Page 99 of 174
1:61
160
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
under section 83B(3) of the Ordinance which, however, allows the court, if it finds reasons special to the facts of the case, to decline ordering confiscation. To enable the Council to make full use of mandatory confiscation as an effective means of enforcement in hawker control and to achieve a common standard of penalty for unlicensed hawking, it is considered necessary to make an offence against section 83B(3) of the Ordinance a designated offence under by-law 58.
I beg to move.
MR. F. K. HU (in English):-As Member of the Hawkers Select Committee. I rise to second the motion and in accordance with Standing Order No. 21, sub-paragraph 10, I reserve my speech.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):-I rise to oppose the Motion.
It has always been claimed as a feature of British Justice that the Judiciary is free from the Legislature. This Motion before us today, along with the legislation which the Motion aims at amending, is a denial of this elementary principle of the freedom of the Judiciary.
The Urban Council has stated unashamedly, and I quote: "In order to uphold the current policy and to continue making use of mandatory confiscation as an effective means of enforcement, it is necessary to amend the legislation in appropriate places." This Council is therefore publicly admitting that it has failed in its hawker policy, and is now using the courts to make up for its failings and do its dirty work.
Please pause and consider what would happen in any state if the Legislature imposed mandatory sentences on all offences and crimes, and turned the law-courts into instruments of legislative oppression. What the proposers of this Motion now intend to do could be copied throughout all the Government Departments of Hong Kong, leaving the Judiciary without means of administering justice, and therefore negating the need for the existence of independent courts of law.
Among our Hawker Aims there is mention of social welfare and of hawking as a buffer against unemployment. Your Motion today contradicts your own aims, and removes from the Judiciary any possibility of using discretion or compassion.
When my Motion against mandatory confiscation was defeated last month by this Council, you called down upon yourselves the judgment of the public and the press. This judgment you have ignored. You have flouted the public you claim to serve.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
If you pass this Motion today, I can only say that you are shameless, unjust and immune to public opinion or advice.
Let the result of your actions be on your own heads.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I am against mandatory confiscation and therefore I shall refrain from voting on this motion.
THE HON. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):-Mr. Chairman.
Hawkers
I support this motion with reservations since, as I have said many times in Standing Committee of the Whole Council, mandatory confiscation is not a permanent solution to the hawker situation and can only be a temporary and stop-gap measure.
The immediate answer lies in the Urban Council taking the decisive step to increase without delay the number of General Duties Teams. At present, there are three GD Teams in Kowloon, one on Hong Kong Island and a fifth Team becoming operational on the Island next March.
There is an urgent need for the Urban Council to make up its mind to have another four GD Teams for Kowloon, a decision on which for various reasons has not yet been taken.
Admittedly, the additional four GD Teams will mean a further cost of $8 million a year. Although this is a sizeable sum, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the hawker problem is partly social and economic, and that it is impossible for the Urban Council to recover what it spends on hawkers by way of licence fees. In fact, such expenditure should be regarded as a benefit to the urban community who are able to buy cheaply and conveniently the goods which are sold by hawkers.
Once the Urban Services Department, which is the operating arm of the Urban Council, has sufficient staff on the ground, particularly in Kowloon, it will be possible for the Council to issue hawker licences to the genuine hawkers who do not yet have licences in designated areas where USD control has become stabilized and effective.
We cannot rely too heavily on the Police, whose principal function is to preserve law and order, or the Judiciary in imposing mandatory
Page 99 of 174
1:61
160
Page 99 of 174
Page 99 of 174
1:61
160
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
under section 83B(3) of the Ordinance which, however, allows the court, if it finds reasons special to the facts of the case, to decline ordering confiscation. To enable the Council to make full use of mandatory confiscation as an effective means of enforcement in hawker control and to achieve a common standard of penalty for unlicensed hawking, it is considered necessary to make an offence against section 83B(3) of the Ordinance a designated offence under by-law 58.
I beg to move.
MR. F. K. HU (in English):-As Member of the Hawkers Select Committee. I rise to second the motion and in accordance with Standing Order No. 21, sub-paragraph 10, I reserve my speech.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):-I rise to oppose the Motion.
It has always been claimed as a feature of British Justice that the Judiciary is free from the Legislature. This Motion before us today, along with the legislation which the Motion aims at amending, is a denial of this elementary principle of the freedom of the Judiciary.
The Urban Council has stated unashamedly, and I quote: "In order to uphold the current policy and to continue making use of manda- tory confiscation as an effective means of enforcement, it is necessary to amend the legislation in appropriate places." This Council is therefore publicly admitting that it has failed in its hawker policy, and is now using the courts to make up for its failings and do its dirty work.
Please pause and consider what would happen in any state if the Legislature imposed mandatory sentences on all offences and crimes, and turned the law-courts into instruments of legislative oppression. What the proposers of this Motion now intend to do could be copied throughout all the Government Departments of Hong Kong, leaving the Judiciary without means of administering justice, and therefore negating the need for the existence of independent courts of law.
Among our Hawker Aims there is mention of social welfare and of hawking as a buffer against unemployment. Your Motion today con- tradicts your own aims, and removes from the Judiciary and possibility of using discretion or compassion.
When my Motion against mandatory confiscation was defeated last month by this Council, you called down upon yourselves the judg. ment of the public and the press. This judgment you have ignored. You have flouted the public you claim to serve.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
If you pass this Motion today, I can only say that you are shame- less, unjust and immune to public opinion or advice.
Let the result of your actions be on your own heads.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I am against mandatory confiscation and therefore I shall refrain from voting on this motion.
THE HON. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):-Mr. Chairman.
Hawkers
I support this motion with reservations since, as I have said many times in Standing Committee of the Whole Council, mandatory con- fiscation is not a permanent solution to the hawker situation and can only be a temporary and stop-gap measure.
The immediate answer lies in the Urban Council taking the decisive step to increase without delay the number of General Duties Teams. At present, there are three GD Teams in Kowloon, one on Hong Kong Island and a fifth Team becoming operational on the Island next March.
There is an urgent need for the Urban Council to make up its mind to have another four GD Teams for Kowloon, a decision on which for various reasons has not yet been taken.
Admittedly, the additional four GD Teams will mean a further cost of $8 million a year. Although this is a sizeable sum, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the hawker problem is partly social and economic, and that it is impossible for the Urban Council to recover what it spends on hawkers by way of licence fees. In fact, such expenditure should be regarded as a benefit to the urban com- munity who are able to buy cheaply and conveniently the goods which are sold by hawkers.
Once the Urban Services Department, which is the operating arm of the Urban Council, has sufficient staff on the ground, particularly in Kowloon, it will be possible for the Council to issue hawker licences to the genuine hawkers who do not yet have licences in designated areas where USD control has become stabilized and effective.
We cannot rely too heavily on the Police, whose principal function is to preserve law and order, or the Judiciary in imposing mandatory
Pas
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.