[ { "id": 209371, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1982", "page_number": 28, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "6\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT\n\nenlarged and redecorated. Described as \"semi-self-contained\" units, these blocks have inside kitchens but detached toilets, and have had their centre walls removed to enlarge the over-all space. Block #21, however, has self-contained toilets in each unit. Blocks #1-4, #10, #12, #22, and #23 can be referred to as \"tap and toilet improvement\" blocks as their communal toilets have been replaced by individual, key toilets for each household. Block #5 is a \"special\" block in so far as self-contained flats were built in at the time it was erected (1959). In that sense, Block #5 is already \"converted\". The remaining Mark II Blocks (#13-#20) have been targeted for improvement.\n\nThere are now twenty-one Mutual Aid Committees established in Lok Fu Estate: Blocks #1-8, #10-20, #22, and #23 have committees. From January of 1982 to April of 1983, I interviewed the chairmen of eighteen of these Mutual Aid Committees as part of a research project to explore more fully the opinions of male members towards participation and problems of committee functioning. Such interviewing also enabled me to collect additional information on other matters relating to committee organization. The discussion presented in this paper is taken from these interviews, with additional background information collected during the previous research period of 1976-1978.*\n\nGeneral Organization\n\nThe Mutual Aid Committees of Lok Fu Estate follow the general design of committees found in other parts of Hong Kong, where the basic arrangement is to establish one committee for one building or residential block. This arrangement is the most common because it creates a neat structure that is easy to understand and administer. As public housing estates are arranged in blocks, the basic arrangement used here is one block, one committee. However, a complicating factor is the large population.\n\n* The author wishes to express her gratitude to these chairmen, and to the staff of the Tung Tau sub-office, Wong Tai Sin District Office, for their generous help. Special thanks goes to Ms. Winnie Yeung, Liaison Officer, Tung Tau sub-office for her advice and assistance. The author also wishes to thank Mr. H. S. Leung, Housing Manager, Lok Fu Estate, for his help.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209372, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1982", "page_number": 29, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "7\n\nTions living in many public housing estate blocks. As observed in 1980:\n\nOne of the largest estates where I interviewed, Tze Wan Shan Estate, is the largest in Hong Kong, housing well over 150,000 people. One of its blocks, Block #66, houses approximately 8,400 people. But it is not the largest. Across the street, Block #61, on the outer edge of the estate, houses nearly 9,900 people (Scott 1980:33).\n\nBlocks of this size, with such enormous resident populations, would make the standard arrangement not only impractical, but ridiculous. Yet, there have been some standard committees created under such situations. For example, in 1978 Blocks #62, #64, and #65 of Tze Wan Shan Estate, with a combined population of 11,000 inhabitants, were operating with one committee. Some blocks solve the population problem by dividing into floors; for example, one committee could be formed for, say, every three floors. In 1977, the Mutual Aid Committees of Block #23 of Tung Tau Estate, Wong Tai Sin District, were arranged in this way. It is also possible, if the block has wings, for each wing to have its own committee. Even with all these alternatives, there is probably no one perfect solution to the problem of committee allocation in public housing (Scott 1980:33).\n\n11\n\n“A Mutual Aid Committee must be approved by the District Officer/Assistant District Officer under delegated authority from the Secretary for District Administration on a biennial basis for the purpose of exemption from the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151)” (City and New Territories Administration 1982:1).10 Each Mutual Aid Committee in Lok Fu Estate follows this rule and is registered for a period of two years. However, before October of 1981, the committees were registered for only one year. The lengthening of the registration period was felt to have a beneficial effect, as it would enable the committees to complete projects planned and generally function more efficiently. At the end of this time, each committee is reviewed by the District Officer or City District Officer and if found to be functioning without serious problems, its certificate is renewed. Each committee has its own biennial cycle, however, based on the time at", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214679, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1999", "page_number": 94, "title": "RAS-1999", "content_text": "58\n\nsmall patches of vegetable fields. The present Diamond Hill Squatter Area, with the remains of the old Tai Hom Village at its centre, is all that remains of this huge area today.\n\nNga Tsin Wai was buried in this squatter area. Squatter huts were built up against the outer face of the old walls of 1724. The old moat area was not built over, however, because the ground there was too unsafe and damp. The Ng clan Ancestral Hall disappeared into the centre of the new Tung Tau Squatter Area, and the area north of the village was covered with a network of vegetable plots and squatter huts. As before, the villagers were, in most cases, quite unable to get any rent from the squatters, and just lost control of their sole economic asset - their fields.\n\nTo the northwest of the village an even larger squatter area developed around the Wong Tai Sin Temple (founded here in the 1930s), and the villages of Ta Kwu Leng and Shek Kwu Lung. This squatter area was cleared from 1955 for the construction of the Wong Tai Sin Housing Estates: Ta Kwu Ling and Shek Kwu Lung villages were cleared with the squatter huts which surrounded them. No special compensation was paid to the villagers of these villages, who received cash for their fields, and a unit in the new estates. Thus, by the middle 1950s, Nga Tsin Wai was left as the only indigenous village left in the whole area, except for Chuk Yuen, Yuen Ling, and Ngau Chi Wan to the east.\n\nNgau Chi Wan with Pak Uk Tsai was in turn cleared for development in the late 1960s (the villagers here were given a resite just north of the new road), Ngau Chi Wan for the construction of Lung Cheung Road, and Pak Uk Tsai for the site formation for Ping Shek Estate. What was left of Chuk Yuen went in the early 1980s (some of the village had disappeared a decade or so earlier), for the development of Open Space along Po Kong Village Road. Both the Yuen Ling villages went in the early 1990s, with the squatter area which surrounded them, for the site formation for the Chi Lin Nunnery.\n\nAt Nga Tsin Wai itself, the site formation for the original Tung Tau Estate (1960), and its access roads, led to the resumption of all the remaining village fields. The Ng clan Ancestral Hall was cleared with the squatter area around it. A resite was given for the Ancestral Hall, at the western end of the old moat (the resite was less than a quarter the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x", "rank": 0 } ]