Page 206 of 279
384
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Therefore, unless human rights are granted to our people in Hong Kong, we on the Councils of the Government waste our time formulating policies that in many cases will not be carried out,
With these words I support the Motion. (Applause).
(At the suggestion of the Chairman, a brief recess was held at this point)
MR. KENNETH LO TAK-CHEUNG:- Mr. Chairman, as a new member of this council, I have studied the statement of aims with great interest. It gives a very comprehensive picture of the functions controlled by this council and I should like to confine my remarks to a few of these aims.
In the field of resettlement, Government has carried out a massive programme over the last ten years or more. The numbers now living in resettlement estates or other Government Housing is now close to, or may even exceed the one million mark. This is an achievement of which we may all be proud. However, the very magnitude of the achievement creates its own problems.
A number of the older estates are now ten years old, or approaching that age.
The buildings in these estates are known as the mark 1 and mark 2 type. When they were first designed and built, they were intended to meet the extremely urgent problem of that time when squatter area fires were common, thousands being left homeless as the result of each fire. The accommodation provided in these older estates is of a standard which we may accept as a temporary measure, but I think such accommodation is unacceptable as a long term solution of the housing problem. I believe there are over 250 mark 1 and mark 2 buildings. In view of the numbers, I do not think it will be possible at present to think of pulling down and rebuilding these estates. However, we must now give some thought to converting these buildings, so as to provide a higher standard of accommodation.
This may be done perhaps by combining two rooms into one and providing individual cooking, washing and toilet facilities which are now lacking. This will inevitably reduce the number of persons who can be accommodated in each building. It will be necessary to rehouse the occupiers of the building undergoing conversion. All this will inevitably lead to a slowing down of the progress of resettlement, but I think we must accept this. In the long run, it will be better to improve the standard of accommodation in the older estates rather than to resettle as large a number of new tenants as possible without attempting to improve the standard of the accommodation of the older estates.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
385
Although much progress has been made in resettlement, when it comes to slum clearance, very little has been done. Since the war, private developers have carried out a massive programme of redevelopment. In the course of this, numerous old buildings have been demolished and cleared. However, this redevelopment has taken place mainly in areas where the old buildings are still in relatively good condition. The worse slums have been scarcely touched. Many of the buildings in these slum areas have not been repaired or renovated properly for many years. The present state of the law of landlord and tenant makes it extremely unattractive financially for a landlord to carry out repairs to old buildings. The result is that these slums are left to rot. Their condition deteriorates from year to year. Nearly every day, some of these houses have to be closed by order of the Public Works Department and demolished because of the danger of collapse.
There is now no hope of repairing or doing anything else except to clear the whole lot and start again. Private enterprise by itself will not clear these slums. That has been shown in the past and will continue to be true in the future. It is now absolutely vital for Government to step in and take steps to ensure that these slums are cleared. That is why the report of the Working Party on Slum Clearance is so timely. This is a matter which must be treated as of extreme urgency.
Slum dwellers and the hill-side squatters have much in common. They are both poor and both live in accommodation which is far below any acceptable standard. Why should so much be done for the hill-side squatters and so little for the slum dwellers? Many of these slum dwellers remain where they are only because of the hope of getting some compensation money when their building is pulled down by the landlord. When they are evicted and paid off, they are not sorry that they have to leave their old homes, rather, they are glad to receive compensation money and move elsewhere. We may not all agree with each and every recommendation of the report, but it is important that action should be taken on the lines of the report as soon as possible.
In the matter of the management of multi-storeyed buildings, Government has also done nothing to remedy the difficult situation. Several years ago, we had a report from the working party concerning this problem. However, up to now, no concrete action has been taken. As I see it, the problem of multi-storeyed management is two-fold. The first is the difficulty of the owners of the flats to compel the manager of the building to provide proper management. The second is the difficulty of the manager in obtaining payment of management and service fees from the owners. In the legal documents regulating the rights of the parties, there will be provisions governing this sort of thing, but to enforce these rights would require legal action in the courts, which is both cumbersome and expensive and is seldom resorted to.
Page 206 of 279