1993 — Page 14

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 14 of 132

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 14 of 132

DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English): Mr. Chairman, when arrests are made, only a few hawkers, 2 or 3, can be arrested in one morning and it takes a long time to process the cases. If there are summonses they can be given a summons every day if they keep on breaking the law. And the large number can be summonsed at the same time. So by giving summonses surely a larger number can be prosecuted. So can Mr. IP explain why arresting is more effective? I maintain it is far less effective.

MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated earlier on, our aim is to remove the hawkers from the scene of offence, thus completely disrupting their trading and causing major inconvenience to them. With regard to the points made by Dr. Tu, if summonses are found to have a greater deterrent effect than arrest, I am certainly happy to take up the point with the MST S/C.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask two supplementary questions.

First, with regard to the reply given by Mr. IP as to how to do away with obstruction caused by these itinerant hawker licensees, can Mr. IP give a guideline to these hawkers under what circumstances can they avoid being arrested when trading?

Secondly, there are at present 3,500 itinerant hawker licensees, of these, there are 2,800 who are still operating on the street and every month there are around 1,000 arrests. In other words, itinerant hawker licensees can be prosecuted four times every year. Although licences are issued to them, they have committed offences regularly. I would like to ask Mr. IP when these licences are due for renewal, can we consider not renewing them with their licences if they commit say a certain number of offences at a certain period of time?

MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you for Mr. LAU's two questions.

The first one asks whether we can give a guideline under what circumstances the itinerant hawkers can trade without committing offences. As I stated a moment ago, we are reviewing the issue of itinerant hawker licences. We are of the opinion that the spirit of issuing such licences is subject to dispute. According to this licence, a licensee should not operate at fixed pitches. But the situation has changed and these licensees have been operating from hand carts. They no longer carry a basket of clothes to sell, unlike the situation in the past. So the intention for issuing such licences is that these licensees should not operate at fixed positions. But the situation has changed over time. We cannot really give very specific guidelines to these licensees in order to avoid being prosecuted.

Turning now to the second question, for repeated offenders, if they commit a number of offences, we will consider revoking their licenses. We do not have such a policy at present. As to whether we want to formulate such a policy, I have to refer the matter to the MST S/C for discussion. I cannot therefore give a firm reply to the second question of Mr. LAU.

MR. FUNG KWONG-CHUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese): According to press coverage, a 'No Litter in Public Places' Campaign has been launched in Maryland, U.S.A. The programme includes the abolition of litter boxes in the picnic areas in the state parks and forests, and also beaches. The staff of the park management will distribute to each visitor a recycled polythene bag with which they are expected to take away their litter. The aim is to encourage the recovering of litter. Moreover, the non-availability of litter boxes there may help the citizens cherish the habit of producing less litter. Besides, the abolition of litter containers, which themselves affect environmental hygiene, may also enhance the beauty of the parks. For the part of management, the elimination of this saves the resources used to be spent on the disposal of litter of the parks. Having held the 'Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign' for so many years, the Council is responsible for heightening the sense of environmental protection among the citizens. I think to encourage them to produce less litter is a positive and effective approach. I would like to ask whether the Council or the Department may introduce this concept and implement such new measure in the parks or beaches under the jurisdiction of the Council?

MR. WONG SHUI-LAI, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English): The question asks whether Council will follow the proposed practice of Maryland, U.S.A. of not providing litter containers in parks and beaches.

Each country, territory and state tends to have its own particular cultural, geographical and sociological features. Maryland differs from Hong Kong in a number of important respects. The population of Maryland of 4.8 million gives rise to a population density of about 500 persons per square mile. Hong Kong's urban area with a population of 3.2 million gives rise to a population density of about 73,000 per square mile. Partly as a result of this, parks and beaches in Maryland do not have the heavy usage of similar facilities in Hong Kong. Furthermore, most people in Maryland, and indeed throughout the U.S.A., travel to facilities such as beaches, parks and other leisure facilities by private car, with their cars typically parked in close proximity. It would therefore be relatively easy for them to take their refuse home in the rear of their cars. The situation in Hong Kong is quite different.

The vast majority of people in Hong Kong make use of public transport to visit parks and beaches, often travelling relatively long distances. It would be inappropriate and unrealistic to expect them to carry home large bags of waste perhaps for long periods on buses and the like. If litter containers are not conveniently sited near leisure facilities, many will surely take the easy way out by disposing of refuse through indiscriminate dumping. The resources saved by not providing and emptying such containers would likely be more than outweighed by having to deal with refuse dumped all over the place.

