1998 — Page 579

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 579 of 606

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

499

basis to take action, why do we have to tie our own hands? Why don't we simply ask the Department to take enforcement action? The nature of this kind of work is just simple. The claim that additional manpower is needed is a big joke. If Members are gullible, they must do something about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TAM KWOK-KIU (in Cantonese): - I believe everyone of this Council knows full well about the motion moved by Mr. Stanley NG and agrees that this Council needs to take it up seriously. So I think there is not much dispute over the urgency and gravity of the issue. The question is with the method of handling. I support the motion by Mr. Stanley NG mainly for two reasons.

First, it is clear that under existing practices, enforcement staff of the Department and the police throw the ball around. We can see this happening when we contact the Department's enforcement staff and the police. From the angle of the police, it is clear that they can take enforcement action, but the situation is not their priority. As for the Department and our staff, the response is that they cannot take enforcement action. So the situation aggravates and can be expected to aggravate further. If we do what we have been doing to only advise those companies and urge them to leave through the police, I don't think we can solve the problem effectively.

Secondly, I would say that carrying on as before is a waste of resources. I am sure Members remember the Director of Audit commenting on prosecution of litter bugs and suggesting that staff of many departments can take up the job. The departments have not taken heed of the suggestion. As pointed out by Mr. Stanley NG and the Council's Principal Legal Officer, the Council has legal powers to take enforcement action. We have not done so. Does that indicate we have not exercised our rightful powers?

Based on the above two points, I support the motion. Of course, there may be need to distribute resources when we take enforcement actions. I feel we should not worry about this too much. The Department would need to suggest priorities in taking actions in the forthcoming meeting of the relevant Select Committee. At least, we should have a direction. Since there are laws to invoke in handling the matter, the Department should be duty bound to try and solve the matter from different angles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ERIC WONG CHUNG-KI (in Cantonese): - Our HCTs have their jurisdiction in handling non-hawking matters. For example, the HCTs can deal with illegal extension of shop premises and prosecute operators for obstruction although they are not hawkers. If Members doubt whether the power of HCTs extends to non-hawking matters, they can check the law.

Secondly, in the past, we discussed whether staff of the Department should go into places under the management of the Housing Department to raid hawkers. Eventually, after much discussion, we discovered that it was legal for

Page 579 of 606

Edit History

2026-05-16 08:19:14 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 579 of 606 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 499 basis to take action, why do we have to tie our own hands? Why don't we simply ask the Department to take enforcement action? The nature of this kind of work is just simple. The claim that additional manpower is needed is a big joke. If Members are gullible, they must do something about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. TAM KWOK-KIU (in Cantonese): - I believe everyone of this Council knows full well about the motion moved by Mr. Stanley NG and agrees that this Council needs to take it up seriously. So I think there is not much dispute over the urgency and gravity of the issue. The question is with the method of handling. I support the motion by Mr. Stanley NG mainly for two reasons. First, it is clear that under existing practices, enforcement staff of the Department and the police throw the ball around. We can see this happening when we contact the Department's enforcement staff and the police. From the angle of the police, it is clear that they can take enforcement action, but the situation is not their priority. As for the Department and our staff, the response is that they cannot take enforcement action. So the situation aggravates and can be expected to aggravate further. If we do what we have been doing to only advise those companies and urge them to leave through the police, I don't think we can solve the problem effectively. Secondly, I would say that carrying on as before is a waste of resources. I am sure Members remember the Director of Audit commenting on prosecution of litter bugs and suggesting that staff of many departments can take up the job. The departments have not taken heed of the suggestion. As pointed out by Mr. Stanley NG and the Council's Principal Legal Officer, the Council has legal powers to take enforcement action. We have not done so. Does that indicate we have not exercised our rightful powers? Based on the above two points, I support the motion. Of course, there may be need to distribute resources when we take enforcement actions. I feel we should not worry about this too much. The Department would need to suggest priorities in taking actions in the forthcoming meeting of the relevant Select Committee. At least, we should have a direction. Since there are laws to invoke in handling the matter, the Department should be duty bound to try and solve the matter from different angles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ERIC WONG CHUNG-KI (in Cantonese): - Our HCTs have their jurisdiction in handling non-hawking matters. For example, the HCTs can deal with illegal extension of shop premises and prosecute operators for obstruction although they are not hawkers. If Members doubt whether the power of HCTs extends to non-hawking matters, they can check the law. Secondly, in the past, we discussed whether staff of the Department should go into places under the management of the Housing Department to raid hawkers. Eventually, after much discussion, we discovered that it was legal for Page 579 of 606 Page 579 of 606 Page 579 of 606

