HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
that such action should not be taken unless there are very strong reasons to justify it, reasons which Mr. BERNACCHI has not disclosed to us.
It may be that he has not fully appreciated the position, for he has informed me that he had no intention of giving anyone a slap in the face. If he has been under a misapprehension, if in fact he was not aware that the Committee was still waiting for his views before coming to a decision, I suggest that he agrees to let us refer the matter once again to the Committee, where we can discuss the pros and cons much more fully than we can to-day. If this is not agreed to, then I suggest that a most unfortunate precedent will have been established.
I should be very happy to support any motion to refer the matter back to the Select Committee. But perhaps Members would prefer to settle the matter once and for all to-day, in which case I would like to summarize the main objections to the motion.
No one has a monopoly of humanitarian feelings. I am sure that the Appointed and Official Members have just as much sympathy with those who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances described by Mr. BERNACCHI. But the present system is adequate to deal with them. Any case of hardship can be put before the Committee, and if found to be substantiated can be treated as an exception by the Commissioner for Resettlement. If the system proposed by Mr. BERNACCHI is adopted, we would have no opportunity of considering whether or not, in any particular case, there was any hardship. The sole criterion would be whether the hut had been in existence for a year or more.
I hope Members will agree that anyone who is clever enough to get away with an illegal act for 12 months, whether he suffers from hardship or not, should not automatically be legalized, with right to be resettled and guaranteed accommodation at controlled and subsidized rents for the rest of his life. But this is what we are asked to accept.
Every one of these people, who may be suffering no particular hardship, will mean that there is one room less for genuine squatters. We have an immense task before us. We have to deal with street squatters, and roof-top squatters when we will have finished with ground squatters, and any incentive to increase the number of ground squatters is surely to be deprecated.
If we adopt this policy we shall have invented a new game. We shall be saying, in effect, "Find a hidden spot, build a hut, escape notice for 12 months (or bribe the Area Officer) and you win the jackpot".
It is this aspect, the immensely increased incentive to corruption, which condemns this motion. I leave Members to decide how much getting oneself accepted as a legal squatter is worth, $1,000, $5,000
Page 278 of ...
...
Page 279
perhaps? If a dishonest Area Officer turned a blind eye on, say, 20 huts for a year, he could perhaps collect from $20,000 to $100,000. This, I suggest, is quite an incentive.
But I repeat that this is quite unnecessary. We already have the power to consider any cases of hardship which may arise and to ask the Commissioner to accept them as tolerated squatters. There is no advantage whatever in changing the system, and there are very grave dangers.
DR. A. M. S. BELL:—Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure, that I cannot match either Mr. SALES' eloquence or that of Mr. WATSON, not having prepared anything to say, but, having listened to them both, I would say that although Mr. BERNACCHI did not intend to slap back at Mr. WATSON or Mr. SALES he has every right to do so. He was away at the time of the original motion which Dr. Raymond LEE moved on his behalf, and which I seconded on his behalf, and which was slapped down very hard by both Mr. WATSON and Mr. SALES. I think Mr. SALES supported the motion originally, but felt he had to support his colleagues at the same time. The motion was never put to the vote and I sincerely hope that to-day it will be put to the vote. I hope that it will not become one of those motions which is moved in this Council so frequently and relegated into the back drawers of some files and never implemented in any way whatsoever. That has happened to a great many motions since I have been on this Council since 1956. I offer my full support to Mr. BERNACCHI's motion.
Both Mr. WATSON and Mr. BERNACCHI have alleged that there is corruption or possible corruption in the Resettlement Department. I hope that there is not corruption to the extent that both have alleged. I sincerely hope there is not. If there is, then I should say that our Commissioner has a very tough job on his hands to replace all his staff, because surely, if he rotates his staff sufficiently, there should be no hut, whatsoever, that is newly erected that should escape detection for longer than 2 months, as Mr. BERNACCHI has suggested.
(At this point Mr. WATSON interrupted)
MR. WATSON:--Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of clarification to explain what I said was that this would provide an incentive to corruption. I did not say that there was corruption in the Department, and any remarks about the Commissioner condoning it or not being able to take care of it are, I think, out of place. I said that this would lead to a vast new incentive in corruption and I tried to give figures that might or might not be true.
Page 147 of 150
...
Page 278
...
