Page 474 of 498
Page 474 of 498 Page 474
516
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Council for consideration. Ultimately, the proposal will have to be approved by the Legislative Council.
As to whether current fines have sufficient deterrent effect and whether it would be feasible to introduce fixed penalty tickets, discussions at the last meeting of the Public Health Select Committee showed that most members were against fixed penalties because of the shortcomings involved. As to the level of fines for littering, it would be left to the judges and we should not influence them. We did furnish records of past offences for the reference of judges and usually, judges tended to sentence heavier penalties on habitual offenders. The existing fine levels set by this Council are not low, but the courts usually mete out lower fines and we are not in the position to influence the decisions. As to whether it is possible to make one spitting punishable by the cleaning of 10 spittings in lieu of fines, it would present some difficulties. This is done in some cities. For example, someone found to have littered in a public place is asked to wear a specially made jacket when sweeping public streets or he is asked to sweep up for several days. Members did discuss before on the appropriateness of adopting this form of punishment in the democratic, open society of Hong Kong. It was felt that it would be better to introduce more positive ways. That is why we are actively promoting publicity and education. We do not choose to take negative approaches so as not to hurt individual dignity or affect human rights. We have to consider the matter in all respects.
MS. JENNIFER CHOW KIT-BING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on the information given in the enclosure to the reply document. If Mr. CHAN can give me a reply right away, please do so. If he cannot, I hope he will furnish a reply after the meeting. My question is to do with the sale of restricted food without permission. There were 2,286 such cases in 1996, averaging nearly 200 cases a month and the average fine in each case was over $200. Viewed from the angle of food hygiene, the offence of selling restricted food should be considered quite a serious one because the intake of this kind of food may be harmful to the human body. I want to know clearly under what circumstances the Department will prosecute and whether our existing level of fines is really that low? I hope to have information in this regard.
Besides, I see that there were over 6,000 cases of prosecutions in respect of obstruction to scavenging operations. Under what circumstances were prosecutions taken out?
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):—I will furnish Ms. Chow with information on the sale of restricted food without permission after the meeting. As for obstruction to scavenging operations in public places, prosecutions were taken out against those causing obstruction to our staff in their cleaning operations.
(3) Mr. Chan Kwok-LEUNG asked the following question:—With regard to the control of illegal hawkers by the Council, I have the following questions:
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
517
(a) When was the Hawker Control Force changed into a non-disciplinary grade? What are the reasons for the change?
(b) In the control of illegal hawkers, how does the Council co-operate and collaborate with the Police and how is the work co-ordinated and divided? Were there any changes in the respective roles of, and the relationship between, the Council and the Police after the Hawker Control Force was changed into a non-disciplinary grade?
(c) Under what existing laws does the Hawker Control Teams of the Urban Services Department prosecute illegal hawkers? What are the differences between these laws and those quoted by the Police in prosecuting illegal hawkers?
(d) Has the Council ever conducted any comprehensive review in collaboration with the Police on control of illegal hawkers? If yes, what are the findings? If no, what are the reasons?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG, Chairman of the MARKETS AND STREET TRADERS SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:—This four-part question concerns the control of illegal hawkers by the Council.
The first part of the question asks when was the Hawker Control Force changed into a non-disciplinary grade and the reasons for the change?
The Hawker Control Force (HCF) was a disciplined force which was established in the Urban Services Department in 1960 but subsequently disbanded in 1978. It was replaced by the General Duties Team (GDT) which comprised the supervisory grade staff ranking from Senior Overseer down to Foreman who were required to work in various streams such as cleansing, pest control and markets in rotation in addition to hawker control work. The reasons for the failure of the HCF were as follows:
Firstly, it was less well paid than other disciplined services and therefore attracted recruits who were generally of lower quality.
Secondly, it had a poor image and received little of any public support or sympathy.
Thirdly, Force morale was low as a result of lack of public support and lower pay and recruiting became almost impossible. Only those not successful in obtaining a job in the other disciplined services were attracted to the Force.
Fourthly, as a result of the riots of 1967 and the subsequent loss of public order, hawker control had to be abandoned. After 1967, the Force never regained a position of any dominance.
Fifthly, it became inefficient and ineffective and to some extent corrupt. The setting up of fixed pitches for hawkers etc around markets is an example of its ineffective policies still with us. Over time, the Force simply wasted away.
Page 474
Page 474 of 498
Page 474 of 498
Page 474 of 498
Page 474 of 498 Page 474
516
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Council for consideration. Ultimately, the proposal will have to be approved by the Legislative Council.
