1996 — Page 43

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next Source

Page 43 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

43

MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. Daniel WONG's motion, I would like to focus on how we can effectively help itinerant hawkers in obtaining a satisfactory, reasonable and fair resiting arrangement during the transitional period. I support the spirit of Mr. Daniel WONG's motion and Mr. WONG made the suggestion to demarcate street space and arrange with relevant departments for the provision of more fixed pitches for hawkers. Apart from that, Mr. WONG made his second suggestion for a two-prong approach. He asked to allocate vacant stalls in new markets for itinerant hawkers to choose from after fixed pitch hawkers in the vicinity had been provided for.

Concerning this two-prong approach as a transitional arrangement, I would like to give arguments in support of it. When the Council and the Department decided to implement the policy in 1993, a moral undertaking was proposed for Members' consideration. The proposal: 'It was estimated that in the three year transitional period, there would be sufficient time and ample opportunities for itinerant hawkers to become fixed pitch or market stall holders.' That was the basic, moral undertaking. A review to see if the transitional arrangement was adequate shows that the answer is an obvious 'no'. At present, we still have over 1 420 itinerant hawkers. The Department says there are over 1 500 places for itinerant hawkers to choose from and that among the 1 500 places, on-street and market stalls are included. The point of contention seems to be the figures, the viability and whether these stalls can be used as business tools. Some places are what we call 'doomed spots' that cannot attract any business. That is not the view of Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG alone, it is shared by itinerant hawkers. We do not necessarily have to believe in itinerant hawkers. If we disagree that the 1 500 places are ‘doomed spots', we can negotiate with itinerant hawkers. For example, we can give them three chances to exercise their options. If they insist on not choosing, I suggest we deal with the matter in another way. The Department should not sit on the 1 500 places. Instead, they should be offered for open tender. If they are not 'doomed spots', someone will come forward to bid. If we just sit on the 1 500 places rejected by itinerant hawkers, we are in fact wasting the resources of the Council. So, my first suggestion is that we should continue to negotiate with itinerant hawkers on how to allocate the 1 500 places. If they refuse to take them, I hope they agree for us to offer them for open bidding.

On the other hand, we have to find out if the suggestion for a two-prong approach is feasible and see whether it is viable to fight with relevant departments for the marking-out of more on-street spaces for itinerant hawkers. My answer is that they are feasible plans. In 1992/93, there was a scheme for the restructuring of Pei Ho Street Market in Sham Shui Po. Indeed, that was the largest restructuring exercise of the Council. At that time, with the support of the District Board and District Office, the Council took the opinions of people in the vicinity and urged the Transport Department and Highways Department to demarcate 950 stalls in seven streets near Pei Ho

