HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN:-Mr. Hu, the point is, the first notice is a warning, and it was given in December, 1966. Then at the very end of the warning period, when the owners of certain structures have not taken notice of the warning, the second notice is posted on the structure to intimate that if the owner does not demolish it himself, it will be demolished by the Department. As Mr. BARTY said, the second notice is given so that the owner may recover the salvage value if he desires.
MR. HU:-Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would ask through you if Mr. BARTY, on the morning of 21st February, or any officer in the Resettlement Department received any message from the officer on the spot?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I received no such message.
MR. HU:-You did not. Did any of your staff receive any message?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I understand that a copy of a letter addressed to me by Mr. Hu was taken along to this resite area on the morning when demolition was about to take place and as I said in my reply to the original question, the officers on the spot were not authorized to pay any attention to that under my standing instructions.
MR. HU: Mr. BARTY, I would like you to confirm with regard to clearance of the huts in question in the Aberdeen area, that that was the only instance that I brought to your notice with regard to clearance. There are many instances when I would not intervene, because you gave them sufficient notice. In this case, Mr. Chairman, it is an insult by the Resettlement Department to an Urban Councillor who did not eat his dinner in order to write three letters, copies to different people, because of the short notice given by the Resettlement Department, yet the officer on the spot even refused to look at the letter. If the Department could have given them longer time, I may have had my dinner on that evening. (Laughter).
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat that the notice in this case was not short.
MR. HU: Mr. Chairman, through you I would like Mr. BARTY to reply to this question. Would the attitude of the Resettlement Department help to bridge the breach between the Government and the common people?
CHAIRMAN: That is a separate question, Mr. Hu. I am afraid I cannot allow it.
MR. BERNACCHI:-I would like to ask Mr. BARTY whether he knows of the terms of the first notice. In particular, did it give a date on which the clearance would be effected?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Perhaps Mr. Hu could provide a translation of that. I have an English version, which may not be exactly the same.
MR. HU: Could I read out the Chinese for you?
MR. BERNACCHI:-I really am directing my question at whether the first letters specify the date or just warned the inhabitants of these three huts that their area would be cleared in the near future.
CHAIRMAN:-(Addressing the Commissioner for Resettlement.) Perhaps you would like to receive prior notice of that question?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I think I would, Mr. Chairman. I thought I had a copy of the English version of the earlier notice with me, but I cannot trace it at the moment.
MR. BERNACCHI:-Would the Commissioner for Resettlement agree that if the first notice did not specify the date, only a 24-hour notice is unfair to the inhabitants of the resite cottages, especially if they are carrying on business?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Mr. Chairman, I believe that is what is called a hypothetical question. Nevertheless, even if a precise date was not specified in the first notice, I do not think it would necessarily be unreasonable at all, particularly as the staff of the clearance sub-division would be coming and going within this area almost continuously during the intervening period, and everybody there would be left very well aware of what was going on. In any case, as I said in my answer to the first question, two of the shops had not been in operation at all until a day before the clearance had been completed.
CHAIRMAN:-Mr. BERNACCHI, may I perhaps draw on my memories of the Resettlement Department a few years ago. It was the practice then, and I think it probably still is, for the people in an area scheduled for clearance to be given a date which was called the "clearance day". This would be about four days before the "demolition day" and the first families amongst the entitled ones to get into the Resettlement Estate would move on that day. Rather slower families would go on the day following, and by the time the demolition day came only those who were importers were left behind.
MR. BERNACCHI:-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that really answers my question if that was done in this case. Whereas, if it was not done, presumably a mistake happened in this case?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-No, I am sure that the normal practice was followed in this case. What I was in doubt about was whether the precise date for the final clearance was given in the original notices, but I will verify that for Mr. BERNACCHI.
Page 270 of 279
Page 270
Page 271
of 279
512
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN:-Mr. Hu, the point is, the first notice is a warning, and it was given in December, 1966. Then at the very end of the warning period, when the owners of certain structures have not taken notice of the warning, the second notice is posted on the structure to intimate that if the owner does not demolish it himself, it will be demolished by the Department. As Mr. BARTY said, the second notice is given so that the owner may recover the salvage value if he desires.
MR. HU:-Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would ask through you if Mr. BARTY, on the morning of 21st February, or any officer in the Resettlement Department received any message from the officer on the spot?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: —I received no such message.
MR. HU:-You did not. Did any of your staff receive any message?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I understand that a copy of a letter addressed to me by Mr. Hu was taken along to this resite area on the morning when demolition was about to take place and as I said in my reply to the original question, the officers on the spot were not authorized to pay any attention to that under my standing instructions.
MR. HU: Mr. BARTY, I would like you to confirm with regard to clearance of the huts in question in the Aberdeen area, that that was the only instance that I brought to your notice with regard to clearance. There are many instances when I would not intervene, because you gave them sufficient notice. In this case, Mr. Chairman, it is an insult by the Resettlement Department to an Urban Councillor who did not eat his dinner in order to write three letters, copies to different people, because of the short notice given by the Resettlement Department, yet the officer on the spot even refused to look at the letter. If the Depart- ment could have given them longer time, I may have had my dinner on that evening. (Laughter).
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat that the notice in this case was not short.
MR. HU: Mr. Chairman, through you I would like Mr. BARTY to reply to this question. Would the attitude of the Resettlement Department help to bridge the breach between the Government and the common people?
CHAIRMAN: That is a separate question, Mr. Hu. I am afraid I cannot allow it.
MR. BERNACCHI:-I would like to ask Mr. BARTY whether he knows of the terms of the first notice. In particular, did it give a date on which the clearance would be effected?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
513
COMMISSIONER for ResettlemENT: --Perhaps Mr. Hu could pro- vide a translation of that. I have an English version, which may not be exactly the same.
MR. HU: Could I read out the Chinese for you?
MR. BERNACCHI:-I really am directing my question at whether the first letters specify the date or just warned the inhabitants of these three huts that their area would be cleared in the near future.
CHAIRMAN: --(Addressing the Commissioner for Resettlement.) Perhaps you would like to receive prior notice of that question?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I think I would, Mr. Chair- man. I thought I had a copy of the English version of the earlier notice with me, but I cannot trace it at the moment.
MR. BERNACCHI : --Would the Commissioner for Resettlement agree that if the first notice did not specify the date, only a 24-hour notice is unfair to the inhabitants of the resite cottages, especially if they are carrying on business?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Mr. Chairman, I believe that is what is called a hypothetical question. Nevertheless, even if a precise date was not specified in the first notice, I do not think it would neces- sarily be unreasonable at all, particularly as the staff of the clearance sub-division would be coming and going within this arca almost con- tinuously during the intervening period, and everybody there would be left very well aware of what was going on. In any case, as I said in my answer to the first question, two of the shops had not been in opera- tion at all until a day before the clearance had been completed.
CHAIRMAN: -Mr. BERNACCHI, may I perhaps draw on my memories of the Resettlement Department a few years ago. It was the practice then, and I think it probably still is, for the people in an area scheduled for clearance to be given a date which was called the "clearance day". This would be about four days before the "demolition day" and the first families amongst the entitled ones to get into the Resettlement Estate would move on that day. Rather slower families would go on the day following, and by the time the demolition day came only those who were importers were left behind.
MR. BERNACCHI:-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that really answers my question if that was done in this case. Whereas, if it was not done, presumably a mistake happened in this case?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: —No, I am sure that the normal practice was followed in this case. What I was in doubt about
was whether the precise date for the final clearance was given in the original notices, but I will verify that for Mr. BERNACCHI.
Page 270 of 279
Page 270Page 271
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.