1991 — Page 68

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 68 of 126

119

118

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

be referred to the MST Committee as well as the Capital Works Select Committee to install some notice boards in those markets. And I hope that these two Committees can consider approving such arrangements as soon as possible. The third question is about whether the Urban Council can support studies or researches on neutralizing agents conducted by academic institutions. I personally think that is a good idea. I am sure that if any academic institutions approach the Urban Council for support to conduct such studies, our Committee will actively and speedily respond. Thank you.

MR. WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a follow-up question. As the department cannot set up a food control office at Man Kam To within a short period of time and poisonous vegetables are usually sold by hawkers, I think it is unfair to those hawkers who have been prosecuted for selling poisonous vegetables. It is because even the USD can't identify the poisonous vegetables which are transported to the markets for sale. Can we have the discretion to shelve the exercise of prosecuting hawkers who sell poisonous vegetables before the commissioning of the Man Kam To Food Control Office?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the suggestion raised by Mr. Stephen WONG is a reasonable one in principle. In actual fact, our Committee has discussed the matter before, but I would like to point out one thing. At present, under the laws of Hong Kong, the Urban Council has to take out prosecution against any person, including retailer, wholesaler, importer, or other suppliers of food, who sells unfit food for human consumption. Our difficulty is that since there is such a legal provision, if we have evidence to prove that somebody has violated the law, and the UC does not prosecute this person, or else the UC will be violating the law. In other words, USD staff have to enforce the obligations stipulated by law. Of course, we understand that some retailers, including hawkers, are sometimes innocent. Sometimes they don't know whether the vegetables are poisonous or not, and it seems that it is unfair to them if they are involved. Basically, the Committee, when discussing this matter, shared the same view. We, of course, have to try to protect the innocent people, and so we are really in a predicament or in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to enforce the obligation stipulated by law, and we must abide by the law. But on the other hand, we have to take into account the difficulties faced by hawkers. At present, the UC has asked the USD to study possible ways to prevent innocent people from being prosecuted. Up till now, we haven't come up with a good solution, but I can assure Mr. WONG that the UC and USD will definitely balance the law as well as the need to protect innocent people, and I hope that USD can come up with good solutions as early as possible. If we can't find a good solution, then I think the UC must enforce the law and fulfill our legal obligations.

MR. MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, it is said that there are some broadcasting vans. I would like to know how many broadcasting vans are in operation? Secondly, I would like to know the broadcasting time of those vans? If you broadcast at a time when there is nobody in the market, say at noon, then I think the effect will be very small.

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I don't have any detailed information regarding the number of vans and the actual broadcasting time. But I can ask the USD to give a reply to Mr. Mok later. I also share Mr. Mok's view that the message should be broadcast when many patrons are in the markets.

MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. PAO has just said that we are in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to strengthen the enforcement of the laws concerning food hygiene, and on the other hand, we don't want to inflict difficulties upon innocent hawkers who don't know how to distinguish between poisonous vegetables and vegetables which are not poisonous. I wonder whether we can state our stand to the public on what the Committee has done in this regard?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, since the food poisoning incident occurred and hawkers were prosecuted, we have discussed this issue at our Committee. At present, basically, we instruct the department to conduct thorough investigations before they take up prosecution action. Through the investigation, we hope the department can trace the source of the poisonous vegetables so as to avoid prosecuting innocent hawkers. But past experience tells us that sometimes it is difficult for USD staff to find evidence to prove that there is a source or to trace the source of those poisonous vegetables. Sometimes the retailers are reluctant to tell the source of the vegetables, and so it is very difficult for USD staff to trace the source. As a result, prosecution action will have to be taken. Firstly, USD staff are instructed to undergo a thorough investigation before they carry out prosecution action. And secondly, under the existing law, anyone who is prosecuted can produce evidence to prove that the vegetables in question are sourced from a third party. In other words, the court will take this evidence into account when considering the case. Of course, this is not the best way because nobody wishes to waste time collecting evidence to prove their own innocence. So the Council is awaiting solutions proposed by the USD, and we hope that after we have received the suggestions, we can actively consider them.

MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, a follow-up question. It is mentioned that prosecution action would not be taken out after the commissioning of the Food Control Office; may we have a better method, say, before the court hears the case, can we have the discretion not to prosecute the hawkers?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the point raised by Mr. MAN has been discussed at the Select Committee and is one of the points being studied by the USD.