Page 14 of 132

Edit History

2026-05-15 21:28:02 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 14 of 132 24 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 14 of 132 25 DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English): Mr. Chairman, when arrests are made, only a few hawkers, 2 or 3, can be arrested in one morning and it takes a long time to process the cases. If there are summonses they can be given a summons every day if they keep on breaking the law. And the large number can be summonsed at the same time. So by giving summonses surely a larger number can be prosecuted. So can Mr. IP explain why arresting is more effective? I maintain it is far less effective. MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated earlier on, our aim is to remove the hawkers from the scene of offence, thus completely disrupting their trading and causing major inconvenience to them. With regard to the points made by Dr. Tu, if summonses are found to have a greater deterrent effect than arrest, I am certainly happy to take up the point with the MST S/C. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, with regard to the reply given by Mr. IP as to how to do away with obstruction caused by these itinerant hawker licensees, can Mr. IP give a guideline to these hawkers under what circumstances can they avoid being arrested when trading? Secondly, there are at present 3,500 itinerant hawker licensees, of these, there are 2,800 who are still operating on the street and every month there are around 1,000 arrests. In other words, itinerant hawker licensees can be prosecuted four times every year. Although licences are issued to them, they have committed offences regularly. I would like to ask Mr. IP when these licences are due for renewal, can we consider not renewing them with their licences if they commit say a certain number of offences at a certain period of time? MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you for Mr. LAU's two questions. The first one asks whether we can give a guideline under what circumstances the itinerant hawkers can trade without committing offences. As I stated a moment ago, we are reviewing the issue of itinerant hawker licences. We are of the opinion that the spirit of issuing such licences is subject to dispute. According to this licence, a licensee should not operate at fixed pitches. But the situation has changed and these licensees have been operating from hand carts. They no longer carry a basket of clothes to sell, unlike the situation in the past. So the intention for issuing such licences is that these licensees should not operate at fixed positions. But the situation has changed over time. We cannot really give very specific guidelines to these licensees in order to avoid being prosecuted. Turning now to the second question, for repeated offenders, if they commit a number of offences, we will consider revoking their licenses. We do not have such a policy at present. As to whether we want to formulate such a policy, I have to refer the matter to the MST S/C for discussion. I cannot therefore give a firm reply to the second question of Mr. LAU. 3. MR. FUNG KWONG-CHUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese): According to press coverage, a 'No Litter in Public Places' Campaign has been launched in Maryland, U.S.A. The programme includes the abolition of litter boxes in the picnic areas in the state parks and forests, and also beaches. The staff of the park management will distribute to each visitor a recycled polythene bag with which they are expected to take away their litter. The aim is to encourage the recovering of litter. Moreover, the non-availability of litter boxes there may help the citizens cherish the habit of producing less litter. Besides, the abolition of litter containers, which themselves affect environmental hygiene, may also enhance the beauty of the parks. For the part of management, the elimination of this saves the resources used to be spent on the disposal of litter of the parks. Having held the 'Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign' for so many years, the Council is responsible for heightening the sense of environmental protection among the citizens. I think to encourage them to produce less litter is a positive and effective approach. I would like to ask whether the Council or the Department may introduce this concept and implement such new measure in the parks or beaches under the jurisdiction of the Council? MR. WONG SHUI-LAI, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English): The question asks whether Council will follow the proposed practice of Maryland, U.S.A. of not providing litter containers in parks and beaches. Each country, territory and state tends to have its own particular cultural, geographical and sociological features. Maryland differs from Hong Kong in a number of important respects. The population of Maryland of 4.8 million gives rise to a population density of about 500 persons per square mile. Hong Kong's urban area with a population of 3.2 million gives rise to a population density of about 73,000 per square mile. Partly as a result of this, parks and beaches in Maryland do not have the heavy usage of similar facilities in Hong Kong. Furthermore, most people in Maryland, and indeed throughout the U.S.A., travel to facilities such as beaches, parks and other leisure facilities by private car, with their cars typically parked in close proximity. It would therefore be relatively easy for them to take their refuse home in the rear of their cars. The situation in Hong Kong is quite different. The vast majority of people in Hong Kong make use of public transport to visit parks and beaches, often travelling relatively long distances. It would be inappropriate and unrealistic to expect them to carry home large bags of waste perhaps for long periods on buses and the like. If litter containers are not conveniently sited near leisure facilities, many will surely take the easy way out by disposing of refuse through indiscriminate dumping. The resources saved by not providing and emptying such containers would likely be more than outweighed by having to deal with refuse dumped all over the place. Page 14 of 132

