Page 118 of 312
212
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
to the policy, and we were very clear in our minds what we wanted for each and every market at that time.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, could the various remarks made in to-day's meeting on this subject be referred to the Markets Select Committee?
CHAIRMAN:-Yes, Sir.
(17) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:
(a) Under what authority did the Resettlement Department evict 25 families from No. 4 Cambridge Road, on 23rd July, 1964?
(b) How much written notice were the tenants granted? (c) Is it usual to give notice of eviction by type-written letter on un-headed letter paper? If so, how are tenants to recognize that notice to quit is authentic?
(d) Is the Commissioner aware that some of these families had lived in the house for 5 to 7 years?
(e) Were the families screened and offered resettlement? THE COMMISSIONER for Resettlement replied as follows:-
(a) The occupants of No. 4 Cambridge Road were ejected by the Commissioner for Resettlement as competent authority, exercising the power conferred on him by section 9(b) of the Resettlement Ordinance, 1958 to remove squatters and trespassers from Crown land.
(b) Even though the occupants of the building were not tenants, they were given a verbal warning on the 4th July that they would have to quit the premises; at the same time they were informed that if they had nowhere else to go the department would provide a site for them on which to build a hut in good time before the notice to quit was served on them. During the intervening two weeks between the first verbal warning and the formal written warning none of the trespassers took advantage of this offer. On 18th July they were informed in writing that they were trespassing on Crown land and that they would be evicted if they did not quit by midnight on 22nd/23rd July.
(c) Although it is not usual to give notice of eviction on unheaded letter paper, this was done in this instance. But the notices were served by uniformed officers of the department and were further authenticated by a rubber stamp bearing the words "Department of Resettlement, Kowloon East Squatter Control Section". There is no obligation to give written notice of action taken under section 9(b) of the Ordinance.
(d) The answer to part (d) of the question is Yes. I am told that about 15 families who had been there for 5 to 7 years were caretakers, ex-employees or relatives of the former owner of the building who may have been in debt to them. Other families had occupied rooms in the premises within the last few months, and alleged that they had paid a person claiming to be a caretaker sums of money to obtain admission.
(e) The families were not offered resettlement because they were not occupying unlawful structures clearance of which is required for development. Fifteen families moved to their own alternative accommodation. One family moved direct to the Jordan Valley Resite Area. Fourteen families were given transit accommodation for 20 days, to give them time to build their huts at the resite area or to find private accommodation of their own. Of these latter, an old lady suffering from paralysis was referred to the Social Welfare Department for consideration whether she should be offered resettlement on compassionate grounds. I should add that up to to-day 3 of the 14 families given transit accommodation have since moved to alternative accommodation of their own.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner, through you, if the Resettlement Ordinance, 1958 mentioned in paragraph (a) of his reply is not the same Ordinance by which squatters are removed, cleared and resettled?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Yes, it is the same Ordinance.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Is there any special reason, Mr. Chairman, why these squatters were removed but not resettled?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: In this instance, there were no unlawful structures, as I explained in my answer, which were required to be cleared for development. These people were more in the nature of trespassers on private buildings than squatters on Crown land.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner if this building was in fact illegal?
213
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 119 of 312
B12
Page 118 of 312
212
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
to the policy, and we were very clear in our minds what we wanted for each and every market at that time.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, could the various remarks made in to-day's meeting on this subject be referred to the Markets Select Committee?
CHAIRMAN:-Yes, Sir.
(17) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:
(a) Under what authority did the Resettlement Department evict 25 families from No. 4 Cambridge Road, on 23rd July, 1964?
(b) How much written notice were the tenants granted? (c) Is it usual to give notice of eviction by type-written letter on un-headed letter paper? If so, how are tenants to recognize that notice to quit is authentic?
(d) Is the Commissioner aware that some of these families
had lived in the house for 5 to 7 years?
(e) Were the families screened and offered resettlement? THE COMMISSIONER for Resettlement replied as follows:-
(a) The occupants of No. 4 Cambridge Road were ejected by the Commissioner for Resettlement as competent authority, exercising the power conferred on him by section 9(b) of the Resettlement Ordinance, 1958 to remove squatters and trespassers from Crown land.
(b) Even though the occupants of the building were not tenants, they were given a verbal warning on the 4th July that they would have to quit the premises; at the same time they were informed that if they had nowhere else to go the department would provide a site for them on which to build a hut in good time before the notice to quit was served on them. During the intervening two weeks between the first verbal warning and the formal written warning none of the trespassers took advantage of this offer. On 18th July they were informed in writing that they were trespassing on Crown land and that they would be evicted if they did not quit by midnight on 22nd 23rd July.
(c) Although it is not usual to give notice of eviction on unheaded letter paper, this was done in this instance.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
213
But the notices were served by uniformed officers of the department and were further authenticated by a rubber stamp bearing the words "Department of Resettlement, Kowloon East Squatter Control Section". There is no obligation to give written notice of action taken under section 9(b) of the Ordinance.
(d) The answer to part (d) of the question is Yes. I am told that about 15 families who had been there for 5 to 7 years were caretakers, ex-employees or relatives of the former owner of the building who may have been in debt to them. Other families had occupied rooms in the premises within the last few months, and alleged that they had paid a person claiming to be a caretaker sums of money to obtain admission.
(e) The families were not offered resettlement because they were not occupying unlawful structures clearance of which is required for development. Fifteen families moved to their own alternative accommodation. One family moved direct to the Jordan Valley Resite Area. Fourteen families were given transit accommodation for 20 days, to give them time to build their huts at the resite area or to find private accommodation of their own. Of these latter, an old lady suffering from paralysis was referred to the Social Welfare Department for con- sideration whether she should be offered resettlement on compassionate grounds. I should add that up to to-day 3 of the 14 families given transit accommodation have since moved to alternative accommodation of their own.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner, through you, if the Resettlement Ordinance, 1958 mentioned in para- graph (a) of his reply is not the same Ordinance by which squatters are removed, cleared and resettled?
ance.
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETtlement: -Yes, it is the same Ordin-
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Is there any special reason, Mr. Chairman, why these squatters were removed but not resettled?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: In this instance, there were no unlawful structures, as I explained in my answer, which were re- quired to be cleared for development. These people were more in the nature of trespassers on private buildings than squatters on Crown land.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner if this building was in fact illegal?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.