Page 68 of 126

Edit History

2026-05-15 19:47:22 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 68 of 126 119 118 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL be referred to the MST Committee as well as the Capital Works Select Committee to install some notice boards in those markets. And I hope that these two Committees can consider approving such arrangements as soon as possible. The third question is about whether the Urban Council can support studies or researches on neutralizing agents conducted by academic institutions. I personally think that is a good idea. I am sure that if any academic institutions approach the Urban Council for support to conduct such studies, our Committee will actively and speedily respond. Thank you. MR. WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a follow-up question. As the department cannot set up a food control office at Man Kam To within a short period of time and poisonous vegetables are usually sold by hawkers, I think it is unfair to those hawkers who have been prosecuted for selling poisonous vegetables. It is because even the USD can't identify the poisonous vegetables which are transported to the markets for sale. Can we have the discretion to shelve the exercise of prosecuting hawkers who sell poisonous vegetables before the commissioning of the Man Kam To Food Control Office? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the suggestion raised by Mr. Stephen WONG is a reasonable one in principle. In actual fact, our Committee has discussed the matter before, but I would like to point out one thing. At present, under the laws of Hong Kong, the Urban Council has to take out prosecution against any person, including retailer, wholesaler, importer, or other suppliers of food, who sells unfit food for human consumption. Our difficulty is that since there is such a legal provision, if we have evidence to prove that somebody has violated the law, and the UC does not prosecute this person, or else the UC will be violating the law. In other words, USD staff have to enforce the obligations stipulated by law. Of course, we understand that some retailers, including hawkers, are sometimes innocent. Sometimes they don't know whether the vegetables are poisonous or not, and it seems that it is unfair to them if they are involved. Basically, the Committee, when discussing this matter, shared the same view. We, of course, have to try to protect the innocent people, and so we are really in a predicament or in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to enforce the obligation stipulated by law, and we must abide by the law. But on the other hand, we have to take into account the difficulties faced by hawkers. At present, the UC has asked the USD to study possible ways to prevent innocent people from being prosecuted. Up till now, we haven't come up with a good solution, but I can assure Mr. WONG that the UC and USD will definitely balance the law as well as the need to protect innocent people, and I hope that USD can come up with good solutions as early as possible. If we can't find a good solution, then I think the UC must enforce the law and fulfill our legal obligations. MR. MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, it is said that there are some broadcasting vans. I would like to know how many broadcasting vans are in operation? Secondly, I would like to know the broadcasting time of those vans? If you broadcast at a time when there is nobody in the market, say at noon, then I think the effect will be very small. MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I don't have any detailed information regarding the number of vans and the actual broadcasting time. But I can ask the USD to give a reply to Mr. Mok later. I also share Mr. Mok's view that the message should be broadcast when many patrons are in the markets. MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. PAO has just said that we are in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to strengthen the enforcement of the laws concerning food hygiene, and on the other hand, we don't want to inflict difficulties upon innocent hawkers who don't know how to distinguish between poisonous vegetables and vegetables which are not poisonous. I wonder whether we can state our stand to the public on what the Committee has done in this regard? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, since the food poisoning incident occurred and hawkers were prosecuted, we have discussed this issue at our Committee. At present, basically, we instruct the department to conduct thorough investigations before they take up prosecution action. Through the investigation, we hope the department can trace the source of the poisonous vegetables so as to avoid prosecuting innocent hawkers. But past experience tells us that sometimes it is difficult for USD staff to find evidence to prove that there is a source or to trace the source of those poisonous vegetables. Sometimes the retailers are reluctant to tell the source of the vegetables, and so it is very difficult for USD staff to trace the source. As a result, prosecution action will have to be taken. Firstly, USD staff are instructed to undergo a thorough investigation before they carry out prosecution action. And secondly, under the existing law, anyone who is prosecuted can produce evidence to prove that the vegetables in question are sourced from a third party. In other words, the court will take this evidence into account when considering the case. Of course, this is not the best way because nobody wishes to waste time collecting evidence to prove their own innocence. So the Council is awaiting solutions proposed by the USD, and we hope that after we have received the suggestions, we can actively consider them. MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, a follow-up question. It is mentioned that prosecution action would not be taken out after the commissioning of the Food Control Office; may we have a better method, say, before the court hears the case, can we have the discretion not to prosecute the hawkers? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the point raised by Mr. MAN has been discussed at the Select Committee and is one of the points being studied by the USD. Page 68 of 126

