MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1976 TO 31ST MARCH, 1977
Mr Speaker, Sir, all the three Members of Parliament have made complaints against hawker inspectors, unlike some other Members who have spoken earlier in this debate that some of the hawkers are really well-off and are driving Mercedes Benzes and Jaguars. However, these three Members now refer to the poor hawkers who, they allege, have been very badly treated by the hawker inspectors of the Ministry of the Environment. I am not saying that all hawkers are rich. Neither are all of them poor. Neither are all the hawker inspectors in the Hawkers Department bad. There may be a few who have overstepped the mark. But generally, unless there is proper enforcement, the hawkers will take over - obstruct five-foot ways, roads, and also serve dirty food. There must be enforcement. Sometimes such enforcement leads to very unpleasant incidents. Last year there were 21 such incidents. Two incidents were serious when hawker inspectors were assaulted by these "poor" stallholders and hawkers. I will tell this House about some of the incidents. On 6th January, 1975 a hawker inspector was slashed with a fruit-cutting knife on the right side of the neck. He was warded in the hospital for ten days. In another incident on 20th February, 1975 an unlicensed hawker attempted to splash hot water on an inspector. He was stopped from doing so by Cisco guards. On 25th February 1975 empty bottles were thrown at our officers in a van, causing damage to the van. On 22nd March 1975 a hawker, armed with a meat chopper, charged at a party of hawker inspectors. A timely intervention by Cisco guards prevented any injury. On 11th October, 1975 three Public Health auxiliaries were assaulted by members of an unlicensed hawker's family. One of them suffered a head injury and was given four stitches at the Toa Payoh Hospital. These are some of the many incidents which have taken place when hawker inspectors try to enforce what they are responsible for. But to each and every Member here. I say that it is difficult for me to reply in Parliament to any specific allegation or any specific case. If a Member has a complaint against a hawker inspector, he can send it to the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of the Environment. And if he does not give him any satisfactory answer, try the Minister. Perhaps I should tell the Member for Sembawang that any person who sells goods in a market or public place without a licence is committing an offence. He mentioned that a summons was issued, but unfortunately he did not say what the summons was for, whether it was for obstruction or for hawking without a licence. All he said was that he had been to the Ministry to raise the matter on behalf of his constituent and the summons was withdrawn. That is a good Member of Parliament and a reasonable Ministry, and we have a satisfied constituent. As for farmers selling their produce at market places. they cannot sell without a licence and, if they do, then the other stallholders there would get angry. Either they would block the place or they would say, "it is unfair competition". The Member is well aware that when unlicensed hawkers come along, whether or not they are farmers, there is bound to be trouble. There will be trouble between hawker inspectors and hawkers, and also trouble among the hawkers themselves and sometimes we have to intercede. The Member was asking for details about Canberra Food Centre in his constituency. He will be pleased to know that tenders have been called and construction work is expected to start sometime ii April. Sewerage work has already commenced. The centre is expected to be completed in early 1977. The centre will have 271 stalls consisting of 164 market produce stalls. 35 piece and sundry goods stalls and 72 cooked food stalls. The project is estimated to cost $1.7 million and will house some of the Street hawkers in the area. Before I pass on, perhaps I should mention that, without being personal in any way, the Member for Sembawang was at one time attached to the Hawkers Department. The Member for Bras Basah has grumbled about the lack of rules and procedures for the revocation of licences. I would like to assure him that the officers of the Hawkers Department do not cancel licences without justification. They have to act w thin the framework of the existing law, departmental policies and procedures. Hawker licences may be cancelled for various reasons, such as non-payment of licence fees, which is very essential; and flouting the law continuously or subletting of stalls or pitches. Licences may also be cancelled for allowing unauthorised persons to conduct business at the stalls or pitches. The decision to cancel is only taken after careful consideration. The hawker is given an opportunity to explain why his licence should not be cancelled, and the licence is revoked only when no satisfactory reasons can be given. I think the Member is well aware that a hawker can appeal, first to the Parliamentary Secretary for the re-instatement of his licence, and ultimately to the Minister in charge. The Member for Bras Basah has mentioned one particular case where the husband was doing work for the wife who was the licence holder. That is his side of the story. There was no such evidence. But, as I have said, this is not the place nor is it the time for us to argue on particular cases. They are better dealt with in the Ministry. He says that the hawkers in his constituency are fed up. The licences of six hawkers in Bras Basah constituency were revoked because it was found that instead of conducting their business they had allowed unauthorised persons, including non-citizens, to conduct their business at their stalls at Malabar Street. Three of the six hawkers eventually surrendered their licences. The remaining three hawkers appealed for the return of their licences. Two ~f the appeals were granted, and the third was rejected. I think the Member for Jurong felt sore when one of his constituents, who was doing business without a licence, had some of his jades confiscated. He has appealed to me but I could not allow the appeal. The matter was taken out of my hands. Where valuable property, like jade, has been confiscated, the matter is thrashed out in court, and since the Magistrate has made an order of forfeiture the Minister cannot intervene. He has also mentioned the question of receipts. Sometimes when goods are being seized, everybody around is running hurry-scurry, and in a situation like this it is difficult to issue receipts. But he has made a good point .- when valuable property like jade is confiscated, if there is an opportunity, a receipt should be handed over immediately. If it is not given immediately, then it should be given as soon as the hawker inspector, who has seized the jade, has returned to base. But so far we have not issued receipts. I understand from the Hawkers Department that it is not feasible, but I think there must be cases where if valuable jewellery or property is seized then a receipt must be issued. I thank the Member for his suggestion. and assure him that this matter will be given every consideration.