Page 157 of 194
278
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
per
deciding whether this Council should go on spending HK$70 million annum to subsidize the operations of licenced and inter alia unlicenced hawkers.'
Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name. One of the biggest problems this Council has had to deal with in its 100 years of existence has been the problem posed by the need to control hawkers. It is also one of the most expensive problems this Council faces. Our subsidy of hawker related activities runs to over HK$70 million per annum which excludes the considerable costs involved in constructing markets to house hawkers and thus get them off the streets.
It is therefore very surprising to me that we seem to know very little about the facts underlying the hawker problem.
We don't even know how many hawkers there are. We certainly don't know why hawkers become hawkers. We have no idea how much money they make or how much money they lose. We don't even seem to know why hawkers prefer certain areas to others, and we have no idea whether hawkers are an economic necessity for the life of the Territory's urban population or not. We also don't know whether hawkers fill a social need or not.
It could very well be that for the HK$70 million per annum we are spending on hawkers the City is getting a very good economic return. It could however also be possible that by getting rid of all hawkers we would improve the cost effectiveness of the retail trade. It could very well be that hawkers live a very happy and satisfying existence or on the contrary it might be that hawkers are extremely unhappy and would be very much better off doing another job altogether. We just don't know.
Without knowing such basic facts, how can we make sensible decisions about how, when and where to control hawkers. Is it in fact the right thing to put them all into markets? Is it the right thing to let them flourish illegally in many areas? Or is it the right thing to prohibit them entirely? I for one cannot give an answer to these questions, and I am reasonably certain nobody else in this chamber can either.
The reason therefore I am making this motion is to find an answer to the questions I have posed. What is needed is an entirely independent scientifically based enquiry into the hawker problem: Are they necessary economically? Do they fill a need in the psychological life of the City? What would happen if hawkers were banned entirely? And where and how would we re-employ them? Could we save the HK$70 million per annum we spend now, or should we perhaps double or treble the amount because we would get a cost effective return on an investment in the hawkers?
Mr. Chairman, I am proposing this motion because having asked these questions now for well over three years and not having received any answers,
}
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 157 of 194
279
I think it is time now we found some answers. I estimate from enquiries I have made that such an enquiry would take 12 to 18 months and would cost at most HK$300,000 probably quite less, which I think would be money well worth spending. I would propose to appoint one of our Universities to carry out the enquiry, possibly in conjunction with some graduate students' Ph.D. Thesis. I believe such a study would not only be beneficial for us but for the Community as a whole and could well be useful for many other big cities in Asia, all of whom face similar hawker problems.
I would ask all my fellow members present to give this proposal very serious consideration and would ask all of you to vote for the motion.
Sir, I beg to move.
MR. PAO PING-WING seconded (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. Recently, the hawker problem seems to be deteriorating in many areas. Members of the public find it intolerable and many complaints in the Urban Council relate to the hawker problem. Basically, the hawker problem is not just a problem of illegal hawking and a problem of amenities. The most serious thing is that many people feel that hawker problem is one of the causes of difficulties in the district, such as, they cause traffic congestion, health hazard, affect safety for pedestrians and fair competition with shops nearby, etc. Actually the hawker problem is one of the headaches faced by the district board recently. Many people blamed the Urban Council for the hawker problem. They think that we did not do a good job and people say that our G.D. Teams are not sufficiently staffed and are not up to the standard. But I feel these are only one-sided accusation. The hawker problem is really caused by many social problems and it is just one phenomena. It is a result but not a cause. There are various causes including the economic situation, the development of cities and the delineation of cities. Because of the Government's policy towards immigrants, Hong Kong people's buying habits, a co-ordination among Government departments on control of hawkers, etc., before the Urban Council and the U.S.D. review and make out new hawker policy, I fully support that we should invite people to let us have their comments on hawkers so that not only can we consider base on our years of experience but we will also have new ideas as well. I would especially like to point out that Mr. SULKE's enquiry is not a survey among hawkers. We do not want to find out how many hawkers there are or how much money they make, but rather various matters related to economic and social problems, so that in future, we can have this for detail discussion. Therefore, I support this motion and I second it.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. SULKE has been kind enough to send me a copy of his speech before the Chinese New Year vacation to enable me to put some of my thoughts on paper.
Page 157 of 194
278
...
