Page 160 of 194
284
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
count to a certain extent. So I don't know whether other Members have views concerning my proposal.
MR. FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, referring to Mr. SULEK'S motion, actually, there are two facts. One is the aim and the other is the method. His aim is to try to find out the economic and social factors leading to street traders and the method is to conduct a survey, which in English is a scientific enquiry and it could include various aspects and there may be a misunderstanding in the translation of the term. Anyway, it is gathering information, and that the social and economic factors leading to the existence of street traders. With these results, we will be able to make good use of the $70 million that we spent every year on street traders and I can see Mr. SULEK'S aim of raising this motion. But the survey was not mentioned in detail, not even the method and who should conduct it, may be it should be post-graduate students. I think if we have this aim and decide to achieve it now without detailed discussion, it would be a bit too early. Besides, we have to spend nearly $1 million on the survey. I do not know whether in fact the first and the second motions are related. It is not a purpose and aim, but rather in actual practice whether we should have a committee to study this further. As a conclusion to what I have said, I support Mr. SULEK'S aim in solving the street traders' problem, but can we decide now whether an enquiry is the best method? I think more time is needed for a discussion on it.
(Mrs. Grace Ho left at this point—5:13 p.m.)
MR. LAWRENCE FUNG (in English): Mr. Chairman, I have no reason to doubt Mr. SULEK'S honourable intention or the goodness of his intention in proposing the motion. Hawking and hawker is a very emotive issue. It is also highly political sensitive. But it seems to me that the Council owes it to the public or to Hong Kong to approach this subject with impartiality and not to have any prejudice before we even vote on the motion. Whether we call it a scientific enquiry, a review or an in-depth study is immaterial, but I think if I read the two motions correctly, the intent of both motions are the same as mentioned by Mr. Howard YOUNG. The differences might be the procedure to be adopted or the methodology of investigating the whole issue and I see that under Standing Order 21, paragraph 16(f), ‘a motion can be divided provided that no new matter be introduced.' So surely one of the solutions to this afternoon's dilemma is to divide the motion into two parts. To vote on the intent whether the Council in its wisdom think it is proper to do a scientific enquiry review in-depth study. What have been the hawking problem? We vote on that first and then vote on the methodology of going about it, whether we want university students to do it or we want the U.S.D. together with the working party from Council. That would be a solution to it.
DR. CHAM (in English): Mr. Chairman, I understand that the motion proposed by Mr. SULEK, which if passed, carries with it a resolution that a study or a scientific enquiry must be carried out. At the beginning, Mr. SULEK said that hawkers are one of our most expensive problems and I am sure no one would disagree. But I certainly do not want to add to that expenditure without being satisfied that the survey would give us the answers we expected. Mr. SULEK also said that he proposed the motion because it is for 3 years he has been pressing the question. However, I gathered that the Street Traders Select Committee has figures on the number of licensed or unlicensed hawkers. If Mr. SULEK has any doubts about those figures, he can certainly challenge the Select Committee or the department or the methodology arriving at these figures before concluding that the figures are not valid. I should briefly touch on Mr. SULEK'S comment on the Ph.D. Thesis possibility. All Ph.D. Thesis, as I understand it, as a past researcher and supervisor, carried with it academic merit which is of choice to the student who want to do the study. It is important to see the implication how it is defined as a statistical project, an economic project or sociology project, or even management project and which may give slightly different answers according to definition and purpose of the study. Mr. SULEK also said that it can be useful for big cities and other countries. If this is the case, I would like to see what studies are made on hawkers in other cities, in Asia, so that we can correspondingly look at them before we agree whether it is going to be useful or not. Mr. SULEK tries to define the scale of the survey by asking questions like how many hawkers are there? Can we be exact on these points? If so, I am sure Census and Statistics would not have a problem going through the population census if one can be very exact. I shall not comment on others which has been taken up by Mr. KWAN, except on the question how much money hawkers make or lose. I am sure we are not the only one who wants to know. If a survey can serve the purpose, Inland Revenue Department will be the first one who loves to know how much money individuals make or lose. If a survey can achieve that purpose, I am sure they have been surveying instead of investigating. Mr. Chairman, I do see problems of definition, etc. and I would certainly like to see a clear methodology before committing this Council to a financial commitment contained in the motion.
(Mr. Howard YOUNG left at this point—5:15 p.m.)
