Page 143 of 241
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
but by some other department, with the result that perhaps no action at all is taken. Only a concerted effort made by all departments concerned will bring results.
Turning to resettlement, it is gratifying to note that a start has been made in the conversion of Mark 1 and Mark 2 Blocks by combining and converting single rooms into larger self-contained units with water and cooking facilities. So far, I understand, only one block has been dealt with and this is in the nature of a pilot scheme. Learning from the experience of carrying out the conversion of this one block, we should press on with the conversion of the remaining blocks. However, in view of the large number concerned amounting to over 250 blocks, it is evident that it will be a long time before an appreciable number of them can be converted. In the meantime, a large number of tenants of these blocks have no individual supply of tap water. I would urge Government to install water supply for those blocks which are not intended to be converted or not expected to be converted within a period of say three years. How can we expect adequate standards of cleanliness and hygiene to be maintained in overcrowded conditions where tap water is not even available?
The latest types of resettlement blocks which are now being erected are of course far superior to Mark 1 and Mark 2 Blocks, but even here the standard of the fittings leaves much to be desired. The doors and windows are of such flimsy construction that as a matter of course, they are taken down and removed by the tenants, who then install their own doors or metal gates and windows and also carry out a good deal of other decoration work. This is obviously uneconomic. The inferior fittings which are discarded, although cheap, will still cost something. It is time to improve the qualities of these fittings at least up to a standard which is acceptable to the tenants. It is better from the point of view both of Government and of the tenants themselves that a little higher rent should be charged for better fittings rather than to let the tenants incur the additional expenses of installing thereon. Apart from this, the actual carrying out of redecoration work creates its own problems. The rubble and debris left behind by the decoration and construction firms who carry out the work have to be cleared and the block can hardly be kept clean while this work is going on.
Apart from improving the quality of the buildings, it is also time for us to have another look at the priorities for resettlement. It has often been repeated that only land required for redevelopment will be cleared and the squatters there resettled. I do not for a moment question the necessity for clearing land which is required for redevelopment. Since the areas required for redevelopment are likely to be better located and more easily accessible than areas which are not required, it follows that the squatter areas which are actually cleared under this programme are likely to be better than areas which are left alone. I suggest we should have another look at the squatter areas to see which are the worst and start clearing those.
I realize the implication of this suggestion. It is that we should accept the responsibility for housing either immediately or in the near future all squatters who are now authorized or tolerated. The number of squatters now remaining is not so large as to make themselves an impossible burden to bear. Squatter control is effective enough to prevent new squatters from putting up huts. In any case, with rising living standards and general increase in prosperity, there is not the same pressure to squat as there was 15 or 20 years ago. Our ultimate aim should be to clear all squatter areas completely.
I will now turn to our quest for a new museum. When I first joined the Urban Council some years ago, I went on the Museum and Art Galleries Select Committee. At that time, plans were already well advanced for a new museum. The museum was to be housed in the new Rodney Block which was to be suitably converted. I studied this project with some interest.
In my innocence, I imagined that in one or possibly two years from that time, the new museum would be ready. We would be able to display our collection properly, which we had been unable to do because of lack of space in the existing museum. Alas, it has not turned out that way. More than four and a half years have elapsed since I joined the Council. What has happened to the new museum in the meantime?
The new Rodney Block project has fallen by the wayside. We are now looking around for a new site. As far as I am aware, nothing has yet been finalized, though there are indications that the matter is under active consideration. Most of us appear to have strong views as to where the museum should be. Unfortunately, we all appear to differ from each other in our choice of sites. There is a danger in this. We as a Council can hardly press for the early construction of a new museum if we cannot even make up our minds as to where it should be located. There are indications that a site at the north-western corner of the City Hall complex will be available. If so, I would urge members to accept this. Personally, I think this would be the best site. Those who have advocated other sites, particularly in Kowloon, may not agree, but I would urge them all to accept the site I have mentioned rather than to pursue some other ideal sites, so that we may get on as quickly as possible with the actual building of the new museum, which is so urgently required.
Last year at the Annual Convention Debate, I mentioned the litter problem and it is very encouraging that recently a great deal of
266
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
267