HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
47
First, the licensed street traders' and their representative bodies' request for a review on this policy is legitimate.
The reason is that the licensees or their representative bodies who are directly affected by the deletion policy have not been widely and thoroughly consulted. The implementation of such a policy has a direct and serious impact on the livelihood of licensed street traders who in fact are lawful operators. Although those who hold opposite views may say that the Council's policy-making authority should not be challenged, this policy is, in effect, a decision that adversely affects the livelihood of the people concerned. There is no reason whatsoever for not respecting public opinion and for making a unilateral decision without consulting the street traders who have been depending on their licences for a living. Furthermore, it is the Council's tradition that before any licence is cancelled, a careful review will be conducted whereby the licensee will be given the right to appeal. The Council's Review Select Committee was set up for this purpose. The compulsory elimination of itinerant hawker licences is unfair since it does not give the street traders affected by the policy the right of appeal.
Second, the request made by the licensed street traders and their representative bodies for the two Municipal Councils to have uniform policy on itinerant hawker licences is reasonable.
The current policy of the Regional Council on itinerant hawker licences is to freeze the issue of new licences and to deal with existing ones by way of natural attrition, whereas the Urban Council's decision is to eliminate all itinerant hawker licences by 1 April 1996. This has led to a divergent situation where we have 'one licence, two systems'. As the licensed street traders have queried: Why is it that the Regional Council can deal with existing licences by way of natural attrition whereas the Urban Council is forcing people out of business? Where is justice then? How can a government deal with the same social issue with double standards?
Undoubtedly, the way the Regional Council deals with the long-standing itinerant hawker licence issue is sensible, pragmatic and shows its concern for the people in difficulties. This is indeed something this fully elected Council should reflect on and learn from.
Moreover, the demand put forward by the licensed street traders and their representative bodies for leniency in the treatment of the remaining 1,700-plus itinerant hawker licence holders is both fair and reasonable.
Unless those who hold opposite views can provide strong evidence to prove; first, that the ex-gratia payment of $30,000 is enough for the hawker who surrenders his licence to support him for life; and second, that the hawker is holding on to his itinerant hawker licence even though he has the ability and capital to operate a stall in a UC market; otherwise, they should discard their bureaucratic pride and show concern for old hawkers who are losing their livelihood.
Page 333 of 485
Page 333 of 485
Page 333 of 485
Page 333 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
47
First, the licensed street traders' and their representative bodies' request for a review on this policy is legitimate.
The reason is that the licensees or their representative bodies who are directly affected by the deletion policy have not been widely and thoroughly consulted. The implementation of such a policy has a direct and serious impact on the livelihood of licensed street traders who in fact are lawful operators. Although those who hold opposite views may say that the Council's policy-making authority should not be challenged, this policy is, in effect, a decision that adversely affects the livelihood of the people concerned. There is no reason whatsoever for not respecting public opinion and for making a unilateral decision without consulting the street traders who have been depending on their licences for a living. Furthermore, it is the Council's tradition that before any licence is cancelled, a careful review will be conducted whereby the licensee will be given the right to appeal. The Council's Review Select Committee was set up for this purpose. The compulsory elimination of itinerant hawker licences is unfair since it does not give the street traders affected by the policy the right of appeal.
Second, the request made by the licensed street traders and their representative bodies for the two Municipal Councils to have uniform policy on itinerant hawker licences is reasonable.
The current policy of the Regional Council on itinerant hawker licences is to freeze the issue of new licences and to deal with existing ones by way of natural attrition, whereas the Urban Council's decision is to eliminate all itinerant hawker licences by 1 April 1996. This has led to a divergent situation where we have 'one licence. two systems". As the licensed street traders have queried: Why is it that the Regional Council can deal with existing licences by way of natural attrition whereas the Urban Council is forcing people out of business? Where is justice then? How can a government deal with the same social issue with double standards?
Undoubtedly, the way the Regional Council deals with the long-standing itinerant hawker licence issue is sensible, pragmatic and shows its concern for the people in difficulties. This is indeed something this fully elected Council should reflect on and learn from.
Moreover, the demand put forward by the licensed street traders and their representative bodies for leniency in the treatment of the remaining 1 700-plus itinerant hawker licence holders is both fair and reasonable.
Unless those who hold opposite view can provide strong evidence to prove; first, that the ex-gratia payment of $30,000 is enough for the hawker who surrenders his licence to support him for life; and second, that the hawker is holding on to his itinerant hawker licence even though he has the ability and capital to operate a stall in a UC market; otherwise, they should discard their bureaucratic pride and show concern for old hawkers who are losing their livelihood.
Page 333 of 485
Page 333 of 485
Page 333 of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.