Page 147 of 194
276
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Housing. The eight months since our last debate have been marked by the continued deterioration of housing conditions, especially amongst the poor. Not only are they becoming desperate to find shelter at rents they can afford, but they are being driven to resist forcibly attempts to prevent them from squatting. The situation could develop into a serious threat to our security, and lends itself to exploitation by unscrupulous people.
At every annual debate for the past six years, I and other Members have pointed out that matters were getting worse, that the gravity of the situation was being underestimated, that too little was being done. And every year, we have been answered by soothing noises, saying that things were not as bad as we imagined, that the paradox of rising numbers of squatters in spite of control and resettlement was due to not having counted them properly in the first place, that Government's plans would soon solve the problem. The magic figures of accommodating 100,000 persons a year have been dangled before us since 1959, nearly five years ago. For various embarrassing reasons, this figure has never been reached, and it is now clear that even when it is, it will fall far short of our needs.
I am becoming dismayed by what appears to be a growing belief in the Resettlement Department that it is concerned only with clearing land required for development. Last year, referring to the area above Causeway Bay, the Commissioner said, "The huts there are unsightly and unhygienic, but it would be difficult to use the land for any worthwhile purpose." He appeared to be more interested in whether their clearance would provide useful building land, and much less in eliminating the squalor and dirt and the dangers of fire and epidemic.
Now I hope that Government is not going to condone the continued existence, indefinitely, of a large section of our population in wretched hovels on steep hillsides, on rooftops, and in the streets. The time has come, perhaps, to say that the Resettlement Department is not just an extension of the Crown Lands and Survey, doing the dirty work of clearance for them, and to emphasize that we expect it to rehouse squatters primarily because a civilized community will not tolerate the appalling conditions under which they live.
Is this asking for too much? Past experience would suggest that it is, that Government is doing all it can to solve the problem, that we cannot reasonably expect it to do very much more along orthodox lines (if indeed we are justified in calling its tremendous programme and achievements "orthodox"). But if the task of rehousing all squatters is too great to be solved by such methods, then I ask that other ideas be considered, ideas which may at first sight appear to be unacceptable. But are they less acceptable than the continuation of the dreadful conditions which they may help to eliminate? If we are limited by the number of available or potential sites, then let us make more intensive use of them, let us concentrate on quantity, and let us enlist the help of private enterprise to the fullest possible extent.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
277
If Government is going to confine its attention to the outskirts of New Kowloon, Tsuen Wan, and Kwun Tong, and ignore what is happening in the central districts, our so-called "redevelopment" by private enterprise is merely an exchange of one form of slum for another. It is frustrating to see thousands of new flats being built every year which are rapidly converted into airless and unhygienic cubicles and bedspaces. Surely it would be neither too difficult nor too expensive for the owners to change the design of the buildings, to suit the poorer families who are going to live in them anyway, making the rooms smaller, but giving each of them air and light and elementary sanitation. And Government might well be justified in paying for the extra cost.
The one ray of light in this gloomy picture is that the Working Committee on Resettlement has completed its report, and we are hoping it will contain radical proposals for improving the housing conditions of all the poor people of Hong Kong.
Public Transport. One way of relieving the housing problem would be to introduce a much faster system of transportation, to make travelling easier to and from the suburbs, where more and cheaper land is available for building. As a first step, we could modernize the Kowloon-Canton Railway. The Advisory Committee on Public Transport has already proposed that the line be doubled from Shatin to give a 15-minute service. I would go further and suggest that it be electrified and put underground, an operation which could be carried out at the same time and would not be expensive.
May I also make a plea for reconsideration of Government's intention to site the new railway station on the Hung Hom reclamation? In the draft development plans, nearly 2 million square feet of some of the most attractive and potentially valuable land has been provisionally reserved for a station, railway lines, marshalling sidings, a turntable, and transit sheds. Why not move all these to Shatin, where land is less valuable? If the railway were confined to passenger traffic only, there would be little objection to putting it under the present tracks. Only if we expect the railway to carry a considerable amount of bulk cargo from ships to the interior and vice versa is there a good case for the loading bays and surface lines. But an examination of the goods traffic carried by the Kowloon-Canton Railway shows that very little of it comes from or is destined for ships. 92% of it is imports of food and livestock from China, and the chief export to China appears to be empty carriages (Laughter). The Manager of the Kowloon-Canton Railway has said that there is not much prospect of...
Page 147 of 194