Page 269 of 279
510
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
do so, and to postpone demolition in consequence, would lead to accusations of favouritism from others who might be equally reluctant to move and this could give rise to unfortunate incidents. With the demolition of an isolated new structure, or of an illegal extension of a tolerated one by squatter control officers in the course of their routine duties, last minute appeals received from members of this Council are accepted and the demolition is delayed until the appeal has been considered.
(3) The answer to the third part of the question is that the three people concerned were moved from the Staunton Creek clearance zone on 29th April, 1966. They were all ineligible for shop resettlement but requested the department to allow them to have a place where they might carry on their business, at least on a temporary basis. On 21st May, 1966, the Resettlement Department allocated sites to them for resite shops in the Shek Pai Wan Resite Area, on the clear understanding that the resite was of a temporary nature only and upon the clearance of the resite area, there would be no business resettlement.
(4) As regards the fourth part of the question, the reason why these people were required to move was explained in my answer to the second part.
(5) The answer to the final part of the question is that, when the licensed area at Shek Pai Wan has been formally set aside, probably in April this year, it is open to the three persons concerned to apply for licences to operate shops therein. This has already been explained to them.
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. BARTY through you if, with regard to demolition of these three huts, there were only two notices. That is to say, the first notice was dated the 9th December, 1966, and that notice was only in Chinese, and the second notice was dated 20th February, 1967, and that notice was posted in English and Chinese. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-That is correct, Mr. Hu.
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. BARTY, through you, why there was a notice put in English and Chinese on the 20th February, 1967 at 11 a.m. Why should this notice be posted?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-That, Mr. Chairman, is standard practice. Towards the end of a planned clearance, any structure that still remains has this notice pinned or stuck to it to give the owner the opportunity to demolish it himself and recover the salvage value of materials.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
511
MR. HU:-Thank you Mr. BARTY for answering my question. I would ask Mr. BARTY through you Mr. Chairman, what was the wording of the notice posted on the 20th February, 1967 at 11 a.m.?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I have in fact, Mr. Chairman, got copies of these notices with me, if Mr. Hu would like to see them. (The Commissioner for Resettlement passed a copy of the notices to Mr. Hu). They have not, of course, been made out; there are blanks left to be filled in, and in the case of the notice issued earlier, no doubt a number of things were crossed out.
MR. HU: Mr. BARTY I would ask you, through the Chairman, is this a formal notice so far as the Resettlement Department is concerned?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Yes.
MR. HU: So that the demolition was carried out less than 24 hours after the formal notice was posted. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-There was an earlier notice, Mr. Chairman, which is rather longer, of which Mr. Hu has a copy. During the intervening period between the initial screening survey which I said took place, I think, in November, right up until final demolition in February, the staff of the Resettlement Department would be continually in and out of this area screening the residents, informing them what arrangements were being made for them and what was going to happen. It is quite a small area, and I find it difficult to believe that anybody there had not been fully aware of what was impending for a number of weeks.
MR. HU:-Do I understand it correctly, Mr. BARTY, that the formal notice you refer to, and which was dated 9th December, 1966, was not a formal notice?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I am not sure what Mr. Hu means by a formal notice. Neither of these notices are statutory forms, they are forms devised by the Department in order to inform the public of what is going to happen.
MR. HU:-I should think at least the notice of the 20th February should be more formal because it was both in English and Chinese. Is it that it is a more standard form than the previous one which was only in Chinese. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-No, Mr. Chairman, they are both in standard use by the Department.
MR. HU:-Then why should there be another notice posted 24 hours before the huts were demolished?
Page 270 of 279
512
(The rest of the text is not provided in the original snippet, so the proofreading stops here.)
279
Page 269 of 279
510
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
do so, and to postpone demolition in consequence, would lead to accusations of favouritism from others who might be equally reluctant to move and this could give rise to unfortunate incidents. With the demolition of an isolated new structure, or of an illegal extension of a tolerated one by squatter control officers in the course of their routine duties, last minute appeals received from members of this Council are accepted and the demolition is delayed until the appeal has been considered.
(3) The answer to the third part of the question is that the three people concerned were moved from the Staunton Creek clearance zone on 29th April, 1966. They were all ineligible for shop resettlement but requested the depart- ment to allow them to have a place where they might carry on their business, at least on a temporary basis. On 21st May, 1966, the Resettlement Department allocated sites to them for resite shops in the Shek Pai Wan Resite Area, on the clear understanding that the resite was of a temporary nature only and upon the clearance of the resite area, there would be no business resettlement.
(4) As regards the fourth part of the question, the reason why these people were required to move was explained in my answer to the second part.
(5) The answer to the final part of the question is that, when the licensed area at Shek Pai Wan has been formally set aside, probably in April this year, it is open to the three persons concerned to apply for licences to operate shops therein. This has already been explained to them.
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. BARTY through you if, with regard to demolition of these three huts, there were only two notices. That is to say, the first notice was dated the 9th December, 1966, and that notice was only in Chinese, and the second notice was dated 20th February, 1967, and that notice was posted in English and
Chinese. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FOR
Chairman.
RESETTLEMENT :· -That is correct, Mr.
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. BARTY, through you, why there was a notice put in English and Chinese on the 20th February, 1967 at 11 a.m. Why should this notice be posted?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-That, Mr. Chairman, is standard practice. Towards the end of a planned clearance, any struc- ture that still remains has this notice pinned or stuck to it to give the owner the opportunity to demolish it himself and recover the salvage value of materials.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
511
MR. HU:-Thank you Mr. BARTY for answering my question. I would ask Mr. BARTY through you Mr. Chairman, what was the wording of the notice posted on the 20th February, 1967 at 11 a.m.?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: -I have in fact, Mr. Chair- man, got copies of these notices with me, if Mr. Hu would like to see them. (The Commissioner for Resettlement passed a copy of the notices to Mr. Hu). They have not, of course, been made out; there are blanks left to be filled in, and in the case of the notice issued earlier, no doubt a number of things were crossed out.
MR. HU: Mr. BARTY I would ask you, through the Chairman, is this a formal notice so far as the Resettlement Department is con- cerned?
COMMISSIONER for Resettlement: -Yes.
MR. HU:So that the demolition was carried out less than 24 hours after the formal notice was posted. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: -There was an earlier notice, Mr. Chairman, which is rather longer, of which Mr. Hu has a copy. During the intervening period between the initial screening survey which I said took place, I think, in November, right up until final demolition in February, the staff of the Resettlement Department would be con- tinually in and out of this area screening the residents, informing them what arrangements were 'being made for them and what was going to happen. It is quite a small area, and I find it difficult to believe that anybody there had not been fully aware of what was impending for a number of weeks.
MR. HU:-Do I understand it correctly, Mr. BARTY, that the formal notice you refer to, and which was dated 9th December, 1966, was not a formal notice?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I am not sure what Mr. Hu means by a formal notice. Neither of these notices are statutory forms, they are forms devised by the Department in order to inform the public of what is going to happen.
MR. HU-I should think at least the notice of the 20th February should be more formal because it was both in English and Chinese. Is it that it is a more standard form than the previous one which was only in Chinese. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER for ResettlemeNT:-No, Mr. Chairman, they are both in standard use by the Department.
MR. HU:-Then why should there be another notice posted 24 hours before the huts were demolished?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.