Page 183 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
District Board too took the initiative then to request action and gave its strong support. Regarding the present case, as a member of the Wong Tai Sin District Board, I too wish to find out whether the action was supported by the District Board of which Mr. Mok is also a member. I don't know much about the attitude of the Wong Tai Sin District Board, but I consider that if the major law-enforcing staff of the Department are taking action in accordance with the legislation, we should support them. It is not our principle at all not to enforce the law if there is one. If this happened, I too would probably be criticized. As to whether all the districts under the Council should do the same, as I pointed out just now, it all depends on the actual local situation. All I can say now is that as far as the enforcement action taken by members of the Hawker Control Officer grade or the inspectorate is concerned, so far I don't find anything wrong with it, because they are only carrying out their duties according to the law. They would be criticized by the Council only if they went beyond the power vested with them or did not follow the law in the process of carrying their duties. I could therefore only tell Mr. Mok that the local law-enforcing staff have duly exercised their rights and fulfilled their obligations.
Mr. Kam Nai-wai (in Cantonese):—I wish to respond to the question raised by Mr. Mok Ying-fan just now. Similar complaint was also received by the Central and Western District Board, except that I did not raise this at the monthly meeting of the Council. I believe that the core of the question lies in the fact that cases of illegal shop extension are handled under various ordinances by different staff of the Department. As the Chairman replied just now, different ordinances are invoked under different circumstances. The core of the problem now is that the same shop might be punished under different ordinances. It might be prosecuted under Section 22(1)(a) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132 this month but under Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 the next. In the third month, it might be prosecuted under Section 83B of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132. In this connection, I wish to ask the Chairman whether a review will be carried out by the Select Committee concerned. If the Department considers that Section 83B is the strongest deterrent, why don't we single it out and merely invoke it in prosecuting shops causing obstruction? I consider that we need not mind whether the local district board gives its support or not, because the most important thing is to take prosecution action when someone breaks the law.
For the same shop, if prosecution action is taken against it by the Department under three different ordinances, the penalty will also differ. I hope the Chairman will advise us what the maximum fine under Section 22(1)(a), Cap. 132 is and whether imprisonment is imposed. And what about the penalty under Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 and Section 83B, Cap. 132? Does the Chairman have the information so that we all know the maximum fine and whether imprisonment is imposed under the three ordinances? We would also like to know the average fine imposed under the three ordinances and whether anyone has ever been sentenced to imprisonment under them. What is most important is,
Page 183 of 606
Page 183 of 606
Page 183 of 606
8 183 of 606
180
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
District Board too took the initiative then to request action and gave its strong support. Regarding the present case, as a member of the Wong Tai Sin District Board, I too wish to find out whether the action was supported by the District Board of which Mr. Mok is also a member. I don't know much about the attitude of the Wong Tai Sin District Board, but I consider that if the major law-enforcing staff of the Department are taking action in accordance with the legislation, we should support them. It is not our principle at all not to enforce the law if there is one. If this happened. I too would probably be criticized. As to whether all the districts under the Council should do the same, as I pointed out just now, it all depends on the actual local situation. All I can say now is that as far as the enforcement action taken by members of the Hawker Control Officer grade or the inspectorate is concerned, so far I don't find anything wrong with it, because they are only carrying out their duties according to the law. They would be criticized by the Council only if they went beyond the power vested with them or did not follow the law in the process of carrying their duties. I could therefore only tell Mr. MOK that the local law-enforcing staff have duly exercised their rights and fulfilled their obligations.
Mr. Kam Nat-wai (in Cantonese):—I wish to respond to the question raised by Mr. Mok Ying-fan just now. Similar complaint was also received by the Central and Western District Board, except that I did not raise this at the monthly meeting of the Council. I believe that the core of the question lies in the fact that cases of illegal shop extension are handled under various ordinances by different staff of the Department. As the Chairman replied just now, different ordinances are invoked under different circumstances. The core of the problem now is that the same shop might be punished under different ordinances. It might be prosecuted under Section 22(1)(a) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cup. 132 this month but under Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 the next. In the third month, it might be prosecuted under Section 83B of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132. In this connection. I wish to ask the Chairman whether a review will be carried out by the Select Committee concerned. If the Department considers that Section 83B is the strongest deterrent, why don't we single it out and merely invoke it in prosecuting shops causing obstruction? I consider that we need not mind whether the local district board gives its support or not, because the most important thing is to take prosecution action when someone breaks the law.
For the same shop, if prosecution action is taken against it by the Department under three different ordinances, the penalty will also differ. I hope the Chairman will advise us what the maximum fine under Section 22(1)(a), Cap. 132 is and whether imprisonment is imposed. And what about the penalty under Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 and Section 83B. Cap. 132? Does the Chairman have the information so that we all know the maximum fine and whether imprisonment is imposed under the three ordinances? We would also like to know the average fine imposed under the three ordinances und whether anyone has ever been sentenced to imprisonment under them. What is most important is,
£606
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.