Page 31 of 107
46
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
When I spoke about resettlement a year ago, you may remember that I suggested that as the Housing Authority appeared to be disinclined to tackle the problem of providing accommodation for the middle and low income groups, this work might be taken over by the Resettlement Department. I understand that this suggestion has fallen on fertile ground, and Mr. Sales has mentioned that the question is now being considered by a special committee.
During the past year, however, certain doubts as to the wisdom of this course have occurred to me. It would mean that this department would have to set up a huge investigation section to receive applications, award points, and screen families in order to decide which should be rehoused first. The magnitude of this task may be judged from the estimate that 186,000 families comprising about 900,000 people are at present living in tenements with less space, air, and light than they would have in an ordinary Resettlement Estate room and are paying considerably more rent.
The Housing Authority already has an application section, and it would seem illogical to duplicate it, unless the Authority could continue to serve a useful purpose as a separate entity. If, however, the Resettlement Department took over the task of accommodating all those who could not afford self-contained flats, there would be very little justification for the continued existence of the Housing Authority. In your Budget speech, you, Sir, said that it is probably impossible to lower the monthly rental of self-contained flats below about $60. There is considerable evidence that tenants are not prepared to pay more than about 10% of their income in exclusive rent, so that the number of families who can afford this type of accommodation is limited to those in the richest 20% of the community. In the Housing Survey conducted by the University, it is estimated that there are only about 21,000 families with income between $600 and $900 a month, that only 41% were willing to move, which reduces this figure to 8,610, and that of these only 46.5% were willing to move into a Housing Authority estate, which leaves us with a maximum of 4,003 families. So that, unless these estimates are very far adrift, the completion of 4,500 flats at So Uk will see the end of the usefulness of the Authority if it refuses to concern itself with anything other than self-contained flats.
There is, however, a much stronger objection to the Resettlement Department taking over the accommodation of the middle and low-income families, and that is the task it is still faced with in its original function of clearing and rehousing the squatters. In his Budget speech, the Honourable Dr. S. N. Chau described as a conundrum the fact that six or seven years ago there were 350,000 squatters and that, in spite of having resettled 280,000 since then, there are still 350,000 to be dealt with.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
47
This means that either our original estimate was very inaccurate, or that our building programme is barely keeping pace with the increasing number of squatters.
Part of this is obviously due to immigration, and it is difficult to judge how much this increase amounts to. A good deal of it is also due to the excess of births over deaths, a natural increase which last year's Government Report put at 3.2% of the population. This applied to the 630,000 squatters and settlers indicates an annual increase of over 20,000 due to natural increase alone. In the statement before us, we are told that 37,200 squatters were resettled during the year, so that the net gain is only 17,000, not taking into account any increase in the number of squatters due to immigration. It is therefore obvious that unless there is a very substantial increase in the rate of building resettlement estates, it will take more than 20 years to resettle the remaining squatters and to cope with the natural increase of them and those already settled.
In view of this, it is extremely doubtful whether it is either practicable or desirable for the Resettlement Department to take on any other commitments. Its first duty is to clear and rehouse the squatters, and there is very little it can do for any other section of the community until that task is completed, a task which may take up to 20 years. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to put up with the squatter problem for that length of time, we must expand our resettlement programme enormously and not let anything else distract us from that object.
(Applause).
I have now pleasure in supporting the motion before us.
VICE-CHAIRMAN:- Mr. Chairman, I think I might take it upon myself to say on behalf of all the Official Members how much interest we have taken in the speeches which have been delivered today. As we would welcome an opportunity to reply to many of the points raised, I now move under Standing Order 10(18)(d) that the debate be adjourned to the next meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN seconded.
The question was put.
The Motion was carried.
ADJOURNMENT.
CHAIRMAN: --That concludes the business for the meeting.
Page 31 of 107
Page 31 of 107
46
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
When I spoke about resettlement a year ago, you may remember that I suggested that as the Housing Authority appeared to be disin- clined to tackle the problem of providing accommodation for the middle and low income groups, this work might be taken over by the Resettle- ment Department. I understand that this suggestion has fallen on fertile ground, and Mr. Sales has mentioned that the question is now being considered by a special committee.
During the past year, however, certain doubts as to the wisdom of this course have occurred to me. It would mean that this depart- ment would have to set up a huge investigation section to receive applications, award points, and screen families in order to decide which should be rehoused first. The magnitude of this task may be judged from the estimate that 186,000 families comprising about 900,000 people are at present living in tenements have less space, air and light than they would have in an ordinary Resettlement Estate room, and are paying considerably more rent.
The Housing Authority already has an application section and it would seem illogical to duplicate it, unless the Authority could continue to serve a useful purpose as a separate entity. If, however, the Resettle- ment Department took over the task of accommodating all those who could not afford self-contained flats, there would be very little justifica- tion for the continued existence of the Housing Authority. In your Budget speech you, Sir, said that it is probably impossible to lower the monthly rental of self-contained flats below about $60. There is con- siderable evidence that tenants are not prepared to pay more than about 10% of their income in exclusive rent, so that the number of families who can afford this type of accommodation is limited to those in the richest 20% of the community. In the Housing Survey conducted by the University, it is estimated that there are only about 21,000 families with income between $600 and $900 a month, that only 41% were willing to move which reduces this figure to 8610, and that of these only 46.5% were willing to move into a Housing Authority estate, which leaves us with a maximum of 4,003 families. So that, unless these estimates are very far adrift, the completion of 4,500 flats at So Uk will see the end of the usefulness of the Authority, if it refuses to concern itself with anything other than self-contained flats.
There is, however, a much stronger objection to the Resettlement Department taking over the accommodation of the middle and low income families, and that is the task it is still faced with in its original function of clearing and rehousing the squatters. In his Budget speech, the Honourable Dr. S. N. Chau described as a conundrum the fact that six or seven years ago there were 350,000 squatters and that in spite of having resettled 280,000 since then, there are still 350,000 to be dealt with.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
47
This means that either our original estimate was very inaccurate, or that our building programme is barely keeping pace with the increasing number of squatters.
Part of this is obviously due to immigration, and it is difficult to judge how much this increase amounts to. A good deal of it is also due to the excess of births over deaths, a natural increase which last year's Government Report put at 3.2% of the population. This applied to the 630,000 squatters and settlers indicates an annual increase of over 20,000 due to natural increase alone. In the statement before us, we are told that 37,200 squatters were resettled during the year, so that the net gain is only 17,000 not taking into account any increase in the number of squatters due to immigration. It is therefore obvious that unless there is a very substantial increase in the rate of building resettlement estates, it will take more than 20 years to resettle the re- maining squatters and to cope with the natural increase of them and those already settled.
In view of this, it is extremely doubtful whether it is either practicable or desirable for the Resettlement Department to take on any other commitments. Its first duty is to clear and rehouse the squatters, and there is very little it can do for any other section of the community until that task is completed, a task which may take up to 20 years. Unless therefore we are prepared to put up with the squatter problem for that length of time, we must to expand our resettlement programme enormously, and not let anything else distract us from that object.
(Applause).
I have now pleasure in supporting the motion before us. VICE-CHAIRMAN:-Mr. Chairman, I think I might take it upon myself to say on behalf of all the Official Members, how much interest we have taken in the speeches which have been delivered today. As we would welcome an opportunity to reply to many of the points raised, I now move under Standing Order 10(18)(d) that the debate be adjourn- ed to the next meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN seconded.
The question was put.
The Motion was carried.
ADJOURNMENT.
CHAIRMAN: --That concludes the business for the meeting.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.