Page 77 of 150
138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
to non-domestic premises. Personally I feel sure that had Mr. BERNACCHI been proposing his own motion he would also have stressed that in the event of clearance of such a structure by the Department the occupier who had lived there for twelve months or more should also be regarded as eligible for Resettlement by the department. I hope that the department will take this matter up in Committee Policy discussions. I feel too, that this motion starts the ball rolling with regard to further review of the 1954 policy and the 1961 departmental standing orders, and that other measures may also be considered for review, such as the illegal transfer of premises between the time of initial screening for Resettlement and the actual time of Resettlement. Sometimes more than twelve months can elapse between these two screenings, and I feel that similar policy modification might be introduced in this sphere too where the occupiers (original or otherwise) can prove that they have been residing in that particular structure for twelve months or more then they might well be regarded as eligible for resettlement. At present many of these unfortunate people have paid key money and rent or bought their huts from the unscrupulous original owner and then when the time comes for screening again, immediately prior to Resettlement Clearance, they are thrown out as being ineligible. Surely it is the occupier of the structure who should be the eligible one, and not necessarily the owner or 'landlord' who is living in more comfort elsewhere?
I hope that Members will lend this motion their full support and press for further policy reviews and possible modifications.
MR. K. A. WATSON:- Mr. Chairman, let me say, to start with, that I do not agree that someone who is clever enough to get away with an illegal act for 12 months should automatically be legalized. Other things being equal, it is the "smart Alecks", the wide boys, and only them who will get away with it, not the poor wretched man who really needs sympathy.
Our squatter areas are amongst the worst aspects of this Colony. They are squalid and filthy, with no proper sanitation, in constant danger of fire, disease and landslides, occupying valuable land and holding up badly needed development. It is our accepted policy to eliminate them as quickly as possible, and to do all we can to prevent any further squatting and any increase in the size and capacity of existing squatter areas.
I believe that today's motion would help to perpetuate these deplorable conditions, would seriously jeopardize our clearance policy, and reduce the effectiveness of our squatter control force. I suggest that the number of cases of hardship deserving exceptional treatment are a very small percentage of the whole, and could be easily dealt with on their merits by the relative Select Committee. To change a fundamental policy because a few exceptional cases may require different treatment is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Our squatter problems are going to be with us for a very long time.
I ask Members to consider the future implications of the proposed changes. The three main objections are:-
(i) it would make the task of the squatter control force very much more difficult.
(ii) it would offer a very strong temptation to corruption.
(iii) it would force us to adopt measures which would be a gross invasion of the privacy of innocent squatters.
The pressure on housing is greater now than ever before, which means that the task we have given the squatter control force is becoming increasingly more difficult.
The proposed changes would mean that before we could demolish any new structure, we would have to prove that it was not more than 12 months old. In fairness to the squatter, the onus of proof would be on us. If someone claims he has been sleeping in his non-domestic kitchen for over a year, it is going to be extremely difficult for our officers to prove the contrary. We, the Resettlement Select Committee, will be plagued with innumerable claims, in which we shall have to decide whether the squatter or our own officer is lying.
It must be obvious how greatly these changes would increase the opportunities for corruption. At present a dishonest officer can turn a blind eye on transgressions, but the squatter gets only a temporary benefit. He will gain no right to be resettled when the area is cleared, and he is always liable to have his unauthorized hut or his illegal conversion discovered by what Dr. BELL calls "a more zealous officer".
This motion, if passed, will change this. All he has to do is to persuade our officer not to take action for 12 months and he becomes automatically a legally recognized squatter, with the right to be resettled, and guaranteed accommodation at a controlled and subsidized rent for the rest of his life. I am afraid that these added opportunities for corruption will almost certainly be accepted. The difficulty of proving exactly when a well-hidden hut was built, or for how long non-domestic accommodation has in fact been used for sleeping, will provide a cast-iron excuse for a dishonest officer.
Even an honest one will find great difficulty in carrying out his task. Daytime inspections would be of very little use. Surprise visits, late at night, to all non-domestic premises would have to be carried out, and photographs taken to prove when they were last found unoccupied.