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English): Mr. Chairman, like other speakers, I am a bit confused by the two motions. I think it would be better if the second motion is an amendment to the first. But since they have been put up as two separate motions, I would like to speak on the first one. I agree with a great deal of what Mr. SULEK said about hawkers. Personally, I never agree with spending $70 million on control of hawkers, and I have insisted for many years that what we needed was a scientific estimate of how many hawkers we need, how many bazaars and markets we need in each area, just as we know how many libraries we need for how many people, and we can work out scientifically how many libraries are going to get in our programme. I think the same should have been done on hawkers, markets, bazaars and so on. However, that has not been
Page 161 of 194
285
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 160
Page 161
Page 160 of 194
284
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
count to a certain extent. So I don't know whether other Members have views concerning my proposal.
any
MR. FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese)-Mr. Chairman, referring to Mr. SULKE'S motion, actually, there are two facts. One is the aim and the other is the method. His aim is to try to find out the economic and social factors leading to street traders and the method is to conduct a survey, which in English is a scientific enquiry and it could include various aspects and there may be a misunderstanding in the translation of the term. Anyway, it is gathering information, and that the social and economic factors leading to the existence of street traders. With these results, we will be able to make good use of the $70 million that we spent every year on street traders and I can see Mr. SULKE's aim of raising this motion. But the survey was not mentioned in detail, not even the method and who should conduct it, may be it should be post-graduate students. I think if we have this aim and decide to achieve it now without detailed discussion, it would be a bit too early. Besides, we have to spend nearly $ million on the survey. I do not know whether in fact the first and the second motions are related. It is not a purpose and aim, but rather in actual practice whether we should have a committee to study this further. As a conclusion to what I have said, I support Mr. SULKE's aim in solving the street traders' problem, but can we decide now whether an enquiry is the best method? I think more time is needed for a discussion on it.
(Mrs. Grace Ho left at this point—5.13 p.m.)
MR. LAWRENCE FUNG (in English):--Mr. Chairman, I have no reason to doubt Mr. SULKE's honourable intention or the goodness of his intention in proposing the motion. Hawking and hawker is a very emotive issue. It is also highly political sensitive. But it seems to me that the Council owes it to the public or to Hong Kong to approach this subject with impartiality and not to have any prejudice before we even vote on the motion. Whether we call it a scientific enquiry, a review or an in-depth study is immaterial, but I think if I read the two motions correctly, the intent of both motions are the same as mentioned by Mr. Howard YOUNG. The differences might be the procedure to be adopted or the methodology of investigating the whole issue and I see that under Standing Order 21, paragraph 16(f), ‘a motion can be divided provided that no new matter be introduced.' So surely one of the solutions to this afternoon dilemma is to divide the motion into two parts. To vote on the intent whether the Council in its wisdom think it is proper to do a scientific enquiry review in-depth study. What have been the hawking problem? We vote on that first and then vote on the methodology of going about it, whether we want university students to do it or we want the U.S.D. together with the working party from Council. That would be a solution to it.
DR. CHAM (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I understand that the motion proposed by Mr. SULKE, which if passed, carries with it a resolution that a study
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 160 of 194
285
or a scientific enquiry must be carried out. At the beginning, Mr. SULKE said that hawkers are one of our most expensive problems and I am sure no one would disagree. But I certainly do not want to add to that expenditure without being satisfied that the survey would give us the answers we expected. Mr. SULKE also said that he proposed the motion because it is for 3 years he has been pressing the question. However, I gathered that the Street Traders Select Committee has figures on the number of licensed or unlicensed hawkers. If Mr. SULKE has any doubts about those figures, he can certainly challenge the Select Committee or the department or the methodology arriving at these figures before concluding that the figures are not valid. I should briefly touch on Mr. SULKE's comment on the Ph.D. Thesis possibility. All Ph.D. Thesis, as I understand it, as a past researcher and supervisor, carried with it academic merit which is of choice to the student who want to do the study. It is important to see the implication how it is defined as a statistical project, an economic project or sociology project, or even management project and which may give slightly different answers according to definition and purpose of the study. Mr. SULKE also said that it can be useful for big cities and other countries. If this is the case, I would like to see what studies are made on hawkers in other cities, in Asia, so that we can correspondingly look at them before we agree whether it is going to be useful or not. Mr. SULKE tries to define the scale of the survey by asking questions like how many hawkers are there? Can we be exact on these points? If so, I am sure Census and Statistics would not have a problem going through the population census if one can be very exact. I shall not comment on others which has been taken up by Mr. KWAN, except on the question how much money hawkers make or lose. I am sure we are not the only one who wants to know. If a survey can serve the purpose, Inland Revenue Department will be the first one who loves to know how much money individuals make or lose. If a survey can achieve that purpose, I am sure they have been surveying instead of investigating. Mr. Chairman, I do see problems of definition, etc. and I would certainly like to see a clear methodology before committing this Council to a financial commitment contained in the motion.
(Mr. Howard YOUNG left at this point-—5.15 p.m.)
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, like other speakers, I am a bit confused by the two motions. I think it would be better if the second motion is an amendment to the first. But since they have been put up as two separate motions, I would like to speak on the first one. I agree with a great deal of what Mr. SULKE said about hawkers. Personally, I never agree with spending $70 million on control of hawkers, and I have insisted for many years that what we needed was a scientific estimate of how many hawkers we need, how many bazaars and markets we need in each area, just as we know how many libraries we need for how many people, and we can work out scientifically how many libraries are going to get in our programme. I think the same should have been done on hawkers, markets, bazaars and so on. However, that has not been
Page 160Page 161
Page 161 of 194
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.