Page 42 of 498
of 498
42
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
to admit our mistake. I do not agree with the Chairman that we should not discuss this case since it is pending with the Privy Council.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-I must interrupt, Mr. Daniel WONG. It is not my decision, but that of the SCWC.
MR. DANIEL WONG KWOK-TUNG (in Cantonese):-I object to that decision of the SCWC because what we are discussing now is 'sub judice' in law. I query since when a party is not allowed to discuss the party's case. The principle of sub judice states that an outsider is not allowed to discuss a pending case. Why is it that a party to the case should not discuss his case? Why can't the party reflect on his mistake? I am pleased that this year's Council is an elected one. Our orientation may be different, nevertheless I call on Members to have the courage to face up to and rectify our past mistakes. If we continue to insist and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on the case, I don't see any sense in it.
This motion seeks to state the spirit of the matter. We endorse the principle that itinerant hawkers can have the option to surrender their licences in exchange for licences for fixed pitches or market stalls. In fact, over the years, I have always considered itinerant hawkers as the 'babies' of the Council, and they are obedient babies too. If we look back, they accepted quietly when we decided to increase licence fees or implement the computerised demerit system. We decided on this policy for our own administrative convenience and I for one maintain that it is not acceptable.
I am talking about principles. If they can actually be given choices, then I hope Members will consider offering them more options on the principle that they are not forced to choose. It is their right to exist. If they are unwilling to choose and they continue their way of business which has been ongoing for 30 or even 40 years, I can see no justification or ground to force them to give up the right they are entitled to.
So, the spirit of the motion is to extend the hope for the Council and the Department to discuss with relevant departments on whether more fixed pitches can be offered to itinerant hawkers. Of course, when choosing the locations, the endorsement of the relevant District Boards and District Management Committees should be sought. We can also mark out stalls in new markets for them to choose from. Whether they choose or not should be their own decision. We should not impose on them to give up their rights. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LEUNG KAM-TAO (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-So we have the motion proposed and seconded, and we have not received any amendments. I have in hand the list of Members who wish to speak. I am going to call upon them to speak one by one.
42 of 498
Page 42 of 498
of 498
42
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
to admit our mistake. I do not agree with the Chairman that we should not discuss this case since it is pending with the Privy Council.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-I must interrupt, Mr. Daniel WONG. It is not my decision, but that of the SCWC.
MR. DANIEL WONG KWOK-TUNG (in Cantonese):-I object to that decision of the SCWC because what we are discussing now is 'sub judice' in law. I query since when a party is not allowed to discuss the party's case. The principle of sub judice states that an outsider is not allowed to discuss a pending case. Why is it that a party to the case should not discuss his case? Why can't the party reflect on his mistake? I am pleased that this year's Council is an elected one. Our orientation may be different, nevertheless I call on Members to have the courage to face up to and rectify our past mistakes. If we continue to insist and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on the case, I don't see any sense in it.
This motion seeks to state the spirit of the matter. We endorse the principle that itinerant hawkers can have the option to surrender their licences in exchange for licences for fixed pitches or market stalls. In fact, over the years, I have always considered itinerant hawkers as the 'babies' of the Council, and they are obedient babies too. If we look back, they accepted quietly when we decided to increase licence fees or implement the computerised demerit system. We decided on this policy for our own administrative convenience and I for one maintain that it is not acceptable.
I am talking about principles. If they can actually be given choices, then I hope Members will consider offering them more options on the principle that they are not forced to choose. It is their right to exist. If they are unwilling to choose and they continue their way of business which has been ongoing for 30 or even 40 years, I can see no justification or ground to force them to give up the right they are entitled to.
So, the spirit of the motion is to extend the hope for the Council and the Department to discuss with relevant departments on whether more fixed pitches can be offered to itinerant hawkers. Of course, when choosing the locations, the endorsement of the relevant District Boards and District Management Committees should be sought. We can also mark out stalls in new markets for them to choose from. Whether they choose or not should be their own decision. We should not impose on them to give up their rights. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LEUNG KAM-TAO (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-So we have the motion proposed and seconded, and we have not received any amendments. I have in hand the list of Members who wish to speak. I am going to call upon them to speak one by one.
42 of 498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.