1982 — Page 83

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 83 of 142

124

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

priorities lie. We know that the Urban Council will incur a deficit next year but we are not increasing rates. This is welcome news for everybody. Although expenses we are going to incur will increase, it is also difficult to increase our revenue. To increase hawker fees is one of our means. As a matter of fact, we are only maintaining the status quo. The subsidy from taxpayers will remain at the same percentage. With regard to hawkers, the Urban Council is losing money, the question is whether we are losing a lot more or a little less. Naturally, in order to solve the hawker problem in the long term, we must build more market complexes, which everyone believes is the ultimate solution. With the increase in fees, we will generate more revenue of $12m which could not even meet the cost of building one fifth of a modern market building. The money used in the control and management of hawkers is still greater than what we obtain from hawker licences. To be fair to the taxpayers, ratepayers and those who are legitimate businessmen, we should realistically and reasonably increase hawker licence fees. I support the motion.

MR. CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, a few members have mentioned the hawker problem and the subsidy we spend on illegal hawkers. I think they have confused certain points. If we want to make sure that the legal hawkers can work well, we must make sure that they are not disturbed by illegal hawkers. There are many reasons such as the world recession and the political problems of Hong Kong which cause many people to be unemployed and this number will increase. On the other hand, our society is different from Singapore in that we have a great increase in population. So all this added together means an increase of unlicensed hawkers, the number can never become stable. It will continue to increase. If we do not increase our G.D. Teams, all our roads will be chaotic because there is no difference in fact between licensed and unlicensed hawkers. In the present circumstances, we must make sure that the enforcement teams are stronger and proportionally we must make sure those licensed and unlicensed hawkers can receive the same amount of subsidy and even if we do upset this proportion, we are actually working for the interest of the licensed hawkers, so I hope that the members here will look at this question in perspective.

CHAIRMAN (in English): Mr. CHUNG, I will take up that you are not speaking the second time but that you have reserved your speech as the seconder of the motion.

MR. LAU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, very often, when we talk about money, it's a very sensitive issue. If we say that we need to build market complexes to solve this problem, and in each complex, we have about 400 to 600 stalls, that means even when we go into the 2020 year, we still cannot solve the problem. We have in fact discussed this problem at the Standing Committee meeting and we hope to increase the number of G.D. Teams to control the hawkers, and also to increase our equipment so that they can work more efficiently. So, I think the increase this time is very reasonable and even in our neighbouring countries, they also make charges on cleaning up hawkers and I think this time the proposal is very reasonable and acceptable, and I support the motion.

MISS YEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that now that we have the names and addresses of the new licensed hawkers, and we can therefore raise their licence fees. But a lot of hawkers are unlicensed and they are out of our control. In the past, many hawkers often say that they were licensed, they had to keep under rules, to be arrested and had to accept the increase of licence fees, while those unlicensed hawkers are not under the law and they are actually spoiling the environment. They are doing all the wrong and we are suffering all the consequences. So if we want to increase fees, we must make sure that our management is better so that the licensed hawkers will have a stable living and their livelihood is not affected by the unlicensed hawkers and therefore, even if they have to pay a little bit more, they feel that it's justified. The hawker problem has been discussed for a long time and we have the G.D. Teams to help us, but still this problem is with us and I am sure that every member can see the result clearly. We do spend a lot of money on G.D. Teams and the proportion is something that we must keep in mind. I am against the increase.

MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I have some points to raise. Before I join the Urban Council, it only cost a few cents for a fish-ball noodle, but nowadays, several dollars. In those days, a dollar for 5 or 6 oranges while nowadays 10 dollars for only 2 or 3. The hawker licence fees should be in direct relation to inflation. Just as we pay only a few hundred dollars for a cleansing staff before, but now several thousand dollars. This is a fact of life. As to the problem of unlicensed hawkers, we have overlooked some points. Some money we spent on G.D. Teams are illogical. Every time when there is a fee increase, I object. If we do not use the G.D. Teams, the Hawker Control Force in the past, but use the Policemen. Of course, the money we spent is lower as the Policemen are not paid by Urban Council but by the Central Government. But it is unfair because once we arrest a hawker and we bring them to court, the magistrate will confiscate their goods. Recently in the newspaper, it reflected that even their carts were confiscated, not even their goods. However, this income does not go into the Urban Council. Our expenditure is great but income is less. So I think it is only playing a game of figures. Nowadays, a shoeblack has to pay $200 for a licence. In the past, only $20. In the past, 20¢ for a shoe with wax, but nowadays $4 for the same job. Maybe these are under estimation. For cooked food stall, it costs over $10,000 for the licence a year. For those who are enjoying good business may think it's reasonable. So to be realistic and for the point of view of a businessman, nobody will disagree with me and think that these figures are unreasonable. So let's be pragmatic. Let's look into inflation and see how many will be out of business because they cannot pay the licence fee. I don't think there is any. So I support the motion.

Page 83 of 142

125

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 84 of 142 (expected but not provided in the original snippet)

becomes

Page 83 of 14

into
as it is not a valid page numbering and seems to be a typo or misplaced information. The original text is kept intact for the rest.

Edit History

2026-05-15 10:27:05 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 83 of 142 124 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL priorities lie. We know that the Urban Council will incur a deficit next year but we are not increasing rates. This is welcome news for everybody. Although expenses we are going to incur will increase, it is also difficult to increase our revenue. To increase hawker fees is one of our means. As a matter of fact, we are only maintaining the status quo. The subsidy from taxpayers will remain at the same percentage. With regard to hawkers, the Urban Council is losing money, the question is whether we are losing a lot more or a little less. Naturally, in order to solve the hawker problem in the long term, we must build more market complexes, which everyone believes is the ultimate solution. With the increase in fees, we will generate more revenue of $12m which could not even meet the cost of building one fifth of a modern market building. The money used in the control and management of hawkers is still greater than what we obtain from hawker licences. To be fair to the taxpayers, ratepayers and those who are legitimate businessmen, we should realistically and reasonably increase hawker licence fees. I support the motion. MR. CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, a few members have mentioned the hawker problem and the subsidy we spend on illegal hawkers. I think they have confused certain points. If we want to make sure that the legal hawkers can work well, we must make sure that they are not disturbed by illegal hawkers. There are many reasons such as the world recession and the political problems of Hong Kong which cause many people to be unemployed and this number will increase. On the other hand, our society is different from Singapore in that we have a great increase in population. So all this added together means an increase of unlicensed hawkers, the number can never become stable. It will continue to increase. If we do not increase our G.D. Teams, all our roads will be chaotic because there is no difference in fact between licensed and unlicensed hawkers. In the present circumstances, we must make sure that the enforcement teams are stronger and proportionally we must make sure those licensed and unlicensed hawkers can receive