Page 146 of 243
268
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
so that a whole area may be cleared; the streets widened and new development can take place. Let us take advantage of the present opportunity without delay.
My next point is about the licensing and control of restaurants and food premises. The Central Licensing Unit which has been set up has proved to be a success. The processing of the various applications for licences and permits has been considerably speeded up. This is very gratifying, but we are still left with the problem of what to do with applicants for restaurant licences, who cannot or will not comply with our requirements.
In most cases, the restaurant operator will start business as soon as he applies for a licence, without waiting for a licence to be issued. He can do so with impunity, because even if we summons him for operating an unlicensed restaurant, the fine that will be imposed on him will be ludicrously small, often amounting to $50.00 or $75.00. This is so even where the restaurant operator has already committed three or four similar offences.
We may obtain a Prohibitory Order from the Court, prohibiting him from carrying on an unlicensed restaurant, but if he still persists and we summons him for a breach of Prohibitory Order, then the resulting fine tends to be even smaller than before. So in practice, the Prohibitory Order is no deterrent.
It seems to me that the only way is to have a system of graduated minimum fines. Perhaps, for the first offence, the amount of the fine could be left with the discretion of the magistrate. For the second, third and fourth offences, the minimum fines could be $200.00, $500.00 and $1,000.00. The exact figures are not important, so long as the principle is established. Once the minimum fines get up to $1,000.00 or $2,000.00, the restaurant operator will soon find it not worth his while to carry on his unlicensed business.
As things are at present, he is not worried about paying fines. After all, he could set them off against the licence fees which he has saved. In many cases, it is not that the restaurant operator is unable to meet our requirements, but rather that he considers it to his advantage not to comply with them, because he does not wish to incur the extra expenses and does not care if health or Fire Services' requirements are not met. A system of minimum fines will make him realise that it is just not worth his while.
To the lawyer, steeped in the traditions of English Law, the idea of a minimum fine will not appeal. The lawyer will say that each case must be dealt with on its own merits and the amount of the fine should be left entirely within the discretion of the magistrate. As a general principle, this is all very fine, but in this case, it simply does not work. The fines imposed in practice are no deterrent.
An exception to the rule seems justified here.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to one small item in the Statement of Aims for 1969 under the heading "Advertisements". Our Aim here is: "to define the Council's future policy on the control of advertisements and to enact appropriate by-laws". Turning to last year's Statement of Aims, I find exactly the same paragraph, but during the last year, so far as I am aware, we have not in fact defined any policy on the control of advertisements, nor have we enacted any by-laws.
In the meantime, advertising signs and signboards proliferate. Some of them are indeed marvels of engineering. One that I have noticed recently stretches half way across Hennessy Road. Apart from being unsightly, such signs cause a nuisance to residents of upper floors. Who would like to live in a flat where you cannot turn off the lights? Furthermore, are these signs safe? According to the calculations, they may be so when they are new, but after a few years wear and tear, are they not potential flying saucers in typhoon winds? Let us, Mr. Chairman, in 1969 really define our policy on the control of advertisements and not merely include it among our Statement of Aims.
With these remarks, I am pleased to support the Motion. (Applause).
DR. P. F. Woo:- Mr. Chairman, one of the most critical problems facing the Council today is the Hawker problem which is more of a human concern than a matter of policy. We have all heard of accusations of corruption and complaints regarding the Hawker Control Force. We must admit that the present policy is by no means a success. This acute situation was created by the Council, and all members of this Council have to share the blame. As early as 1955 or 1956, stalls and fixed pitches had been allocated without much investigation and, until recently when all usable sites were exhausted, the approval of licences was transferred to the Social Welfare Department. The whole procedure should have been given to this department from the very start. Since licences were issued so freely, fixed pitches had to be packed close together giving no space to store more goods than those for immediate sale; and during peak hours of the day when these poor hawkers wish to do more business, they are prosecuted for obstruction. There are many streets on both sides of the harbour where fixed pitches are placed so close together that no access to the shops is available. If I were a shop owner and paid taxes, I certainly would take action and sue the Hong Kong Government for such arrangement.
