Page 78 of 95
148
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It is about twenty years since the Urban Council decided not to issue any new Itinerant Hawker Licences.
IHLs belong to the days when Hong Kong streets were not so crowded with people, or roads so blocked with cars. Hawkers holding these licences were supposed to itinerate from place to place carrying their wares in baskets on the ends of bamboo poles. This kind of hawking has been obsolete for a generation, and almost all these hawkers have become illegally static. If they were to abide by the terms of their licences and itinerate, they would cause major traffic jams on roads and pavements. If they were to stop anywhere to sell their goods, they would be arrested for obstruction.
In fact it is illogical to continue to issue such licences because there is no place in our present environment for itinerant hawkers, except perhaps knife-grinders and ice-cream hawkers. Since they are forced to become static, it is also illogical to charge them with obstruction when they do become static. Itinerant hawkers pose another problem. Since they are all over the age of forty and some very much older, they are often used by unlicensed hawkers. The goods of unlicensed hawkers are confiscated as a mandatory penalty, but young unlicensed hawkers can sometimes engage elderly itinerant hawkers to appear in court for them to avoid confiscation of their goods.
In short, there is no argument for continuing to renew Itinerant Hawker Licences. The VCUC has outlined the methods the Council is using to reduce the number of IHLs, and these measures have met with some success. But the fact remains that there are still thousands of these licensees, and we need to set a deadline by which IHLs will no longer be available.
As I said, many of these licence-holders are elderly, and for that reason I could not agree that we should put them out of business which they have operated for more than twenty years. What we have to do is to find sites where they can operate. These sites must be viable or the operation will fail. In the past we have sent them into unviable on-street sites and market stalls. That is not a solution, because they immediately leave the unviable sites and operate illegally anywhere they can find business.
The Working Party, in its deliberations several years ago, proposed that what we need is more small markets, more hawker bazaars, and where these are not available, more streets where fixed pitches can be arranged on one side so as not to interfere with traffic. This programme progresses very slowly. History has shown that hawkers are not just a nuisance that will go away. They are a necessity which creates problems, and we need to solve these problems. For example, Tsim Sha Tsui attracts a large number of shoppers, local as well as tourists, but the hawkers who attract the crowds operate illegally with only Itinerant Licences. What we need there is a hawker shopping area similar to that in Hong Kong Central, in Li Yuen Street East and West. I wonder if the Government or the Urban Services Department has considered such a possibility in Tsim Sha Tsui? Suitable streets may not be easy to find, but I
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
149
wonder if any effort has been made, or whether we just prefer to continue arresting hawkers for operating illegally? We need a more imaginative approach to the whole subject, because the Working Party has already established that hawkers contribute to the economy. We need to think positively as well as negatively, when we talk about eliminating the now obsolete system of itinerant hawker licensing.
We set up our Working Party about six years ago, full of hope that we could find a solution. We were confident in 1987 that the recommendations we made in our Report were reasonable and workable. But we are going at a snail's pace to implement those recommendations, and I agree that we should set ourselves a target. May I emphasise that this motion doesn't seek to change any policy but just to speed up existing policies and I therefore support the VCUC's motion today.
(Mr. Ambrose W. S. CHEUNG arrived at 3.11 p.m.)
MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, on this particular motion, I have the following points to make. Firstly, we have to discuss and vote on this motion, i.e. we will have to eliminate IHLs within three years. However, we have not been given adequate information in order to discuss the issue and to vote on it. Secondly, since these IHLs are not transferable and there is no succession to such licences and the licensees in fact are very elderly and very soon they would disappear from this world altogether, could we have natural elimination rather than mandatory measures. Even if we do not take any concrete measures, they will automatically disappear later. My third point is since we have set ourselves three years to eliminate the licences and complete the task, it may create a very bad impression to people. In other words, people may tend to think that we are dictators. The fourth point that I wish to make is no consultation was conducted before the moving of this motion and no agreement has been arrived at among Councillors. The fifth point is I am rather puzzled by the motive of this motion which is moved so suddenly. The sixth point is IHL licensees are not similar to illegal hawkers as they don't create serious social problems as to really warrant urgent attention. In other words, it isn't a matter of urgency. My seventh point is if we want them to surrender their licences, we have already got ex-gratia payment of $6,000. Should we wish them to surrender their licences more quickly, perhaps we can double the payment or make it $10,000 that will be attractive enough to achieve the purpose. So in the interest of this Council and in the public interest, I think that Councillors must further deliberate on this issue to gain better understanding. So may I therefore suggest that this be referred back to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for discussion in accordance with 21(16)(j) of our Standing Orders. I formally move the motion.
CHAIRMAN (in English):---Is there any seconder for that new motion? Mr. K. K. FUNG, are you seconding the motion?