the same amount of subsidy and even if we do upset this proportion, we are actually working for the interest of the licensed hawkers, so I hope that the members here will look at this question in perspective. CHAIRMAN (in English): Mr. CHUNG, I will take up that you are not speaking the second time but that you have reserved your speech as the seconder of the motion. MR. LAU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, very often, when we talk about money, it's a very sensitive issue. If we say that we need to build market complexes to solve this problem, and in each complex, we have about 400 to 600 stalls, that means even when we go into the 2020 year, we still cannot solve the problem. We have in fact discussed this problem at the Standing Committee meeting and we hope to increase the number of G.D. Teams to control the hawkers, and also to increase our equipment so that they can work more efficiently. So, I think the increase this time is very reasonable and even in our neighbouring countries, they also make charges on cleaning up hawkers and I think this time the proposal is very reasonable and acceptable, and I support the motion. MISS YEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that now that we have the names and addresses of the new licensed hawkers, and we can therefore raise their licence fees. But a lot of hawkers are unlicensed and they are out of our control. In the past, many hawkers often say that they were licensed, they had to keep under rules, to be arrested and had to accept the increase of licence fees, while those unlicensed hawkers are not under the law and they are actually spoiling the environment. They are doing all the wrong and we are suffering all the consequences. So if we want to increase fees, we must make sure that our management is better so that the licensed hawkers will have a stable living and their livelihood is not affected by the unlicensed hawkers and therefore, even if they have to pay a little bit more, they feel that it's justified. The hawker problem has been discussed for a long time and we have the G.D. Teams to help us, but still this problem is with us and I am sure that every member can see the result clearly. We do spend a lot of money on G.D. Teams and the proportion is something that we must keep in mind. I am against the increase. MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I have some points to raise. Before I join the Urban Council, it only cost a few cents for a fish-ball noodle, but nowadays, several dollars. In those days, a dollar for 5 or 6 oranges while nowadays 10 dollars for only 2 or 3. The hawker licence fees should be in direct relation to inflation. Just as we pay only a few hundred dollars for a cleansing staff before, but now several thousand dollars. This is a fact of life. As to the problem of unlicensed hawkers, we have overlooked some points. Some money we spent on G.D. Teams are illogical. Every time when there is a fee increase, I object. If we do not use the G.D. Teams, the Hawker Control Force in the past, but use the Policemen. Of course, the money we spent is lower as the Policemen are not paid by Urban Council but by the Central Government. But it is unfair because once we arrest a hawker and we bring them to court, the magistrate will confiscate their goods. Recently in the newspaper, it reflected that even their carts were confiscated, not even their goods. However, this income does not go into the Urban Council. Our expenditure is great but income is less. So I think it is only playing a game of figures. Nowadays, a shoeblack has to pay $200 for a licence. In the past, only $20. In the past, 20¢ for a shoe with wax, but nowadays $4 for the same job. Maybe these are under estimation. For cooked food stall, it costs over $10,000 for the licence a year. For those who are enjoying good business may think it's reasonable. So to be realistic and for the point of view of a businessman, nobody will disagree with me and think that these figures are unreasonable. So let's be pragmatic. Let's look into inflation and see how many will be out of business because they cannot pay the licence fee. I don't think there is any. So I support the motion. Page 83 of 142 125 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 84 of 142 (expected but not provided in the original snippet) becomes Page 83 of 14 into as it is not a valid page numbering and seems to be a typo or misplaced information. The original text is kept intact for the rest.

