1962 — Page 146

150

Page 146 of 150

276

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

being. At the next meeting on the 29th November, 1962, the subject was again raised and it was decided "that no further action should be taken pending the receipt from Mr. BERNACCHI of his views in writing." As a member of that Select Committee I can hardly support a motion which has not been further discussed in accordance with the unanimous wish of the Members present at the meeting on the 29th November, and I shall therefore oppose the motion pending its further consideration in the Select Committee.

I would point out that the expression "illegal structure" can be held to include conversion, and that the following objections have been raised in the past to a motion on these lines.

It is often very difficult for an Area Officer on patrol to ascertain whether a kitchen, shop or store-room is being use for domestic purposes, as in many cases people sleep in such rooms on canvas beds which are stored out of sight during the day. Frequent night checks could be a solution, but would represent an unreasonable intrusion on the privacy of respectable people. It is only when resettlement is imminent that all the occupants have to commit themselves and point out which rooms and beds they occupy.

It is extremely difficult to draw a line between the newcomer who takes up residence shortly before screening and the occupant of a few months or longer standing. If the passage of time can bring official toleration of practices not normally allowed, there will be a great temptation for the staff to let things slide for a few months with a resultant increase in the incidence of unauthorized conversions. The dangers of corruption cannot be ruled out in view of the inevitable difficulty of proving residence and conversion retrospectively up to a period of 12 months.

The number of cases of illegal structures which, under the present policy, have escaped detection for 12 months is very small, and there seems little point in departing from a long-accepted and well-understood policy in the interest of this fraction of the squatter population, whose cases can be treated on their individual merits.

MR. A. de O. SALES:-Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this motion. At the time that it was introduced last year it was referred to Select Committee because there was failure on the part of certain Members of this Council to reach an agreement as to the procedure to be followed. Having worked on that motion considerably behind the scenes and achieved a measure of agreement on the substance of it relating to the first part, I introduced what I considered then, in all sincerity, a concept which was brilliantly Salesian. It was in fact frustrated by a misunder- standing of Hiltonian provenance, so the motion was in fact referred to Select Committee for want of a better measure. Had that motion not

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

277

been frustrated at that time and given rise to the previous motion in reference to Standing Orders, the first part would well have been adopted by this Council as its own policy. At that time I pointed out in support of the motion that there was need to remove fear from the minds of the squatters who have been allowed to stay in such structures for any prolonged period of time. We were assured by the Commissioner for Resettlement then, as we have been assured by him to-day, that the number of such huts escaping detection is in fact small. If such be the case the question naturally arises: why should any other hut escape detection without valid reasons? The substance of this motion puts the department on its mettle, and the Department has to justify such struc- tures as have escaped attention for any prolonged period of time. The Select Committee is entitled to know the reason why a hut has in fact been allowed in any particular territory at all within the purview of the Council and the Resettlement Department. I am sure that for humane reasons alone, this policy must be revised, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I again support it.

MR. K. A. WATSON:-Mr. Chairman, one of the features of this Council and of the Appointed Members is that we do not always see exactly eye to eye. I think most of us were surprised that Mr. BERNACCHI has put forward a motion on a matter which is still under consideration by the appropriate Select Committee. He may be perfectly within his rights, but I consider it is a gratuitous slap in the face for the members of that Committee. When a similar motion was proposed by Dr. LEE on 7th August, it was referred to the Resettlement and Clearance (Policy) Select Committee on a motion by Mr. SALES. When that Com- mittee met to discuss the matter, Dr. LEE and Mr. CHEONG-LEEN suggest- ed that before a decision was taken, we should wait for Mr. BERNACCHI, the originator of the motion, to come back from England and allow us to hear and discuss his views.

This matter was placed on the agenda of the Select Committee meeting on 29th November, but unfortunately Mr. BERNACCHI was unable to attend. Again no decision was made and it was agreed that if he could not come to the meeting, at least he should be given the oppor- tunity of putting his views on paper, and this was duly minuted. Mr. BERNACCHI has not done so, and as no decision has been reached, the matter still remains under consideration by the Select Committee.

Now, I think Members will agree that we have leant over backwards to ensure that Mr. BERNACCHI should have every chance to present his views. I personally consider it is discourteous to ignore the Committee, to go over the heads of its members, and to present to this Council much the same motion as the one that was referred back to the Committee. I suggest that this action strikes at the basis of the committee system under which the most valuable work of this Council is done. I feel