185 (275) –
2600 2
Later on plans and an application were submitted for the erection of verandahs over the public footpath to 4 of these houses. Much to our astonishment we were informed that this would not be approved unless we handed the scavenging lanes before referred to over to Government. We pointed out that Government had already informed us that scavenging lanes were not considered necessary to this class of house, the result of a long correspondence being that our clients were only allowed to erect the verandahs on giving an undertaking that these lanes should be kept open free and unobstructed as long as the verandahs remained in existence.
for it.
Q. Can you give us a case where the owner applied for an exemption?
A.-The Government volunarily obtained an exemption without the owner applying
Q.--What was the idea of that?
A. To save compensation for the opening of the lane.
The Chairman.-Is this quite recently?
A. Quite recently. In a block of houses on the opposite side of the road, they agreed to pay compensation for the lane, and when the houses were started much to our astonish- ment we received a notice saying that the Sanitary Board granted an exemption for this lane. That is, after we had applied for compensation, and when we wrote in and said we had never asked for the exemption, and if we had, we did not suppose the Sanitary Board would have given it to us, and as we had already made arrangements for having the work stated in a certain way, we insisted on compensation. They have got the whip hand of us. But when it comes to material, I think, it is rather peculiar.
Mr. Humphreys. It just amounts to this, that the Government will do anything to save themselves a few hundred dollars ?
A. Yes.
Q.-But if it is to cost the landlord $10,000 or $20,000, it is neither here nor there, no- exemption on any account?
A.-No. I should like to mention another case. In reference to this house of Siems- sen's, they were ordered to open up half the kitchen,-Marine Lot 92, Ham Iu Street. They were ordered to open up half the kitchens, and after six months correspondence, the houses were built under the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, the Governinent stated that the 16 houses would have to be done. Some of the tenants of the 16 houses also occupied the houses on the opposite side of the lane, and they said "we don't require a kitchen in the house on the rear side. We do our cooking on the front side portion of the house" so we sent in a plan to do away with the kitchen wall, to cut it out and make it one room from back to front. That plan was approved by the Public Works Department, but the Sanitary Board took out a summons against the owner for not having obeyed the Ordin- ance by opening up half the space at the rear of the house. We pointed out that there was no space to open up "we have taken away the wall". They said "Before you took away the wall, you ought to have obeyed the order". The consequence was our clients were summoned at the Police Court, and were fined as the Magistrate said it was a technical offence. They were fined $1.
Q. It must be a house whether they had a kitchen or not. Is that the argument?
A. Before we removed that wall, we ought to have opened up that space. to have obeyed the order first of all.
We ought