1969 — Page 138

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 138 of 237

254

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. C. K. CHAN:- Mr. Chairman, one supplementary. I asked this question because of the lack of planning. The first supplementary question is that I hope the Chairman of the Hawker Management Committee and you, Sir, agree that prevention is better than cure. That is to say, in this case, was there any planning on how to allocate those hawkers before they actually went into hawking and, if so, when was this discussed by the Management Committee or Resettlement Management or Hawker Select Committee?

MR. LOBO:- I do not understand your question. Perhaps the Chairman can answer it?

CHAIRMAN:- I would need notice of that question, Mr. CHAN.

MR. C. K. CHAN:- What I mean was there any planning of the layout of these hawkers which have now become chaotic. Would I be right to say, Mr. Chairman, that the chaotic situation was caused by the lack of advanced planning?

CHAIRMAN:- I would not agree with that, Mr. CHAN. I think that the planning was there; it was a question of control after the hawkers moved in, as you well know.

MR. C. K. CHAN:- One more point, which Department is actually controlling the situation now, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN:- The Urban Council, Mr. CHAN,

MR. C. K. CHAN:- Which department rather than the Urban Council?

CHAIRMAN:- The planning is done by the Council and its executive arm is the Urban Services Department, but we need the help of the Resettlement Department in respect of resettlement estates.

MR. C. K. CHAN:- Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully request that this case be referred to the Hawker Management Select Committee with officers from the Resettlement Department invited to attend the meeting?

MR. LOBO:- Which case, may I know?

MR. C. K. CHAN:- This present, to prevent further chaotic deterioration.

MR. LOBO:- Well, I do not mind inviting anybody to the meetings; anybody is welcome at any meeting. The situation as far as I am concerned is not deteriorating. There has been additional manpower engaged by the Resettlement Department, 60 tidy-up groups spread over the estates. These operations greatly depend on the Urban Services Department, Police, Resettlement Department, City District Offices and New Territories Administration. So they depend, in fact, not only one department but various departments, and that is the only way to control hawkers?

MR. C. K. CHAN:- Mr. Chairman, is the Chairman of the Management Committee willing to refer this case to the Management Committee for further discussion?

MR. LOBO:- Most certainly, I would be happy to; delighted.

(8) In the absence of MR. HENRY H. L. Hu, MR. Woo PO-SHING asked the following question:

Could the Chairman please inform the Council when the backyard sheds of 14 shops in Block 8, Wong Tai Sin Resettlement Estate, were demolished? Did the Resettlement Department receive any Appeal from the owners of these 14 shops? If so, when? What are their reasons? Were these reasons ever considered before any action was taken? Why the demolition of the sheds and the receiving of appeal occurred at the same time?

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:

In December last year it was agreed that all sunshades in resettlement estates should be reduced to a standard size of 4 feet. Since that date action has been taken by the department against 4,780 oversize sunshades in all the estates. The operation at Wong Tai Sin estate, which is the subject of this question, was virtually the last in the series.

On 16th October at a joint meeting of the Resettlement Policy and Resettlement Management Select Committees Members were informed that a group of shopkeepers at Wong Tai Sin estate intended to petition that their sunshades be left untouched. In accordance with agreed policy Members confirmed that no exception could be made in this case and that the operation should proceed as planned in spite of the appeal. Although the actual appeal was not received in the department until 24th October, the shopkeepers concerned were notified on 23rd October that the operation would proceed. The sunshades in question were dealt with on 24th October.