Baseline (Original)

Page 83 of 142 124 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL priorities lie. We know that the Urban Council will incur a deficit next year but we are not increasing rates. This is welcome news for everybody. Although expenses we are going to incur will increase. it is also difficult to increase our revenue. To increase hawker fees is one of our means. As a matter of fact, we are only maintaining the status quo. The subsidy from taxpayers will remain at the same percentage. With regard to hawkers, the Urban Council is losing money, the question is whether we are losing a lot more or a little less. Naturally, in order to solve the hawker problem in the long term, we must build more market complexes, which everyone believes is the ultimate solution. With the increase in fees, we will generate more revenue of $12m which could not even meet the cost of building one fifth of a modern market building. The money used in the control and management of hawkers is still greater than what we obtain from hawker licences. To be fair to the taxpayers, ratepayers and those who are legitimate businessmen, we should realistically and reasonably increase hawker licence fees. I support the motion. MR. CHUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, a few members have mentioned the hawker problem the subsidy we spend on illegal hawkers. I think they have confused certain points. If we went to make sure that the legal hawkers can work well, we must make sure that they are not disturbed by illegal hawkers. There are many reasons such as the world recession and the political problems of Hong Kong which cause many people to be unemployed and this number will increase. On the other hand, our society is different from Singapore in that we have a great increase in population. So all this added together means an increase of unlicensed hawkers, the number can never become stable. It will continue to increase. If we do not increase our G.D. Teams, all our roads will be chaotic because there is no difference in fact between licensed and unlicensed hawkers. In the present circumstances, we must make sure that the enforcement teams are stronger and proportionally we must make sure those licensed and unlicensed hawkers can receive the same amount of subsidy and even if we do upset this proportion, we are actually working for the interest of the licensed hawkers, so I hope that the members here will look at this question in perspective. CHAIRMAN (in English):-Mr. CHUNG, I will take up that you are not speaking the second time but that you have reserved your speech as the seconder of the motion. MR. LAU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, very often, when we talk about money, it's a very sensitive issue. If we say that we need to build market complexes to solve this problem, and in each complex, we have about 400 to 600 stalls, that means even when we go into the 2020 year, we still cannot solve the problem. We have in fact discussed this problem at the Standing Committee meeting and we hope to increase the number of G.D. Teams to control the hawkers, and also to increase our equipment so that they can work more efficiently. So, I think the increase this time is very reasonable and even in our HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 83 of 142 125 neighbouring countries, they also make charges on cleaning up hawkers and I think this time the proposal is very reasonable and acceptable, and I support the motion. MISS YEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that now that we have the names and addresses of the new licensed hawkers, and we can therefore raise their licence fees. But a lot of hawkers are unlicensed and they are out of our control. In the past, many hawkers often say that they were licensed, they had to keep under rules, to be arrested and had to accept the increase of licence fees, while those unlicensed hawkers are not under the law and they are actually spoiling the environment. They are doing all the wrong and we are suffering all the consequences. So if we want to increase fees, we must make sure that our management is better so that the licensed hawkers will have a stable living and their livelihood is not affected by the unlicensed hawkers and therefore, even if they have to pay a little bit more, they feel that it's justified. The hawker problem has been discussed for a long time and we have the G.D. Teams to help us, but still this problem is with us and I am sure that every member can see the result clearly. We do spend a lot of money on G.D. Teams and the proportion is something that we must keep in mind. I am against the increase. .-.- MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I have some points to raise. Before I join the Urban Council, it only cost a few cents for a fish-ball noodle, but nowadays, several dollars. In those days, a dollar for 5 or 6 oranges while nowadays 10 dollars for only 2 or 3. The hawker licence fees should be in direct relation to inflation. Just as we pay only a few hundred dollars for a cleansing staff before, but now several thousand dollars. This is a fact of life. As to the problem of unlicensed hawkers, we have overlooked some points. Some money we spent on G.D. Teams are illogical. Every time when there is a fee increase, I object. If we do not use the G.D. Teams, the Hawker Control Force in the past, but use the Policemen. Of course, the money we spent is lower as the Policemen is not paid by Urban Council but by the Central Government. But it is unfair because once we arrest a hawker and we bring them to court, the magistrate will confiscate their goods. Recently in the newspaper, it reflected that even their carts were confiscated, not even their goods. However, this income does not go into the Urban Council. Our expenditure is great but income is less. So I think it is only playing a game of figures. Nowadays, a shoeblack has to pay $200 for a licence. In the past, only $20. In the past, 20¢ for a shoe with wax, but nowadays $4 for the same job. Maybe these are under estimation. For cooked food stall, it costs over $10,000 for the licence a year. For those who are enjoying good business may think it's reasonable. So to be realistic and for the point of view of a businessman, nobody will disagree with me and think that these figures are unreasonable. So let's be pragmatic. Let's look into inflation and see how many will be out of business because they cannot pay the licence fee. I don't think there is any. So I support the motion. Page 83 of 14

