HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ment to consider as a matter of urgency what further steps can be taken in order to arrive at the target figure of 120,000 for the fiscal year, having in mind the fact that an increasing number of residents will be requiring resettlement accommodation as a result of closure orders which will be imposed on old and dangerous buildings within the next 12 months and thereafter.
He said: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the four Civic Association Elected Members, I rise to move the motion on the slow progress of the resettlement programme, as is stated in to-day's Council agenda.
While the White Paper states a future target figure of 150,000 per annum a figure which Government accepted-I am more concerned at this time with the target resettlement figure for the current fiscal year of 120,000. In answer to a question which I raised at the July 1964 meeting of the Urban Council, the Commissioner for Resettlement stated that:
(1) 24,436 persons were resettled in the period April to June 1964;
(2) It was hoped that 30,000 to 31,000 persons would be resettled in the second quarter of July to September; and
(3) If all went well, the target of 120,000 would be reached by the end of the financial year.
The exact figure of the number of persons resettled during the second quarter of the fiscal year, i.e., July to September of this year, is 22,968 persons. This falls short of the original estimate of 30,000 by 7,000. It would appear then that if Government is to catch up with the target of 120,000 for the fiscal year, it will have to exert its utmost efforts to resettle 72,500 for the period October 1964 to March 1965.
It is true that during the past few months, Hong Kong has been battered by several typhoons, which have retarded the pace of the resettlement building programme. This we must make allowance for. In fact, I would like to pay a tribute to the Resettlement and Public Works Departments for the valiant aid which staff members of these Departments gave to resettlement residents during the recent typhoons. But it must not be forgotten that despite all the well-intentioned promises and resolutions made by Government, the figure of 100,000 per annum has never yet been reached by Government. And we, the elected members of the Civic Association, are very much concerned that Government may not even reach the figure of 100,000 for this fiscal year, let alone the 120,000 figure mentioned at the July meeting of Council. It is this overwhelming consideration which has prompted us to move this motion, in what we believe to be the public interest.
Page 170 of 312
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
We think that Government should now study as a matter of great urgency what further steps can and must be taken in order to arrive at the target figure of 120,000 for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
A secondary consideration which has prompted us to move the motion is the real possibility that an increasing number of residents will be in need of resettlement accommodation as a result of closure orders which will be imposed on dangerous buildings within the next 12 months and thereafter. According to the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, 11,710 people lost their homes as the result of closure orders issued for dangerous buildings during April to May 1964. We have been warned by several experts that the rate of deterioration of old buildings is accelerating. It is highly probable therefore that the number of people who will lose their homes under similar circumstances could well be between 40,000 to 60,000 persons within the next 12 months. It is perhaps with this in mind that Government is trying to make it costly and difficult for poor families living in bedspaces and cubicles to obtain resettlement accommodation, if their homes are declared dangerous by the Public Works Department.
The average family, say, of 4 persons living in a bedspace is not likely to get more than $500 - $600 by way of compensation from the landlord. But in order to obtain resettlement accommodation, the family will be asked to pay into the Government coffers an advance deposit of $1,600 which in commercial parlance is known as "key money". To such a family, this advance deposit of $1,600 (on which no interest will be paid by Government) is, of course, astronomical, as the family usually lives a hand-to-mouth existence. And the irony of it all is that this is the type of family that is in direct need of resettlement accommodation. If Government is sincere in wanting to offer these poor families resettlement, it should under no circumstances demand as the price of resettlement a sum larger than 85% of the compensation which each family will receive from the landlord. This was in fact a majority recommendation of the Working Party, which Government has rejected. Recently, I had occasion to speak to a number of families living in bedspaces and cubicles in dangerous buildings. Many of these families have been living in the same premises for between 25 to 30 years. They are native born Hong Kong residents who have lived here all their lives. Because their buildings are in real danger of collapse, they are evicted almost overnight. Some of them move in with friends while others take temporary accommodation in boarding houses. Others with no savings are forced to become illegal squatters or to move to the out-of-the-way sites provided by Government, which will in future be known as Licensed Areas. The breadwinner in the family must spend more money on transportation (if he
Page 171 of 312