HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 84 of 154
136
drain the present cost of hawker management is on the Council. I know also the reluctance that my friend Dr. Hu, the proposer, had at one time, before he was convinced of the necessity to raise the Hawker Licence Fees. But I also know that both he and I feel very strongly that with the raising of fees the Council must be prepared to give the Licensed Hawkers full protection, unless they themselves are breaking the law. During the past 18 months as Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee, Dr. Hu has literally visited every street in Hong Kong with members of the Urban Services Department and other departments (and occasionally with fellow members of his committee) to see whether each particular street is suitable for hawkering and see how many licensed hawkers both itinerant and fixed pitch the street will hold. This was completely separate from the Hawkers Permitted Area Scheme with which the Urban Council experimented this year, and which the Urban Services Department is now preparing a full investigation report of the results. Incidentally again Dr. Hu has also paid many visits to these Hawkers Permitted Areas. A minority of my fellow members of the standing committee of the whole Council thought that there should not be any increase, especially in the itinerant hawker fees, until this more detailed report is received and in consequence perhaps we make other amendments to the Hawkers By-laws. But to do so, in my opinion, would merely be involving ourselves in the interminable problem of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. I envisage the increase of fees has been part of a packet deal to regulate hawkers, to make things easier for the licensed hawkers to hawk legally, and at the same time not making the management of hawkers such a drain on the Council's limited resources. I therefore second this motion.
MR. TSIN SAI-NIN (in Cantonese): - Mr. Chairman, firstly I would like to explain to the Chairman that, as the Vice-Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee, the reason why I cannot second the motion. I do not object that hawkers, as commercial traders, should not bear a reasonable fee, but the question is whether this fee is reasonable and fair. I have always said that itinerant hawkers must be given recognized pitches and only then, we can ask them to pay the necessary fees, otherwise the threat of prosecutions and fines, how can we ask them to pay more? As far as I know, among the 19,000 itinerant hawkers, only 6,000 have recognized pitches, the other 13,000 hawkers, although having to pay the fees, are always under the threat of prosecutions and fines. But we ask them to pay the same increased fees and I think this is unfair and unreasonable. I have also proposed that the increase of fees for fixed-pitch hawkers and itinerant hawkers should be dealt with separately, but this has not been accepted. I also proposed that itinerant hawkers, before having their own fixed pitches, should not pay more fees and this has not been accepted as well. Because of these reasons, I cannot agree with this motion completely and, as such, I cannot second the motion.
As to the unlicensed hawkers in the H.P.A.s, they are trading without paying any hawker fees and I think this is unfair to the licensed hawkers. I propose that Urban Council should consider issuing licences to all unlicensed hawkers and giving them recognized pitches. Then on the one hand, we can increase our revenue and, on the other hand, the hawkers will have their own pitches and can trade without any threat of prosecutions. Finally, I consider that Urban Council should postpone or amend this motion.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese): -- Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this motion and, of course, maybe after 6 months, this motion with amendments will be acceptable to me. Firstly, I think that Mr. BERNACCHI, as the Chairman of the Finance Select Committee, said that he has to support the motion on financial grounds. I am also a member of the Finance Select Committee and I can assure the community and members that without the increase of hawker fees, we will not go bankrupt as the city of New York, so we do not have to pass this motion. This is one of the reasons why I object to the passing of this motion now.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
137
Another point which has been touched on by Mr. TSIN that we have 23 Hawker Permitted Areas. There are fixed-pitch stalls, cooked-food stalls and itinerant hawkers. They are still paying hawker licence fees. But our policy is to allow unlicensed hawkers to be in the areas as well. Of course, we have to do this during economic crisis. We must now consider whether we should issue a licence to all the hawkers who are trading in the areas. If we now increase the fees for those who are licensed, but for those who are unlicensed have no such burden. If two hawkers are trading side by side, do we think that we are fair to both of them? I am sure that we are unfair to those who have to pay the licence fees and those who are not paying any licence fees at all. He would know that it is unfair but he will not say anything at all, but is unfair to the one next to him. This is another reason why I oppose this motion. Because this not only affects itinerant hawkers, we can go to Tung Choi Street and see that there are many cooked food stalls and fixed pitch stalls and some licensed itinerant hawkers, so we have to face realities.
Another point is hawkers are normally serving the lower income bracket. If we increase their fees, there must be some chain reaction.
Page 84 of 154
136
...
