1977 — Page 102

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 102 of 174

166

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

of the General Duties Teams in Kowloon, and, perhaps understandably, the inability of the Police to undertake wider responsibilities for hawker control at the expense of their main duty of maintaining law and order, mere arrests and negligible fines are simply not effective deterrents to achieve any form of meaningful control.

The Council owes a duty to the public to protect it from dirt, noise, smell, obstruction and health hazards caused by hawkers. Hawking is a commercial activity like shopkeeping, the only difference being that it takes place in a public place (for which it does not have to pay rent and other overheads) instead of on private premises. We should not and indeed cannot escape from our responsibility of controlling unlicensed hawking to an extent at which the interests of shopkeepers, other licensed and law-abiding hawkers and indeed residents in the area are protected. Indeed, quite a number of shopkeepers have been accusing this Council of appeasing unlicensed hawkers at their expense. If the present provision for confiscation of goods is removed, one of the best ways of enforcing hawker legislation is lost and this Council might just as well give up any hope of ever controlling unlicensed hawkers properly. Indeed, if this Council is sincere in its statement of aim to control hawking, then it makes no sense to me to attempt to take away or water down one of the most effective means of enforcement,

Hawker is a complicated problem and is of great concern to all Members of this Council who must basically have the interest of the general public in mind. The political consequence of overemphasising the interest of a minority group, such as unlicensed hawkers, at the expense of the general public would be disastrous. Mandatory confiscation is not the only method we should adopt in solving the question of unlicensed hawkers. It is one of many means of controlling hawking and discouraging unlicensed hawking, I am confident that there will be more measures taken in solving the complicated hawker problem according to our agreed aims provided that we tackle the problem systematically and conscientiously.

We must guard against misplaced sentiment and sympathy. What is most important to me is that the Council must be fair to all parties concerned and if the Council has to be tough in achieving this aim, then tough we have to be.

Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.

CHAIRMAN (in English): ---Does Dr. Hu wish to exercise his right of reply?

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 102 of 174

167

DR. HU (in English):-I quite share the feeling of Mrs. ELLIOTT, Mr. CHAN and Mr. CHOW. I think Members will remember that I was the one who argued most strongly against mandatory confiscation in Select Committee all the time. I also share the views of Mr. F. K. HU. This section 50 to amend Section 58 is a technical matter to strengthen our hawker control according to our established policy. This is exactly what Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN said. The issue of mandatory confiscation was very fully argued in the last open meeting. I do not want to go into detail about this argument. However, I would reply to the 2 points which were made by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also my friend, Mr. MACKENZIE. Mr. CHEONG-LEEN said that a GD Team should be established. I entirely share his view that he said a decision on which for various reasons has not yet been taken. The obstacle does not lie with the Hawkers Select Committee, we want it to be set up as soon as possible. Mr. MACKENZIE spoke about the original position of this formulation of hawker policy. I did resign from the Hawkers Select Committee because of this mandatory confiscation because I anticipated the passing of this law. About Mr. MACKENZIE's view that there is no progress of hawker policy or hawker management, first I would reply that the money allocated to the Hawkers Select Committee for operational use and for non-recurrent use for 1978-79 is only $2,606,000. The operational and non-recurrent expenses allocated to City Hall and Entertainments Select Committee, that is in Mr. MACKENZIE's view, for the good entertainment of the public, which I am proud of, the money spent on public entertainment in 1978-79 is $31,537,550. It is more than 10 times what we spend on control of hawkers. It is obvious that this figure is here. This is why the GD Teams cannot be established because there is financial implication. I would further reply to the points raised by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also Miss Cecilia YEUNG, that mandatory confiscation must be a temporary measure. We must do more for hawker control but unfortunately we need public land for hawker bazaars and the allocation of public land is not within the jurisdiction of this Council, but we shall look further into what the Council can do about licensing policy and about the establishment of the GD Teams. I would like to tell Members that being the Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee is not a pleasant job. I should receive support or criticism from one side and also receive support and criticism from other side, but the only purpose of the Hawkers Select Committee is to serve the public. Anything we did or anything we are going to do is for the public interest. With this in mind I think I have replied to the Members who have expressed their views on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Page 102 of 174

