Page 572 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
and in main traffic thoroughfares in the past half year. These stalls set up by telecommunications and internet companies are targeted at attracting customers and promoting business. They are a nuisance to passers-by. I am asking that the Hawker Control Teams of the USD invoke relevant legislation and prosecute such commercial activities or persons responsible for them for obstruction.
There were a lot of promotion activities by telecommunications companies in the past few months. Competition was so keen that on 1 March, lunch boxes were distributed at certain MTR station exits (for example in Mong Kok). The gimmick resulted in a lot of commotion. As I understand, similar situations occurred at other MTR station exits.
I raised the matter of law enforcement against street obstruction by operators of commercial promotion activities repeatedly in the last few months. The Department took the view that such promotional activities were not street hawking activities. It was also said that since such activities were quite prevalent, the existing strength of our Hawker Control Teams was not adequate to undertake enforcement actions. It was hoped that the status quo be preserved without taking out prosecutions.
I have approached the Council's Principal Legal Officer to obtain her advice. As the reply given is in English, I would like to highlight the important points here in Chinese.
The Principal Legal Officer considered that under Section 84 of the Urban Council Ordinance, the Hawker Control Teams (HCTs) were empowered to invoke Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance to prosecute those who obstructed public places. She disclosed that HCTs were at present referring cases to the Police for enforcement. She did suggest to the relevant Assistant Director for a change of the existing practice for HCTs to take enforcement action in respect of obstruction causing public danger or inconvenience.
Mr. Chairman, I now table this letter written in English and Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance concerning prosecutions of obstruction as well as the transcript of my speech.
Fellow colleagues, we can see that telecommunications companies obstruct public places and are an obvious nuisance to passers-by and the general public. If we look back, there were around 30,000 prosecution cases in 1996, 1997 and 1998 respectively. The cases were mainly against street obstruction caused by illegal hawkers. It is clear as far as prosecutions and legal advice are concerned that the situation can be improved if the HCTs accept our policy decision and carry out enforcement actions.
Fellow colleagues, the Department came up with this view that hawker legislation would have to be amended for broadening of the definition of hawkers before staff could prosecute people concerned as hawkers. Let me point out clearly here that if we need to wait for a lengthy period of time to
Page 572 of 606
2 of 606
492
Page 572 of 606
Page 572 of 606
2 of 606
492
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
and in main traffic thoroughfares in the past half year. These stalls set up by telecommunications and internet companies are targetted at attracting customers and promoting business. They are a nuisance to passers-by. I am asking that the Hawker Control Teams of the USD invoke relevant legislation and prosecute such commercial activities or persons responsible for them for obstruction.
There were a lot of promotion activities by telecommunications companies in the past few months. Competition was so keen that on 1 March, lunch boxes were distributed at certain MTR station exits (for example in Mong Kok). The gimmick resulted in a lot of commotion. As I understand, similar situations occurred at other MTR station exits.
I raised the matter of law enforcement against street obstruction by operators of commercial promotion activities repeatedly in the last few months. The Department took the view that such promotional activities were not street hawking activities. It was also said that since such activities were quite prevalent, the existing strength of our Hawker Control Teams was not adequate to undertake enforcement actions. It was hoped that the status quo be preserved without taking out prosecutions.
I have approached the Council's Principal Legal Officer to obtain her advice. As the reply given is in English, I would like to highlight the important points here in Chinese.
The Principal Legal Officer considered that under Section 84 of the Urban Council Ordinance, the Hawker Control Teams (HCTs) were empowered to invoke Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance to prosecute those who obstructed public places. She disclosed that HCTs were at present referring cases to the Police for enforcement. She did suggest to the relevant Assistant Director for a change of the existing practice for HCTs to take enforcement action in respect of obstruction causing public danger or inconvenience.
Mr. Chairman, I now table this letter written in English and Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance concerning prosecutions of obstruction as well as the transcript of my speech.
Fellow colleagues, we can see that telecommunications companies obstruct public places and are an obvious nuisance to passers-by and the general public, If we look back, there were around 30,000 prosecution cases in 1996, 1997 and 1998 respectively. The cases were mainly against street obstruction caused by illegal hawkers. It is clear as far as prosecutions and legal advice are concerned that the situation can be improved if the HCTs accepts our policy decision and carry out enforcement actions.
Fellow colleagues, the Department came up with this view that hawker legislation would have to be amended for broadening of the definition of hawkers before staff could prosecute people concerned as hawkers. Let me point out clearly here that if we need to wait for a lengthy period of time to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.