1997 — Page 474

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 474 of 654

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

Firstly, taking public housing for instance, we often notice that there are a lot of management problems. Hawking activities within public housing estates, for example, have always been a matter of public concern. Unfortunately, the residents cannot find a way to lodge their complaints. According to existing legislations, staff of the Housing Department have been vested with the authority to prosecute illegal hawkers inside public housing estates. However, due to the implementation of various privatization schemes by the Housing Department in recent years, the management duties of many housing estates have been taken up by property management companies in the private sector. And owing to diminishing resources, there has been a drastic cut in the number of Housing Department staff working in these housing estates. Consequently, less manpower can be deployed by the Housing Department to combat illegal hawking activities in public housing estates.

This loophole in policy is often taken advantage of by illegal hawkers. Whenever a raiding operation is carried out by the Hawker Control Force of the Urban Services Department, illegal hawkers that have been hawking on Crown land will move into the public housing estates in order to evade prosecution. As the Hawker Control Force, limited by their functions and powers, cannot take action against hawkers inside public housing estates, the number of illegal hawkers has increased significantly and is now beyond control. To this, the residents could do nothing.

To tackle this problem, I suggest that the two Departments should strengthen communication and co-operation to launch joint operations. Well-coordinated and carefully planned raiding strategies should be adopted in their operations, so as to prevent illegal hawkers from taking advantage of the loophole to evade prosecution.

In dealing with illegal hawkers in private premises, the Urban Services Department encounters even greater difficulties. As such premises are within the ambit of private building management, the Department's staff, limited by their sphere of authority, cannot institute prosecution against illegal hawkers inside these premises. Just take the Eastern District of Hong Kong Island as an example. Tai On Building in Sai Wan Ho is a private building of a fairly large scale and its lobby is full of illegal hawkers creating serious environment and hygiene problems. Besides, the hawker stalls are always crowded with people, thus causing obstruction at the lobby. Being unable to handle and solve the problem of hawkers, residents often hope that Government will intervene and help. However, as the lobby of such premises is private property, and because of the existing legislations and their sphere of authority, the Hawker Control Force of the Department cannot take enforcement action against the hawkers there. Moreover, due to poor management of the buildings, it is difficult to unite the residents to combat illegal hawking activities. As a result, illegal hawkers can take advantage of these loopholes and continue to exist and do business.

Page 474 of 654

1 age 474 of 654

470

Edit History

2026-05-16 04:19:38 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 474 of 654 HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL Firstly, taking public housing for instance, we often notice that there are a lot of management problems. Hawking activities within public housing estates, for example, have always been a matter of public concern. Unfortunately, the residents cannot find a way to lodge their complaints. According to existing legislations, staff of the Housing Department have been vested with the authority to prosecute illegal hawkers inside public housing estates. However, due to the implementation of various privatization schemes by the Housing Department in recent years, the management duties of many housing estates have been taken up by property management companies in the private sector. And owing to diminishing resources, there has been a drastic cut in the number of Housing Department staff working in these housing estates. Consequently, less manpower can be deployed by the Housing Department to combat illegal hawking activities in public housing estates. This loophole in policy is often taken advantage of by illegal hawkers. Whenever a raiding operation is carried out by the Hawker Control Force of the Urban Services Department, illegal hawkers that have been hawking on Crown land will move into the public housing estates in order to evade prosecution. As the Hawker Control Force, limited by their functions and powers, cannot take action against hawkers inside public housing estates, the number of illegal hawkers has increased significantly and is now beyond control. To this, the residents could do nothing. To tackle this problem, I suggest that the two Departments should strengthen communication and co-operation to launch joint operations. Well-coordinated and carefully planned raiding strategies should be adopted in their operations, so as to prevent illegal hawkers from taking advantage of the loophole to evade prosecution. In dealing with illegal hawkers in private premises, the Urban Services Department encounters even greater difficulties. As such premises are within the ambit of private building management, the Department's staff, limited by their sphere of authority, cannot institute prosecution against illegal hawkers inside these premises. Just take the Eastern District of Hong Kong Island as an example. Tai On Building in Sai Wan Ho is a private building of a fairly large scale and its lobby is full of illegal hawkers creating serious environment and hygiene problems. Besides, the hawker stalls are always crowded with people, thus causing obstruction at the lobby. Being unable to handle and solve the problem of hawkers, residents often hope that Government will intervene and help. However, as the lobby of such premises is private property, and because of the existing legislations and their sphere of authority, the Hawker Control Force of the Department cannot take enforcement action against the hawkers there. Moreover, due to poor management of the buildings, it is difficult to unite the residents to combat illegal hawking activities. As a result, illegal hawkers can take advantage of these loopholes and continue to exist and do business. Page 474 of 654 1 age 474 of 654 470

