions have been taken out against such offences. It is also of note that, in a very recent court hearing, an operator of a siu mei shop in Kwun Tong was penalised the maximum fine of $5,000 for selling uncovered siu mei. This is indicative of the seriousness with which such offences are treated.
Health Inspectors of the Food Surveillance Section of the Department of Health also play an important role to ensure the protection of open food against risk of contamination and deterioration upon delivery to shops and food premises through the regular sampling of food from these premises for bacteriological examination. During the past year, a total of 2,435 samples of milk and 9,039 samples of other foods were taken. Of these samples taken, 10 samples of milk and 651 samples of other foods were found to be unsatisfactory, resulting in warnings and prosecution action, as appropriate.
District Health Inspectors will continue to monitor closely the situation and will step up enforcement action as and when necessary.
Page 50 of 126
6.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 50 of 126
83
MR. FUNG KWONG-CHUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese):- A few days ago, two young sisters were scalded when hawkers were fleeing from staff of the General Duties Team. This incident, once again, has aroused concern about the safety of members of the public when the General Duties Team are executing duties against unlicensed hawkers. So, I would like to ask the following:
(1) Will the Department change its present mode of raiding by adopting 'round-up' operations instead of 'dispersing the targets' so that passers-by would not be so much endangered by the fleeing hawkers?
(2) Will the Department consider the view that it will serve the same useful purpose if GDT officers can perform their duties in plain clothes?
(3) Unlicensed cooked food hawkers not only directly affect public health, their cooking utensils also, to a certain extent, pose a threat to the safety of pedestrians in the streets. Can the Department impose heavier penalty on them through legislation and give wider publicity to its appeal to the public not to patronize unlicensed cooked food hawkers?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG, CHAIRMAN OF THE MARKETS AND STREETS TRADERS SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—Mr. FUNG is, I believe, referring to an incident that took place on 28 September 1992 in the New Territories. According to press reports, a hawker who was running away from law enforcement officers overturned his cart, causing the splashing of hot soup. I understand that the Police are looking into the extremely unfortunate incident, and that the Regional Services Department is already examining the implications of the incident vis-a-vis its own hawker control practices. The Urban Services Department, for its part, has already asked their counterparts in the RSD to keep them fully informed.
The foregoing provides the background. The first part of the question asks whether the Urban Services Department will change its tactics in order to round up illegal hawkers rather than dispersing them, so that members of the public will not be endangered by fleeing hawkers. In fact, both methods are already frequently used by GDT in their raiding operations. Both tactics have the same general objective which is to deter illegal hawking and avoid potential chaos. The tactic of rounding up is more effectively used when the number of hawkers is relatively small and their trading locations are concentrated, making it easy to cordon off the hawkers. Whether or not rounding up or dispersal is the more appropriate approach very much depends on the circumstances pertaining at the time, as well as the reaction of the hawkers to the sight of our GDT squads.
When the hawkers choose to try run away with their handcarts and their trading commodities regardless of their own safety and the safety of the pedestrians, there is unfortunately always a risk that someone might sustain injuries. The Department examined this issue in detail after incidents of a similar nature occurred some years ago. As a result, the Department issued instructions at that time recognising that whilst GDT staff could not necessarily prevent hawkers from running away, they had the discretion not to give chase to the hawkers who had already departed so as to avoid risk of possible injuries. Such instructions have been promulgated both by means of circulars as well as through basic and further training courses attended by all GDT members.
Page 50 of 126
Page 50Page 51
Page 51 of 126
84
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The second part of Mr. FUNG's question asks whether the Department considers that the use of GDT officers in plain clothes would reduce incidents of injuries caused by fleeing hawkers. The prima facie merits of such a tactic assume that officers approaching the hawkers incognito would be able to arrest them before the latter has a chance to run away with their handcarts. In reality, however, it is highly likely that the GDT staff would encounter serious problems attempting to make arrests in plain clothes, because the hawkers would be more ready to confront and threaten our staff when the latter are not wearing uniform and without obvious back up or other support. The authority of our staff would inevitably be subject to challenge and they would likely be more exposed to the risk of physical assault to them by the hawkers. The Department has considered this aspect before and continues to be of the view that there is no advantage, and probably serious disadvantage, in GDT members seeking to make arrests in plain clothes.
The last part of the question asks whether the Department will seek heavier penalties against unlicensed cooked food hawkers. The maximum penalty provided in the relevant Ordinance for unlicensed hawking is $2,500 fine plus one month imprisonment for first conviction, and $5,000 fine plus six months imprisonment for subsequent convictions. Statistics show that the average fine for repeat offenders convicted of illegal hawking in the last 12 months was around $300, and that no custodial sentence had been given out. Unless and until the penalties awarded by the courts are much closer to the maximum level set by the present legislative provisions, I do not think that any amendment to the law to increase the existing maxima of penalties would significantly increase its deterrent effect. Furthermore, in the heat of the moment, it is probable that the potential level of maximum fine would not necessarily be uppermost in the mind of an illegal hawker and that he or she would probably be concentrating more on protecting his or her illegal trade and seeking some means of avoiding arrest. Nevertheless, the prosecution officers of the Department are under instruction to inform the court the seriousness of each case involving unlicensed hawking of cooked food so as to enable the court to impose penalties appropriate to the circumstances of the offence.
Mr. FUNG also wishes the Department to increase publicity in urging the public not to patronize illegal cooked food hawkers. I agree entirely with Mr. FUNG on this, and I believe that both the Department and this Council can do more to drive home the message. Indeed, the Chairman of the Market Sub-Committee spoke recently at a public forum and part of his message was to appeal to the general public to make full use of Council's markets and not to patronize illegal hawkers. The Department has a regular public education programme, and members of the public should be familiar with the posters and announcements on this subject. I will ask the Department to consider what further publicity measures can be taken.
Page 51 of 126