Page 166 of 242
312
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
having to raise the necessary funds. This lack of financial responsibility means that we are somewhat disinclined to go into the costing of a project. With financial autonomy, this will no longer be the case. We will have to justify to the public any increase in rates levied for projects we carry out. This increased responsibility is a challenge which we should be ready to accept.
The proposals in the White Paper concerning public housing are somewhat disturbing. As I understand it, things are to be left unchanged for the time being, but in the future, we should confine our attention to Housing Authority type of housing, while other forms of Government Housing will be managed by someone else. This fragmentation of responsibility will not make for efficiency or good planning. It will nullify all attempts to raise the standard of management of Resettlement Estates up to those of Housing Authority Estates. This is one part of the White Paper which I believe is a step backwards and I hope there will be second thoughts about this particular proposal.
Turning to resettlement, I believe we are now within measurable distance of dealing completely with the squatter problem, that is by resettling all squatters. According to the figures set out in the Housing Board Report 1970, as at 31st March that year, there were estimated to be about 410,000 squatters and occupiers of licensed areas. This included about 50,000 rooftop squatters. These figures are steadily reduced. According to the census figures published in June this year, the number of ground squatters was 188,000. With the recent rise in prosperity and higher living standards, there will naturally be less enthusiasm for erecting squatters' huts and squatter control will ensure that no new huts are put up. Government's intention is to erect approximately 100,000 individual units of accommodation per year for the next few years. By no means all of these are for resettlement. Nevertheless, it is evident that it will be feasible to rehouse all squatters within the next few years.
That being the case, we should look ahead to the time when the term resettlement estate will no longer be appropriate and instead, they will be just a form of Government Housing. We should, therefore, plan and design future resettlement blocks with this in mind. The standard of fittings should certainly be higher than at present. For instance, wooden doors and windows are still installed which are completely unacceptable to the tenants. After moving in, the tenants take them all down and install their own. These wooden doors and windows are then piled up somewhere on the estate. In due course, they are taken away by Government and sold by auction.
We may wonder who would buy these worthless articles. It would not surprise me to find that they are bought by the same contractors who installed them in the first place. No doubt they will then be used in other blocks being erected.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
313
This situation obviously benefits no one except possibly the building contractors. The obvious solution is to install fittings which are of a standard acceptable to the tenants. The higher cost could be offset by a slight increase in rent. I am sure the tenants would rather pay this than go to the expense and bother of making their own installations.
Indeed, I would go further and say that the standard of fittings should not merely be such as to be barely acceptable now. We should take account of rising living standards and expectations and install fittings which are likely to be acceptable even in the future. In this way, we would avoid storing up problems for ourselves in the future and avoid making the sort of mistakes which were made when the Mark I and Mark II blocks were planned.
My next topic concerns certain proprietary clubs which have sprung up recently, and the control, or rather the lack of control, of catering and other facilities of these clubs. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the Food and Food Premises Select Committee have been considering ways and means of controlling licensed restaurants and eliminating unlicensed restaurants over the past few years. I will not say any more on this subject, as I am sure my friend Mr. P. K. Ng will deal with it more fully.
However, while we are grappling with the problems posed by unlicensed restaurants, we are allowing proprietary clubs to operate with scarcely any control. They serve meals in the same manner and to just as many people as an ordinary restaurant would. Their premises may be unsuitable to use as a restaurant, but all this does not matter, since a restaurant licence is not required. They have little difficulty in obtaining a Club Liquor Licence to serve liquor, whereas an ordinary restaurant would not get a licence unless it first has a General Restaurant Licence. The clubs can put on shows without any Entertainment Licence from the Police.
What is the essential difference between such clubs and ordinary restaurants which would justify such a startling difference in our attitude to them? Is it because the clubs are limited only to members, whereas restaurants are open to any member of the public? If this is the reason, I would suggest that it is illusory. It is obviously in the interest of the club's management to have as many people as possible patronizing their clubs. If anyone wishes to get in, you may be sure that this will not be difficult to accomplish. Some of these clubs claim to be non-profit-making organizations, but anyone who believes this will believe anything.
Sometime ago, I asked a question in this Council about these clubs and I was told that they were subject to control in that they...
Page 166 of 242