TNAG-0911-FCO40-1121-Policy-on-housing-and-resettlement-in-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 21

-2-

SOCO's second point stresses the dangers facing these people with the onset of the typhoon season. That there are dangers involved in living on boats cannot be denied. But the Hong Kong boat dwellers have been living with typhoons for generations, and they nowadays have the advantages of modern typhoon shelters which have been specifically designed to provide maximum protection against typhoons. In many ways the dangers from typhoons are greater on land, where there is a risk of land slips caused by the torrential rains.

The third point is that the Hong Kong Government ignore the plight of those who are in most urgent need of public housing. As Goronwy explained in his letter of 19 February, priority for rehousing is given to people who have either been made homeless as a result of fire or natural disaster, or whose homes become dangerous or are on areas which are needed for development. The Hong Kong Government do not accept that the boat dwellers, with the exception of those whose vessels are in a dangerous condition, are in any more urgent need of rehousing than those living in unsatisfactory conditions on Land. They are certainly in need of rehousing, but they must take their turn in the queue.

The last two points concern the right to petition and to hold public meetings. All residents of Hong Kong have an unqualified right to petition the Governor on any matter of public or private concern. It is true that police permission is required for any public assembly or procession of three or more people. It is clear that the organisers of the boat dwellers demonstrations were fully aware that they needed to apply for a permit, but deliberately chose not to do so, for their own reasons. There is certainly no evidence that the police have been reluctant to issue permits for public meetings or processions in the past. Between January 1978 and February this year 62 such permits were granted, and 18 of these involved the presenting of petitions. In the same period only two applications were refused, both from the same applicant, a single individual with no clearly defined purpose who proposed to collect his own crowd as he processed along busy streets. Even he was originally granted a permit, but when he applied a second and third time the Police Commissioner decided that his cause was not sufficiently serious to justify the inconvenience to the public at large.

There is no doubt that if the boat dwellers had applied for a permit for their demonstration and procession it would have been granted. They cannot really maintain that the Hong Kong constitution denies them the right to hold public assemblies.

/I am