HAWKING ON FIVE-FOOTWAYS

Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Health if he will, consider allowing hawkers to do business on the five-footway along North Bridge Road between Rochore Road and Bras Basah Road, if they do not cause obstruction to pedestrians.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Govindasamy, Sir, five-footways are prohibited areas for hawking since they are, in fact, public foot-ways and are meant for the safe use of pedestrians. Allowing hawking thereon will not only force the pedestrians onto the roadway, thereby endangering their safety, but will also hamper the loading and unloading of goods to and from the shops on both sides of the road.

Furthermore, if we are to allow hawking on the five-f footways along North Bridge Road which invariably form the frontage of shops, as suggested by the Member for Bras Basah, we would be condoning unfair competition to the shopkeepers from the hawkers. Not only has the shopkeeper to pay rental for his shop premises in addition to the shop licence fees which puts him at a disadvantage, but also the hawker, by displaying his wares in front of the shop, has the advantage of attracting the attention of the customers first and thereby unfairly depriving the shop of its business. I am wondering whether, in making the suggestion of allowing hawking along North Bridge Road, the Member for Bras Basah has considered the legitimate interests of the shopkeepers there who are also his constituents.

I am afraid it is often forgotten that as a Government it is our duty, when formulating policies and implementing measures, to take into consideration the legitimate interests of all sections of the public, whether they are pedestrians or other road users, householders and shopkeepers, and not only those of hawkers.

Finally, the whole length of North Bridge Road is a cleared area which is prohibited for hawking. It would clearly be a retrograde step if hawkers were to be permitted to return to the site which had been cleared.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, from the answer of the Minister, am I correct in saying that, firstly, the Minister must have been informed by the shopkeepers that their business has been taken away by the hawkers who are selling on the five footways, and that this is unfair? How many complaints has he received so far?

Secondly, if the hawkers do not cause obstruction to the pedestrians, will they be allowed to do their business on the five-footways?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Govindasamy, Sir, as for the first supplementary question, may I say that the matter does not need to be complained upon. It is just common sense.

With regard to the second question whether the hawkers will be allowed to do business on the five-footways if they do not cause obstruction, the answer has already been given. It is "no", for various reasons which have already been given.

Mr Ho See Beng: I agree with the Minister that the answer is "no", but before removing these hawkers from the five-footways, will he consider, on humanitarian grounds, providing some other site for them before he takes action against them?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I must say that this is not a supplementary question arising from the original question. With regard to providing an alternative site, this is a long story. I believe the policy of the Ministry of Health is quite clear, that we are providing alternative sites for hawkers who have been registered in the hawker survey conducted in 1968/69.