Page 79
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in English):—Yes.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—The position now is that a new motion has been proposed by Mr. Joseph CHAN and seconded by Mr. K. K. FUNG. So discussion will then take place on the new motion. Would the Secretary please read out the new motion?
SECRETARY, URBAN COUNCIL (in English):—The motion is that this matter be referred to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—After discussion has taken place on this new motion, I will then take a vote on it. If that motion succeeds then of course it removes the necessity to vote on the original motion. If it does not succeed, of course we shall revert to discussion on the original motion. Is everybody quite clear?
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—I support the original motion therefore I oppose the amended motion. I was a little doubtful that some itinerant hawkers will get left without a licence after three years, but I now do not think this will be the case. As a member of Markets and Street Traders Select Committee which unfortunately Mr. Joseph CHAN is not, I know that there are several schemes which have been decided upon overall, to eliminate itinerant hawker licences and to which I give my full support. I am only therefore fearful that the original motion might give rise to unnecessary fear amongst licenced hawkers that they would lose their licences but I do believe those fears are unjustified. I am sure that the movers of the original motion are well aware of that possibility and have taken all necessary steps to avoid this. Therefore I do support the original motion and oppose the amended motion.
(Mr. Albert S. K. POON arrived at 3.18 p.m.)
MR. DANIEL K. T. WONG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I have given the original motion a very careful consideration but I cannot support the original motion. I arrive at my conclusion on the following grounds. I am speaking in favour of the second motion. I just want to point out my objection to the first motion. There are several grounds I want to mention. Firstly, that a policy put forward in the original motion can only be supported if there is a sound rationale behind which justifies the policy. I question whether there is such a sound rationale. I appreciate that the existence of itinerant hawkers can create a lot of administrative problem and burden on the department. To a certain degree, such existence may also amount to nuisance to the society. However, we have to admit that hawking per se is not a crime. Under the present law, the department already has a lot of assistance from statutory control over hawking. The department is also empowered to arrest and prosecute. Because of shortage of manpower and lack of sufficient motivation in our general duties teams, hawking has been a constant headache to the department as well as to this honourable Council. However, the solution is obviously not to chop off one's head when one has a headache. This is not the way to solve the problem. The Council should not make a conscious decision which in essence is an attempt to avoid confronting our own incompetence by eliminating or destroying other people's livelihood. Such means of living, namely hawking with licence, is up to this moment a perfect legal way to earn one's living. We have a lot of useful tools to control the amount of nuisance which may be caused by hawking. We are not making full use of the tools. Why allow bringing the hawkers? To put it short, the original motion only seeks to avoid the problem by outlawing it. I just cannot support this kind of rationale.
Secondly, Hong Kong has always been a free society, every business survives on the rule of demand and supply. Whatever is out of demand, will die naturally. The fact that itinerant hawkers can survive for such a long time, tells us that there must be a certain degree of demand and such hawking must be observant to certain sector of this society, otherwise they will not be able to survive. Unless there is an alternative supply, such demand will not be satisfied. If therefore the Council decides to outlaw the existing supply, it will only create more demand for illegal hawking. I question whether the Council can satisfy itself there are sufficient markets or trading places to serve the community such that it can safely kill off all the itinerant hawkers. Unless and until we reach that stage, hawking should not be eliminated.
Thirdly, I do agree that the Council's licensing system should be segregated from welfare. However, I must strongly point out that it is totally wrong to force people to live on welfare because their livelihood is deprived when they can still be of service to the society. Many itinerant hawkers, as mentioned by Dr. Tu, are about 60 years old, they have spent the majority part of their life on hawking business, if we now tell them they can no longer be itinerant hawkers legally, what do we expect them to do. We are simply forcing them to welfare. I consider that this is quite an irresponsible attitude because this original motion may only shift our burden to another branch of the government.
I admit that some itinerant hawkers who are not practising as a hawker, they let others use their licence for a payment. The proper way to deal with this is to regulate and penalise such practice. We however should not presume that all itinerant hawkers should be outlawed. If we do this, we will be presuming all to be guilty and at the same time, not giving them any chance to prove their innocence.
Lastly, I do not consider it a right approach to make such a policy without addressing the question of compensation. If we cannot at the same time come up with an equitable system of compensation, this will make the policy all the more unfair. I therefore believe that the Council should not make the policy first, then think about compensation because the two come hand-in-hand. Further, if the Council finds it impossible to derive a fair way of compensating the forfeiture of licensing, I seriously question whether this original motion should be considered at all.
In view of all the above which I mentioned, I am particularly worried about that if the original motion is approved it will open a gate to the making of arbitrary decision to avoid our internal problem rather than to improve our efficiency. I therefore cannot support the original motion. It must go to the second motion and be discussed in the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee.
Page 79 of 95
151
150
Page 79 of 95
Page 79 0.
