of
430
(f
remove
the
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
recon.
respec
het
now
June 29, [June
1907.
I take it, Sir, the proper way to approach this subject. I regret very much that my hon. and learned friend on my left should not have seen it from that point of view instead of
the dealing with comparatively speaking smaller phase of the question. However we have to deal with the resolutions as they are
before the hon. Council. The hou unofficial member on my right has practically expressed views with which I am in a^solute agreement. I cannot at all agree with the hon. senior unofficial member in this matter of the changed style of buildings throughout a large section of the Colony or that the question of eight million dollars, the estimated expenditure, has been satisfactorily solved. I am confirmed in my opinion by the remarks made by the hon. Director of Public Works. The hon. and learned member on my left spoke of the Gy ernment paying compensation in the event
avery third of
house being pulled down bat unfortunately he did not go into details to show that compensation should be paid to the landlords of the first and third houses when the Government bad enforced the principle of pulling down the intermediate houses. t appears to me that this would entail considerable expenditure-how much it is im. possible to say-but we all know the style of building which exists in Hongkong. I do not say that they are altogether jerry built, but they are not of a very high standard. The proposal to take a blook of houses and pull down every third house would considerably weaken the others. It is also proposed to insert four or five lateral windows in each wall of each floor. It is very obvious that if you are going to out four or five windows on each floor in what has hitherto ben a party wall the probability is that the whole of that wall will have to be rebuilt. I can take it that the cost to the landlords will be very great. The Director of Public Works stated the advantages to the landlords in improvements to the property would be so vary great that it would justify the Government in asking them to contribute very largely to this scheme. The present style of house accommodates 34 people, but after the Government had pulled down every third house the landlord would have to contribute to the cost of strengthening the walls of the remaining houses, and under the new scheme there would be 42 people in two houses instead of 34 in three. The landlords would have to contribute very largely and though the increase in revenue would be something like 25 per cent, possibly a very large capital expenditure would be neces- Furthermore sary to alter these properties. the Director of Public Works seemed to lay a certain amount of emphasis upon the lesser amount of ground space to be occupied by two houses as against the three. The hon. membər overlooked the fact that in order to make the lateral windows legal they would need to have 13f. external air. The plan shows the width of the house to be pulled down as 3ft 6in. In any case you would have to allow 13 feet. Suppose a man has a piece of grounĉ big enough to build three houses upon under present conditions and is called upon to build two houses under the new scheme, these two houses have to occupy the same area within six inches in width of the existing building and the capital expenditure for the land therefore must remain the same.
Hon Mr. OSBORNE-Sir, there is probably before the Government now nearly six years no section of the Public Health and Building ago with a view to overcoming the difficulties Ordinar ce which has provoked so much hostility, which had arisen in dealing with the cubicle so much bitterness of feeling or caused so much question. I think, Sir, that the bon, member was personal discomfort to the Chinese as that under some slight misapprehension when he said Fection which deals with cubicles. Conceived that Ordinance No 1 of 1903 was passed without in ignorance of the origin of cubicles, of their making any provision for that soheme, becau‹e atility, their necessity to the working under section 46 of the Ordinance a proviso was classes of this Colony; or conceived in thought- added to the effect that any cubicle in any existing lessness, this measure intended for the welfare' domestic dwelling which had a window or windows
the people is undoubtedly excellent in opening directly on the external air might be in theory but imposible in practice; and so indeed habited in the proportion of one adult for every will be any new legislation on the subject which 30 square feet of habitable floor space. That, Sir, ignores the interests and prejudices of the was intended to encourage the adop'ion of this persons most conc rued-whether these persons type of house to which he has referred. A great e of the lab uring or the landlord class, deal has been said about the expenditure that will Cubicles. Sir, are not a condition of the be incurred by its adoption but if hou. members normal life of Chinese in China; there is, I will look er fully at the drawings which have believe, nothing of the sort in Canton and it been put in front of them they will see that while follows therefore that their adoption in Hong. under the pres-ntlaw three ordinary houses will kong arises, not from choice, but from cecessity. occupy an area of 3000 square feet and will only And it is clear that on account of the limited accommodate 34 persons per floor, two bonses of arras available for workmen's dwellings, the, the new type of equal size will occupy 2553 square general high cost of living and other, feet and will accommodate 42 persons per floor. conditions pecaliar to Hongkong, one of It may seem a little curious to refer to houses three things must happeu. Either wages must occupying different areas as being of the same rise so as to enable the working man to rent a size but that arises from the fact that the build- whole floor instead of sharing it with others, as ings are of identically the same dimensions- he does at present, r some such scheme as 5 feet by 45 feet-but there is a diminution in of the new that now under discussion involving as it does the space required in the rear eight millions of dollars, will Leed to be under. ppa of building. That being so if any owner taken. Or the cubicles must remain. Experiencs of a block of houses should need to during the last few years has already taught struct his block there can be no hardship ns that local economic conditions will not permit to require him to build in accordance with wages to rise to such a level as to enable the this new type. I fail to see in what working man to hire the whole or even half a suffers any loss whaterer. He can accommodate flat and any measure which tends to increase an increased number of persons in the same the cost of labour in Hongkong will react space and can construct bis building without prejudicially upon the Colony's interests and is, any additional expense or if there should therefore, to be discouraged. A8 to the be any additional expense it would be very proposal to
