Page 82 of 142
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
facilities, the situation has grown much worse, in spite of the increased cost of
hawker management from $41m in 1979 to $60m this year.
Only in areas where new markets or bazaars have been built is it possible to exercise any kind of control. In some of the older areas like Kwun Tong, hawking has got completely out of control. The population of Kwun Tong is now the densest in the territory, yet the town centre has even less marketing facilities than it had 10 years ago, one hawker bazaar having been dismantled and its re-building delayed for several years. The residents need the hawkers for their daily necessities, and through lack of proper facilities are encouraged to buy from illegal hawkers who block the roads and pavements. The same is true of other areas where multi-storey buildings are still served by markets that were inadequate 10 or 20 years ago, for example Kowloon City.
I know that we shall be reminded of a market building programme. Of that I am fully aware. But the need exists now, and by the time these markets are built they will already be inadequate for a growing population.
In answer to that argument we shall be told about the lack of land for markets. That is an old argument we have been fed throughout my 20 years on this Council. During those 20 years, demolitions have taken place to provide roads, bridges, the M.T.R., bus stations and other public works. Even parks and playgrounds have been taken away from the public in order to build public works. But when it comes to building markets or providing land for hawker bazaars to enable residents to buy their daily commodities, we are told that there is no land available. It is easier to get land for a betting centre than for a public market or bazaar.
The result is that people are driven to buying their goods where they can, from unlicensed hawkers where there are no licensed ones. There are now more unlicensed than licensed hawkers in Hong Kong, not only because people like to hawk for a living or because of underemployment, but because many of these hawkers are actually needed. Anyone who doubts this should try shopping in Kwun Tong when the hawkers are running round the block during a daily raid, a charade that costs the public millions of dollars and causes chaos on the roads as hawkers push their barrows through the traffic to escape arrest and return to their hawking positions ten minutes later.
Up to now, the build up of G.D. Teams has been a slow and expensive road to nowhere and the number of unlicensed hawkers appears to have increased rather than decreased. We keep raising the fees of licensed hawkers on a promise of better control, but all we do is to push the problem from one place to another, and make licensed hawkers and the public pay for the operation.
My proposal is that we must make a determined effort to estimate the marketing needs of every area, identify locations where markets or bazaars are most needed, acquire the land in the same way as it is acquired for other public works, and licence the long term unlicensed hawkers in those locations so that they can share the cost of hawker management. The present complacency with the present system is not acceptable and new thinking must go into solving the problems. Raising licence fees will certainly not solve these problems.
For these reasons I shall vote against the motion.
DR. Kwok (in English):-Mr. Chairman, as member of the M.S.T. Committee, I would like to point out that we should not confuse the two issues. First, on the control of illegal hawking, no one is denying that we were spending public money on it and we will continue to do so. How action actually is beneficial to the legal market and street traders making their operations more viable by cutting down on unfair competition, but to suggest that we are over charging the licensed hawkers to cover our expenditure on the control of illegal hawking is wrong because it is simply not true. If we look at the 1983-84 estimates for hawker management and control, the total expenditure is estimated to be $109.7m of which 90m are for the G.D. Teams which deal among other things with the illegal hawking problems assuming that the G.D. Teams spent two third of their time on the control of illegal hawkers who were still left with an expenditure of over $49m. For licensed hawkers, the total estimated revenue with the new fees and charges will amount to only $47m. Thus, we are still subsidizing the licensed hawkers. The increase in fees in line with the Council policy is meant to reduce the level of subsidy which is fair to shopkeepers and market stall operators who have to pay rent, registration fee as well as tax. I support the motion.
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese):—I welcome the proposal of decreasing the amount of tax-payers' money to decrease the subsidy to control hawkers. I have been in this Council for 15 years, and this hawker problem has always been with us. Now I do not have confidence in the foreseeable future in solving the problem, particularly as you, Mr. Chairman, mentioned a moment ago that in Singapore only 80 people needed to control all the hawkers and they are able to keep them under control and basically control the problem. Here we have a thousand to two thousand people and we spend a lot of money, still we do not have a way to solve the problem. So, under the circumstances, I abstain from voting this motion.
MR. YOUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in running public affairs, the Urban Council has to take into consideration the welfare of the public at large. Generally, it is clear that the public continues to have great demand for more recreational and cultural facilities. I am fully aware that the hawkers, licensed or unlicensed, are members of the public, but those who are working for a living and those who run businesses are also members of the public. If we do not increase hawker licence fees, it merely means that the amount that taxpayers pay in subsidizing hawker activities will become greater. In the case of conflicting interests, we are very often forced to make a decision as to where our
Page 82 of 142
123
122
Page 82 of 14
Page 82 of 142
Page 82 of 142
123
122
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
facilities, the situation has grown much worse, in spite of the increased cost of
hawker management from $41m in 1979 to $60m this year.