Baseline (Original)

Page 474 of 654 1 age 474 of 654 470 HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL Firstly, taking public housing for instance, we often notice that there are a lot of management problems. Hawking activities within public housing estates, for example, have always been a matter of public concern. Unfortunately, the residents cannot find a way to lodge their complaints. According to existing legislations, staff of the Housing Department have been vested with the authority to prosecute illegal hawkers inside public housing estates. However, due to the implementation of various privatization schemes by the Housing Department in recent years, the management duties of many housing estates have been taken up by property management companies in the private sector, And owing to diminishing resources, there has been a drastic cut in the number of Housing Department staff working in these housing estates. Consequently, less manpower can be deployed by the Housing Department to combat illegal hawking activities in public housing estates. This loophole in policy is often taken advantage of by illegal hawkers. Whenever a raiding operation is carried out by the Hawker Control Force of the Urban Services Department, illegal hawkers that have been hawking on Crown land will move into the public housing estates in order to evade prosecution. As the Hawker Control Force, limited by their functions and powers, cannot take action against hawkers inside public housing estates, the number of illegal hawkers has increased significantly and is now beyond control. To this, the residents could do nothing. To tackle this problem, I suggest that the two Departments should strengthen communication and co-operation to launch joint operations. Well- coordinated and carefully planned raiding strategies should be adopted in their operations. so as to prevent illegal hawkers from taking advantage of the loophole to evade prosecution. In dealing with illegal hawkers in private premises, the Urban Services Department encounters even greater difficulties. As such premises are within the ambit of private building management, the Department's staff, limited by their sphere of authority, cannot institute prosecution against illegal hawkers inside these premises. Just take the Eastern District of Hong Kong Island as an example. Tai On Building in Sai Wan Ho is a private building of a fairly large scale and its lobby is full of illegal hawkers creating serious environment, hygiene problems. Besides, the hawker stalls are always crowded with people, thus causing obstruction at the lobby. Being unable to handle and solve the problem of hawkers. residents often hope that Government will intervene and help. However, as the lobby of such premises is private property, and because of the existing legislations and their sphere of authority, the Hawker Control Force of the Department cannot take enforcement action against the hawkers there. Moreover, due to poor management of the buildings, it is difficult to unite the residents to combat illegal hawking activities. As a result, illegal hawkers can take advantage of these loopholes and continue to exist and do business. Page 474 of 654

2026-05-16 04:19:38 · Baseline

View content

Page 474 of 654

1 age 474 of 654

470

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

Firstly, taking public housing for instance, we often notice that there are a lot of management problems. Hawking activities within public housing estates, for example, have always been a matter of public concern. Unfortunately, the residents cannot find a way to lodge their complaints. According to existing legislations, staff of the Housing Department have been vested with the authority to prosecute illegal hawkers inside public housing estates. However, due to the implementation of various privatization schemes by the Housing Department in recent years, the management duties of many housing estates have been taken up by property management companies in the private sector, And owing to diminishing resources, there has been a drastic cut in the number of Housing Department staff working in these housing estates. Consequently, less manpower can be deployed by the Housing Department to combat illegal hawking activities in public housing estates.

To tackle this problem, I suggest that the two Departments should strengthen communication and co-operation to launch joint operations. Well- coordinated and carefully planned raiding strategies should be adopted in their operations. so as to prevent illegal hawkers from taking advantage of the loophole to evade prosecution.

In dealing with illegal hawkers in private premises, the Urban Services Department encounters even greater difficulties. As such premises are within the ambit of private building management, the Department's staff, limited by their sphere of authority, cannot institute prosecution against illegal hawkers inside these premises. Just take the Eastern District of Hong Kong Island as an example. Tai On Building in Sai Wan Ho is a private building of a fairly large scale and its lobby is full of illegal hawkers creating serious environment, hygiene problems. Besides, the hawker stalls are always crowded with people, thus causing obstruction at the lobby. Being unable to handle and solve the problem of hawkers. residents often hope that Government will intervene and help. However, as the lobby of such premises is private property, and because of the existing legislations and their sphere of authority, the Hawker Control Force of the Department cannot take enforcement action against the hawkers there. Moreover, due to poor management of the buildings, it is difficult to unite the residents to combat illegal hawking activities. As a result, illegal hawkers can take advantage of these loopholes and continue to exist and do business.

1997 — Page 474

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note