Baseline (Original)

Page 579 of 606 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 499 basis to take action, why do we have to tie our own hands? Why don't we simply ask the Department to take enforcement action? The nature of this kind of work is just simple. The claim that additional manpower is needed is a big joke. If Members are gullible, they must do something about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. TAM Kwok-KIU (in Cantonese):-I believe everyone of this Council knows full well about the motion moved by Mr. Stanley NG and agrees that this Council needs to take it up seriously. So I think there is not much dispute over the urgency and gravity of the issue. The question is with the method of handling. I support the motion by Mr. Stanley NG mainly for two reasons. First, it is clear that under existing practices, enforcement staff of the Department and the police throw the ball around. We can see this happening when we contact the Department's enforcement staff and the police. From the angle of the police, it is clear that they can take enforcement action, but the situation is not their priority. As for the Department and our staff. the response is that they cannot take enforcement action. So the situation aggravates and can be expected to aggravate further. If we do what we have been doing to only advise those companies and urge them to leave through the police. I don't think we can solve the problem effectively. Secondly, I would say that carrying on as before is a waste of resources. I am sure Members remember the Director of Audit commenting on prosecution of litter bugs and suggesting that staff of many departments can take up the job. The departments have not taken heed of the suggestion. As pointed out by Mr. Stanley No and the Council's Principal Legal Officer, the Council has legal powers to take enforcement action. We have not done so. Does that indicate we have not exercised our rightful powers? Based on the above two points, I support the motion. Of course, there may be need to distribute resources when we take enforcement actions. I feel we should not worry about this too much. The Department would need to suggest priorities in taking actions in the forthcoming meeting of the relevant Select Committee. At least, we should have a direction. Since there are laws to invoke in handling the matter, the Department should be duty bound to try and solve the matter from different angles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ERIC WONG CHUNG-KI (in Cantonese): -Our HCTs have their jurisdiction in handling non hawking matters. For example, the HCTs can deal with illegal extension of shop premises and prosecute operators for obstruction although they are not hawkers. If Members doubt whether the power of HCTs extends to non hawking matters, they can check the law. Secondly, in the past, we discussed whether staff of the Department should go into places under the management of the Housing Department to raid hawkers. Eventually, after much discussion, we discovered that it was legal for Page 579 of 606 Page 579 of 606 Page 579 of 606

2026-05-16 08:19:14 · Baseline

View content

Page 579 of 606

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

499

MR. TAM Kwok-KIU (in Cantonese):-I believe everyone of this Council knows full well about the motion moved by Mr. Stanley NG and agrees that this Council needs to take it up seriously. So I think there is not much dispute over the urgency and gravity of the issue. The question is with the method of handling. I support the motion by Mr. Stanley NG mainly for two reasons.

First, it is clear that under existing practices, enforcement staff of the Department and the police throw the ball around. We can see this happening when we contact the Department's enforcement staff and the police. From the angle of the police, it is clear that they can take enforcement action, but the situation is not their priority. As for the Department and our staff. the response is that they cannot take enforcement action. So the situation aggravates and can be expected to aggravate further. If we do what we have been doing to only advise those companies and urge them to leave through the police. I don't think we can solve the problem effectively.

Secondly, I would say that carrying on as before is a waste of resources. I am sure Members remember the Director of Audit commenting on prosecution of litter bugs and suggesting that staff of many departments can take up the job. The departments have not taken heed of the suggestion. As pointed out by Mr. Stanley No and the Council's Principal Legal Officer, the Council has legal powers to take enforcement action. We have not done so. Does that indicate we have not exercised our rightful powers?

MR. ERIC WONG CHUNG-KI (in Cantonese): -Our HCTs have their jurisdiction in handling non hawking matters. For example, the HCTs can deal with illegal extension of shop premises and prosecute operators for obstruction although they are not hawkers. If Members doubt whether the power of HCTs extends to non hawking matters, they can check the law.

1998 — Page 579

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note