Only in areas where new markets or bazaars have been built is it possible to exercise any kind of control. In some of the older areas like Kwun Tong, hawking has got completely out of control. The population of Kwun Tong is now the densest in the territory, yet the town centre has even less marketing facilities than it had 10 years ago, one hawker bazaar having been dismantled and its re-building delayed for several years. The residents need the hawkers for their daily necessities, and through lack of proper facilities are encouraged to buy from illegal hawkers who block the roads and pavements. The same is true of other areas where multi-storey buildings are still served by markets that were inadequate 10 or 20 years ago, for example Kowloon City.
I know that we shall be reminded of a market building programme. Of that I am fully aware. But the need exists now, and by the time these markets are built they will already be inadequate for a growing population.
In answer to that argument we shall be told about the lack of land for markets. That is an old argument we have been fed throughout my 20 years on this Council. During those 20 years, demolitions have taken place to provide roads, bridges, the M.T.R., bus stations and other public works. Even parks and playgrounds have been taken away from the public in order to build public works. But when it comes to building markets or providing land for hawker bazaars to enable residents to buy their daily commodities, we are told that there is no land available. It is easier to get land for a betting centre than for a public market or bazaar.
The result is that people are driven to buying their goods where they can, from unlicensed hawkers where there are no licensed ones. There are now more unlicensed than licensed hawkers in Hong Kong, not only because people like to hawk for a living or because of underemployment, but because many of these hawkers are actually needed. Anyone who doubts this should try shopping in Kwun Tong when the hawkers are running round the block during a daily raid, a charade that costs the public millions of dollars and causes chaos on the roads as hawkers push their barrows through the traffic to escape arrest and return to their hawking positions ten minutes later.
Up to now, the build up of G.D. Teams has been a slow and expensive road to nowhere and the number of unlicensed hawkers appears to have increased rather than decreased. We keep raising the fees of licensed hawkers on a promise of better control, but all we do is to push the problem from one place to another, and make licensed hawkers and the public pay for the operation.
My proposal is that we must make a determined effort to estimate the marketing needs of every area, identify locations where markets or bazaars are most needed, acquire the land in the same way as it is acquired for other public works, and licence the long term unlicensed hawkers in those locations so that
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
they can share the cost of hawker management. The present complacency with the present system is not acceptable and new thinking must go into solving the problems. Raising licence fees will certainly not solve these problems.
For these reasons I shall vote against the motion.
DR. Kwok (in English):-Mr. Chairman, as member of the M.S.T. Committee, I would like to point out that we should not confuse the two issues. First, on the control of illegal hawking, no one is denying that we were spending public money on it and we will continue to do so. How action actually is benefitial to the legal market and street traders making their operations more viable by cutting down on unfair competition, but to suggest that we are over charging the licensed hawkers to cover our expenditure on the control of illegal hawking is wrong because it is simply not true. If we look at the 1983-84 estimates for hawker management and control, the total expenditure is estimated to be $109.7m of which 90m are for the G.D. Teams which due among other things with the illegal hawking problems assuming that the G.D. Teams spent two third of their time on the control of illegal hawkers who were still left with an expenditure of over $49m. For licensed hawkers, the total estimated revenue with the new fees and charges will amount to only $47m. Thus, we are still subsidizing the licensed hawkers. The increase in fees in line with the Council policy is meant to reduce the level of subsidy which is fair to shopkeepers and market stall operators who have to pay rent, registration fee as well as tax. I support the motion.
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese):—I welcome the proposal of decreasing the amount of tax-payers' money to decrease the subsidy to control hawkers. I have been in this Council for 15 years, and this hawker problem has always been with us. Now I do not have confidence in the foreseeable future in solving the problem, particularly as you, Mr. Chairman, mentioned a moment ago that in Singapore only 80 people needed to control all the hawkers and they are able to keep them under control and basically control the problem. Here we have a thousand to two thousand people and we spend a lot of money, still we do not have a way to solve the problem. So, under the circumstances, I abstain from voting this motion.
MR. YOUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in running public affairs, the Urban Council has to take into consideration the welfare of the public at large. Generally, it is clear that the public continues to have great demand for more recreational and cultural facilities. I am fully aware that the hawkers, licensed or unlicensed, are members of the public, but those who are working for a living and those who run businesses are also members of the public. If we do not increase hawker licence fees, it merely means that the amount that taxpayers pay in subsidizing hawker activities will become greater. In the case of conflicting interests, we are very often forced to make a decision as to where our
Page 82 of 14
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.