255

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 139 of 237

Edit History

2026-05-14 07:45:08 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 138 of 237 254 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL MR. C. K. CHAN:- Mr. Chairman, one supplementary. I asked this question because of the lack of planning. The first supplementary question is that I hope the Chairman of the Hawker Management Committee and you, Sir, agree that prevention is better than cure. That is to say, in this case, was there any planning on how to allocate those hawkers before they actually went into hawking and, if so, when was this discussed by the Management Committee or Resettlement Management or Hawker Select Committee? MR. LOBO:- I do not understand your question. Perhaps the Chairman can answer it? CHAIRMAN:- I would need notice of that question, Mr. CHAN. MR. C. K. CHAN:- What I mean was there any planning of the layout of these hawkers which have now become chaotic. Would I be right to say, Mr. Chairman, that the chaotic situation was caused by the lack of advanced planning? CHAIRMAN:- I would not agree with that, Mr. CHAN. I think that the planning was there; it was a question of control after the hawkers moved in, as you well know. MR. C. K. CHAN:- One more point, which Department is actually controlling the situation now, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN:- The Urban Council, Mr. CHAN, MR. C. K. CHAN:- Which department rather than the Urban Council? CHAIRMAN:- The planning is done by the Council and its executive arm is the Urban Services Department, but we need the help of the Resettlement Department in respect of resettlement estates. MR. C. K. CHAN:- Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully request that this case be referred to the Hawker Management Select Committee with officers from the Resettlement Department invited to attend the meeting? MR. LOBO:- Which case, may I know? MR. C. K. CHAN:- This present, to prevent further chaotic deterioration. MR. LOBO:- Well, I do not mind inviting anybody to the meetings; anybody is welcome at any meeting. The situation as far as I am concerned is not deteriorating. There has been additional manpower engaged by the Resettlement Department, 60 tidy-up groups spread over the estates. These operations greatly depend on the Urban Services Department, Police, Resettlement Department, City District Offices and New Territories Administration. So they depend, in fact, not only one department but various departments, and that is the only way to control hawkers? MR. C. K. CHAN:- Mr. Chairman, is the Chairman of the Management Committee willing to refer this case to the Management Committee for further discussion? MR. LOBO:- Most certainly, I would be happy to; delighted. (8) In the absence of MR. HENRY H. L. Hu, MR. Woo PO-SHING asked the following question: Could the Chairman please inform the Council when the backyard sheds of 14 shops in Block 8, Wong Tai Sin Resettlement Estate, were demolished? Did the Resettlement Department receive any Appeal from the owners of these 14 shops? If so, when? What are their reasons? Were these reasons ever considered before any action was taken? Why the demolition of the sheds and the receiving of appeal occurred at the same time? THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows: In December last year it was agreed that all sunshades in resettlement estates should be reduced to a standard size of 4 feet. Since that date action has been taken by the department against 4,780 oversize sunshades in all the estates. The operation at Wong Tai Sin estate, which is the subject of this question, was virtually the last in the series. On 16th October at a joint meeting of the Resettlement Policy and Resettlement Management Select Committees Members were informed that a group of shopkeepers at Wong Tai Sin estate intended to petition that their sunshades be left untouched. In accordance with agreed policy Members confirmed that no exception could be made in this case and that the operation should proceed as planned in spite of the appeal. Although the actual appeal was not received in the department until 24th October, the shopkeepers concerned were notified on 23rd October that the operation would proceed. The sunshades in question were dealt with on 24th October. 255 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 139 of 237

Baseline (Original)

Page 138 of 237 254 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL MR. C. K. CHAN:-Mr. Chairman, one supplementary. I asked this question because of the lack of planning. The first supplementary question is that I hope the Chairman of the Hawker Management Committee and you, Sir, agree that prevention is better than cure. That is to say, in this case, was there any planning on how to allocate those hawkers before they actually went into hawking and, if so, when was this discussed by the Management Committee or Resettlement Management or Hawker Select Committee? MR. LOBO:-I do not understand your question. Perhaps the Chairman can answer it? CHAIRMAN:-I would need notice of that question, Mr. CHAN. MR. C. K. CHAN:-What I mean was there any planning of the layout of these hawkers which have now become chaotic. Would I be right to say, Mr. Chairman, that the chaotic situation was caused by the lack of advanced planning? CHAIRMAN:-I would not agree with that, Mr. CHAN. I think that the planning was there; it was a question of control after the hawkers moved in, as you well know. MR. C. K. CHAN:---One more point, which Department is actually controlling the situation now, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: ---The Urban Council, Mr. CHAN, MR. C. K. CHAN:-Which department rather than the Urban Council? CHAIRMAN: --The planning is done by the Council and its executive arm is the Urban Services Department, but we need the help of the Resettlement Department in respect of resettlement estates. MR. C. K. CHAN:-Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully request that this case be referred to the Hawker Manage- ment Select Committee with officers from the Resettlement Department invited to attend the meeting? MR. LOBO:-Which case, may I know? MR. C. K. CHAN:-This present, to prevent further chaotic deterioration. MR. LOBO : --Well, I do not mind inviting anybody to the meetings; anybody is welcome at any meeting. The situation as far as I am concerned is not deteriorating. There has been additional manpower engaged by the Resettlement Department, 60 tidy-up groups spread over the estates. These operations greatly depend on the Urban HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 255 Services Department, Police, Resettlement Department, City District Offices and New Territories Administration. So they depend, in fact, not only one department but various departments, and that is the only way to control hawkers? MR. C. K. CHAN:--Mr. Chairman, is the Chairman of the Manage- ment Committee willing to refer this case to the Management Committee for further discussion? MR. LOBO:Most certainly, I would be happy to; delighted. (8) In the absence of MR. HENRY H. L. Hu, MR. Woo PO-SHING asked the following question: Could the Chairman please inform the Council when the backyard sheds of 14 shops in Block 8, Wong Tai Sin Resettlement Estate, were demolished? Did the Re- settlement Department receive any Appeal from the owners of these 14 shops? If so, when? What are their reasons? Were these reasons ever considered before any action was taken? Why the demolition of the sheds and the receiving of appeal occurred at the same time? THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:-- In December last year it was agreed that all sunshades in resettlement estates should be reduced to a standard size of 4 feet. Since that date action has been taken by the department against 4,780 oversize sunshades in all the estates. The operation at Wong Tai Sin estate, which is the subject of this question, was virtually the last in the series. On 16th October at a joint meeting of the Resettlement Policy and Resettlement Management Select Committees Mem- bers were informed that a group of shopkeepers at Wong Tai Sin estate intended to petition that their sunshades be left untouched. In accordance with agreed policy Members confirmed that no exception could be made in this case and that the operation should proceed as planned in spite of the appeal. Although the actual appeal was not received in the department until 24th October, the shopkeepers concerned were notified on 23rd October that the operation would proceed. The sun- shades in question were dealt with on 24th October.

