1984 — Page 36

36

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

may not have seen the detailed reply made by the Cultural Services Department to the initial criticism, and subsequently-although not immediately--printed in the newspaper concerned.

The nub of that reply remains germane to subsequent criticism, and little was to be gained by repeating the basic points, thereby perpetuating an issue which in the opinion of the Department and its public relations staff seemed to smack more of 'sour grapes' than genuine community interest.

If I might quote from the last--to repeat, last—of the series of Letters to the Editor on this issue, a letter written extemporaneously by a member of the public (quote) 'That the facilities are now available, and that they are filled to overflowing all the year round by cultural events from across the world is clearly attributable only to the Urban Council and its policy over the past few years of spending public money to make the necessary initial investment in a barren field which private enterprise was unwilling to make for 130 years. Now that this investment has been made, the atmosphere for private enterprise to follow on the cost-tails of the Urban Council, and make a profit, is substantially improved, and it appears to me to be regrettably churlish and short-sighted not to be able to appreciate this reality' (unquote).

This reply really concerns the City Hall, because by the time it was written, the correspondence had wandered rather indiscriminately through the fields of culture and entertainment; but most of it seemed to be valid defence of our lettings policy for the City Hall, Coliseum and Queen Elizabeth Stadium, and after that, we did not wish to be seen to be protesting too much.

MR. SULKE (in English):—I am very obliged to Mr. LAU for the comprehensive answer. I did, in fact, see the letter referred to, don't you think that letter was too little and too late? And that in view of the seriousness of these criticisms, we should have held a press conference to make the points which you are now so ably making?

MR. STEPHEN LAU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I think this is just a difference of viewpoints. We already had a set policy and we have been carrying out this policy all along. So I think, some of these problems could be dealt with when we execute our policy. If we hold a special press conference just for this, we might be seen as being too narrow-minded.

2. Mr. Tong KaM-BIU asked the following question (in Cantonese):—The hawkers at Ma Tau Kok Road, To Kwa Wan, have recently complained about the allocation of stalls by auction in the new Lok Shan Road Market. They feel that they have been unfairly treated and cheated into moving in the Market as some hawkers who did not make a bid in the auction are resited to other places whereas those who have successfully bid for stalls in the Market are getting less and less business these days. They have expressed the fervent hope that the Council would make arrangement for them to hawk in the streets again. Could the Council give an explanation of the matter?

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 36 of 233

37

MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG, CHAIRMAN OF THE MARKETS AND Street Traders Select COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-This question concerns the allocation of stalls by auction at the new To Kwa Wan Market and subsequent complaints by stall-holders who were formerly hawkers. These complaints claim that better arrangements have been made for the remaining on-street hawkers; that market business is insufficient; and that they would like to revert to hawking. It asks for an explanation of the situation.

Established Council policy as regards hawkers includes, on the one hand, that there should be a gradual reduction in street trading and on the other, that suitable market buildings be constructed into which to such traders.

The To Kwa Wan Market was built for this purpose. The occupation arrangements were such that the 366 licensed hawkers trading in the catchment of the market were given priority in being granted market stall leases; those hawkers who did not, for one reason or another, wish to take advantage of this opportunity were moved from the vicinity of the market to vacant pitches elsewhere in the district. There were some 143 hawkers in this latter category; they now trade from sites formerly vacant and therefore probably less viable.

There are often teething problems in the occupation of new buildings and in the case of markets the adjustment from on-street hawking to being a market tenant is often not easy. But the fact of the matter is that business in the market is now getting better as a result of vigorous effort taken by the district staff of the City Services Department to stamp out unfair competition from residual on-street hawking outside the market.

There can be no question of permitting hawking back on the streets around the market. This Council is firmly committed to improving the viability of our market buildings, and with concerted effort on the part of the district staff the chances of success at To Kwa Wan are high.

MR. SULKE (in English):—It is not a fact that we very often site markets, simply because the land is available? And, now that land is available, should we not site our markets according to commercial principles and should we not close those markets which are not viable and use them for other purposes?

CHAIRMAN (in English):-We are discussing a particular market here and I leave it to Mr. SHUM whether he should answer this question which is not directly relevant.

MR. SHUM (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, Mr. SULKE raises a general question. Of course, we do not choose a site for a market, sites are allocated by the Government; if the site is bad, we will decline the offer. Sometimes, we will accept the site and subsequent developments are such that the business may deteriorate. But in case of To Kwa Wan, this is not a case, if To Kwa Wan business is bad, I do not think the Government will be prepared to build us another replacement market.