151
150
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in English):—Yes.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—The position now is that a new motion has been proposed by Mr. Joseph CHAN and seconded by Mr. K. K. FUNG. So discussion will then take place on the new motion. Would the Secretary please read out the new motion?
SECRETARY, URBAN COUNCIL (in English):-The motion is that this matter be referred to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-After discussion has taken place on this new motion, I will then take a vote on it. If that motion succeeds then of course it removes the necessity to vote on the original motion. If it does not succeed, of course we shall revert to discussion on the original motion. Is everybody quite clear?
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):-I support the original motion therefore I oppose the amended motion. I was a little doubtful that some itinerant hawkers will get left without a licence after three years, but I now do not think this will be the case. As a member of Markets and Street Traders Select Committee which unfortunately Mr. Joseph CHAN is not, I know that there are several schemes which have been decided upon overall, to eliminate itinerant hawker licences and to which I give my full support. I am only therefore fearful that the original motion might give rise to unnecessary fear amongst licenced hawkers that they would lose their licences but I do believe those fears are unjustified. I am sure that the movers of the original motion are well aware of that possibility and have taken all necessary steps to avoid this. Therefore I do support the original motion and oppose the amended motion.
(Mr. Albert S. K. POON arrived at 3.18 p.m.)
MR. DANIEL K. T. WONG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I have given well the original motion a very careful consideration but I cannot support the original motion. I arrive my conclusion on the following grounds. I am speaking in favour of the second motion. I just want to point out my objection to the first motion. There are several grounds I want to mention. Firstly, that a policy put forward in the original motion can only be supported if there is a sound rationale behind which justifies the policy. I question whether there is such a sound rationale. I appreciate that the existence of itinerant hawkers can create a lot of administrative problem and burden on the department. To a certain degree, such existence may also amount to nuisance to the society. However, we have to admit that hawking per se is not a crime. Under the present law, the department already has a lot of assistance from statutory control over hawking. The department is also empowered to arrest and prosecute. Because of shortage of manpower and lack of sufficient motivation in our general duties teams, hawking has been a constant headache to the department as well as to this honourable Council. However, the solution is obviously not to chop off one's
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
head when one has a headache. This is not the way to solve the problem. The Council should not make a conscious decision which in essence is an attempt to avoid confronting our own incompetence by eliminating or destroying other people's livelihood. Such means of living, namely hawking with licence, is up to this moment perfect legal ways to earn one's living. We have a lot of useful tools to control the amount of nuisance which may be caused by hawking. We are not only making full use of the tools. Why allow bringing the hawkers? To it short, the original motion only seeks to avoid the problem by outlawing put it. I just cannot support this kind of rationale. Secondly, Hong Kong has always been a free society, every business survives on the rule of demand and supply. Whatever is out of demand, will die naturally. The fact that itinerant hawkers can survive for such a long time, tells us that there must be a certain degree of demand and such hawking must be observant to certain sector of this society, otherwise they will not be able to survive. Unless there is an alternative supply, such demand will not be satisfied. If therefore the Council decides to outlaw the existing supply, it will only create more demand for illegal hawking. I question whether the Council can satisfy itself there are sufficient markets or trading places to serve the community such that it can safely kill off all the itinerant hawkers. Unless and until we reach that stage, hawking should not be eliminated. Thirdly, I do agree that the Council's licensing system should be segregated from welfare. However, I must strongly point out that it is totally wrong to force people to live on welfare because their livelihood is deprived when they can still be of service to the society. Many itinerant hawkers, as mentioned by Dr. Tu, are about 60 years old, they have spent the majority part of their life on hawking business, if we now tell them they can no longer be itinerant hawkers legally, what do we expect them to do. We are simply forcing them to the welfare. I consider that this is quite an irresponsible attitude because this original motion may only shift our burden to another branch of the government. I admit that some itinerant hawkers who are not practising as a hawker, they let others use their licence for a payment. The proper way to deal with this is to regulate and penalise such practice. We however should not presume that all itinerant hawkers should be outlawed. If we do this, we will be presuming all to be guilty and at the same time, not giving them any chance to prove their innocence. Lastly, I do not consider it a right approach to make such a policy without addressing the question of compensation. If we cannot at the same time come up with an equitable system of compensation, this will make the policy all the more unfair. I therefore believe that the Council should not make the policy first, then think about compensation because the two come hand-in-hand. Further, if the Council finds it impossible to derive a fair way of compensating the forfeiture of licensing, I seriously question whether this original motion should be considered at all. In view of all the above which I mentioned, I am particularly worried about that if the original motion is approved will open a gate to the making of arbitrary decision to avoid our internal problem rather than to improve our efficiency. I therefore cannot support the original motion. It must go to the second motion and be discussed in the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee.
Page 79 of 95
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.