As to whether current fines have sufficient deterrent effect and whether it would be feasible to introduce fixed penalty tickets, discussions at the last meeting of the Public Health Select Committee showed that most members were against fixed penalties because of the shortcomings involved. As to the level of fines for littering, it would be left to the judges and we should not influence them. We did furnish records of past offences for the reference of judges and usually, judges tended to sentence heavier penalties on habitual offenders. The existing fine levels set by this Council are not low, but the courts usually mete out lower fines and we are not in the position to influence the decisions. As to whether is possible to make one spitting punishable by the cleaning of 10 spittings in lieu of fines, it would present some difficulties. This is done in some cities. For example, someone found to have littered in a public place is asked to wear a specially made jacket when sweeping public streets or he is asked to sweep up for several days. Members did discuss before on the appropriateness of adopting this form of punishment in the democratic, open society of Hong Kong. It was felt that it would be better to introduce more positive ways. That is why we are actively promoting publicity and education. We do not choose to take negative approaches so as not to hurt individual dignity or affect human rights. We have to consider the matter in all respects.
MS. JENNIFER CHOW KIT-BING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on the information given in the enclosure to the reply document. If Mr. CHAN can give me a reply right away, please do so. If he cannot, I hope he will furnish a reply after the meeting. My question is to do with the sale of restricted food without permission. There were 2 286 such cases in 1996, averaging nearly 200 cases a month and the average fine in each case was over $200. Viewed from the angle of food hygiene, the offence of selling restricted food should be considered quite a serious one because the intake of this kind of food may be harmful to the human body. I want to know clearly under what circumstances the Department will prosecute and whether our existing level of fines is really that low? I hope to have information in this regard.
Besides, I see that there were over 6 000 cases of prosecutions in respect of obstruction to scavenging operations. Under what circumstances were prosecutions taken out?
MR. JOSEPH CHan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):—I will furnish Ms. Chow with information on the sale of restricted food without permission after the meeting. As for obstruction to scavenging operations in public places, prosecutions were Laken out against those causing obstruction to our staff in their cleaning operations.
(3) Mr. Chan Kwok-LEUNG asked the following question:—*With regard to the control of illegal hawkers by the Council, I have the following questions:
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
517
(a) When was the Hawker Control Force changed into a non-disciplinary
grade? What are the reasons for the change?
(b) In the control of illegal hawkers, how does the Council co-operate and collaborate with the Police and how is the work co-ordinated and divided? Were there any changes in the respective roles of, and the relationship between, the Council and the Police after the Hawker Control Force was changed into a non-disciplinary grade?
(c) Under what existing laws does the Hawker Control Teams of the Urban Services Department prosecute illegal hawkers? What are the differences between these laws and those quoted by the Police in prosecuting illegal hawkers?
(d) Has the Council ever conducted any comprehensive review in collaboration with the Police on control of illegal hawkers? If yes, what are the findings? If no, what are the reasons?
MR. IP Kwok-Chung, Chairman of the MARKETS AND STREET TRADERS Select CommITTEE, replied as follows:-This four-part question concerns the control of illegal hawkers by the Council.
The first part of the question asks when was the Hawker Control Force changed into a non-disciplinary grade and the reasons for the change?
The Hawker Control Force (HCF) was a disciplined force which was established in the Urban Services Department in 1960 but subsequently disbanded in 1978. It was replaced by the General Duties Team (GDT) which comprised the supervisory grade staff ranking from Senior Overseer down to Foreman who were required to work in various streams such as cleansing, pest control and markets in rotation in addition to hawker control work. The reasons for the failure of the HCF were as follows:
Firstly, it was less well paid than other disciplined services and therefore attracted recruits who were generally of lower quality.
Secondly, it had a poor image and received little of any public support or sympathy.
Thirdly. Force morale was low as a result of lack of public support and lower pay and recruiting became almost impossible. Only those not successful in obtaining a job in the other disciplined services were attracted to the Force.
Fourthly, as a result of the riots of 1967 and the subsequent loss of public order, hawker control had to be abandoned. After 1967, the Force never regained a position of any dominance.
Fifthly, it became inefficient and ineffective and to some extent corrupt. The setting up of fixed pitches for hawkers etc around markets is an example of its ineffective policies still with us. Over time, the Force simply wasted
away.
Page 474 Page 474 of 498▾
Page 474 of 498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.