Baseline (Original)

Page 68 of 126 Page 68 of 126 119 118 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL be referred to the MST Committee as well as the Capital Works Select Committee to install some notice boards in those markets. And I hope that these two Committees can consider approving such arrangements as soon as possible. The third question is about whether the Urban Council can support studies or researches on neutralizing agents conducted by academic institutions. I personally think that is a good idea. I am sure that if any academic institutions approach the Urban Council for support to conduct such studies, our Committee will actively and speedily respond. Thank you. MR. WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a follow up question. As the department cannot set up a food control office at Man Kam To within a short period of time and poisonous vegetables are usually sold by hawkers, I think it is unfair to those hawkers who have been prosecuted for selling poisonous vegetables. It is because even the USD can't identify the poisonous vegetables which are transported to the markets for sale. Can we have the discretion to shelve the exercise of prosecuting hawkers who sell poisonous vegetables before the commissioning of the Man Kam To Food Control Office? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the suggestion raised by Mr. San Stephen WONG is reasonable one in principle. In actual fact, our Committee has discussed the matter before, but I would like to point out one thing. At present, under the laws of Hong Kong, the Urban Council has to take out prosecution against any person including retailer, wholesaler, importer or other suppliers of food, who sells unfit food for human consumption. Our difficulty is that since there is such legal provision, if we have evidence to prove that somebody has violated the law, and the UC does not prosecute this person or else the UC will be violating the law. In other words, USD staff have to enforce the obligations stipulated by law. Of course, we understand that some retailers including hawkers, are sometimes innocent. Sometimes they don't know whether the vegetables are poisonous or not and it seems that it is unfair to them if they are involved. Basically, the Committee when discussing this matter shared the same view. We of course have to try to protect the innocent people and so we are really in a predicament or in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to enforce the obligation stipulated by law and we must abide by the law. But on the other hand, we have to take into account the difficulties faced by hawkers. At present the UC has asked the USD to study possible ways to prevent innocent people from being prosecuted. Up till now, we haven't come up with a good solution but I can assure Mr. WONG that the UC and USD will definitely balance the law as well as the need to protect innocent people and I hope that USD can come up with good solutions as early as possible. If we can't find a good solution, then I think the UC must enforce the law and fullfil our legal obligations. MR. MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, it is said that there are some broadcasting vans. I would like to know how many broadcasting vans are in operation? Secondly, I Page 68 of 126 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL would like to know the broadcasting time of those vans? If you broadcast at a time when there is nobody in the market say at noon, then I think the effect will be very small. MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I don't have any detailed information regarding the number of vans and the actual broadcasting time. But I can ask the USD to give a reply to Mr. Mok later. I also share Mr. Mok's view that the message should be broadcast when many patrons are in the markets. MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, Mr. PAO has just said that we are in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to strengthen to enforce the laws concerning food hygiene and on the other hand, we don't want to inflict difficulties upon innocent hawkers who don't know how to distinguish between poisonous vegetables and vegetables which are not poisonous. I wonder whether we can state our stand to the public what the Committee has done in this regard? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, since the food poisoning incident occurred and hawkers were prosecuted, we have discussed this issue at our Committee. At present, basically we instruct the department to conduct thorough investigations before they take up prosecution action. Through the investigation, we hope the department can trace the source of the poisonous vegetables so as to avoid prosecuting innocent hawkers. But past experience tells us that sometimes it is difficult for USD staff to find evidence to prove that there is a source or to trace the source of those poisonous vegetables. Sometimes the retailers are reluctant to tell the source of the vegetables and so it is very difficult for USD staff to trace the source. As a result, prosecution action will have to be taken. Firstly, USD staff are instructed to undergo a thorough investigation before they carry out prosecution action. And secondly, under the existing law, anyone who is prosecuted can produce evidence to prove that the vegetables in question is sourced from a third party. In other words, the court will take this evidence into account when considering the case. Of course, this is not the best way because nobody wishes to waste time to collect evidence to prove his own innocence. So the Council is awaiting solutions proposed by the USD and we hope that after we have received the suggestions, we can actively consider them. MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, a follow up question. It is mentioned that prosecution action would not be taken out after the commissioning of the Food Control Office, may we have a better method say, before the court hears the case, can we have the discretion not to prosecute the hawkers? MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, the point raised by Mr. MAN has been discussed at the Select Committee and is one of the points being studied by the USD. Page 68 of 126