Page 79 of 95
Page 78 of 95
Page 78 of 95
Page 78 of 9
148
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It is about twenty years since the Urban Council decided not to issue any new Itinerant Hawker Licences.
IHLs belong to the days when Hong Kong streets were not so crowded with people, or roads so blocked with cars. Hawkers holding these licences were supposed to itinerate from place to place carrying their wares in baskets on the ends of bamboo poles. This kind of hawking has been obsolete for a generation, and almost all these hawkers have become illegally static. If they were to abide by the terms of their licences and itinerate, they would cause major traffic jams on roads and pavements. If they were to stop anywhere to sell their goods, they would be arrested for obstruction.
In fact it is illogical to continue to issue such licences because there is no place in our present environment for itinerant hawkers, except perhaps knife-grinders and ice-cream hawkers. Since they are forced to become static, it is also illogical to charge them with obstruction when they do become static. Itinerant hawkers pose another problem. Since they are all over the age of forty and some very much older, they are often used by unlicensed hawkers. The goods of unlicensed hawkers are confiscated as a mandatory penalty, but young unlicensed hawkers can sometimes engage elderly itinerant hawkers to appear in court for them to avoid confiscation of their goods.
In short, there is no argument for continuing to renew Itinerant Hawker Licences. The VCUC has outlined the methods the Council is using to reduce the number of IHLs, and these measures have met with some success. But the fact remains that there are still thousands of these licensees, and we need to set a deadline by which IHLs will no longer be available.
As I said, many of these licence-holders are elderly, and for that reason I could not agree that we should put them out of business which they have operated for more than twenty years. What we have to do is to find sites where they can operate. These sites must be viable or the operation will fail. In the past we have sent them into unviable on-street sites and market stalls. That is not a solution, because they immediately leave the unviable sites and operate illegally anywhere they can find business.
The Working Party, in its deliberations several years ago, proposed that what we need is more small markets, more hawker bazaars, and where these are not available, more streets where fixed pitches can be arranged on one side so as not to interfere with traffic. This programme progresses very slowly. History has shown that hawkers are not just a nuisance that will go away. They are a necessity which creates problems, and we need to solve these problems. For example, Tsim Sha Tsui attracts a large number of shoppers, local as well as tourists, but the hawkers who attract the crowds operate illegally with only Itinerant Licences. What we need there is a hawker shopping area similar to that in Hong Kong Central, in Li Yuen Street East and West. I wonder if the Government or the Urban Services Department has considered such a possibility in Tsim Sha Tsui? Suitable streets may not be easy to find, but I
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
149
wonder if any effort has been made, or whether we just prefer to continue arresting hawkers for operating illegally? We need a more imaginative approach to the whole subject, because the Working Party has already established that hawkers contribute to the economy. We need to think positively as well as negatively, when we talk about eliminating the now obsolete system of itinerant hawker licensing.
We set up our Working Party about six years ago, full of hope that we could find a solution. We were confident in 1987 that the recommendations we made in our Report were reasonable and workable. But we are going at a snail's pace to implement those recommendations, and I agree that we should set ourselves a target. May I emphasise that this motion doesn't seek to change any policy but just to speed up existing policies and I therefore support the VCUC's motion today.
(Mr. Ambrose W. S. CHEUNG arrived at 3.11 p.m.)
MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, on this particular motion, I have the following points to make. Firstly, we have to discuss and vote on this motion, i.e. we will have to eliminate IHLs within three years. However, we have not been given adequate information in order to discuss the issue and to vote on it. Secondly, since these IHLs are not transferable and there is no succession to such licences and the licensees in fact are very elderly and very soon they would disappear from this world altogether, could we have natural elimination rather than mandatory measures. Even if we do not take any concrete measures, they will automatically disappear later. My third point is since we have set ourselves three years to eliminate the licences and complete the task, it may create a very bad impression to people. In other words, people may tend to think that we are dictators. The fourth point that I wish to make is no consultation was conducted before the moving of this motion and no agreement has been arrived at among Councillors. The fifth point is I am rather puzzled by the motive of this motion which is moved so suddenly. The sixth point is IHL licensees are not similar to illegal hawkers as they don't create serious social problems as to really warrant urgent attention. In other words, it isn't a matter of urgency. My seventh point is if we want them to surrender their licences, we have already got ex-gratia payment of $6,000. Should we wish them to surrender their licences more quickly, perhaps we can double the payment or make it $10,000 that will be attractive enough to achieve the purpose. So in the interest of this Council and in the public interest, I think that Councillors must further deliberate on this issue to gain better understanding. So may I therefore suggest that this be referred back to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for discussion in accordance with 21(16)(j) of our Standing Orders. I formally move the motion.
CHAIRMAN (in English):---Is there any seconder for that new motion? Mr. K. K. FUNG, are you seconding the motion?
Page 78 of 95
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.