Page 43 of 498

Page 43 of 498

Page 43 of 498

Edit History

2026-05-16 01:04:05 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Page 43 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 43 MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. Daniel WONG's motion, I would like to focus on how we can effectively help itinerant hawkers in obtaining a satisfactory, reasonable and fair resiting arrangement during the transitional period. I support the spirit of Mr. Daniel WONG's motion and Mr. WONG made the suggestion to demarcate street space and arrange with relevant departments for the provision of more fixed pitches for hawkers. Apart from that, Mr. WONG made his second suggestion for a two-prong approach. He asked to allocate vacant stalls in new markets for itinerant hawkers to choose from after fixed pitch hawkers in the vicinity had been provided for. Concerning this two-prong approach as a transitional arrangement, I would like to give arguments in support of it. When the Council and the Department decided to implement the policy in 1993, a moral undertaking was proposed for Members' consideration. The proposal: 'It was estimated that in the three year transitional period, there would be sufficient time and ample opportunities for itinerant hawkers to become fixed pitch or market stall holders.' That was the basic, moral undertaking. A review to see if the transitional arrangement was adequate shows that the answer is an obvious 'no'. At present, we still have over 1 420 itinerant hawkers. The Department says there are over 1 500 places for itinerant hawkers to choose from and that among the 1 500 places, on-street and market stalls are included. The point of contention seems to be the figures, the viability and whether these stalls can be used as business tools. Some places are what we call 'doomed spots' that cannot attract any business. That is not the view of Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG alone, it is shared by itinerant hawkers. We do not necessarily have to believe in itinerant hawkers. If we disagree that the 1 500 places are ‘doomed spots', we can negotiate with itinerant hawkers. For example, we can give them three chances to exercise their options. If they insist on not choosing, I suggest we deal with the matter in another way. The Department should not sit on the 1 500 places. Instead, they should be offered for open tender. If they are not 'doomed spots', someone will come forward to bid. If we just sit on the 1 500 places rejected by itinerant hawkers, we are in fact wasting the resources of the Council. So, my first suggestion is that we should continue to negotiate with itinerant hawkers on how to allocate the 1 500 places. If they refuse to take them, I hope they agree for us to offer them for open bidding. On the other hand, we have to find out if the suggestion for a two-prong approach is feasible and see whether it is viable to fight with relevant departments for the marking-out of more on-street spaces for itinerant hawkers. My answer is that they are feasible plans. In 1992/93, there was a scheme for the restructuring of Pei Ho Street Market in Sham Shui Po. Indeed, that was the largest restructuring exercise of the Council. At that time, with the support of the District Board and District Office, the Council took the opinions of people in the vicinity and urged the Transport Department and Highways Department to demarcate 950 stalls in seven streets near Pei Ho Page 43 of 498 Page 43 of 498 Page 43 of 498
Baseline (Original)
Page 43 of 498 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 43 MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. Daniel WONG's motion, I would like to focus on how we can effectively help itinerant hawkers in obtaining a satisfactory, reasonable and fair resiting arrangement during the transitional period. I support the spirit of Mr. Daniel WONG's motion and Mr. WONG made the suggestion to demarcate street space and arrange with relevant departments for the provision of more fixed pitches for hawkers. Apart from that, Mr. WONG made his second suggestion for a two-prong approach. He asked to allocate vacant stalls in new markets for itinerant hawkers to choose from after fixed pitch hawkers in the vicinity had been provided for. Concerning this two-prong approach as a transitional arrangement, I would like to give arguments in support of it. When the Council and the Department decided to implement the policy in 1993, a moral undertaking was proposed for Members' consideration. The proposal: 'It was estimated that in the three year transitional period, there would be sufficient time and ample opportunities for itinerant hawkers to become fixed pitch or market stall holders.' That was the basic, moral undertaking. A review to see if the transitional arrangement was adequate shows that the answer is an obvious 'no'. At present, we still have over 1 420 itinerant hawkers. The Department says there are over 1 500 places for itinerant hawkers to choose from and that among the 1 500 places, on-street and market stalls are included. The point of contention seems to be the figures, the viability and whether these stalls can be used as business tools. Some places are what we call 'doomed spots' that cannot attract any business. That is not the view of Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG alone, it is shared by itinerant hawkers. We do not necessarily have to believe in itinerant hawkers. If we disagree that the 1 500 places are ‘doomed spots', we can negotiate with itinerant hawkers. For example, we can give them three chances to exercise their options. If they insist on not choosing, I suggest we deal with the matter in another way. The Department should not sit on the 1 500 places. Instead, they should be offered for open tender. If they are not 'doomed spots', someone will come forward to bid. If we just sit on the 1 500 places rejected by itinerant hawkers, we are in fact wasting the resources of the Council. So, my first suggestion is that we should continue to negotiate with itinerant hawkers on how to allocate the 1 500 places. If they refuse to take them, I hope they agree for us to offer them for open bidding. On the other hand, we have to find out if the suggestion for a two-prong approach is feasible and see whether it is viable to fight with relevant departments for the marking-out of more on-street spaces for itinerant hawkers. My answer is that they are feasible plans. In 1992/93, there was a scheme for the restructuring of Pei Ho Street Market in Sham Shui Po. Indeed, that was the largest restructuring exercise of the Council. At that time, with the support of the District Board and District Office, the Council took the opinions of people in the vicinity and urged the Transport Department and Highways Department to demarcate 950 stalls in seven streets near Pei Ho Page 43 of 498 Page 43 of 498 Page 43 of 498
2026-05-16 01:04:05 · Baseline
View content

Page 43 of 498

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

43

MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. Daniel WONG's motion, I would like to focus on how we can effectively help itinerant hawkers in obtaining a satisfactory, reasonable and fair resiting arrangement during the transitional period. I support the spirit of Mr. Daniel WONG's motion and Mr. WONG made the suggestion to demarcate street space and arrange with relevant departments for the provision of more fixed pitches for hawkers. Apart from that, Mr. WONG made his second suggestion for a two-prong approach. He asked to allocate vacant stalls in new markets for itinerant hawkers to choose from after fixed pitch hawkers in the vicinity had been provided for.

Concerning this two-prong approach as a transitional arrangement, I would like to give arguments in support of it. When the Council and the Department decided to implement the policy in 1993, a moral undertaking was proposed for Members' consideration. The proposal: 'It was estimated that in the three year transitional period, there would be sufficient time and ample opportunities for itinerant hawkers to become fixed pitch or market stall holders.' That was the basic, moral undertaking. A review to see if the transitional arrangement was adequate shows that the answer is an obvious 'no'. At present, we still have over 1 420 itinerant hawkers. The Department says there are over 1 500 places for itinerant hawkers to choose from and that among the 1 500 places, on-street and market stalls are included. The point of contention seems to be the figures, the viability and whether these stalls can be used as business tools. Some places are what we call 'doomed spots' that cannot attract any business. That is not the view of Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG alone, it is shared by itinerant hawkers. We do not necessarily have to believe in itinerant hawkers. If we disagree that the 1 500 places are ‘doomed spots', we can negotiate with itinerant hawkers. For example, we can give them three chances to exercise their options. If they insist on not choosing, I suggest we deal with the matter in another way. The Department should not sit on the 1 500 places. Instead, they should be offered for open tender. If they are not 'doomed spots', someone will come forward to bid. If we just sit on the 1 500 places rejected by itinerant hawkers, we are in fact wasting the resources of the Council. So, my first suggestion is that we should continue to negotiate with itinerant hawkers on how to allocate the 1 500 places. If they refuse to take them, I hope they agree for us to offer them for open bidding.

On the other hand, we have to find out if the suggestion for a two-prong approach is feasible and see whether it is viable to fight with relevant departments for the marking-out of more on-street spaces for itinerant hawkers. My answer is that they are feasible plans. In 1992/93, there was a scheme for the restructuring of Pei Ho Street Market in Sham Shui Po. Indeed, that was the largest restructuring exercise of the Council. At that time, with the support of the District Board and District Office, the Council took the opinions of people in the vicinity and urged the Transport Department and Highways Department to demarcate 950 stalls in seven streets near Pei Ho

Page 43 of 498

Page 43 of 498

Page 43 of 498

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.