The Attorney-General said that the Government had considered the objections to the Bill and had made some concessions. The Bill aimed to improve sanitation and public health in Hong Kong. Mr. Chadwick had pointed out in his report that by Government doing it and by combining certain connections, he believed it could be done cheaper than by private individuals. This was one point on which the Government was sorry not to be able to make any concession. They looked upon it as one of vital importance and one in which they felt there could be no hardship.
In connection with that, they had no objection to inserting later on in Section 89 the word "reasonable," making it read "all reasonable expenses incurred by the Board." An objection had been taken to Section 65. It had been thought that 100 feet was too much, that most likely there would be a sewer down each main street, and that consequently the distance from the house to the main sewer would not be anything like 100 feet. If it was not, the owner would not be called upon to make a sewer of 100 feet. He might be perfectly sure the authorities would require him to connect his drain with the sewer by the most direct line.
Objection had also been taken that perhaps after a person had connected his drain with the sewer, he might afterwards be called upon to make another connection. He merely mentioned this to illustrate once more that there had been a great scare about this Bill and it had been thought there was something underneath and that Government had some hidden meaning. People said, "Very well, we will connect our houses with the sewer, but put in something that we shall not be called upon to connect a second time with another sewer." There was no intention of asking a householder to connect with one sewer and then afterwards ask him to go to the same expense again.
To meet the public mind on that point, they would insert the following words: "Provided always that after any owner has once connected his building with a public sewer, he shall not be required to connect with another sewer at his own expense." Part 5 would be maintained, and from what he had learned from the representative of the Chinese community, he believed they had no objection to it. Part 5 concerned buildings which were against the hillside.
The only thing this required was that when a house was built against the hillside without any intervening space, the basement should not be used as a habitation. It might be used as a store or workshop or for persons to carry on their occupations during the day, but they might not sleep there at night. With reference to Section 87, he had received very strong objections, and they had received the greatest consideration on the part of the Government.
But looking to all the difficulties which existed with respect to this matter, the difficulty of getting houses carried out according to plans, for very often there were no plans, and the great difficulties in having a house properly constructed, the Government thought there should be a certificate issued by an officer of the Board that a house was fit for human habitation before it was let. He hoped no one would think there would be any intention or desire on the part of the Board to place any difficulty in the way of letting his house if it was fit.
These were the principal objections which had been made against the Bill, and he had stated the course the Government had taken with regard to them. As to the by-laws for common lodging houses, there were only two objections. One was to Section 11. There, they had no objection to adding the word "knowingly," making it read "the keeper of a common lodging house shall not knowingly permit."
And in Section 18, which ran as follows: "If any person in a common lodging-house becomes ill from any infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, the keeper of such common lodging-house shall forthwith give notice thereof." They proposed to add after "forthwith," "on becoming aware of the fact," so that he would not be punished unless it could be proved that he was aware of the fact that there was a person suffering from infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, and that he did not report it to the Sanitary Board.
He trusted that with these explanations, he had alleviated whatever distrust there was on the part of the community about the intentions of the Government, and he would also ask the community once more to remember that Government officials had absolutely no personal interest whatever. The only thing they sought to do was to do their duty as well as they could, and the only reward they could or did look forward to was a recognition on the part of those they tried to govern that they had tried to do their duty.
The SURVEYOR-GENERAL seconded the motion.
Hon. P. RYRIE—I rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill. My hon. friend had certainly spoken most fairly, and he intimates that the most important thing left out of the Bill was to be taken up afterwards in a Building Ordinance. Now, that was no concession at all. It was simply putting the matter off for a short time.
The inhabitants of this colony had very grave objections to this Bill. In the first place, if you went to the root of it, they saw no use for the Bill, because everything laid down in the Bill was laid down in the Crown leases. Then what was the use of this Bill? It was merely a waste of time. There might be something in it about the building, but as far as the sanitary arrangements went, the Crown leases provided for everything.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, nothing like it. It was published after I came.
Hon. P. RYRIE—Well, it was written before that. Here they were rushing this matter on now. You said they must do it. They had got to do it. But the public of Hong Kong said they wouldn't do it. And there it was. Here was a most important matter, and here they were in the middle of summer, and they had not had an opportunity of meeting. There had been some meetings, it was true, but a Bill with 101 clauses required consideration.
Hon. WONG SHING seconded, and in doing so referred to the question of backyards. He said the Surveyor-General had said there was no help for the small lots; that they were not fit for human dwellings but only fit for stalls. He had paid a visit with Hon. A. P. MacEwen to a number of shops, and they found them nearly all 30 feet deep or less than 30 feet.
