Page 334 of 485
Page 334 of 485
1485
48
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Where lies the real problem then? As stated in the petition by the Federation of Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories Hawkers Association and the Hong Kong and Kowloon Merchants and Hawkers Association presented to this Council on 15.12.1995, 'The existing 1 700-plus itinerant hawker licence holders are in their advanced years, with an average age of over 65. With serious unemployment that hits even the middle-aged workers in great numbers, how can these old hawkers be expected to change their jobs? Since the introduction of the Itinerant Hawker Licence Deletion Scheme, those whose circumstances permit have received ex-gratia payment while others have participated in the selection exercise when suitable stalls are available. The remainder have no other choice but rely on their itinerant hawker licences for a living. If this Council insists on implementing its compulsory deletion policy, these old hawkers will suddenly become unemployed. How can they make a living in the future? Will this help social stability? Their argument being so strong, should the Urban Council not give a helping hand to these aged licensed hawkers in their plight, which is something even the man in the street will do?
Those who hold a different view will naturally rebut that while we sympathize with the plight of the remaining aged hawkers, renewal of their licences would be unfair to those who have already surrendered their licences. Moreover, if itinerant hawker licence holders are allowed to continue their business, the work of the Urban Services Department in controlling illegal hawking activities will be hindered.
I think that the last point is simply not worth refuting. How can the Urban Services Department use the problem of the existing 1 700-plus itinerant hawker licence holders as a shield to cover up its failure to enforce the law and control tens of thousands of unlicensed hawkers? As for the first point, I do not think it is against the principle of fairness because the formulation and implementation of a policy should be subject to reviews and improvements. Moreover, the request for a review was made by the hawker associations that represent the interests of the licensed hawkers in the territory. They request for a freeze in the issue of new licences and the adoption of elimination by natural attrition in dealing with those who have not yet surrendered their licences. How can this Council ignore their request?
In the light of the above, it is absolutely necessary for the Urban Council to review the implementation of its policy on compulsory elimination of itinerant hawker licenses by 1.4.1996 as scheduled.
There is simply no reason why the Urban Council should adhere to the decision, reached in its last term of office despite repeated demands for a review by licensed hawkers and their representative bodies.
Page 334 of 485
Page 334 of 485
1485
48
was removed as it is repetitive and not part of the main content. The text was corrected for minor spacing and formatting issues to comply with the instructions. The original content and word count were preserved.