Page 80 of 95
Page 80 of 153
152
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I am against the original motion and I am in support of the second motion. As all Councillors and members of the public know that the hawkers who now pose a serious problem to the society are not itinerant hawkers. If we want to solve the hawker problem, we can't simply eliminate such licences and hope that the problem will be solved. By eliminating such licences, we may not be able to solve the problem nor be able to improve the hawking situation. In fact, itinerant hawkers particularly licensed itinerant hawkers are only responsible for very small percentage of the serious problem. It is mainly because of illegal unlicensed hawkers who have caused this serious hawker problem. So when we say that we want to eliminate IHL within three years, I don't think it will help to improve our hawker problem. Mr. Chairman, if we pass the motion today and try to eliminate such licences within three years, it might affect policy decisions of the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee and at the same time reduce the flexibility of making such policy. Today's motion has not mentioned what methods will be employed to deal with these itinerant hawkers or improve other hawker problem after the elimination of such licences. So I am in support of Mr. Joseph CHAN's motion, i.e. this should be referred back to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for further deliberation and we should take this question together with other hawker problems, such as unlicensed hawkers, etc. so that we can come up with an overall method to improve the hawking situation.
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, apart from what has been said by Mr. WONG, I wish to add the following points. In fact, we have to look at the actual situation. IHL licensees are rather elderly and at the same time, they do observe regulations and the hawker problems in fact are created by unlicensed hawkers rather than by itinerant hawkers. Secondly, the low figure of IHLs quoted by the mover of the original motion is quite natural because we have not been issuing new licences for years. The figure of 4467 licensees can in fact be reached by natural reduction. At the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee meeting, I have given my views that if we try very carefully to improve the situation, we can eventually find a solution to the problem. I am not in favour of having compulsory measures to eliminate these itinerant hawkers.
MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, in fact I want to speak on the original motion, even though we now have a new motion. I have heard from other Councillors who give their reasons in support of the new motion and against the original motion. Let me give my views. The reasons that the motion is moved so hurriedly or other solutions such as ex-gratia payment, have all been deliberated very carefully by the Working Party in 1984. The Working Party's Report published in 1987 had contained a number of recommendations to solve the problems. If Members can go back to that Report, they will be able to gain a better understanding of all the issues involved. I remember that all Members of the Working Party are no longer here except VCUC, Dr. Tu and myself. I think that actually in the Report we have already listed all the possibilities and options which can refute the worries made by Members. Since three years had passed, I think that the original motion moved today is already very mild. I have a lot of reservation on the suggestion that the matter be referred back to the Select Committee for further deliberation.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the
DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English): Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose second motion because I think it is based on false premises. I don't think there has been any suggestion that we are trying to get rid of itinerant hawkers in order to damage them, that we don't like them, that we want to cancel licences and make them suffer. There is no such thought. In fact, we have been discussing this question now for more than six years and we came to the conclusion that itinerant hawker licensees are not getting a fair deal. They have a licence and they are not allowed to operate anywhere. If they put their goods down to sell things, they are arrested and charged and we are trying to get rid of this unfairness; and it is not to penalise itinerant hawkers that this motion has been put forward. The idea is that we must try to accommodate the itinerant hawkers by encouraging those who want ex-gratia payment to accept it, by encouraging those who want a fixed place to operate, to take a site on the street or a site in market and my speech said very clearly that the sites we offer must be viable. So I am on the side of the hawkers. I don't know why it is being interpreted that I have been trying to beat hawkers down. I never have and never will. I am simply saying that the policy we have is to get the itinerant hawkers into sites, off the streets or on the street if we can find suitable places, or in bazaars or to give them ex-gratia payment and to do it quickly. Because at the moment, they are suffering; they are being arrested and the public is also suffering. I think if those people who have never attended a Markets and Street Traders Select Committee meeting and have never been members of the Working Party, if they had read our recommendations, they would know that we are not trying to hurt the hawkers. That is all I would like to say, Chairman. I oppose the amended motion.