2026-05-14 07:45:08 · Baseline

View content

Page 138 of 237

254

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. C. K. CHAN:-Mr. Chairman, one supplementary. I asked this question because of the lack of planning. The first supplementary question is that I hope the Chairman of the Hawker Management Committee and you, Sir, agree that prevention is better than cure. That is to say, in this case, was there any planning on how to allocate those hawkers before they actually went into hawking and, if so, when was this discussed by the Management Committee or Resettlement Management or Hawker Select Committee?

MR. LOBO:-I do not understand your question. Perhaps the Chairman can answer it?

CHAIRMAN:-I would need notice of that question, Mr. CHAN.

MR. C. K. CHAN:-What I mean was there any planning of the layout of these hawkers which have now become chaotic. Would I be right to say, Mr. Chairman, that the chaotic situation was caused by the lack of advanced planning?

CHAIRMAN:-I would not agree with that, Mr. CHAN. I think that the planning was there; it was a question of control after the hawkers moved in, as you well know.

MR. C. K. CHAN:---One more point, which Department is actually controlling the situation now, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN: ---The Urban Council, Mr. CHAN,

MR. C. K. CHAN:-Which department rather than the Urban Council?

CHAIRMAN: --The planning is done by the Council and its executive arm is the Urban Services Department, but we need the help of the Resettlement Department in respect of resettlement estates.

MR. C. K. CHAN:-Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully request that this case be referred to the Hawker Manage- ment Select Committee with officers from the Resettlement Department invited to attend the meeting?

MR. LOBO:-Which case, may I know?

MR. C. K. CHAN:-This present, to prevent further chaotic deterioration.

MR. LOBO : --Well, I do not mind inviting anybody to the meetings; anybody is welcome at any meeting. The situation as far as I am concerned is not deteriorating. There has been additional manpower engaged by the Resettlement Department, 60 tidy-up groups spread over the estates. These operations greatly depend on the Urban

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

255

Services Department, Police, Resettlement Department, City District Offices and New Territories Administration. So they depend, in fact, not only one department but various departments, and that is the only way to control hawkers?

MR. C. K. CHAN:--Mr. Chairman, is the Chairman of the Manage- ment Committee willing to refer this case to the Management Committee for further discussion?

MR. LOBO:Most certainly, I would be happy to; delighted.

(8) In the absence of MR. HENRY H. L. Hu, MR. Woo PO-SHING asked the following question:

Could the Chairman please inform the Council when the backyard sheds of 14 shops in Block 8, Wong Tai Sin Resettlement Estate, were demolished? Did the Re- settlement Department receive any Appeal from the owners of these 14 shops? If so, when? What are their reasons? Were these reasons ever considered before any action was taken? Why the demolition of the sheds and the receiving of appeal occurred at the same time?

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:--

On 16th October at a joint meeting of the Resettlement Policy and Resettlement Management Select Committees Mem- bers were informed that a group of shopkeepers at Wong Tai Sin estate intended to petition that their sunshades be left untouched. In accordance with agreed policy Members confirmed that no exception could be made in this case and that the operation should proceed as planned in spite of the appeal. Although the actual appeal was not received in the department until 24th October, the shopkeepers concerned were notified on 23rd October that the operation would proceed. The sun- shades in question were dealt with on 24th October.

1969 — Page 138

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note