Page 507 of 606
434
# PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
MR. ALBERT Lai Wing-lin (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman. I would like the Chairman of the Select Committee to clarify the term "obstruction". Does this refer to cleansing work when we enforce the law obstruction? Whereas the general public misunderstand that placing objects in public places would constitute obstruction?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—If there is hindrance to the departmental staff performing cleansing work, departmental staff will post a notice on the object to ask the owner to remove it within a specified period of, say, several days. If the object is not removed in time, enforcement action will be taken to address hindrance to cleansing work and obstruction. So, the department's cleansing staff can invoke this legislation to take out prosecutions.
I mentioned the duty of the HCT just now, which is to enforce the management of hawkers. We can invoke Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance for enforcement work, but this kind of work is definitely not our main duty. I remember the Commissioner of Police pointing out at the meeting I attended that the police would definitely not take part in arresting hawkers because that is not the job for the police. In the same way, if HCT members take up duties outside their terms of reference, more problems will be involved. I think Mr. No's question should be one for other government departments, in particular the police, to take action on.
Mr. Stanley Ng Wing-fal (in Cantonese):—I notice that even if there were HCT members on duty around and they saw the activities of paging companies, they would not interfere. I therefore think that by invoking the Summary Offences Ordinance, we can do a lot to improve the situation without hiring a lot of additional staff. Nevertheless, many people are confused about "obstruction" as in hindering street cleansing activities and "obstruction" as covered by the Municipal Services Ordinance and Summary Offences Ordinance. Will the Chairman of the Select Committee, if he has the relevant document in hand, clarify for the public the difference between the above two interpretations of obstruction?
MR. IP Kwok-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—I am not a legal professional, but as I understand, Section 4A of Chapter 228 and the Municipal Services Ordinance are the same as far as obstruction is concerned. The question is the capacity in which an enforcement officer carries out his job. If a police officer prosecutes, he is doing so because of obstruction to public access. From the angle of the Council, HCT members are responsible for management of hawkers. If team members are asked to take enforcement action against non-hawking activities, they will not be doing what they are expected to. On this point, I must say that it will be possible to ask HCT members to take up enforcement actions only if additional manpower can be given.
Page 507 of 606
Page 507 of 606
age 507 of 606
434
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
MR. ALBERT Lai Wing-lin (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman. I would like the Chairman of the Select Committee to clarify the term "obstruction". Does this refer to cleansing work when we enforce the law obstruction? Whereas the general public misunderstand that placing objects in public places would constitute obstruction?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):-If there is hindrance to the departmental staff performing cleansing work, departmental staff will post a notice on the object to ask the owner to remove it within a specified period of, say, several days. If the object is not removed in time, enforcement action will be taken to address hindrance to cleansing work and obstruction. So, the department's cleansing staff can invoke this legislation to take out prosecutions.
I mentioned the duty of the HCT just now, which is to enforce the management of hawkers. We can invoke Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance for enforcement work, but this kind of work is definitely not our main duty. I remember the Commissioner of Police pointing out at the meeting I attended that the police would definitely not take part in arresting hawkers because that is not the job for the police. In the same way, if HCT members take up duties outside their terms of reference, more problems will be involved. I think Mr. No's question should be one for other government departments, in particular the police, to take action on.
Mr. Stanley Ng Wing-fal (in Cantonese):—I notice that even if there were HCT members on duty around and they saw the activities of paging companies, they would not interfere. I therefore think that by invoking the Summary Offences Ordinance, we can do a lot to improve the situation without hiring a lot of additional staff. Nevertheless, many people are confused about "obstruction" as in hindering street cleansing activities and "obstruction" as covered by the Municipal Services Ordinance and Summary Offences Ordinance. Will the Chairman of the Select Committee, if he has the relevant document in hand. clarify for the public the difference between the above two interpretations of obstruction?
MR. IP Kwok-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—I am not a legal professional, but as I understand. Section 4A of Chapter 228 and the Municipal Services Ordinance are the same as far as obstruction is concerned. The question is the capacity in which an enforcement officer carries out his job. If a police officer prosecutes, he is doing so because of obstruction to public access. From the angle of the Council, HCT members are responsible for management of hawkers. If team members are asked to take enforcement action against non-hawking activities, they will not be doing what they are expected to. On this point, I must say that it will be possible to ask HCT members to take up enforcement actions only if additional manpower can be given.
Page 507 of 606
Page 507 of 606
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.