Baseline (Original)

1 Page 14 of 132 24 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 14 of 132 25 DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English): Mr. Chairman, when arrests are made, only a few hawkers, 2 or 3, can be arrested in one morning and it takes a long time to process the cases. If there are summonses they can be given a summons everyday if they keep on breaking the law. And the large number can be summonsed at the same time. So by giving summonses surely a larger number can be prosecuted. So can Mr. IP explain why arresting is more effective? I maintain it is far less effective. MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):--Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated earlier on, our aim is to remove the hawkers from the scene of offence, thus completely disrupting their trading and causing major inconvenience to them. With regard to hte points make by Dr. Tu, if summonses are found to have a greater deterrent effect than arrest, I am certainly happy to take up the point with the MST S/C. MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, with regard to the reply given by Mr. IP as to how to do away with obstruction caused by these itinerant hawker licensees, can Mr. IP give a guideline to these hawkers under what circumstances can they avoid being arrested when trading? Secondly, there are at present 3 500 itinerant hawker licensees, of these, there are 2 800 who are still operating on the street and every month there are around 1000 arrests. In other words, itinerant hawker licensees can be prosecuted four times every year. Although licences are issued to them, they have committed offences regularly. I would like to ask Mr. IP when these licences are due for renewal, can we consider not renewing them with their licences if they commit say a certain number of offences at a certain period of time? MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):-Thank you for Mr. LAU's two questions. The first one asks whether we can give a guideline under what circumstances the itinerant hawkers can trade without committing offences. As I stated a moment ago, we are reviewing the issue of itinerant hawker licences. We are of the opinion that the spirit of issuing such licences is subject to dispute. According to this licence, a licensee should not operate at fixed pitches. But the situation has changed and these licensees have been operating from hand cart. They no longer carry a basket of clothes to sell, unlike the situation in the past. So the intention for issuing such licences is that these licensees should not operate at fixed position. But the situation has changed over time. We cannot really give very specific guidelines to these licensees in order to avoid being. prosecuted. Turning now to the second question, for repeated offenders, if they commit a number of offences, we will consider revoking their licenses. We do not have Page 14 of 132 such a policy at present. As to whether we want to formulate such a policy, I have to refer the matter to the MST S/C for discussion. I cannot therefore give a firm reply to the second question of Mr. LAU. 3. MR. FUNG KWONG-CHUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese):---- According to press coverage, a 'No Litter in Public Places' Campaign has been launched in Maryland, U.S.A. The programme includes the abolition of litter boxes in the picnic areas in the state parks and forests, and also beaches. The staff of the park management will distribute to each visitor a recycled polythene bag with which they are expected to take away their litter. The aim is to encourage the recovering of litter. Moreover, the non-availability of litter boxes there may help the citizens cherish the habit of producing less litter. Besides, the abolition of litter containers, which themselves affect environmental hygiene, may also enhance the beauty of the parks. For the part of management, the elimination of this saves the resources used to be spent on the disposal of litter of the parks. Having held the 'Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign' for so many years, the Council is responsible for heightening the sense of environmental protection among the citizens. I think to encourage them to produce less litter is a positive and effective approach. I would like to ask whether the Council or the Department may introduce this concept and implement such new measure in the parks or beaches under the jurisdiction of the Council? MR. WONG SHUI-LAI, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-The question asks whether Council will follow the proposed practice of Maryland, U.S.A. of not providing litter containers in parks and beaches. Each country, territory and states tends to have its own particular cultural, geographical and sociological features. Maryland differs from Hong Kong in a number of important respects. The population of Maryland of 4.8 million gives rise to a population density of about 500 person per square mile. Hong Kong's urban area with a population of 3.2 million gives rise to a population density of about 73 000 per square mile. Partly as a result of this, parks and beaches in Maryland do not have the heavy usage of similar facilities in Hong Kong. Furthermore, most people in Maryland, and indeed through the U.S.A., travel to facilities such as beaches, parks and other leisure facilities by private car, with their cars typically parked in close proximity. It would therefore relatively easy for them to take their refuse home in the rear of their cars. The situation in Hong Kong is quite different. The vast majority of people in Hong Kong make use of public transport to visit parks and beaches, often travelling relatively long distances. It would be inappropriate and unrealistic to expect them to carry home large bags of waste perhaps for long periods on buses and the like. If litter containers are not conveniently sited near leisure facilities, many will surely take the easy way out by disposing of refuse through indiscriminate dumping. The resources saved by not providing and emptying such containers would likely be more than outweighed by having to deal with refuse dumped all over the place. Page 14 of 132

