Page 52 of 118
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
in Bowrington Market, Canal Road, West, all of which were eventually dismissed by the Magistrate?
(b) Has the Chairman received any complaints from the licensees of those stalls as to interference by police constables?
(c) To what extent does this Council request police assistance in the control of our markets?
(d) Is the Chairman aware that the Police have recently refused to permit lorries delivering fish to Bowrington Market to stop and unload outside the market?
(e) Is the Chairman aware that the Police now require such lorries to unload the fish in a place some distance from the market thereby compelling the stall licensees to pay additional transport charges namely, manual transport from the lorry parking place to the market?
(f) Has the Chairman received representations from the licensees in respect to this matter of the unloading of lorries?
(g) Is the Chairman aware that as a result of interference by police constables and as a result of the new lorry unloading rules, the fishstall licensees claimed to have lost to date over $10,000.00?
(h) Can these matters be taken up with the Police in an attempt to obtain more satisfactory arrangements?”
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
"This series of eight questions concerns Fish Stalls in Bowrington Market between Happy Valley and Hennessy Road. It is an old fashioned single storey market with stalls opening directly onto the pavement. This is a popular hawker area and there is consequently a good deal of obstruction to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The fish stallholders in the market on their own admission do up to $800 worth of business per stall per day and the volume of such business has probably at least doubled over the last ten years. The stallholders are thus businessmen in a big way and, as the stalls themselves are small, they tend to spread their wares onto the adjacent pavement. It is interesting to compare the volume of business with the rent paid which averages $65 per stall per month.
As regards your first question I am aware that a Police Constable attached to Eastern Police Station took out eleven summonses against various stallholders, which were heard
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
89
about three months after offence. Two were not proceeded with on account of the death of the accused. One was dismissed by the Magistrate and the remainder were withdrawn.
As regards your 2nd question, a complaint was received from nine Fish Stallholders at Bowrington Market on 22nd April—followed by another dated 15th June to the effect that they were suffering repeated arrests and prosecutions by the Police.
The Commandant, Hawker Control Force, immediately on receipt of the first complaint, investigated these allegations and discussed the matter with the Police. There is no doubt whatever that obstruction of the thoroughfare in this area is all too common and that the Police were merely doing their duty in trying to keep it open to traffic. I have nothing but praise for the Police in their thankless task.
As regards your 3rd question, the Department normally asks for Police assistance in connexion with markets only to the extent of ensuring that:
firstly,
market staff are not intimidated in the course of their duties; and
secondly, hawkers escaping into markets from the Police are pursued by the Police.
With regard to your 4th, 5th and 6th questions, the Police authorities have not ordered any specific change in the location of the site for the unloading of lorries and the stallholders today are experiencing no difficulty. In fact I am advised by the Commissioner of Police that all they were objecting to was double banking of vehicles in Canal Road itself. I agree however that reference to this matter was made in the second letter of complaint and I understand that some unloading did in fact take place in Bowrington Street, which is parallel to Canal Road. The carry from Bowrington Street cannot have been more than about 100 yards. Bowrington is a comparatively quiet street and much more suitable for the unloading of lorries than Canal Road.
As regards your 7th question I am most intrigued by the economics of the alleged loss. In the first letter of complaint there was no mention of loss. In the second letter reference was made to the "incurring of large sums on legal matters" as the petitioners had employed a
Page 53 of 118
8
88
Page 52 of 118
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
in Bowrington Market, Canal Road, West, all of which were eventually dismissed by the Magistrate?
(b) Has the Chairman received any complaints from the licensees of those stalls as to interference by police constables?
(c) To what extent does this Council request police assist-
ance in the control of our markets?
(d) Is the Chairman aware that the Police have recently refused to permit lorries delivering fish to Bowrington Market to stop and unload outside the market?
(e) Is the Chairman aware that the Police now require such lorries to unload the fish in a place some distance from the market thereby compelling the stall licensees to pay additional transport charges namely, manual transport from the lorry parking place to the market?
(f) Has the Chairman received representations from the licensees in respect to this matter of the unloading of lorries?
(g) Is the Chairman aware that as a result of interference by police constables and as a result of the new lorry unloading rules, the fishstall licensees claimed to have lost to date over $10,000.00?
(h) Can these matters be taken up with the Police in an attempt to obtain more satisfactory arrangements?”
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
"This series of eight questions concerns Fish Stalls in Bow- rington Market between Happy Valley and Hennessy Road. It is an old fashioned single storey market with stalls opening directly onto the pavement. This is a popular hawker area and there is consequently a good deal of obstruction to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The fish stallholders in the market on their own admis- sion do up to $800 worth of business per stall per day and the volume of such business has probably at least doubled over the last ten years. The stallholders are thus businessmen in a big way and, as the stalls them- selves are small, they tend to spread their wares onto the adjacent pavement. It is interesting to compare the volume of business with the rent paid which averages $65 per stall per month.
As regards your first question I am aware that a Police Con- stable attached to Eastern Police Station took out eleven summonses against various stallholders, which were heard
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
89
about three months after offence. Two were not pro- ceeded with on account of the death of the accused. One was dismissed by the Magistrate and the remainder were withdrawn.
As regards your 2nd question, a complaint was received from nine Fish Stallholders at Bowrington Market on 22nd April-followed by another dated 15th June to the effect that they were suffering repeated arrests and pros- ecutions by the Police.
The Commandant, Hawker Control Force, immediately on receipt of the first complaint, investigated these allega- tions and discussed the matter with the Police. There is no doubt whatever that obstruction of the thoroughfare in this area is all too common and that the Police were merely doing their duty in trying to keep it open to traffic. I have nothing but praise for the Police in their thankless task.
As regards your 3rd question, the Department normally asks for Police assistance in connexion with markets only to the extent of ensuring that:
firstly,
market staff are not intimidated in the course of their duties; and
secondly, hawkers escaping into markets from the Police are pursued by the Police.
With regard to your 4th, 5th and 6th questions, the Police authorities have not ordered any specific change in the location of the site for the unloading of lorries and the stallholders today are experiencing no difficulty. In fact I am advised by the Commissioner of Police that all they were objecting to was double banking of vehicles in Canal Road itself. I agree however that reference to this matter was made in the second letter of complaint and I under- stand that some unloading did in fact take place in Bowrington Street, which is parallel to Canal Road. The carry from Bowrington Street cannot have been more than about 100 yards. Bowrington is a comparatively quiet street and much more suitable for the unloading of lorries than Canal Road.
As regards your 7th question I am most intrigued by the economics of the alleged loss. In the first letter of complaint there was no mention of loss. In the second letter reference was made to the "incurring of large sums on legal matters" as the petitioners had employed a
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.