252
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
DR. BELL :—I have already aired my views in the Committee of the Whole but I want to repeat them today in public. I strongly oppose the proposed increases in conservancy charges because they will hit at a section of the community which is least able to afford them. The people who will be affected budget down to the last five cents, even the slightest increase makes a difference to them. Furthermore, these people have no choice but to use the conservancy service. Although in some instances sewerage has been provided, the tenants cannot themselves install water-borne sanitation. Only the landlords can do this; and while it can be argued that if the tenants had waterborne sanitation they would have to pay more than they do at present, it should be pointed out that it is only natural that people will make added sacrifices for something better. But you are merely increasing charges and asking them to make sacrifices for the same pre-historic, disgusting and uncomfortable conditions which they have at present. Although, Sir, you say that the increase of $20.00 per year for conservancy charges for domestic accommodation would work out at only $1.67 cents per month, where one family occupies a whole floor, and to a little over 50 cents where three families occupy a floor, I say, that this will probably mean that they will have to spend this amount less on food, because they have already budgeted to the barest minimum on all other essentials, rent, clothes, school fees, medical fees, etc. Fifty cents does make a difference to people who live, as they do, from hand to mouth. The increase in rents which was recently proposed would have resulted in little more expense to the individual tenant than the proposed increase in conservancy charges and yet the proposal to increase rents was dropped because of public outcry. I think that the people affected should first be given an opportunity to put forward their objection before any measure is adopted which will result in increased expenditure to them and consequently will result in loss of nourishment and health, and therefore I strongly object to the proposal which you have put forward today.
DR. R. H. S. LEE :----Although this Council is supposed to function as a municipal council we are in fact labouring under the antiquated machinery of the old sanitary board. If this be not true, how is it that we are asked to perform its very important duties, and yet we have so little say regarding its finances? Every one of us knows so little about it that nobody is really in a position to give an accurate picture as to what portion of the Colony's total revenues is the Council's proper and legitimate revenue which should be set aside for its exclusive use, and what portion of urban rates and other charges could be ear-marked solely for the use of urban services. Unless these vitally important data are forthcoming I can't see how we, as responsible representatives of the community, could arrive at a just decision which must be just and fair to the users of the conservancy service as well as to prevent it from operating at a loss. Mr. Chairman unless we are 'yes men' who rubber-stamp every recommendation without critical analysis the Reform Club members cannot agree to the By-law which imposes extra charges on domestic and non-domestic users of this service. Unless and until these figures are related to the over-all picture of the Council's legitimate finances, which we still press for Mr. Chairman, we feel that the case against it is both strong and justified.
253
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Since conservancy serves and affects the poorest section of the community this impost will fall heaviest on those who are least able to bear this burden. It may be argued that the increase is relatively small, but we must bear in mind that these wage earners are competing in a depressed labour market, and have already budgeted to the nearest ten cents. When the increase has to be met it will have to come at the expense of their food. When we consider that the high incidence of tuberculosis in Hong Kong to-day is partly due to inadequate feeding it does make sense to ask for a postponement of our decision until we have a chance to discuss it further on more information being made available to this Council. If the increase is not justified it contributes further to the inflation spiral. If business is good I don't think any one will complain. We must not forget that the tenants living in the tenement floors serviced by conservancy put up with nightsoil removal not by any choice of their own. It is either that the area is not served by a Government sewer, or that the building is so dilapidated that it is not possible to install water carriage toilets.
Since conservancy charges have not been revised for almost 10 years I can't understand the seemingly great haste in pressing the Council to adopt these increases. If it is the question of the huge deficit (about $1 million) it is important that we should have more information and spend more time in its deliberation so as to justify our action in asking the public to make up for this very substantial amount. In view of this Mr. Chairman, I can't understand why the Council wasn't asked earlier to approve of the new pilot conservancy scheme which would mean an annual saving of...
252
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
DR. BELL :—I have already aired my views in the Committee of the Whole but I want to repeat them today in public. I strongly oppose the proposed increases in conservancy charges because they will hit at a section of the community which is least able to afford them. The people who will be affected budget down to the last five cents, even the slightest increase makes a difference to them. Furthermore, these people have no choice but to use the conservancy service. Although in some instances sewerage has been provided, the tenants cannot themselves install water- borne sanitation. Only the landlords can do this; and while it can be argued that if the tenants had waterborne sanitation they would have to pay more than they do at present, it should be pointed out that it is only natural that people will make added sacrifices for something better. But you are merely increasing charges and asking them to make sacrifices for the same pre- historic, disgusting and uncomfortable conditions which they have at present. Although, Sir, you say that the increase of $20.00 per year for conservancy charges for domestic accommodation would work out at only $1.67 cents per month, where one family occupies a whole floor, and to a little over 50 cents where three families occupy a floor, I say, that this will probably mean that they will have to spend this amount less on food, because they have already budgeted to the barest minimum on all other essentials, rent, clothes, school fees, medical fees, etc. Fifty cents does make a difference to people who live, as they do, from hand to mouth. The increase in rents which was recently proposed would have resulted in little more expense to the individual tenant than the proposed increase in conservancy charges and yet the proposal to increase rents was dropped because of public outery. I think that the people affected should first be given an opportunity to pul forward their objection before any measure is adopted which will result in increased expenditure to them and consequently will result in loss of nourishment and health, and therefore I strongly object to the proposal which you have put forward today.
DR. R. H. S. LEE :----Although this Council is supposed to function as a municipal council we are in fact labouring under the antiquated machinery of the old sanitary board. If this be not true, how is it that we are asked to perform its very important duties, and yet we have so little say regarding its finances? Every one of us knows so little about it that nobody is really in a position to give an accurate picture as to what portion of the Colony's total revenues is the Council's proper and legitimate
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
253
revenue which should be set aside for its exclusive use, and what portion of urban rates and other charges could be ear-marked solely for the use of urban services. Unless these vitally im- portant data are forthcoming I can't see how we, as responsible representatives of the community, could arrive at a just decision which must be just and fair to the users of the conservancy service as well as to prevent it from operating at a loss. Mr. Chairman unless we are 'yes men" who rubber-stamp every recommenda- tion without critical analysis the Reform Club members cannot agree to the By-law which imposes extra charges on domestic and non-domestic users of this service. Unless and until these figures are related to the over-all picture of the Council's legitimate finances, which we still press for Mr. Chairman, we feel that the case against it is both strong and justified.
Since conservancy serves and affects the poorest section of the community this impost will fall heaviest on those who are least able to bear this burden. It may be argued that the increase is relatively small, but we must bear in mind that these wage earners are competing in a depressed labour market, and have If the increase has to already budgeted to the nearest ten cents.
When
be met it will have to come at the expense of their food. we consider that the high incidence of tuberculosis in Hong Kong to-day is partly due to inadequate feeding it does make sense to ask for a postponement of our decision until we have a chance to discuss it further on more information being made available to this Council. If the increase is not justified it contributes further to the inflation spiral. If business is good I don't think any one will complain. We must not forget that the tenants living in the tenement floors serviced by conservancy put up with nightsoil removal not by any choice of their own. It is either that the area is not served by a Government sewer, or that the building is so dilapidated that it is not possible to install water carriage toilets.
Since conservancy charges have not been revised for almost 10 years I can't understand the seemingly great haste in pressing the Council to adopt these increases. If it is the question of the huge deficit (about $1 million) it is important that we should have more information and spend more time in its deliberation so as to justify our action in asking the public to make up for this very substantial amount. In view of this Mr. Chairman, I can't under- stand why the Council wasn't asked earlier to approve of the new pilot conservancy scheme which would mean an annual saving of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.