1959 — Page 55

1107

Page 55 of 107

94

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: -4,530 last year.

MR. SALES:—And what is the back-log at the present time?

COMMISSIONER for ResettleMENT:-I cannot give you the figures at the moment.

MR. SALES: -The number of people who would be eligible and are still on the streets?

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:--I cannot give you the figure at the present time.

MR. SALESA supplementary question on the second paragraph. Is this Council to conclude that official policy is coming around to the view that no distinction should be made between the poor local people and the squatters?

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: -The answer is no.

MR. SALES-Why is the answer "no", Mr. Chairman?

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-This is a special case.

MR. SALES :-Why should the people of Hong Kong be discrimi- nated against in their own home? Why should they have to be accom- modated on the streets instead of being housed in the same way as other squatters are? That is a legitimate question.

CHAIRMAN: ---You are turning this into a debate.

you put this in the form of a motion.

I would suggest

i

MR. A. DE O. SALES asked the following question : ---

"When is it proposed to find a more convenient and prominent location for the displaced flower sellers formerly installed just off Nathan Road at Tsim Sha Tsui?"

THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-

"The position with regard to these flower-stalls is as follows:- (i) Owing to the closure of the road in which these stalls were originally located, alternative temporary sites were made available for them in Lock Road in February this year.

(ii) At the same time, as the stall-holders did not wish to remain permanently in Lock Road, they were given an opportunity to suggest alternative new sites and, in April, they proposed permanent resiting in Haiphong Road opposite Nos. 39-41. There was no objection departmentally or otherwise to this

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

95

resiting which was approved by the Delegated Member of the Hawkers (Executive) Select Committee.

(iii) The stall-holders, however, then changed their minds and requested new permanent sites in Haiphong Road nearer to Nathan Road (opposite Nos. 57-60, Haiphong Road) which are however occupied by fire-

victims.

As a result of their inability to acquire these particular sites in the near future, the stall-holders are now again looking around for alternative areas and their proposals are awaited. It is considered that this is more practical than that the Department should propose sites for them as they know best what they want and where they would like to be sited.”

MR. SALES: -A supplementary question in connexion with sec- tion (iii) of your reply. The site occupied by the fire victims: how long have these fire victims occupied that site?

CHAIRMAN:-I am unable to give you a definite answer. They were occupying the site before these people asked for it.

MR. SALES: -My information is that they have been located there since 1957.

CHAIRMAN:-That may well be.

MR. SALES: --In our scheme of things, in which category is their priority for resettlement?

CHAIRMAN:-1 am afraid this is a bit far fetched.

MR. SALES: No, it is a perfectly legitimate question. CHAIRMAN:-The answer is that the fire victims will remain there for the time being, and secondly the area cannot be used for other flower hawkers.

MR. SALES: In reply to my previous question I was told that 4,530 of them have been resettled. I was wondering if people who were on the streets since 1957 would qualify. (Pause) Do I under- stand from your silence that you have no information?

CHAIRMAN: I have no further information. I am waiting for your seventh question.

MR. SALES: -May I have your reply to that minuted? have no information?

CHAIRMAN: -I have no further information in reply. MR. SALES:-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That you

Page 55Page 56