Page 336 of 485
1485
50
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
elected Urban Council create more unemployment by taking away the ice-cream hawkers' jobs?
Furthermore, more than half of the ice-cream hawkers are over 60 and the oldest is 82. They have been selling ice-cream for decades. Can they switch to some other trades if their licences are cancelled? Can they operate in markets or other places? Why can't the Urban Council give them a chance to earn their own living while serving the community?
Second, the operation patterns of frozen confectionery hawkers have never hampered the enforcement of the Urban Services Department in its control of unlicensed hawkers. So it is utterly wrong to eliminate the itinerant (frozen confectionery) hawker licences in the urban area on a compulsory basis.
It has always been the characteristics of this trade to provide refreshing and thirst-quenching frozen confectionery to visitors at entrances of country parks, sitting-out areas and urban parks. Ice-cream companies are given the exclusive right to render such a service. Other hawkers cannot do the same and definitely are not allowed to operate without a licence. Moreover, there is no vicious competition amongst ice-cream sellers for they exercise self-discipline in choosing hawking sites. These ice-cream sellers can be distinguished from other hawkers for they have to wear uniforms. Therefore any accusation that the retention of this retail business will hamper the control of unlicensed hawkers by the Urban Services Department is made either out of ignorance or with the intention of confusing the public and blaming innocent frozen confectionery hawkers for the Urban Services Department's ineffective control of illegal hawking and law enforcement.
It should be pointed out that the Report and Recommendations of the Urban Council Working Party on Hawker and Related Policies published in 1987 gave recognition to frozen confectionery hawkers, a particular category of hawkers who exercise self-discipline in their operation of business and who for more than half a century, have maintained the required hygiene standard. It is clearly stated in paragraph 5.8 of the Report that this trade operates to the satisfaction of both the Urban Services Department and the public. Hence, there is absolutely no reason for this Council to set aside the findings of the Report and no justification whatsoever for forcing this invaluable trade, which is a service to the public, out of business.
Third, this Council should not go against tradition and eliminate the retail trade of frozen confectionery which operates legally in all major cities throughout the world.
Everywhere around the world where there are tourist attractions, resorts and public parks, there are itinerant hawkers selling frozen confectionery. As an international city and one that depends very much on tourism, Hong Kong has no reason to go in the opposite direction and eliminate this retail trade which is there for the convenience of tourists and the public and which they like.
What weakens our argument further is the fact that the Regional Council has sensibly not adopted the Urban Council's compulsory deletion policy. They retain
Page 336 of 485
485