1975 — Page 85

Page 85 of 154

138

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

As we have mentioned earlier, if the fees for bathhouses are increased, we may be able to go there less often, but for the lower-income bracket of the community, it is unavoidable and inevitable. Before we can really see the recovery of our economy, I think it would affect most of the lower income citizens and that is another reason why I oppose to this motion.

Another point is, as I have mentioned in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council, I seriously said that some hawkers, before the introduction of any social welfare schemes, are given hawker licences on compassionate grounds. Some of them are still under very difficult condition and if we increase their fees, it would be very bad for those hawkers. I propose that hawkers who are given a licence on com- passionate grounds should pay less and, of course, the Director of Urban Services said it is impossible, may be we can turn to the Social Welfare Department. Before any answer is found, I oppose the motion at present.

Another point I want to point out is that as Mr. Chairman has mentioned earlier today, why do we need so many people to look after the hawkers and the cost for looking after the hawkers has to be burdened by rate-payers. I am one of the rate-payers myself, I think this theory is not correct. We must continue to subsidize the hawkers, because the hawkers are serving mainly the lower income bracket of the community. If they can continue to trade there, it would be helpful to the lower-income bracket of our community and will lead to a better society. If all the hawkers have to pay fees as much as restaurants, then there will be no more hawkers as such. Then it would be a problem for the whole community. The rate payers will be affected as well. I think the management of hawkers should be subsidized by the rate-payers through the Urban Council just as tax payers have to subsidize the old and the disabled through the social welfare schemes, because hawkers are very helpful to those who earn very little. I oppose to this motion.

DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to citizens of Hong Kong. Over 10,000 of them have to work as hawkers to gain a living. For a city as prosporous and industralized as Hong Kong, this phenomenon would mean that we are backward in some instances. The trading of hawkers does not mean that it necessarily affects the benefit of the traders in the neigh- bourhood, causes traffic congestion, etc. and that they are unproductive. I have always objected to the solution of using hawkers as one of the methods to meet our problems. But we must face the fact that there are over 100,000 people working as hawkers. As for the proposal to

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

139

increase the fees of hawkers, my opinion is that hawkers with fixed pitches have their fixed businesses without having to pay rent and the money they earn seldom pay as tax. So I support this increase in this case.

The second type of hawkers are the itinerant hawkers and I object to any increase in their fees. Because firstly, besides these licensed hawkers, there are also hundreds and thousands of unlicensed hawkers. The licensed and unlicensed hawkers are carrying on trade in the same way and if the licensed ones have to pay increased fees and unlicensed ones can go on with the business without paying any increases it is unfair. The second reason is that we now have Hawker Permitted Areas and they are still continuing to function. In these areas, any person can walk in and carry on the trade of a hawker without having to pay any licensed fees or obtain any licences. So I think that, as long as these two situations exist, the problem is not whether to increase the fees by $30 or $300, it is a matter of fairness. If they pay more, what exact benefits do they get from the Urban Council or Urban Services Department, do they get any assurances? And before we can provide any such services, I think that any increase to the itinerant hawkers is neither logical nor sensible. At the Standing Committee of the Whole Council held on 2nd May, I suggested that we should amend this motion and that we should consider this problem of hawkers com- pletely and find the solution to this problem of unlicensed hawkers. Because as long as we know that there are hundreds and thousands of unlicensed hawkers around the place, then any method of tackling the problem of increasing fees will not bring a fruitful or acceptable result, so I suggest that the motion should be amended to read that hawkers without fixed pitches should not have any increase in licence Mr. fees until we have considered the whole problem of hawkers. Chairman, I now put forward my proposal, and that is:-

"That hawkers without fixed pitches should not have their licence fees increased until the problem of unlicensed and licensed hawkers had been fully discussed."

CHAIRMAN (in English):-The requirements for an amendment under Standing Order 20 are clear. What Dr. Denny HUANG wishes to do does not comply with S.O. 20. If Dr. HUANG will allow the Chair to be of assistance, the only way I can suggest to comply with his proposal is to delete in Part 1, para. 2(d) the proposed fee of $75, and to substitute for it the current rate of $40. That is what you want to do, am I right? So, shall we word it:

"That the amending By-laws be further amended in item 2(d) of Part I of the Schedule by deleting $75 and substituting $40."

Page 85Page 86