In the case of more than one-half of the Chinese houses, compliance with the Ordinance which took away ten feet for backyards and so forth would be impossible. He therefore seconded the motion of his hon. friend for postponement.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—When my hon. friend opposite proposed the postponement, he gathered from his earlier remarks that he opposed the Bill altogether, but he was glad to find he only proposed a postponement for a few days in order that the Bill might be reprinted and the Chinese have full opportunity of seeing what was proposed.
Hon. P. RYRIE—I rise to order. I opposed it altogether, but at present I wished for a postponement.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—I congratulate the Government on having given way on the question of privies, windows, backyards—
Hon. P. RYRIE—They had not given way.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—They had given way as regards this Bill. They were to be introduced in another Bill, and they would have full opportunity of dealing with them when that Bill came up. At present, they were simply dealing with this Bill on sanitary measures.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, four, of whom two should be Chinese.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—That was reducing the number, because in the Bill it was five.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, six.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN—If he would allow him to read the clause—"The Board shall consist of the Surveyor-General, the Registrar-General, the Captain Superintendent of Police, the Colonial Surgeon, and not more than five additional members, three of whom shall be appointed by the Governor, one elected by the Chamber of Commerce, and one by the Justices of the Peace."
Page 39
į
mically and efficiently as possible. Mr. Chadwick bas pointed out in his report that by Government doing it and by combining certain connections he believed it could be done cheaper than by private individuals. This is one point on which the Government is sorry not to be able to make any concession They look upon it as one of vital importance and one in which they feel there can bano hardship. In connection with that we have no objection to insert later on in Section 89 the word "reasonable,” making it read “all reason. able expenses incurred by the Board." An objection has been taken to Section 65. It has been thought this 100 feet is too much, that most likely there will be a sewer down each main street, and that consequently the distance from the house to the main sewer will not ba anything like 100 foot. Woll, if itisnot, the owner will not be called upon to make a sewer of 100 feet. He may be perfectly sure the antho- rities will require him to connect his drain with the sewer by the most direct line. Objection has also been taken that perhaps after a person has connected his drain with the sewer he may afterwards be called upon to make another cou- nection.
I merely mention this in order to illus- trite once more that there has been a great scare about this Bill and it has been thought there was something underneath and that Govern- ment has somɔ hidden meaning. People sAY "Very well, we will connect our houses with the sewer, but put in something that we shall not be called upon to connoot a second time with another sewer." Well, I do not think there is the slightest intention of asking a householder to connect with one sewer and then afterwards ask him to go to the same exponse again. However, in order to maet the public raind on that point we will insert the following words Provided always that after any owner has once connected his building with a public sewer, he shall not be required to coonset with another sower at his own expense.” Part 5 will be maintained and from what I have learnt from the representative of the Chines community I believe they have no objection to it. Part 5 concerns buildings which are against the hillside. The only thing this requires is that when a honse is built against the hill- side without any intervening space the base. mont shall not be used as a habitation. It may be used as a store or workshop or for persoas to carry on their occupations during the day, but they may not sleep there at night. With reference to saction 87 I have rocsival very strong objections, and thog bavo received the greatest consideration on the part of the Government. But looking to all the difficulties which exist with respect to this mat- i tar, the difialty of getting houses carried ont according to plans, for very often there are no plaus, and the great difoullies in having a houssi properly constructed, the Government thinks there should be a certificate issno1 by an officer of the Board that a house is fit for human habitation before it is lat. I hope no one will think there will be any intention or de- aire on the part of the Board to place any dif ficulty in the way of latting his house if it is fit. These are the principal objections which have been matanginst the Bill, au 1 Thave stated the course the Government has taken with regard to them. Asto the by-laws for common lodging houses, there are only two objections. One is to Section 11. Thora we have no objection to add the word "knowingly" making it read "the kasper of a common lodging hones shall not knowingly permit." Andia Section 18, which runs s follows: -“ If any person in a com nou loig- ing-house hacomas ill fron any infections, oɔn- tagious, or oom nanicable disease, the kaapar of such common latring-hono shall forthwith give notice thereof." Well, we propose to add after "forthwith," "on boɔning awira of the fict." so that he will not be punished unless it on be proved that he Was wirs of the fant that thora was a person suffriar from infectious, contagious, or so a nanicable disso, and that he did not report it to the Sanitary Board. I test with these explanations I have al- laved whatever distrust there was on the park of the enunity shout the intentions of the Gweru meat, and I would also ask the communi- ty angs more to ranembar that Government of fors have absolutely no personal interest what- erar. The only thing we seek to do is to lo our Aaby as well as we ein, and the only reward wa eau or do look forward to is a ragoraition on the part of those we try to govern that we have tried to do our duty.