269
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 147 of 243
Page 146 of 243
268
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
so that a whole area may be cleared; the streets widened and new development can take place. Let us take advantage of the present opportunity without delay.
My next point is about the licensing and control of restaurants and food premises. The Central Licensing Unit which has been set up has proved to be a success. The processing of the various applica- tions for licences and permits has been considerably speeded up. This is very gratifying, but we are still left with the problem of what to do with applicants for restaurant licences, who cannot or will not comply with our requirements.
In most cases, the restaurant operator will start business as soon as he applies for a licence, without waiting for a licence to be issued. He can do so with impunity, because even if we summons him for operating an unlicensed restaurant, the fine that will be imposed on him will be ludicrously small, often amounting to $50:00 or $75:00. This is so even where the restaurant operator has already committed three or four similar offences.
We may obtain a Prohibitory Order from the Court, prohibiting him from carrying on an unlicensed restaurant, but if he still persists and we summons him for a breach of Prohibitory Order, then the result- ing fine tends to be even smaller than before. So in practice, the Prohibitory Order is no deterrent.
It seems to me that the only way is to have a system of graduated minimum fines. Perhaps, for the first offence, the amount of the fine could be left with the discretion of the magistrate. For the second, third and fourth offences, the minimum fines could be $200:00, $500:00 and $1,000:00. The exact figures are not important, so long as the principle is established. Once the minimum fines get up to $1,000:00 or $2,000:00, the restaurant operator will soon find it not worth his while to carry on his unlicensed business.
As thing are at present, he is not worried about paying fines. After all, he could set them off against the licence fees which he has saved. In many cases, it is not that the restaurant operator is unable to meet our requirements, but rather that he considers it to his advantage not to comply with them, because he does not wish to incur the extra expenses and does not care if health or Fire Services' require- ments are not met. A system of minimum fines will make him realise that it is just not worth his while.
To the lawyer, steeped in the traditions of English Law, the idea of a minimum fine will not appeal. The lawyer will say that each case must be dealt with on its own merits and the amount of the fine should be left entirely within the discretion of the magistrate. As a
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
269
general principle, this is all very fine, but in this case, it simply does not work. The fines imposed in practice are no deterrent.
An excep- tion to the rule seems justified here.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to one small item in the Statement of Aims for 1969 under the heading "Advertisements". Our Aim here is: "to define the Council's future policy on the control of advertisements and to enact appropriate by-laws". Turning to last year's Statement of Aims, I find exactly the same paragraph, but during the last year, so far as I am aware, we have not in fact defined any policy on the control of advertisements, nor have we enacted any by-laws.
In the meantime, advertising signs and signboards proliferate. Some of them are indeed marvels of engineering. One that I have noticed recently stretches half way across Hennessy Road. Apart from being unsightly, such signs cause a nuisance to residents of upper floors. Who would like to live in a flat where you cannot turn off the lights? Furthermore, are these signs safe? According to the calculations, they may be so when they are new, but after a few years wear and tear, are they not potential flying saucers in typhoon winds? Let us, Mr. Chairman, in 1969 really define our policy on the control of advertise- ments and not merely include it among our Statement of Aims.
With these remarks, I am pleased to support the Motion. (Applause).
DR. P. F. Woo:-Mr. Chairman, one of the most critical problems facing the Council today is the Hawker problem which is more of a human concern than a matter of policy. We have all heard of accusa- tions of corruption and complaints regarding the Hawker Control Force. We must admit that the present policy is by no means a success. This acute situation was created by the Council, and all members of this Council have to share the blame. As early as 1955 or 1956, stalls and fixed pitches had been allocated without much investigation and, until recently when all usable sites were exhausted, the approval of licences was transferred to the Social Welfare Department. The whole pro- cedure should have been given to this department from the very start. Since licences were issued so freely, fixed pitches had to be packed close together giving no space to store more goods than those for immediate sale; and during peak hours of the day when these poor hawkers wish to do more business, they are prosecuted for obstruction. There are many streets on both sides of the harbour where fixed pitches are placed so close together that no access to the shops is available. If I were a shop owner and paid taxes, I certainly would take action and sue the Hong Kong Government for such arrangement.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.