2026-05-15 19:47:22 · Baseline

View content

Page 68 of 126

119

118

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a follow up question. As the department cannot set up a food control office at Man Kam To within a short period of time and poisonous vegetables are usually sold by hawkers, I think it is unfair to those hawkers who have been prosecuted for selling poisonous vegetables. It is because even the USD can't identify the poisonous vegetables which are transported to the markets for sale. Can we have the discretion to shelve the exercise of prosecuting hawkers who sell poisonous vegetables before the commissioning of the Man Kam To Food Control Office?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the suggestion raised by Mr. San Stephen WONG is reasonable one in principle. In actual fact, our Committee has discussed the matter before, but I would like to point out one thing. At present, under the laws of Hong Kong, the Urban Council has to take out prosecution against any person including retailer, wholesaler, importer or other suppliers of food, who sells unfit food for human consumption. Our difficulty is that since there is such legal provision, if we have evidence to prove that somebody has violated the law, and the UC does not prosecute this person or else the UC will be violating the law. In other words, USD staff have to enforce the obligations stipulated by law. Of course, we understand that some retailers including hawkers, are sometimes innocent. Sometimes they don't know whether the vegetables are poisonous or not and it seems that it is unfair to them if they are involved. Basically, the Committee when discussing this matter shared the same view. We of course have to try to protect the innocent people and so we are really in a predicament or in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to enforce the obligation stipulated by law and we must abide by the law. But on the other hand, we have to take into account the difficulties faced by hawkers. At present the UC has asked the USD to study possible ways to prevent innocent people from being prosecuted. Up till now, we haven't come up with a good solution but I can assure Mr. WONG that the UC and USD will definitely balance the law as well as the need to protect innocent people and I hope that USD can come up with good solutions as early as possible. If we can't find a good solution, then I think the UC must enforce the law and fullfil our legal obligations.

MR. MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, it is said that there are some broadcasting vans. I would like to know how many broadcasting vans are in operation? Secondly, I

Page 68 of 126

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

would like to know the broadcasting time of those vans? If you broadcast at a time when there is nobody in the market say at noon, then I think the effect will be very small.

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I don't have any detailed information regarding the number of vans and the actual broadcasting time. But I can ask the USD to give a reply to Mr. Mok later. I also share Mr. Mok's view that the message should be broadcast when many patrons are in the markets.

MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, Mr. PAO has just said that we are in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to strengthen to enforce the laws concerning food hygiene and on the other hand, we don't want to inflict difficulties upon innocent hawkers who don't know how to distinguish between poisonous vegetables and vegetables which are not poisonous. I wonder whether we can state our stand to the public what the Committee has done in this regard?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, since the food poisoning incident occurred and hawkers were prosecuted, we have discussed this issue at our Committee. At present, basically we instruct the department to conduct thorough investigations before they take up prosecution action. Through the investigation, we hope the department can trace the source of the poisonous vegetables so as to avoid prosecuting innocent hawkers. But past experience tells us that sometimes it is difficult for USD staff to find evidence to prove that there is a source or to trace the source of those poisonous vegetables. Sometimes the retailers are reluctant to tell the source of the vegetables and so it is very difficult for USD staff to trace the source. As a result, prosecution action will have to be taken. Firstly, USD staff are instructed to undergo a thorough investigation before they carry out prosecution action. And secondly, under the existing law, anyone who is prosecuted can produce evidence to prove that the vegetables in question is sourced from a third party. In other words, the court will take this evidence into account when considering the case. Of course, this is not the best way because nobody wishes to waste time to collect evidence to prove his own innocence. So the Council is awaiting solutions proposed by the USD and we hope that after we have received the suggestions, we can actively consider them.

MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, a follow up question. It is mentioned that prosecution action would not be taken out after the commissioning of the Food Control Office, may we have a better method say, before the court hears the case, can we have the discretion not to prosecute the hawkers?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, the point raised by Mr. MAN has been discussed at the Select Committee and is one of the points being studied by the USD.

1991 — Page 68

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note