Edit History

2026-05-15 03:48:01 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 102 of 174 166 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL of the General Duties Teams in Kowloon, and, perhaps understandably, the inability of the Police to undertake wider responsibilities for hawker control at the expense of their main duty of maintaining law and order, mere arrests and negligible fines are simply not effective deterrents to achieve any form of meaningful control. The Council owes a duty to the public to protect it from dirt, noise, smell, obstruction and health hazards caused by hawkers. Hawking is a commercial activity like shopkeeping, the only difference being that it takes place in a public place (for which it does not have to pay rent and other overheads) instead of on private premises. We should not and indeed cannot escape from our responsibility of controlling unlicensed hawking to an extent at which the interests of shopkeepers, other licensed and law-abiding hawkers and indeed residents in the area are protected. Indeed, quite a number of shopkeepers have been accusing this Council of appeasing unlicensed hawkers at their expense. If the present provision for confiscation of goods is removed, one of the best ways of enforcing hawker legislation is lost and this Council might just as well give up any hope of ever controlling unlicensed hawkers properly. Indeed, if this Council is sincere in its statement of aim to control hawking, then it makes no sense to me to attempt to take away or water down one of the most effective means of enforcement, Hawker is a complicated problem and is of great concern to all Members of this Council who must basically have the interest of the general public in mind. The political consequence of overemphasising the interest of a minority group, such as unlicensed hawkers, at the expense of the general public would be disastrous. Mandatory confiscation is not the only method we should adopt in solving the question of unlicensed hawkers. It is one of many means of controlling hawking and discouraging unlicensed hawking, I am confident that there will be more measures taken in solving the complicated hawker problem according to our agreed aims provided that we tackle the problem systematically and conscientiously. We must guard against misplaced sentiment and sympathy. What is most important to me is that the Council must be fair to all parties concerned and if the Council has to be tough in achieving this aim, then tough we have to be. Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. CHAIRMAN (in English): ---Does Dr. Hu wish to exercise his right of reply? HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 102 of 174 167 DR. HU (in English):-I quite share the feeling of Mrs. ELLIOTT, Mr. CHAN and Mr. CHOW. I think Members will remember that I was the one who argued most strongly against mandatory confiscation in Select Committee all the time. I also share the views of Mr. F. K. HU. This section 50 to amend Section 58 is a technical matter to strengthen our hawker control according to our established policy. This is exactly what Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN said. The issue of mandatory confiscation was very fully argued in the last open meeting. I do not want to go into detail about this argument. However, I would reply to the 2 points which were made by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also my friend, Mr. MACKENZIE. Mr. CHEONG-LEEN said that a GD Team should be established. I entirely share his view that he said a decision on which for various reasons has not yet been taken. The obstacle does not lie with the Hawkers Select Committee, we want it to be set up as soon as possible. Mr. MACKENZIE spoke about the original position of this formulation of hawker policy. I did resign from the Hawkers Select Committee because of this mandatory confiscation because I anticipated the passing of this law. About Mr. MACKENZIE's view that there is no progress of hawker policy or hawker management, first I would reply that the money allocated to the Hawkers Select Committee for operational use and for non-recurrent use for 1978-79 is only $2,606,000. The operational and non-recurrent expenses allocated to City Hall and Entertainments Select Committee, that is in Mr. MACKENZIE's view, for the good entertainment of the public, which I am proud of, the money spent on public entertainment in 1978-79 is $31,537,550. It is more than 10 times what we spend on control of hawkers. It is obvious that this figure is here. This is why the GD Teams cannot be established because there is financial implication. I would further reply to the points raised by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also Miss Cecilia YEUNG, that mandatory confiscation must be a temporary measure. We must do more for hawker control but unfortunately we need public land for hawker bazaars and the allocation of public land is not within the jurisdiction of this Council, but we shall look further into what the Council can do about licensing policy and about the establishment of the GD Teams. I would like to tell Members that being the Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee is not a pleasant job. I should receive support or criticism from one side and also receive support and criticism from other side, but the only purpose of the Hawkers Select Committee is to serve the public. Anything we did or anything we are going to do is for the public interest. With this in mind I think I have replied to the Members who have expressed their views on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 102 of 174