Page 84 of 154
EL
Page 84 of 154
136
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
drain the present cost of hawker management is on the Council. I know also the reluctance that my friend Dr. Hu, the proposer, had at one time, before he was convinced of the necessity to raise the Hawker Licence Fees. But I also know that both he and I feel very strongly that with the raising of fees the Council must be prepared to give the Licensed Hawkers full protection, unless they themselves are breaking the law. During the past 18 month sas Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee, Dr. Hu has literally visited every street in Hong Kong with members of the Urban Services Department and other departments (and occasionally with fellow members of his committee) to see whether each particular street is suitable for hawkering and see how many licensed hawkers both itinerant and fixed pitch the street will hold. This was completely separate from the Hawkers Permitted Area Scheme with which the Urban Council experimented this year, and which the Urban Services Department is now preparing a full investigation report of the results. Incidentally again Dr. Hu has also paid many visits to these Hawkers Permitted Areas. A minority of my fellow members of the standing committee of the whole Council thought that there should not be any increase, especially in the itinerant hawker fees, until this more detailed report is received and in conse- quence perhaps we make other amendments to the Hawkers By-laws. But to do so, in my opinion, would merely be involving ourselves in the interminable problem of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. I envisage the increase of fees has been part of a packet deal to regulate hawkers, to make things easier for the licensed hawkers to hawk legally, and at the same time not making the mangement of I therefore hawkers such a drain on the Council's limited resources. second this motion.
MR. TSIN SAI-NIN (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, firstly I would like to explain to the Chairman that, as the Vice-Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee, the reason why I cannot second the motion. I do not object that hawkers, as commercial traders, should not bear a reasonable fees, but the question is whether this fee is reasonable and fair. I have always said that itinerant hawkers must be given re- cognized pitches and only then, we can ask them to pay the necessary fees, otherwise the threat of prosecutions and fines, how can we ask them to pay more? As far as I know, among the 19,000 itinerant hawkers, only 6,000 have recognized pitches, the other 13,000 hawkers, although having to pay the fees, are always under the threat of pro- secutions and fines. But we ask them to pay the same increased fees and I think this is unfair and unreasonable. I have also proposed that the increase of fees for fixed-pitch hawkers and itinerant hawkers should be dealt with separately, but this has not been accepted. I also pro-
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
137
posed that itinerant hawkers, before having their own fixed pitches, should not pay more fees and this has not been accepted as well, Because of these reasons, I cannot agree with this motion completely and, as such, I cannot second the motion.
As to the unlicensed hawkers in the H.P.A.s, they are trading without paying any hawker fees and I think this is unfair to the licensed hawkers. I propose that Urban Council should consider issuing licences to all unlicensed hawkers and giving them recognized pitches. Then on the one hand, we can increase our revenue and, on the other hand, the hawkers will have their own pitches and can trade without any threat of prosecutions. Finally, I consider that Urban Council should postpone or amend this motion.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese): --Mr. Chairman, I am oppose to this motion and, of course, may be after 6 months, this motion with amendments will be acceptable to me. Firstly, I think that Mr. BERNACCHI, as the Chairman of the Finance Select Committee, said that he has to support the motion on financial grounds. I am also a member of the Finance Select Committee and I can assure the community and members that without the increase of hawker fees, we will not go bankrupt as the city of New York, so we do not have to pass this motion. This is one of the reasons why I object to the passing of this motion now.
Another point which has been touched on by Mr. TSIN that we have 23 Hawker Permitted Areas. There are fixed-pitch stalls, cooked- food stalls and itinerant hawkers. They are still paying hawker licence fees. But our policy is to allow unlicensed hawkers to be in the areas as well. Of course, we have to do this during economic crisis. We must now consider whether we should issue a licence to all the hawkers who are trading in the areas. If we now increase the fees for those who are licensed, but for those who are unlicensed have no such burden. If two hawkers are trading side by side, do we think that we are fair to both of them? I am sure that we are unfair to those who have to pay the licence fees and those who are not paying any licence fees at all. He would know that it is unfair but he will not say any- thing at all, but is unfair to the one next to him. This is another reason why I oppose to this motion. Because this not only affects itinerant hawkers, we can go to Tung Choi Street and see that there are many cooked food stalls and fixed pitch stalls and some licensed itinerant hawkers, so we have to face realities.
Another point is hawkers are normally serving the lower income bracket. If we increase their fees, there must be some chain reaction.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.