139
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 78 of 150
50
Page 77 of 150
138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
to non-domestic premises. Personally I feel sure that had Mr. BERNACCHI been proposing his own motion he would also have stressed that in the event of clearance of such a structure by the Department the occupier who had lived there for twelve months or more should also be regarded as eligible for Resettlement by the department. I hope that the department will take this matter up in Committee Policy dis- cussions. I feel too, that this motion starts the ball rolling with regard to further review of the 1954 policy and the 1961 departmental standing orders, and that other measures may also be considered for review, such as the illegal transfer of premises between the time of initial screening for Resettlement and the actual time of Resettlement. Some- times more than twelve months can elapse between these two screenings, and I feel that similar policy modification might be introduced in this sphere too where the occupiers (original or otherwise) can prove that they have been residing in that particular structure for twelve months or more then they might well be regarded as eligible for resettlement. At present many of these unfortunate people have paid key money and rent or bought their huts from the unscrupulous original owner and then when the time comes for screening again, immediately prior to Resettlement Clearance, they are thrown out as being ineligible. Surely it is the occupier of the structure who should be the eligible one, and not necessarily the owner or 'landlord' who is living in more comfort elsewhere?
I hope that Members will lend this motion their full support and press for further policy reviews and possible modifications.
MR. K. A. WATSON:-Mr. Chairman, let me say, to start with, that I do not agree that someone who is clever enough to get away with an illegal act for 12 months should automatically be legalized. Other things being equal, it is the "smart Alecks", the wide boys, and only them who will get away with it, not the poor wretched man who really needs sympathy.
Our squatter areas are amongst the worst aspects of this Colony. They are squalid and filthy, with no proper sanitation, in constant danger of fire, disease and landslides, occupying valuable land and holding up badly needed development. It is our accepted policy to eliminate them as quickly as possible, and to do all we can to prevent any further squatting and any increase in the size and capacity of existing squatter areas.
I believe that today's motion would help to perpetuate these deplorable conditions, would seriously jeopardize our clearance policy, and reduce the effectiveness of our squatter control force. I suggest that the number of cases of hardship deserving exceptional treatment are a very small percentage of the whole, and could be easily dealt
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
139
with on their merits by the relative Select Committee. To change a fundamental policy because a few exceptional cases may require different treatment is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Our squatter problems are going to be with us for a very long time.
I ask Members to consider the future implications of the proposed changes. The three main objections are:-
(i) it would make the task of the squatter control force very much
more difficult.
(ii) it would offer a very strong temptation to corruption. (iii) it would force us to adopt measures which would be a gross
invasion of the privacy of innocent squatters.
The pressure on housing is greater now than ever before, which means that the task we have given the squatter control force is becoming increasingly more difficult.
The proposed changes would mean that before we could demolish any new structure, we would have to prove that it was not more than 12 months old. In fairness to the squatter, the onus of proof would be on us. If someone claims he has been sleeping in his non-domestic kitchen for over a year, it is going to be extremely difficult for our officers to prove the contrary. We, the Resettlement Select Committee, will be plagued with innumerable claims, in which we shall have to decide whether the squatter or our own officer is lying.
It must be obvious how greatly these changes would increase the opportunities for corruption. At present a dishonest officer can turn a blind eye on transgressions, but the squatter gets only a temporary benefit. He will gain no right to be resettled when the area is cleared, and he is always liable to have his unauthorized hut or his illegal conversion discovered by what Dr. BELL calls "a more zealous officer".
This motion, if passed, will change this. All he has to do is to persuade our officer not to take action for 12 months and he becomes automatically a legally recognized squatter, with the right to be resettled, and guaranteed accommodation at a controlled and subsidized rent for the rest of his life. I am afraid that these added opportunities for corruption will almost certainly be accepted. The difficulty of proving exactly when a well-hidden hut was built, or for how long non-domestic accommodation has in fact been used for sleeping, will provide a cast- iron excuse for a dishonest officer.
Even an honest one will find great difficulty in carrying out his task. Daytime inspections would be of very little use. Surprise visits, late at night, to all non-domestic premises would have to be carried out, and photographs taken to prove when they were last found unoccupied.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.