Page 279
of 150
Page 147 of 150
278
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
that such action should not be taken unless there are very strong reasons to justify it, reasons which Mr. BERNACCHI has not disclosed to us.
It may be that he has not fully appreciated the position, for he has informed me that he had no intention of giving anyone a slap in the face. If he has been under a misapprehension, if in fact he was not aware that the Committee was still waiting for his views before coming to a decision, I suggest that he agrees to let us refer the matter once again to the Committee, where we can discuss the pros and cons much more fully than we can to-day. If this is not agreed to, then I suggest that a most unfortunate precedent will have been established.
I should be very happy to support any motion to refer the matter back to the Select Committee. But perhaps Members would prefer to settle the matter once and for all to-day, in which case I would like to summarize the main objections to the motion.
No one has a monopoly of humanitarian feelings. I am sure that the Appointed and Official Members have just as much sympathy with those who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances described by Mr. BERNACCHI. But the present system is adequate to deal with them. Any case of hardship can be put before the Committee, and if found to be substantiated can be treated as an exception by the Commis- sioner for Resettlement. If the system proposed by Mr. BERNACCHI is adopted, we would have no opportunity of considering whether or not, in any particular case, there was any hardship. The sole criterion would be whether the hut had been in existence for a year or more.
I hope Members will agree that anyone who is clever enough to get away with an illegal act for 12 months, whether he suffers from hardship or not, should not automatically be legalized, with right to be resettled and guaranteed accommodation at controlled and subsidized rents for the rest of his life. But this is what we are asked to accept,
Every one of these people, who may be suffering no particular hard- ship, will mean that there is one room less for genuine squatters. We have an immense task before us. We have to deal with street squatters, and roof-top squatters when we will have finished with ground squatters, and any incentive to increase the number of ground squatters is surely to be deprecated.
If we adopt this policy we shall have invented a new game. We shall be saying, in effect, "Find a hidden spot, build a hut, escape notice for 12 months (or bribe the Area Officer) and you win the jackpot".
It is this aspect, the immensely increased incentive to corruption, which condemns this motion. I leave Members to decide how much getting oneself accepted as a legal squatter is worth, $1,000, $5,000
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
279
perhaps? If a dishonest Area Officer turned a blind eye on, say, 20 huts for a year, he could perhaps collect from $20,000 to $100,000. This, I suggest, is quite an incentive.
But I repeat that this is quite unnecessary. We already have the power to consider any cases of hardship which may arise and to ask the Commissioner to accept them as tolerated squatters. There is no ad- vantage whatever in changing the system, and there are very grave dangers.
DR. A. M. S. BELL:—Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure, that I cannot match either Mr. SALES' eloquence or that of Mr. WATSON, not having prepared anything to say, but, having listened to them both, I would say that although Mr. BERNACCHI did not intend to slap back at Mr. WATSON or Mr. SALES he has every right to do so. He was away at the time of the original motion which Dr. Raymond LEE moved on his behalf, and which I seconded on his behalf, and which was slapped down very hard by both Mr. WATSON and Mr. SALES. I think Mr. SALES supported the motion originally, but felt he had to support his colleagues at the same time. The motion was never put to the vote and I sincerely hope that to-day it will be put to the vote. I hope that it will not become one of those motions which is moved in this Council so frequently and relegated into the back drawers of some files and never implemented in any way whatsoever. That has happened to a great many motions since I have been on this Council since 1956. I offer my full support to Mr. BERNACCHI's motion.
Both Mr. WATSON and Mr. BERNACCHI have alleged that there is corruption or possible corruption in the Resettlement Department. I hope that there is not corruption to the extent that both have alleged. I sincerely hope there is not. If there is, then I should say that our Commissioner has a very tough job on his hands to replace all his staff, because surely, if he rotates his staff sufficiently, there should be no hut, whatsoever, that is newly erected that should escape detection for longer than 2 months, as Mr. BERNACCHI has suggested.
(At this point Mr. WATSON interrupted)
MR. WATSON:--Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of clarifica- tion to explain what I said was that this would provide an incentive to corruption. I did not say that there was corruption in the Department, and any remarks about the Commissioner condoning it or not being able to take care of it are, I think, out of place. I said that this would lead to a vast new incentive in corruption and I tried to give figures that might or might not be true.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.