Page 139 of 382
256
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
IV block, occurred on July 26th and by August 25th totalled 765 families, coming partly from ordinary clearances and partly under the Rent Advance Scheme for former tenants of dangerous buildings. Electricity for the communal parts of the block, that is to say, for lifts, staircases and corridors was connected in May but it appears that the Power Company was unable to respond immediately to the large number of private applications for power connections. It is the normal responsibility of tenants in resettlement estates and elsewhere to make their own arrangements direct with a Power Company for the supply of electricity to leased premises. To help resettlement tenants it is the practice of the Department, on initial intake, to give each family an application form for supply of electricity and explain the procedure for arranging supply with a Power Company. There is usually an interval of about a fortnight between completing the application form and receiving an electricity supply. In the case of Block 13, the interval in some cases exceeded a fortnight. This was probably due to the fact that the block filled up more rapidly than usual, with an intake of over 700 families in under a month. At any rate, at the end of August, the Power Company brought in a crash-programme and managed to catch up with the backlog. In answer to the second part of the question, there was a newspaper report on August 25th that an official of the Resettlement Department had stated that this was not the first time that a delay had occurred in connecting up power supplies to resettlement blocks. No officer of the Resettlement Department was however authorised to make such a statement. There is no evidence that the delay in Chai Wan was caused by anything other than the unusually rapid intake into Block 13.
In reply to the third part of the question, there may be ways of speeding up the connection of electricity in response to private applications in resettlement blocks and I am now taking this up with the Public Works Department and the Power Companies concerned.
(10) MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN asked the following question:-
The widow and seven other members of the family of a former Urban Services Department employee, Mr. CHOW Kwok-chun, who died on 26th February, 1964, are reported
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
257
to have been evicted from Urban Services Department quarters in Yau Ma Tei:-
(a) If this is correct, can the Director of Urban Services state whether his Department has done everything possible to find alternative accommodation for this family, particularly since CHOW Kwok-chun had given 20 years of his life in the service of the Department? (b) What was the amount of pension given to the widow of CHOW Kwok-chun for 20 years of service in Government?
(c) Can the Director of Social Welfare provide this family with accommodation in a resettlement estate from his annual quota, on the understanding that they would pay rent in the same manner as everyone else?
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
In reply to the first part of the question, it is correct that the widow and family of Mr. CHAU who died on 26th February, 1964, were evicted from Urban Services departmental quarters on 19th August, 1965. This action was taken following six extensions of occupancy granted by the department during the period from April 1964 to February 1965, to give the widow time to find alternative accommodation. During that period efforts were made on behalf of the widow to obtain resettlement accommodation or low-cost housing but without success, principally because enquiries made at the time revealed that a daughter and three sons were working and brought in an income of about $775 a month.
In regard to the second part of the question, Mr. CHAU Kwok-chun held a non-pensionable post and was not required to contribute to the Widows and Orphans Pension Scheme. The widow was not, therefore, entitled to a pension from that source, but she received a death gratuity calculated on the deceased's length of service and income. This amounted to $3,636.13.
In reply to the last part of the question, the Social Welfare Department, in conjunction with the Resettlement Department, has since reconsidered the plight of this family and this has led to the allocation of accommodation in a temporary resite area at Wong Tai Sin which the family moved into on 31st August. My friend, the Director of Social Welfare, has now made a recommendation to the
Page 139 of 382
Page 139 of 382
256
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
IV block, occurred on July 26th and by August 25th totalled 765 families, coming partly from ordinary clear- ances and partly under the Rent Advance Scheme for former tenants of dangerous buildings. Electricity for the communal parts of the block, that is to say, for lifts, staircases and corridors was connected in May but it appears that the Power Company was unable to respond immediately to the large number of private applications for power connections. It is the normal responsibility of tenants in resettlement estates and elsewhere to make their own arrangements direct with a Power Company for the supply of electricity to leased premises. To help resettle- ment tenants it is the practice of the Department, on initial intake, to give each family an application form for supply of electricity and explain the procedure for arranging supply with a Power Company. There is usually an interval of about a fortnight between completing the ap- plication form and receiving an electricity supply. In the case of Block 13, the interval in some cases exceeded a fortnight. This was probably due to the fact that the block filled up more rapidly than usual, with an intake of over 700 families in under a month. At any rate, at the end of August, the Power Company brought in a crash- programme and managed to catch up with the backlog. In answer to the second part of the question, there was a newspaper reported on August 25th that an official of the Resettlement Department had stated that this was not the first time that a delay had occurred in connecting up power supplies to resettlement blocks. No officer of the Resettle- ment Department was however authorised to make such a statement. There is no evidence that the delay in Chai Wan was caused by anything other than the unusually rapid intake into Block 13.
In reply to the third part of the question, there may be ways of speeding up the connection of electricity in response to private applications in resettlement blocks and I am now taking this up with the Public Works Department and the Power Companies concerned.
(10) MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN asked the following question:-
The widow and seven other members of the family of a former Urban Services Department employee, Mr. CHOW Kwok- chun, who died on 26th February, 1964, are reported
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
257
to have been evicted from Urban Services Department quarters in Yau Ma Tei:-
(a) If this is correct, can the Director of Urban Services state whether his Department has done everything possible to find alternative accommodation for this family, particularly since CHOW Kwok-chun had given 20 years of his life in the service of the Department? (b) What was the amount of pension given to the widow of CHOW Kwok-chun for 20 years of service in Government?
(c) Can the Director of Social Welfare provide this family with accommodation in a resettlement estate from his annual quota, on the understanding that they would pay rent in the same manner as everyone else?
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
In reply to the first part of the question, it is correct that the widow and family of Mr. CHAU who died on 26th Feb- ruary, 1964, were evicted from Urban Services depart- mental quarters on 19th August, 1965. This action was taken following six extensions of occupancy granted by the department during the period from April 1964 to Feburary 1965, to give the widow time to find alternative accommodation. During that period efforts were made on behalf of the widow to obtain resettlement accommo- dation or low cost housing but without success, principally because enquiries made at the time revealed that a daugh- ter and three sons were working and brought in an income of about $775 a month.
In regard to the second part of the question, Mr. CHAU Kwok- chun held a non-pensionable post and was not required to contribute to the Widows and Orphans Pension Scheme. The widow was not, therefore, entitled to a pension from that source, but she received a death gratuity calculated This on the deceased's length of service and income. amounted to $3,636.13.
In reply to the last part of the question, the Social Welfare Department, in conjunction with the Resettlement Depart- ment, has since reconsidered the plight of this family and this has led to the allocation of accommodation in a temporary resite area at Wong Tai Sin which the family moved into on 31st August. My friend, the Director of Social Welfare, has now made a recommendation to the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.