Baseline (Original)

Page 102 of 174 166 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL of the General Duties Teams in Kowloon, and, perhaps understandably, the inability of the Police to undertake wider responsibilities for hawker control at the expense of their main duty of maintaining law and order, mere arrests and negligible fines are simply not effective deterrents to achieve any form of meaningful control. The Council owes a duty to the public to protect it from dirt, noise, smell, obstruction and health hazards caused by hawkers. Hawking is a commercial activity like shopkeeping, the only difference being that it takes place in a public place (for which it does not have to pay rent and other overheads) instead of on private premises. We should not and indeed cannot escape from our responsibility of controlling un- licensed hawking to an extent at which the interests of shopkeepers, other licensed and law-abiding hawkers and indeed residents in the area are protected. Indeed, quite a number of shopkeepers have been accusing this Council of appeasing unlicensed hawkers at their expense. If the present provision for confiscation of goods is removed, one of the best ways of enforcing hawker legislation is lost and this Council might just as well give up any hope of ever controlling unlicensed hawkers properly. Indeed, if this Council is sincere in its statement of aim to control hawking, then it makes no sense to me to attempt to take away or water down one of the most effective means of enforcement, Hawker is a complicated problem and is of great concern to all Members of this Council who must basically have the interest of the general public in mind. The political consequence of overemphasising the interest of a minority group, such as unlicensed hawkers, at the expense of the general public would be disastrous. Mandatory con- fiscation is not the only method we should adopt in solving the question of unlicensed hawkers. It is one of many means of controlling hawking and discouraging unlicensed hawking, I am confident that there will be more measures taken in solving the complicated hawker problem according to our agreed aims provided that we tackle the problem systematically and conscientiously. We must guard against misplaced sentiment and sympathy. What is most important to me is that the Council must be fair to all parties concerned and if the Council has to be tough in achieving this aim, then tough we have to be. Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. CHAIRMAN (in English): ---Does Dr. Hu wish to exercise his right of reply? HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 102 of 174 167 DR. HU (in English):-I quite share the feeling of Mrs. ELLIOTT, Mr. CHAN and Mr. CHOW. I think Members will remember that I was the one who argued most strongly against mandatory confiscation in Select Committee all the time. I also share the views of Mr. F. K. HU. This section 50 to amend Section 58 is a technical matter to strengthen our hawker control according to our established policy. This is exactly what Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN said. The issue of mandatory confiscation was very fully argued in the last open meeting. I do not want to go into detail about this argument. However, I would reply to the 2 points which were made by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also my friend, Mr. MACKENZIE. Mr. CHEONG-LEEN said that a GD Team should be established. I entirely share his view that he said a decision on which for various reasons has not yet been taken. The obstacle does not lie with the Hawkers Select Committee, we want it to be set up as soon as possible. Mr. MACKENZIE spoke about the original position of this formulation of hawker policy. I did resign from the Hawkers Select Committee because of this mandatory confiscation because I anticipated the passing of this law. About Mr. MACKENZIE's view that there is no progress of hawker policy or hawker management, first I would reply that the money allocated to the Hawkers Select Committee for opera- tional use and for non-recurrent use for 1978-79 is only $2,606,000. The operational and non-recurrent expenses allocated to City Hall and Entertainments Select Committee, that is in Mr. MACKENZIE's view, for the good entertainment of the public, which I am proud of, the money spent on public entertainment in 1978-79 is $31,537,550. It is more than 10 times what we spend on control of hawkers. It is obvious that this figure is here. This is why the GD Teams cannot be established because there is financial implication. I would further reply to the points raised by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also Miss Cecilia YEUNG, that mandatory confiscation must be a temporary measure. We must do more for hawker control but unfortunately we need public land for hawker bazaars and the allocation of public land is not within the jurisdiction of this Council, but we shall look further into what the Council can do about licensing policy and about the establishment of the GD Teams. I would like to tell Members that being the Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee is not a pleasant job. I should receive support or criticism from one side and also receive support and criticism from other side, but the only purpose of the Hawkers Select Committee is to serve the public. Anything we did or anything we are going to do is for the public interest. With this in mind I think I have replied to the Members who have expressed their views on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2026-05-15 03:48:01 · Baseline