The SURVEYOR-GENERAL seconded the mo tion.
Hon. P. Rrats-I rise to oppose the sacoud reading of the Bill. My hon. friend has certain-
ly spoken most of mrly, and ha intimates that the ! most important thing left out of the Bill wur
n up afterwards in a Building Deliamen Now, that is no coucassion at all. It is simply putting the matter off for a short timɔ. Tas inhibitants of this colour hara varv grava objaz- tions to this Bill. In the first placa, if you go to the root of it, they see no use for the Bill, be cluse everything laid down in the Bill is laill down in the Crown lenses. Then what is the use of this Bill? It is mwly a waste of timi There may be something in it about the build- ing, but as far as the sunitary arrangeumts go the Crown leases provide for everything. Et is a matter which affects proporty very materially, Mr. Chadwick's report was published many years ago, certainly ten years ago.
The Acriso ATTORNEY-GENERAL - Yo, no. thing like it. It was nablish ›d after I owns.
Hon. P. RYRIE -Wall, it was written before that. Here wo ars rushing this matter on now. You say we must to it. We have got to do it. Bat the public of Hongkong way they won't do it. And there it is. Hara is a mɔat im yırtaut natter and here we are in the middle of sum- mer and we have not had an opportunity of meeting there have bean soma mistings it is true, but a Bill with 101 olvases raquires 001-
ideration. It is all very wall to talk aboat those little things, but thay are not muteriał parts of the Bill at all. The Attorney- oneral says we are to suppose that everything will be reasonable and that nothing unreasonable will be required, but how are wa to sup- pose that? Suppose we do get an unreasonable person, there is no guarantee. He says it is unreasonable to suppose, but why should we not suppose ? I propose the second reading be postponed to this day fortnight, and I think that is nonureasonable request to make. Now wa have the views of the Government on the subject we can consider what it is they intend to do or not to do, and I think we require at least two weeks to consider the BilL
Hon. WONG SHING seconded, and in doing so referred to the question of backyards. He said the Surveyor-General had said there was no help for the small lots; that they were not fit for hu- man dwellings but only fit for stalls. He had paid a visit with Hon. A. P. MacEwen to a uum- bar of shops and they found them nearly all 30 fost doop or less than 30 feet. In the case of more than one-half of the Chinese houses com- pliance with the Ordinance which took away ten feet for backyards and so forth would be impos sible. He therefore seconded the motion of his hon. friend for postponment.
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN-When my hon. friend opposite proposed the postponement I gathered from his earlier remarks that he opposed the Bill altogether, but I am glad to find he only proposes a postponement for a few days in order that the Bill may be reprinted and the Chinese have fall opportunity of seeing what is proposed.
Hon. P. RYRIE-I rise to order. I oppose it altogether, but at present I wish for a postpone- mant.
Hoo. A. P. MacEwan-I congratulate the Government on having given way on the ques- tion of privies, windows, backyards--
Hon. P. RYRIE-They have not given way. Hon. A.P. MACEWEN-They have given way as regards this Bill. They are to be introduced in another Bill and we will have fall opportunity of dealing with them when that Bill comes up. At present we are simply dealing with this Bill on sanitary measures. As a member of this Council and a member of the Sanitary Board I have spout many hours and many days with my colleagues in studying the question of the ten-foot backyard, which certain. ly on paper looked desirable, but when it came to be put to the test I found it to be impracti- cable. You would have to pull down three quarters of the town to enfores it. I listened very atten- tively to the remarks made by the Attorney- General, and I am sorry that as regards Clanse 4, speaking of the constitution of the Board, ho said it was the intention of the Government to appoint two Chinese and four members to be elected by the Governor.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-ĢENERAL-No, four, of whom two should be Chinese,
Hon. A. P. MACEWEN-That is reducing the number, because in the Bill it is five.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-No, six. Hon. A. P. MoEwEN-It you will allow me to read the clause-"The Board shall consist of the Surveyor-General, the Registrar-General, the Captain Superintendent of Police, the Colo- nial Surgeon, and not more than five additional members, three of whom shall be appointed by the Governor, one elected by the Chamber of
39
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.