The Attorney-General said that the Government had considered the objections to the Bill and had made some concessions. The Bill aimed to improve sanitation and public health in Hong Kong. Mr. Chadwick had pointed out in his report that by Government doing it and by combining certain connections, he believed it could be done cheaper than by private individuals. This was one point on which the Government was sorry not to be able to make any concession. They looked upon it as one of vital importance and one in which they felt there could be no hardship.
In connection with that, they had no objection to inserting later on in Section 89 the word "reasonable," making it read "all reasonable expenses incurred by the Board." An objection had been taken to Section 65. It had been thought that 100 feet was too much, that most likely there would be a sewer down each main street, and that consequently the distance from the house to the main sewer would not be anything like 100 feet. If it was not, the owner would not be called upon to make a sewer of 100 feet. He might be perfectly sure the authorities would require him to connect his drain with the sewer by the most direct line.
Objection had also been taken that perhaps after a person had connected his drain with the sewer, he might afterwards be called upon to make another connection. He merely mentioned this to illustrate once more that there had been a great scare about this Bill and it had been thought there was something underneath and that Government had some hidden meaning. People said, "Very well, we will connect our houses with the sewer, but put in something that we shall not be called upon to connect a second time with another sewer." There was no intention of asking a householder to connect with one sewer and then afterwards ask him to go to the same expense again.
To meet the public mind on that point, they would insert the following words: "Provided always that after any owner has once connected his building with a public sewer, he shall not be required to connect with another sewer at his own expense." Part 5 would be maintained, and from what he had learned from the representative of the Chinese community, he believed they had no objection to it. Part 5 concerned buildings which were against the hillside.
The only thing this required was that when a house was built against the hillside without any intervening space, the basement should not be used as a habitation. It might be used as a store or workshop or for persons to carry on their occupations during the day, but they might not sleep there at night. With reference to Section 87, he had received very strong objections, and they had received the greatest consideration on the part of the Government.
But looking to all the difficulties which existed with respect to this matter, the difficulty of getting houses carried out according to plans, for very often there were no plans, and the great difficulties in having a house properly constructed, the Government thought there should be a certificate issued by an officer of the Board that a house was fit for human habitation before it was let. He hoped no one would think there would be any intention or desire on the part of the Board to place any difficulty in the way of letting his house if it was fit.
These were the principal objections which had been made against the Bill, and he had stated the course the Government had taken with regard to them. As to the by-laws for common lodging houses, there were only two objections. One was to Section 11. There, they had no objection to adding the word "knowingly," making it read "the keeper of a common lodging house shall not knowingly permit."
And in Section 18, which ran as follows: "If any person in a common lodging-house becomes ill from any infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, the keeper of such common lodging-house shall forthwith give notice thereof." They proposed to add after "forthwith," "on becoming aware of the fact," so that he would not be punished unless it could be proved that he was aware of the fact that there was a person suffering from infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, and that he did not report it to the Sanitary Board.
He trusted that with these explanations, he had alleviated whatever distrust there was on the part of the community about the intentions of the Government, and he would also ask the community once more to remember that Government officials had absolutely no personal interest whatever. The only thing they sought to do was to do their duty as well as they could, and the only reward they could or did look forward to was a recognition on the part of those they tried to govern that they had tried to do their duty.
The SURVEYOR-GENERAL seconded the motion.
Hon. P. RYRIE—I rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill. My hon. friend had certainly spoken most fairly, and he intimates that the most important thing left out of the Bill was to be taken up afterwards in a Building Ordinance. Now, that was no concession at all. It was simply putting the matter off for a short time.
The inhabitants of this colony had very grave objections to this Bill. In the first place, if you went to the root of it, they saw no use for the Bill, because everything laid down in the Bill was laid down in the Crown leases. Then what was the use of this Bill? It was merely a waste of time. There might be something in it about the building, but as far as the sanitary arrangements went, the Crown leases provided for everything.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, nothing like it. It was published after I came.
Hon. P. RYRIE—Well, it was written before that. Here they were rushing this matter on now. You said they must do it. They had got to do it. But the public of Hong Kong said they wouldn't do it. And there it was. Here was a most important matter, and here they were in the middle of summer, and they had not had an opportunity of meeting. There had been some meetings, it was true, but a Bill with 101 clauses required consideration.
Hon. WONG SHING seconded, and in doing so referred to the question of backyards. He said the Surveyor-General had said there was no help for the small lots; that they were not fit for human dwellings but only fit for stalls. He had paid a visit with Hon. A. P. MacEwen to a number of shops, and they found them nearly all 30 feet deep or less than 30 feet.
In the case of more than one-half of the Chinese houses, compliance with the Ordinance which took away ten feet for backyards and so forth would be impossible. He therefore seconded the motion of his hon. friend for postponement.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—When my hon. friend opposite proposed the postponement, he gathered from his earlier remarks that he opposed the Bill altogether, but he was glad to find he only proposed a postponement for a few days in order that the Bill might be reprinted and the Chinese have full opportunity of seeing what was proposed.
Hon. P. RYRIE—I rise to order. I opposed it altogether, but at present I wished for a postponement.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—I congratulate the Government on having given way on the question of privies, windows, backyards—
Hon. P. RYRIE—They had not given way.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—They had given way as regards this Bill. They were to be introduced in another Bill, and they would have full opportunity of dealing with them when that Bill came up. At present, they were simply dealing with this Bill on sanitary measures.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, four, of whom two should be Chinese.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—That was reducing the number, because in the Bill it was five.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, six.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—If he would allow him to read the clause—"The Board shall consist of the Surveyor-General, the Registrar-General, the Captain Superintendent of Police, the Colonial Surgeon, and not more than five additional members, three of whom shall be appointed by the Governor, one elected by the Chamber of Commerce, and one by the Justices of the Peace."
Page 39