Page 268 of 279
508
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
So, it will be apparent that this is not work for any particular department, and that action started soon after the publication of the White Paper, perhaps by coincidence.
MR. HU:-Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just ask Mr. Barty through you, would there be any plan from the Resettlement Department to co-ordinate with other Government departments to implement the policy of providing such technical or vocational training for young people in the Resettlement Estates?
COMMISSIONER for Resettlement:-Mr. Chairman, I have already said no, but in rather a longer way round, in my answer to the question. (Laughter). As you yourself pointed out, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of departments and other organizations, with specialized knowledge in this field, already operating in it, and I think it would be quite inappropriate for the Resettlement Department without itself possessing any training or knowledge or expertise in these matters to jump into a field which is already being well covered.
MR. HU:-Thank you Mr. BARTY for answering that question. Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. BARTY to provide us with a little bit of detail about his co-operation with the Social Welfare Department concerning the 25 vocational, pre-vocational and trade training centres.
a matter of fact he has already started to do this work although there was no planning.
CHAIRMAN: --Mr. Hu, could I persuade you to move to Question No. 6? (Laughter).
(6) MR. HENRY H. L. Hu asked the following question:
Regarding 3 wooden huts (RH29, RH30, RH31) which belonged to CHIONG Ki-lung, WONG Shun and LEUNG Pak-wah respectively, is it true that only 24 hours' notice was given before demolishing them? Notice was posted on 20th February, 1967 at about 11 a.m. and the demolition was carried out the next morning, notwithstanding an urgent appeal from a ward Councillor at Aberdeen. Is it true that the officers on the spot refused to see the copies of such urgent appeal in writing? Were the owners of these three huts directed by the Resettlement Department to erect their huts sometime in April, 1966? Why are they required to move now? What measures will be taken to alleviate their hardships?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
509
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows: —
(1) It is not correct that the persons concerned were given only 24 hours notice before their huts were demolished. A planned clearance of this section of the resite area took place in two phases, in January and February 1967. The initial screening survey of the whole section took place on the 10th November, 1966. Amongst the structures included in that survey were Hut Nos. RH/29, 30 and 31. All three were authorized resite shops (without subsequent resettlement rights) but the only business in operation at the time of the survey was in Hut No. RH/30. The other two huts were deserted. Notices in Chinese giving warning of the impending clearance were posted on all the structures involved in this clearance, including the three mentioned, on 9th December, 1966. On the 4th January, 1967, the first domestic intakes into Shek Pai Wan Estate took place and on the 17th January, 1967, all structures in the resite area which had been vacated as a result of that intake were demolished. On 8th February, 1967 the second and final domestic intake took place, and on 20th February, 1967 a final notice of demolition was posted in English and Chinese and was served on the 23 structures still standing in the area, informing the persons concerned that they would be demolished by the Resettlement Department unless they were removed voluntarily before the 21st February, 1967. Throughout the period 10th November, 1966 to 18th February, 1967, Hut Nos. RH/29 and 31 were deserted, but on the demolition date on 21st February, 1967 a business was operating in each of them. From the first warning notice posted on the 9th December, the owners of these huts had over 10 weeks notice before demolition on the 21st February.
(2) In answer to the second part of the question, it is true that the officer on the spot, acting on my standing instructions, refused to accept copies of a written appeal against the demolition of these three structures. This was a planned clearance, arranged some months in advance, and the majority of people affected were being resettled. The purpose of the clearance was twofold: to resettle those who were entitled to resettlement, and to run-down the population of this resite area with a view to having it set aside as a Class II Area under Part VA of the Resettlement Ordinance. At planned clearances, where the people concerned have advance notice of many weeks or even months, it is not practical to accept eleventh hour appeals on the site on the day when final demolition is due. To
Page 268 of 279