2026-05-15 10:27:05 · Baseline

View content

Page 83 of 142

124

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

priorities lie. We know that the Urban Council will incur a deficit next year but we are not increasing rates. This is welcome news for everybody. Although expenses we are going to incur will increase. it is also difficult to increase our revenue. To increase hawker fees is one of our means. As a matter of fact, we are only maintaining the status quo. The subsidy from taxpayers will remain at the same percentage. With regard to hawkers, the Urban Council is losing money, the question is whether we are losing a lot more or a little less. Naturally, in order to solve the hawker problem in the long term, we must build more market complexes, which everyone believes is the ultimate solution. With the increase in fees, we will generate more revenue of $12m which could not even meet the cost of building one fifth of a modern market building. The money used in the control and management of hawkers is still greater than what we obtain from hawker licences. To be fair to the taxpayers, ratepayers and those who are legitimate businessmen, we should realistically and reasonably increase hawker licence fees. I support the motion.

MR. CHUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, a few members have mentioned the hawker problem the subsidy we spend on illegal hawkers. I think they have confused certain points. If we went to make sure that the legal hawkers can work well, we must make sure that they are not disturbed by illegal hawkers. There are many reasons such as the world recession and the political problems of Hong Kong which cause many people to be unemployed and this number will increase. On the other hand, our society is different from Singapore in that we have a great increase in population. So all this added together means an increase of unlicensed hawkers, the number can never become stable. It will continue to increase. If we do not increase our G.D. Teams, all our roads will be chaotic because there is no difference in fact between licensed and unlicensed hawkers. In the present circumstances, we must make sure that the enforcement teams are stronger and proportionally we must make sure those licensed and unlicensed hawkers can receive the same amount of subsidy and even if we do upset this proportion, we are actually working for the interest of the licensed hawkers, so I hope that the members here will look at this question in perspective.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-Mr. CHUNG, I will take up that you are not speaking the second time but that you have reserved your speech as the seconder of the motion.

MR. LAU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, very often, when we talk about money, it's a very sensitive issue. If we say that we need to build market complexes to solve this problem, and in each complex, we have about 400 to 600 stalls, that means even when we go into the 2020 year, we still cannot solve the problem. We have in fact discussed this problem at the Standing Committee meeting and we hope to increase the number of G.D. Teams to control the hawkers, and also to increase our equipment so that they can work more efficiently. So, I think the increase this time is very reasonable and even in our

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 83 of 142

125

neighbouring countries, they also make charges on cleaning up hawkers and I think this time the proposal is very reasonable and acceptable, and I support the

motion.

.-.-

MR. C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I have some points to raise. Before I join the Urban Council, it only cost a few cents for a fish-ball noodle, but nowadays, several dollars. In those days, a dollar for 5 or 6 oranges while nowadays 10 dollars for only 2 or 3. The hawker licence fees should be in direct relation to inflation. Just as we pay only a few hundred dollars for a cleansing staff before, but now several thousand dollars. This is a fact of life. As to the problem of unlicensed hawkers, we have overlooked some points. Some money we spent on G.D. Teams are illogical. Every time when there is a fee increase, I object. If we do not use the G.D. Teams, the Hawker Control Force in the past, but use the Policemen. Of course, the money we spent is lower as the Policemen is not paid by Urban Council but by the Central Government. But it is unfair because once we arrest a hawker and we bring them to court, the magistrate will confiscate their goods. Recently in the newspaper, it reflected that even their carts were confiscated, not even their goods. However, this income does not go into the Urban Council. Our expenditure is great but income is less. So I think it is only playing a game of figures. Nowadays, a shoeblack has to pay $200 for a licence. In the past, only $20. In the past, 20¢ for a shoe with wax, but nowadays $4 for the same job. Maybe these are under estimation. For cooked food stall, it costs over $10,000 for the licence a year. For those who are enjoying good business may think it's reasonable. So to be realistic and for the point of view of a businessman, nobody will disagree with me and think that these figures are unreasonable. So let's be pragmatic. Let's look into inflation and see how many will be out of business because they cannot pay the licence fee. I don't think there is any. So I support the motion.

1982 — Page 83

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note