Page 85 of 174
132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
When this matter came up to Standing Committee on another aspect a few weeks ago, Members will recall how vividly I detailed my opposition to this whole principle. I need not repeat myself, except to say that hawkers generally are very incensed over this matter, and the magistrates themselves, by and large, are very opposed to it. Their recent nominal or very low fines are in most cases because of this additional compulsory forfeiture penalty. If Hong Kong is to function as it should function, we need two things, namely, confidence in our judicial services, and confidence in the disciplinary services. For some cases of deliberately flouting the law time and time again, forfeiture of an unlicensed hawker's goods is perhaps a necessity, but I say, leave it to the discretion of the magistrate who tries the case, do not make it compulsory.
The second is confidence in the disciplinary forces. I have always been an advocate of controlled hawking, rather than uncontrolled hawking by leaving it to the penalties of the law, to effect control. The police are of course the natural disciplinary body to control hawkers in the execution of their more general duty to keep law and order. But if for any reason they are unable to do so, then I advocate strongly a very greatly extended Hawker Control Force. The original proposal from the Urban Council and I am now going back almost 20 years, was a Force of 2,000 strong, we got a Force of only a few hundred. If the Urban Council is still to be given the responsibility to control hawkers, then I say we ought willingly to accept the continuing challenge, provided we are given the tools. But please I beg of you as a Council, do not leave it to the so-called penalties of the law, to control hawking for you. It has never worked ever, in all the centuries of recorded history. It only excites resentment to harsh and unfair penalties. With these few words, I second the Motion.
CHAIRMAN (in English):--Thank you. The motion has been proposed by Mrs. ELLIOTT and seconded by Mr. BERNACCHI. It is open for discussion now.
MR. TSIN SAI-NIN (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, I feel that hawking is one of the most inefficient aspects of our work. Confiscation of goods cannot solve the hawking problem. It can only aggravate discontent and dissatisfaction of our people. I feel that the Hawker By-laws should be amended. Except for special circumstances, there should not be mandatory confiscation of goods, and finally I feel that the Urban Council should actively try to solve the hawking problem and we should also seek public opinion and work together with hawkers and associations to solve this problem.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
133
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, we have heard the reasons for confiscation of goods but we must also review why the law came into existence in the first place. Since April 1976 and up to March 1977, Police and Hawker Control Force have together prosecuted 110,000 cases for obstruction and illegal hawking, but obstruction by hawkers has not improved substantially. The main reason is because fines imposed by courts are very low. On the average, it is about $20 per case. Because the fine is minimal, therefore, hawkers will regard it as one of their items of oncost and therefore they tend to commit offences continually. As to fines, I do not have any statistics for illegal hawkers, but for licensed hawkers and based on a survey by the Urban Services Department it is revealed that a hawker by the surname of Wong had, since November 1973 up to July 1977, in these 31 months, been arrested 654 times, with total fines of $7,431, that is, the average fine was $11. Another hawker by the surname of Chung during the same period had been arrested 467 times, with total fines of $5,234, that is an average of about $11 each fine. In this long period of 31 months, on average the first hawker had been arrested once every 2 days and the second hawker had been arrested once every 3 days. Of course, they have always repeated the offence in spite of the fine and this has shown that a small fine cannot have any deterrent effect. Cases of prosecution of unlicensed hawkers are even more numerous than licensed hawkers. Six months ago, the Urban Council passed a ruling to confiscate the goods of unlicensed hawkers convicted of obstruction. The main purpose is to control the number of unlicensed hawkers and also to prevent unlicensed hawkers from obstructing our streets. Many people feel that members of the public turn to hawking when they are unemployed. This explanation is not entirely satisfactory. Our industrial sector still wants more labour and in fact, since September 1975 to March 1976, the number of hawkers dropped by about 14.4% and from March 1976 to March 1977, it dropped another 3.9%. This shows that quite a number of them have sought employment in another sector. If members of the public are very poor and cannot make a living they can apply to the Social Welfare Department for public assistance and it is not necessary for them to turn to hawking. If a person does not want to seek employment in a factory or in shops and decides to take up hawking temporarily as an interim measure, then he can hawk in a hawker permitted area but he should not hawk without a licence in our thoroughfares and cause obstruction to traffic in our busy streets. Hawkers of course can do very good business and that is why our unlicensed hawkers all gather in our busy streets. By doing so they would affect the business of shops in the area, obstruct public transport, affect fire vehicles' movement, and also affect
Page 85
Page 86
Page 86 of 174
Page 85 of 174
Page 85 of 174
132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
When this matter came up to Standing Committee on another aspect a few weeks ago, Members will recall how vividly I detailed my opposition to this whole principle. I need not repeat myself, except to say that hawkers generally are very incensed over this matter, and the magistrates themselves, by and large, are very opposed to it. Their recent nominal or very low fines are in most cases because of this additional compulsory forfeiture penalty. If Hong Kong is to function as it should function, we need two things, namely, confidence in our judicial services, and confidence in the disciplinary services. For some cases of deliberately flouting the law time and time again, forfeiture of an unlicensed hawker's goods is perhaps a necessity, but I say, leave it to the discretion of the magistrate who tries the case, do not make it compulsory.