View content

Page 102 of 174

166

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

The Council owes a duty to the public to protect it from dirt, noise, smell, obstruction and health hazards caused by hawkers. Hawking is a commercial activity like shopkeeping, the only difference being that it takes place in a public place (for which it does not have to pay rent and other overheads) instead of on private premises. We should not and indeed cannot escape from our responsibility of controlling un- licensed hawking to an extent at which the interests of shopkeepers, other licensed and law-abiding hawkers and indeed residents in the area are protected. Indeed, quite a number of shopkeepers have been accusing this Council of appeasing unlicensed hawkers at their expense. If the present provision for confiscation of goods is removed, one of the best ways of enforcing hawker legislation is lost and this Council might just as well give up any hope of ever controlling unlicensed hawkers properly. Indeed, if this Council is sincere in its statement of aim to control hawking, then it makes no sense to me to attempt to take away or water down one of the most effective means of enforcement,

Hawker is a complicated problem and is of great concern to all Members of this Council who must basically have the interest of the general public in mind. The political consequence of overemphasising the interest of a minority group, such as unlicensed hawkers, at the expense of the general public would be disastrous. Mandatory con- fiscation is not the only method we should adopt in solving the question of unlicensed hawkers. It is one of many means of controlling hawking and discouraging unlicensed hawking, I am confident that there will be more measures taken in solving the complicated hawker problem according to our agreed aims provided that we tackle the problem systematically and conscientiously.

Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.

CHAIRMAN (in English): ---Does Dr. Hu wish to exercise his right of reply?

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 102 of 174

167

DR. HU (in English):-I quite share the feeling of Mrs. ELLIOTT, Mr. CHAN and Mr. CHOW. I think Members will remember that I was the one who argued most strongly against mandatory confiscation in Select Committee all the time. I also share the views of Mr. F. K. HU. This section 50 to amend Section 58 is a technical matter to strengthen our hawker control according to our established policy. This is exactly what Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN said. The issue of mandatory confiscation was very fully argued in the last open meeting. I do not want to go into detail about this argument. However, I would reply to the 2 points which were made by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also my friend, Mr. MACKENZIE. Mr. CHEONG-LEEN said that a GD Team should be established. I entirely share his view that he said a decision on which for various reasons has not yet been taken. The obstacle does not lie with the Hawkers Select Committee, we want it to be set up as soon as possible. Mr. MACKENZIE spoke about the original position of this formulation of hawker policy. I did resign from the Hawkers Select Committee because of this mandatory confiscation because I anticipated the passing of this law. About Mr. MACKENZIE's view that there is no progress of hawker policy or hawker management, first I would reply that the money allocated to the Hawkers Select Committee for opera- tional use and for non-recurrent use for 1978-79 is only $2,606,000. The operational and non-recurrent expenses allocated to City Hall and Entertainments Select Committee, that is in Mr. MACKENZIE's view, for the good entertainment of the public, which I am proud of, the money spent on public entertainment in 1978-79 is $31,537,550. It is more than 10 times what we spend on control of hawkers. It is obvious that this figure is here. This is why the GD Teams cannot be established because there is financial implication. I would further reply to the points raised by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and also Miss Cecilia YEUNG, that mandatory confiscation must be a temporary measure. We must do more for hawker control but unfortunately we need public land for hawker bazaars and the allocation of public land is not within the jurisdiction of this Council, but we shall look further into what the Council can do about licensing policy and about the establishment of the GD Teams. I would like to tell Members that being the Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee is not a pleasant job. I should receive support or criticism from one side and also receive support and criticism from other side, but the only purpose of the Hawkers Select Committee is to serve the public. Anything we did or anything we are going to do is for the public interest. With this in mind I think I have replied to the Members who have expressed their views on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1977 — Page 102

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note