Page 100 of 187
164
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, I assume that the first part of the question relates to unlicensed stalls. In this connection no notice is given. Public officers are not required to give notice when taking action against illegal operators; to do so would defeat the object of the exercise.
In the case of licensed stalls, which have to be moved for one reason or another, it is the Department's practice to give the stallholder a minimum of fifteen days notice requiring him to move his stall. If, thereafter, he fails to move his stall to the alternative site arranged, the Department is empowered to move it for him. Short notice is usually necessary in connection with such situations as stalls in the vicinity of buildings declared unsafe, or urgent resitings in connection with minor public works where short notice has been given to the Urban Services Department; but normally much longer notice is given. In emergencies, of course, such as a fire or burst water main, removal may be necessary immediately.
As regards the second part of the question, where any equipment or commodities are seized during the demolition of an illegal hawker stall they are kept at the owner's risk pending their return to him or their forfeiture, as the case may be.
Briefly, the procedure prescribed by law is that a hawker has 48 hours within which to register with the seizing authority a claim for the return of his goods; if the authority intends to press for forfeiture, it must lay an information on the matter within 72 hours of the seizure, during which period it continues to retain the goods. Thereafter, the hawker has 14 days within which to apply to a court for the return of his goods or, if they have been disposed of, compensation therefor. Having heard both parties the court will order either the return of the goods (or, as the case may be, compensation) or their forfeiture.
In practice, the hawker offences following which forfeiture can result are confined to
(a) hawking without a licence;
(b) hawking without authority outside a hawker permitted area;
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
165
(c) hawking without authority from a particular fixed pitch; and
(d) placing commodities or equipment outside the limits of an allocated fixed pitch.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, may I say that I personally am against forfeiture although I would not challenge the Select Committee's decision in this matter.
MR. TSIN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what is meant by "an officer taking action against illegal operators". What is meant "illegal"? It is stated that, without notice given, they could achieve the object of the exercise. Is the object of the exercise against the rights of the citizen and trying to harass them?
Is it trying to make life difficult for the small operators by giving them only a minimum of 15 days notice? Does it mean that when it does not concern minor public works or cases of emergency, then the notice would be shorter than 15 days? Would this mean that the officer-in-charge would be penalized if he does not follow?
MR. HU (in English):-To enforce law or hawker bylaws, it is for the staff on the ground to carry out the law within reasonable measures. Of course, it is the concern of the Select Committee that the good relationship between the Select Committee and the Urban Council on the one hand, and the hawkers and the hawkers' associations on the other should be maintained within all possible means. This, I think, I have replied to Mr. TSIN'S question. The hawker by-laws, of course, have been in existence before the reorganization of the Urban Council, i.e. before 1st April, 1973. We, the Select Committee, only try to enforce law with all reasonable consideration, to maintain law and order on the one hand, and also to maintain good relationship with hawkers. If Mr. TSIN has any special case which deserves the attention of the Select Committee, we would be very glad to do so.
MR. TSIN (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the task of the Hawkers Select Committee and what Mr. Hu has said. But what we hear is quite different from what we hear. Mr. Chairman, may I ask if, in actual fact, the officer of the U.S.D. has made a mistake affecting the reputation of the Urban Council, should we not appoint an investigation sub-committee to look into this matter to see how the officer responsible has injured the reputation of the Council?
MR. HU (in English):-Mr. TSIN, when I saw this news in the newspaper, I personally had very strong feelings as to whether we should have an investigation or not, I do think it is within the Hawkers
Page 100
Page 101
Page 100 of 187
164
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, I assume that the first part of the question relates to unlicensed stalls. In this connection no notice is given. Public officers are not required to give notice when taking action against illegal operators; to do so would defeat the object of the exercise.
In the case of licensed stalls, which have to be moved for one reason or another, it is the Department's practice to give the stallholder a minimum of fifteen days notice requiring him to move his stall. If, thereafter, he fails to move his stall to the alternative site arranged, the Department is empowered to move it for him. Short notice is usually necessary in connection with such situa tions as stalls in the vicinity of buildings declared unsafe. or urgent resitings in connection with minor public works where short notice has been given to the Urban Services Department; but normally much longer notice is given. In emergencies, of course, such as a fire or burst water main, removal may be necessary immediately.
As regards the second part of the question, where any equip
ment or commodities are seized during the demolition of an illegal hawker stall they are kept at the owner's risk pending their return to him or their forfeiture, as the case may be.
Briefly, the procedure prescribed by law is that a hawker has 48 hours within which to register with the seizing authority a claim for the return of his goods; if the authority intends to press for forfeiture, it must lay an information on the matter within 72 hours of the seizure, during which period it continues to retain the goods. Thereafter, the hawker has 14 days within which to apply to a court for the return of his goods or, if they have been disposed of, compensation therefor. Having heard both parties the court will order either the return of the goods (or, as the case may be, compensation) or their forfeiture.
In practice, the hawker offences following which forfeiture can
result are confined to
(a) hawking without a licence;
(b) hawking without authority outside a hawker per
mitted area;
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
165
(c) hawking without authority from a particular fixed
pitch; and
(d) placing commodities or equipment outside the limits
of an allocated fixed pitch.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, may I say that I personally am against forfeiture although I would not challenge the Select Committee's decision in this matter.
MR. TSIN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what is meant by "an officer taking action against illegal operators". What is meant "illegal"? It is stated that, without notice given, they could achieve the object of the exercise. Is the object of the exercise against the rights of the citizen and trying to harrass them?
Is it trying to make life difficult for the small operators by giving them only a minimum of 15 days notice? Does it mean that when it does not concern minor public works or cases of emergency, then the notice would be shorter than 15 days? Would this mean that the officer-in- charge would be penalized if he does not follow?
MR. HU (in English):-To enforce law or hawker bylaws, it is for the staff on the ground to carry out the law within reasonable measures. Of course, it is the concern of the Select Committee that the good relationship between the Select Committee and the Urban Council on the one hand, and the hawkers and the hawkers' associations on the other should be maintained within all possible means. This, I think, I have replied to Mr. TSIN'S question. The hawker by-laws, of course, have been in existence before the reorganization of the Urban Council, i.e. before 1st April, 1973. We, the Select Committee, only try to enforce law with all reasonable consideration, to maintain law and order on the one hand, and also to maintain good relationship with hawkers. If Mr. TSIN has any special case which deserves the attention of the Select Committee, we would be very glad to do so.
MR. TSIN (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the task of the Hawkers Select Committee and what Mr. Hu has said. But what we hear is quite different from what we hear. Mr. Chairman, may I ask if, in actual fact, the officer of the U.S.D. has made a mistake affecting the reputation of the Urban Council, should we not appoint an investigation sub-committee to look into this matter to see how the officer responsible has injured the reputation of the Council?
MR. HU (in English):-Mr. TSIN, when I saw this news in the newspaper, I personally had very strong feelings as to whether we should have an investigation or not, I do think it is within the Hawkers
Page 100Page 101
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.