The second is confidence in the disciplinary forces. I have always been an advocate of controlled hawking, rather than uncontrolled hawk- ing by leaving it to the penalties of the law, to effect control. The police are of course the natural disciplinary body to control hawkers in the execution of their more general duty to keep law and order. But if for any reason they are unable to do so, then I advocate strongly a very greatly extended Hawker Control Force. The original proposal from the Urban Council and I am now going back almost 20 years, was a Force of 2,000 strong, we got a Force of only a few hundred. If the Urban Council is still to be given the responsibility to control hawkers, then I say we ought willingly to accept the continuing chal- lenge, provided we are given the tools. But please I beg of you as a Council, do not leave it to the so-called penalties of the law, to control hawking for you. It has never worked ever, in all the centuries of recorded history. It only excites recentment to harsh and unfair penalties. With these few works, I second the Motion.
CHAIRMAN (in English):--Thank you. The motion has been It is proposed by Mrs. ELLIOTT and seconded by Mr. BERNACCHI. open for discussion now.
MR. TSIN SAI-NIN (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, I feel that hawking is one of the most inefficient aspects of our work. Confisca- tion of goods cannot solve the hawking problem. It can only aggravate discontent and dissatisfaction of our people. I feel that the Hawker By-laws should be amended. Except for special circumstances, there should not be mandatory confiscation of goods, and finally I feel that the Urban Council should actively try to solve the hawking problem and we should also seek public opinion and work together with hawkers and associations to solve this problem.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
133
MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, we have heard the reasons for confiscation of goods but we must also review why the law came into existence in the first place. Since April 1976 and up to March 1977, Police and Hawker Control Force have together prosecuted 110,000 cases for obstruction and illegal hawking, but obstruc- tion by hawkers has not improved substantially. The main reason is because fines imposed by courts are very low. On the average, it is about $20 per case. Because the fine is minimal, therefore, hawkers will regard it as one of their items of oncost and therefore they tend to commit offences continually. As to fines, I do not have any statistics for illegal hawkers, but for licensed hawkers and based on a survey by the Urban Services Department it is revealed that a hawker by the surname of Wong had, since November 1973 up to July 1977, in these 31 years, been arrested 654 times, with total fines of $7,431, that is, the average fine was $11. Another hawker by the surname of Chung during the same period had been arrested 467 times, with total fines of $5,234, that is an average of about $11 each fine. In this long period of 34 years, in average the first hawker had been arrested once every 2 days and the second hawker had been arrested once every 3 days. Of course, they have always repeated the offence inspite of the fine and this has shown that a small fine cannot have any deterrent effect. Cases of prosecution of unlicensed hawkers are even more numerous than licensed hawkers. Six months ago, the Urban Council passed a ruling to confiscate the goods of unlicensed hawkers convicted of obstruction. The main purpose is to control the number of unlicensed hawkers and also to prevent unlicensed hawkers from obstructing our streets. Many people feel that members of the public turn to hawking when they are unemployed. This explanation is not entirely satisfactory. Our industrial sector still wants more labour and in fact, since September 1975 to March 1976, the number of hawkers dropped by about 14.4% and from March 1976 to March 1977, it dropped another 3.9%. This shows that quite a number of them have sought employment in another sector. If members of the public are very poor and cannot make a living they can apply to the Social Welfare Department for public assistance and is not necessary for them to turn to hawking. If a person does not want to seek employment in a factory or in shops and decides to take up hawking temporarily as an interim measure, then he can hawk in a hawker permitted area but he should not hawk without a licence in our thoroughfares and cause obstruction to traffic in our busy streets. Hawkers of course can do very good business and that is why our unlicensed hawkers all gather in our busy streets. By doing so they would affect the business of shops in the area, obstruct public transport, affect fire vehicles' movement, and also affect
Page 85Page 86
Page 86 of 174
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.