2026-05-15 21:28:02 · Baseline

View content

Page 14 of 132

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 14 of 132

DR. THE HON. ELSIE TU (in English): Mr. Chairman, when arrests are made, only a few hawkers, 2 or 3, can be arrested in one morning and it takes a long time to process the cases. If there are summonses they can be given a summons everyday if they keep on breaking the law. And the large number can be summonsed at the same time. So by giving summonses surely a larger number can be prosecuted. So can Mr. IP explain why arresting is more effective? I maintain it is far less effective.

MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):--Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated earlier on, our aim is to remove the hawkers from the scene of offence, thus completely disrupting their trading and causing major inconvenience to them. With regard to hte points make by Dr. Tu, if summonses are found to have a greater deterrent effect than arrest, I am certainly happy to take up the point with the MST S/C.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask two supplementary questions.

Secondly, there are at present 3 500 itinerant hawker licensees, of these, there are 2 800 who are still operating on the street and every month there are around 1000 arrests. In other words, itinerant hawker licensees can be prosecuted four times every year. Although licences are issued to them, they have committed offences regularly. I would like to ask Mr. IP when these licences are due for renewal, can we consider not renewing them with their licences if they commit say a certain number of offences at a certain period of time?

MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):-Thank you for Mr. LAU's two questions.

The first one asks whether we can give a guideline under what circumstances the itinerant hawkers can trade without committing offences. As I stated a moment ago, we are reviewing the issue of itinerant hawker licences. We are of the opinion that the spirit of issuing such licences is subject to dispute. According to this licence, a licensee should not operate at fixed pitches. But the situation has changed and these licensees have been operating from hand cart. They no longer carry a basket of clothes to sell, unlike the situation in the past. So the intention for issuing such licences is that these licensees should not operate at fixed position. But the situation has changed over time. We cannot really give very specific guidelines to these licensees in order to avoid being. prosecuted.

Turning now to the second question, for repeated offenders, if they commit a number of offences, we will consider revoking their licenses. We do not have

Page 14 of 132

such a policy at present. As to whether we want to formulate such a policy, I have to refer the matter to the MST S/C for discussion. I cannot therefore give a firm reply to the second question of Mr. LAU.

MR. FUNG KWONG-CHUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese):---- According to press coverage, a 'No Litter in Public Places' Campaign has been launched in Maryland, U.S.A. The programme includes the abolition of litter boxes in the picnic areas in the state parks and forests, and also beaches. The staff of the park management will distribute to each visitor a recycled polythene bag with which they are expected to take away their litter. The aim is to encourage the recovering of litter. Moreover, the non-availability of litter boxes there may help the citizens cherish the habit of producing less litter. Besides, the abolition of litter containers, which themselves affect environmental hygiene, may also enhance the beauty of the parks. For the part of management, the elimination of this saves the resources used to be spent on the disposal of litter of the parks. Having held the 'Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign' for so many years, the Council is responsible for heightening the sense of environmental protection among the citizens. I think to encourage them to produce less litter is a positive and effective approach. I would like to ask whether the Council or the Department may introduce this concept and implement such new measure in the parks or beaches under the jurisdiction of the Council?

MR. WONG SHUI-LAI, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-The question asks whether Council will follow the proposed practice of Maryland, U.S.A. of not providing litter containers in parks and beaches.

Each country, territory and states tends to have its own particular cultural, geographical and sociological features. Maryland differs from Hong Kong in a number of important respects. The population of Maryland of 4.8 million gives rise to a population density of about 500 person per square mile. Hong Kong's urban area with a population of 3.2 million gives rise to a population density of about 73 000 per square mile. Partly as a result of this, parks and beaches in Maryland do not have the heavy usage of similar facilities in Hong Kong. Furthermore, most people in Maryland, and indeed through the U.S.A., travel to facilities such as beaches, parks and other leisure facilities by private car, with their cars typically parked in close proximity. It would therefore relatively easy for them to take their refuse home in the rear of their cars. The situation in Hong Kong is quite different.

1993 — Page 14

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note