storeys alight indeed-I should say that the balance think that we upper of every third bouse, the scheme, as an would be in favour of the new type of house. idea is Arcadian, is excellent, but is, I fear, I confess, Sir, that very considerable difficulty beyond the sphere of practical work. No doubt exists in dealing with houses each of which is it would vastly improve the health of the ort,' under separate ownership. It is a most trouble- so would any other scheme having the same 8cme problem and will have to be carefully object in view regardless of cost, but remem considered. Certain of the owners must benefit bering what your Excellency stated at this at the expense of the others. It would seem Council meeting last Thursday, and more only fairti at these owners should be called upon especially in view of the threatened loss of 80 to contribute very largely towards the cost of large a proportion of our revenue by the carrying out any such scheme. The senior abolition of Opium smoking, I cannot share the unofficial member made reference also to the loss complacency with which the hon. the senior of cubicles which would be entailed by the
member unofficial
The plan shows that appears to contemplate scheme but that is not so. an expenditure of eight millions of dollars on under the new scheme there will be 10 cubicles what is after all only an experiment, which may in each floor whereas in the existing type or may not prove to be successful, without some there are only nine cubicles in the three houses so very strong evidence that practical and benefi. that there will be un loss on that account. The cial results will follow. Such evidence, I claim is matter will require to be very carefully gone not forthcoming, or beyond mere essertion and into and it would be 8 mewhat rash to submit theory there is no justification whatever for any scheme or proposal that would establish the supposing that with the introduction of lateral principle of general compensation as is now pro windows pl gue will cease. My own experience posed. In many cases bulidings in the city will shows that plague which in a certain block of have to undergo reconstruction within a moder. houses where no cubicles existed was at one time ate term of years because they are old and in a rampant, disappeared absolutely under the very dilapidated condition and if owners of influence of cleanliness and the destruction of these blocks when rebuilding are required to rats and vermin, and as I have already pointed reconstruct their houses upon this improved type out, Canton, a city without cubicles, has suffered I do not see that there would be any hardship equally with ourselves. There leing, upou them or any cause for complaint (applause). therefore,
reasorable grounds for
The Hon. Mr. HEWETT-Your Excellency, I supposing ibat an expenditure of eight would like to make a few remarks with regard millions in removing walls will purchase im- particularly to what has fallen from the senior munity from diseage whilst we bare every unofficial member in proposing the resolutions In the reason to believe that cleanliness, which costs now before this honourable chamber. next to nothing, will at least assist largely to first place I trust I shall not be ruled out of order wards that cesirable end, I think, we cannot do in saying that I regret the question has been better than concentrate all our energies and a pronched in the way it bas. The discussion, resources in the enforcement of greater clean-I trust, will be of very great benefit to all of us liness and the destruction of rais and body and assist in arriving at a proper decision to vermin, which are recognised as being one of do what is the best possible in the matter of the principal channels by which the disease is reform to be carried out in the interests of the conveyed to mau. Notwithstanding what bas Colony, but personally I should have prefered fallen from the lips of the senior ufficial! that the whole question should have been dealt member I am in favour of allowing the cubicle with en broader lines than we have been asked 10 remain so leng it constructed to do under these resolutions on the subject of
is of a material that will not harbous vermin, cubicl s alone. Important as that question is, I and I feel sure, Sir, that with more effect should rather be asked to debate on the whole directed on the lines have indicated, we and more important question, as the greater
perhaps not in includes the less. shall eventually succeed,
In this case the oubicle stamping out plague altegt er, but in re question is the less and a debate on the whole duoing it to such amal dimensions that this question as dealt with by the report of the Cclony in the futere need suffer neither fear Sanitary Commission and as to what reforms
(Applause.) nor sbame.
in the administration of the Sanitary Depart. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS-Sir, Itment should be carried out in the interests of is with considerable gratification that heard the community and also what, if any, alteration the hon. senior unofficial member of this should be made in the existing Ordinance deal Council advocating the scheme" which I laid ing with the public health of the Colony is,
no
As
:
THE DISECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS I think the hon. member overlooks the question of the open space in the rear.
•
The Hon. Mr. HEWETT—---- -Not at all. I am going by the plan and I think I am right. Refer- ring to the definition of external air, windows to be windows must open into external air having a width of thirteen feet. If I am wrong the Director of Public Works will correct me. I think I am right in this instance. Therefore, Sir, if that be so, my contention is that two houses under the new scheme will occupy the same space as three, and therefore it does n t appear to me that there will be any advantage to the landlord to pull down an existing house. In fact I am prepared to believe I am open to conviction as the question has been sprang upon me-that from an investor's point of view, and that is the point of view we must consider, it is belter for the landlord to continue this somewhat unsatisfactory style of house rather than incur a verỹ considerable expenditure in improving for the public good his property when he is not going to benefit by it. I understood from the