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the bone of contention is whether we leave it to natural wastage or to have mandatory elimination. All along, we have left it to natural wastage i.e. they give up the job and then at the same time we give them incentives so that they will give up their licences. But if we have to eliminate them within three years, in other words, to force the four thousand odd itinerant hawkers to go out of business then, it would mean mandatory. Should hawkers who are not be tempted by all other incentives, fail to surrender their licences by three years, in other words, to force the four thousand odd itinerant hawkers to go out of business then, it would mean mandatory. Should hawkers who are not be tempted by all other incentives, fail to surrender their licences by three years, are we changing this natural wastage into mandatory elimination? The reason why I think that we need to go back to Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for further deliberation because I do agree and I do understand what Dr. Tu and Mr. TONG were saying. The Working Party also discussed a lot of recommendations such as ex-gratia payment, restricted ballot and vacant stalls, etc. which were
Page 80 of 95
Page 80
Page 81
Page 81 of 95
Page 80 of 95
Page 80 of
153
152
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I am against the original motion and I am in support of the second motion. As all Councillors and members of the public know that the hawkers who now pose a serious problem to the society are not itinerant hawkers. If we want to solve the hawker problem, we can't simply eliminate such licences and hope that the problem will be solved. By eliminating such licences, we may not be able to solve the problem nor be able to improve the hawking situation. In fact, itinerant hawkers particularly licensed itinerant hawkers are only responsible for very small percentage of the serious problem. It is mainly because of illegal unlicensed hawkers who have caused this serious hawker problem. So when we say that we want to eliminate IHL within three years, I don't think it will help to improve our hawker problem. Mr. Chairman, if we pass the motion today and try to eliminate such licences within three years, it might affect policy decisions of the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee and at the same time reduce the flexibility of making such policy. Today's motion has not mentioned what methods will be employed to deal with these itinerant hawkers or improve other hawker problem after the elimination of such licences. So I am in support of Mr. Joseph CHAN's motion, i.e. this should be referred back to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for further deliberation and we should take this question together with other hawker problems, such as unlicensed hawkers, etc. so that we can come up with an overall method to improve the hawking situation.
MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, apart from what has been said by Mr. WONG, I wish to add the following points. In fact, we have to look at the actual situation. IHL licensees are rather elderly and at the same time, they do observe regulations and the hawker problems in fact are created by unlicensed hawkers rather than by itinerant hawkers. Secondly, the low figure of IHLs quoted by the mover of the original motion is quite natural because we have not been issuing new licences for years. The figure of 4 467 licensees can in fact be reached by natural reduction. At the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee meeting, I have given my views that if we try very carefully to improve the situation, we can eventually find a solution to the problem. I am not in favour of having compulsory measures to eliminate these itinerant hawkers.
MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in fact I want to speak on the original motion, even though we now have a new motion. I have heard from other Councillors who give their reasons in support of the new motion and against the original motion. Let me give my views. The reasons that the motion is moved so hurriedly or other solutions such as ex-gratia payment, have all been deliberated very carefully by the Working Party in 1984. The Working Party's Report published in 1987 had contained a number of recommendations to solve the problems. If Members can go back to that Report, they will be able to gain a better understanding of all the issues involved. I remember that all Members of the Working Party are no longer here except VCUC, Dr. Tu and myself. I think that actually in the Report we have already listed all the possibilities and options which can refute the worries made by Members. Since
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
three years had passed, I think that the original motion moved today is already very mild. I have a lot of reservation on the suggestion that the matter be referred back to the Select Committee for further deliberation.
the
DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose second motion because I think it is based on false premises. I don't think there has been any suggestion that we are trying to get rid of itinerant hawkers in order to damage them, that we don't like them, that we want to cancel licences and make them suffer. There is no such thought. In fact, we have been discussing this question now for more than six years and we came to the conclusion that itinerant hawker licensees are not getting a fair deal. They have a licence and they are not allowed to operate anywhere. If they put their goods down to sell things, they are arrested and charged and we are trying to get rid of this unfairness; and it is not to penalise itinerant hawkers that this motion has been put forward. The idea is that we must try to accommodate the itinerant hawkers by encouraging those who want ex-gratia payment to accept it, by encouraging those who want a fixed place to operate, to take a site on the street or a site in market and my speech said very clearly that the sites we offer must be viable. So I am on the side of the hawkers. I don't know why it is being interpreted that I have been trying to beat hawkers down. I never have and never will. I am simply saying that the policy we have is to get the itinerant hawkers into sites, off the streets or on the street if we can find suitable places, or in bazaars or to give them ex-gratia payment and to do it quickly. Because at the moment, they are suffering; they are being arrested and the public is also suffering. I think if those people who have never attended a Markets and Street Traders Select Committee meeting and have never been members of the Working Party, if they had read our recommendations, they would know that Mr. we are not trying to hurt the hawkers. That is all I would like to say, Chairman. I oppose the amended motion.
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, the bone of contention is whether we leave it to natural wastage or to have mandatory elimination. All along, we have left it to natural wastage i.e. they give up the job and then at the same time we give them incentives so that they will give up their licences. But if we have to eliminate them within three years, in other words, to force the four thousand odd itinerant hawkers to go out of business then, it would mean mandatory. Should hawkers who are not be tempted by all other incentives, fail to surrender their licences by three years, in other words, to force the four thousand odd itinerant hawkers to go out of business then, it would mean mandatory. Should hawkers who are not be tempted by all other incentives, fail to surrender their licences by three years, are we changing this natural wastage into mandatory elimination? The reason why I think that we need to go back to Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for further deliberation because I do agree and I do understand what Dr. Tu and Mr. TONG were saying. The Working Party also discussed a lot of recommendations such as ex-gratia payment, restricted ballot and vacant stalls, etc. which were
Page 80 of 95
Page 80Page 81
Page 81 of 95
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.