In such circumstances, the Director of Lands considered that it was inappropriate to permit regularisation by payment of a premium as this would set a most undesirable precedent and would prejudice future management control in Sai Kung District; and
(d) the appellant's building lot was granted under the Small House Policy which permitted buildings exempted from the Buildings Ordinance. Such exemptions were on the basis that the use would comply with a certain specified size and other constraints. If the owner were subsequently allowed to extend his property, the safeguards of building control would be lost.
In the light of the explanation given by the Director of Lands, UMELCO decided not to pursue the appeal.
II Proposals/Suggestions
Proposal for Payment of Pension Benefits to the Disabled (C 2209/84) The daughter-in-law of a Government pensioner approached UMELCO to suggest that the present procedure for paying pension benefits to disabled Government pensioners should be reviewed. According to her, her father- in-law used to receive his pension benefits through his bank account without much trouble. However, beginning from July 1984, he became blind and could not sign his name. Since then he had to use his personal seal in lieu of his signature and he was required to furnish to the Treasury a Monthly Pension Payment Advice, to be witnessed by an unrelated person. The complainant considered that the procedure caused inconvenience to the disabled pensioner and was a retrograde step. She pointed out that her father-in-law was also in receipt of a Disability Allowance from the Social Welfare Department but was not required to give a payment instruction every month for the payment of the Disability Allowance. She therefore suggested that the Treasury should consider co-ordinating with the Social Welfare Department in the payment of pension benefits to disabled pensioners so as to obviate the need for them to furnish a payment instruction every month.
The case was taken up with the Director of Accounting Services who after due consideration and taking into account the difficulties encountered by the client's father-in-law, agreed to let his pension benefits be paid into
his bank account under the autopay system, provided that in June/July each year he submitted to the Director an annual pension claim form, duly witnessed by a reputable person (e.g. medical practitioner, person in charge of a nursing home, or similar institution, solicitor, minister of religion, etc.). If the pensioner concerned was unable to find such a witness or if he had other problems, arrangements would be made for his annual claim form to be witnessed by a staff member of the Treasury. The Director added that other disabled pensioners who had similar difficulties would be accorded assistance in the
same manner.
Proposal to Warn Cinema Patrons Against Loss of Property (C 272/85) A cinema usher wrote to UMELCO suggesting that cinema patrons should be duly warned about leaving behind their personal belongings in cinemas. According to him, he had noticed many cinema patrons inadvertently left behind their property in the cinemas.
The suggestion was referred to the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing for consideration. Subsequently, the Commissioner wrote to cinema operators suggesting they display a slide on the cinema screen, in both English and Chinese, reminding patrons to check their personal belongings before leaving their seats.
As a follow-up, staff of the UMELCO Office noted themselves that operators were cooperating with the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing and were displaying the suggested slide towards the end of a film.
III Request for Assistance
Request for Assistance to Locate Father in Hong Kong (C 700/85) In March 1985, a resident in China came to visit his father in Hong Kong. He travelled on a two-way exit permit. Unfortunately, he was unable to find his father. He had approached several organisations for assistance without success; hence his approach to UMELCO.
During an interview with the staff of the UMELCO Office, he explained that his father might not be willing to see him due to some past misunderstanding, but he wanted very much to see his father. He therefore asked if UMELCO could put out a newspaper advertisement inviting his
father to contact him or, in case his father refused to see him, forward his letter to his father.
It was understood that the Hong Kong Red Cross, with whom he had registered, might consider putting out an advertisement for him in due course. However, in view of his wish to contact his father as early as possible, the UMELCO Office made arrangements for him to contact a major local newspaper, which subsequently agreed to publish an advertisement for him free of charge. Noting that he had only a few dollars left with him, the UMELCO Office also made arrangements for the Social Welfare Department to grant $250 to him from a charitable fund to cover his daily expenses in the interim. The Methodist Church also agreed to continue providing accommodation for him during his temporary stay in Hong Kong.
For personal reasons, the visitor finally decided to leave Hong Kong before the advertisement appeared. Through the Social Welfare
Department, arrangement was also made for the grant of a further sum of $450 to him from a charitable fund to cover his travelling expenses.
Shortly after the son had returned to China, a clansmen association informed the UMELCO Office that the father had contacted the association after seeing the advertisement. However, the father indicated that he did not wish to see his son, or to disclose his whereabouts. In accordance with the son's request, a letter was forwarded to the father through the clansmen association. The son was subsequently advised of the action taken by the UMELCO Office.
IV Outside UMELCO Jurisdiction
Appeal for Assistance in Labour Dispute (C 336/85) About 300 workers of a closed down company called at the UMELCO Office to appeal for early payment of arrears of wages, severance pay and annual bonus. They also complained that the cheques made out by the employer in payment of severance pay and annual bonus could not be cashed because the employer had insufficient funds in the bank.
During an interview with these workers, the duty roster Members of UMELCO explained to them that disputes between employers and
74
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.