Page 157 of 194
279
...
Page 157 of 194
278
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
per
deciding whether this Council should go on spending HK$70 million annum to subsidize the operations of licenced and inter alia unlicenced
hawkers.'
Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name. One of the biggest problems this Council has had to deal with in its 100 years of existence has been the problem posed by the need to control hawkers. It is also one of the most expensive problems this Council faces. Our subsidy of hawker related activities runs to over HK$70 million per annum which excludes the considerable costs involved in constructing markets to house hawkers and thus get them off the streets.
It is therefore very surprising to me that we seem to know very little about the facts underlying the hawker problem.
We don't even know how many hawkers there are. We certainly don't know why hawkers become hawkers. We have no idea how much money they make or how much money they lose. We don't even seem to know why hawkers prefer certain areas to others, and we have no idea whether hawkers are an economic necessity for the life of the Territory's urban population or not. We also don't know whether hawkers fill a social need or not.
It could very well be that for the HK$70 million per annum we are spending on hawkers the City is getting a very good economic return. It could however also be possible that by getting rid of all hawkers we would improve the cost effectiveness of the retail trade. It could very well be that hawkers live a very happy and satisfying existence or on the contrary it might be that hawkers are extremely unhappy and would be very much better off doing another job altogether. We just don't know.
Without knowing such basic facts, how can we make sensible decisions about how, when and where to control hawkers. Is it in fact the right thing to put them all into markets? Is it the right thing to let them flourish illegally in many areas? Or is it the right thing to prohibit them entirely? I for one cannot give an answer to these questions, and I am reasonably certain nobody else in this chamber can either.
The reason therefore I am making this motion is to find an answer to the questions I have posed. What is needed is an entirely independent scientifically based enquiry into the hawker problem: Are they necessary economically? Do they fill a need in the psychological life of the City? What would happen if hawkers were banned entirely? And where and how would we re-employ them? Could we save the HK$70 million per annum we spend now, or should we perhaps double or treble the amount because we would get a cost effective return on an investment in the hawkers?
Mr. Chairman, I am proposing this motion because having asked these questions now for well over three years and not having received any answers,
}
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 157 of 194
279
I think it is time now we found some answers. I estimate from enquiries I have made that such an enquiry would take 12 to 18 months and would cost at most HK$300,000 probably quite less, which I think would be money well worth spending. I would propose to appoint one of our Universities to carry out the enquiry, possibly in conjunction with some graduate students' Ph.D. Thesis. I believe such a study would not only be beneficial for us but for the Community as a whole and could well be useful for many other big cities in Asia, all of whom face similar hawker problems.
I would ask all my fellow members present to give this proposal very serious consideration and would ask all of you to vote for the motion.
Sir, I beg to move.
MR. PAO PING-WING seconded (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I support the motion. Recently, the hawker problem seems to be deteriorating in many areas. Members of the public find it intolerable and many complaints in the Urban Council relate to the hawker problem. Basically, the hawker problem is not just a problem of illegal hawking and a problem of amenities. The most serious thing is that many people feel that hawker problem is one of the causes of difficulties in the district, such as, they cause traffic congestion, health hazard, affect safety for pedestrians and fair competition with shops nearby, etc. Actually the hawker problem is one of the headaches faced by the district board recently. Many people blamed the Urban Council for the hawker problem. They think that we did not do a good job and people say that our G.D. Teams are not sufficiently staffed and are not up to the standard. But I feel these are only one-sided accusation. The hawker problem is really caused by many social problems and it is just one phenomena. It is a result but not a cause. There are various causes including the economic situation, the development of cities and the delineation of cities. Because of the Government's policy towards immigrants, Hong Kong people's buying habits, a co-ordination among Government departments on control of hawkers, etc., before the Urban Council and the U.S.D. review and make out new hawker policy, I fully support that we should invite people to let us have their comments on hawkers so that not only can we consider base on our years of experience but we will also have new ideas as well. I would especially like to point out that Mr. SULKE's enquiry is not a survey among hawkers. We do not want to find out how many hawkers there are or how much money they make, but rather various matters related to economic and social problems, so that in future, we can have this for detail discussion. Therefore, I support this motion and I second it.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. SULKE has been kind enough to send me a copy of his speech before the Chinese New Year vacation to enable me to put some of my thoughts on paper.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.