£279
Page 75 of 279
126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 75 of 279
127
(b) Should the answer be in the negative, what are the reasons for not replacing the rafts about which many swimmers are asking?
MR. A. de O. SALES, CHAIRMAN OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND AMENITIES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-
The 3 rafts which were moored off Shek O Beach used to be washed ashore by heavy seas at least once a year, with resultant damage to the rafts and their moorings. When, in July 1965, they were washed ashore for the twelfth time in 10 years, they were moved elsewhere. They have been re-moored this season off the beaches at Repulse Bay, Chung Hom Kok and Cheung Chau.
2.
3.
The main reason for this decision was the difficulty of justifying the constant expenditure involved in repairing and re-mooring the rafts at Shek O. The rafts were usually washed ashore during the height of the swimming season and a minimum of 5 weeks was needed to repair and re-moor them; so, the value of having them at Shek O was of short duration as the public would only have their use early in the summer.
However, the matter will be put before the Select Committee.
MR. WILFRED WONG:-Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee for the historical disposition of the rafts at Shek O Beach. May I ask a supplementary question of him? Is he aware that Shek O beach, unlike the beaches on the southern side of the island, has a very strong undertow?
MR. SALES:-Sir, that is common knowledge I believe. (Laughter).
MR. WILFRED WONG:-Thank you. May I ask a second supplementary? Is the Chairman aware that by eliminating the refuge or stop-over in the form of rafts from swimmers who might be swept towards the sea by the undertow from a very large and popular beach, it might make the beach unsafe for swimmers?
MR. SALES:-Would the presence of the rafts make the beach any safer for swimmers who allow themselves to be swept away by the undertow?
MR. WILFRED WONG:-Mr. Chairman, I would not be able to answer that question. (Laughter). I cannot answer any questions. I would like to ask a third supplementary question. Will the Chairman make the strongest representation to the relevant committee concerned about these points that I bring up, as it will be too late if anything happens after an accident to a swimmer.
MR. SALES:-Sir, I shall be delighted, in point of fact, to go into this matter very seriously in Select Committee, because I feel as my friend and colleague Mr. Wilfred WONG does, that the presence of rafts at this particular beach would certainly be a welcome amenity and might conceivably help swimmers in difficulties. I am obliged to Mr. WONG for having brought this question to the attention of the Council. I am only sorry that, because in the last ten years it is estimated that over $40,000 was spent on just repairing these three rafts and re-mooring them, the need to abandon, or rather to reallocate them, was necessary.
(8) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:
How many flood victims will be entitled to resettlement according to the regulations laid down in the Government White Paper?
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:-
The number of victims of the recent floods who are entitled to resettlement is 2,419. These consist of 1,487 people from Cottage Areas, 839 tenants of dangerous buildings if they accept the rent advance scheme, and 93 squatters from areas that have already been screened. A further 363 persons may become entitled under the rent advance scheme if their former homes are confirmed to be dangerous and cannot be re-occupied.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner, through you, if these buildings were made dangerous by the flood.
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I cannot absolutely confirm that, but many people from buildings which were declared dangerous had to be evacuated within a few days after the heavy rains which fell on 12th June.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask another supplementary? May I ask the Commissioner how he would define a dangerous building? In this case is a dangerous building something of a certain height-would a cottage or hut be considered a dangerous building if there is a danger of floods?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-No, although it is a dangerous building in a sense. I cannot remember the precise definition
Page 75
Page 76
279
Page 76 of 21
£279
Page 75 of 279
126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 75 of 279
127
(b) Should the answer be in the negative, what are the reasons for not replacing the rafts about which many swimmers are asking?
MR. A. de O. SALES, CHAIRMAN OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND AMENITIES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-
The 3 rafts which were moored off Shek O Beach used to be washed ashore by heavy seas at least once a year, with resultant damage to the rafts and their moorings. When, in July 1965, they were washed ashore for the twelfth time in 10 years, they were moved elsewhere. They have been re-moored this season off the beaches at Repulse Bay, Chung Hom Kok and Cheung Chau.
2.
3.
The main reason for this decision was the difficulty of justifying the constant expenditure involved in repairing and re-mooring the rafts at Shek O. The rafts were usually washed ashore during the height of the swimming season and a minimum of 5 weeks was needed to repair and re-moor them; so, the value of having them at Shek O was of short duration as the public would only have their use early in the summer.
However, the matter will be put before the Select Com- mittee.
MR. WILFRED WONG:-Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the Chair- man of the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee for the historical disposition of the rafts at Shek O Beach. May I ask a supplementary question of him? Is he aware that Shek O beach, un- like the beaches on the southern side of the island, has a very strong undertow?
MR. SALES: -Sir, that is common knowledge I believe. (Laughter).
MR. WILFRED WONG:-Thank you. May I ask a second supple- mentary? Is the Chairman aware that by eliminating the refuge or stop-over in the form of rafts from swimmers who might be swept to- wards the sea by the undertow from a very large and popular beach, it might make the beach unsafe for swimmers?
MR. SALES: -Would the presence of the rafts make the beach any safer for swimmers who allow themselves to be swept away by the undertow?
MR. WILFRED WONG:-Mr. Chairman, I would not be able to answer that question. (Laughter). I cannot answer any questions. I would like to ask a third supplementary question. Will the Chairman make the strongest representation to the relevant committee concerned
about these points that I bring up, as it will be too late if anything happens after an accident to a swimmer.
MR. SALES-Sir, I shall be delighted, in point of fact, to go into this matter very seriously in Select Committee, because I feel as my friend and colleague Mr. Wilfred WONG does, that the presence of rafts at this particular beach would certainly be a welcome amenity and might conceivably help swimmers in difficulties. I am obliged to Mr. WONG for having brought this question to the attention of the Council. I am only sorry that, because in the last ten years it is estimated that over $40,000 was spent on just repairing these three rafts and re- mooring them, the need to abandon, or rather to reallocate them, was necessary.
(8) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:·
How many flood victims will be entitled to resettlement accord- ing to the regulations laid down in the Government White Paper?
THE COMMISSioner for ResETTLEMENT replied as follows:-
The number of victims of the recent floods who are entitled to resettlement is 2,419. These consist of 1,487 people from Cottage Areas, 839 tenants of dangerous buildings if they accept the rent advance scheme, and 93 squatters from areas that have already been screened. A further 363 persons may become entitled under the rent advance scheme if their former homes are confirmed to be danger- ous and cannot be re-occupied.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner, through you, if these buildings were made dangerous by the flood. COMMISSIONER for ResettlEMENT:-I cannot absolutely confirm that, but many people from buildings which were declared dangerous had to be evacuated within a few days after the heavy rains which fell on 12th June.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask another supplementary? May I ask the Commissioner how he would define a dangerous building? In this case is a dangerous building something of a certain height-would a cottage or hut be considered a dangerous building if there is a danger of floods?
COMMISSIONER for ResettlEMENT:-No, although it is a danger- ous building in a sense. I cannot remember the precise definition
Page 75Page 76
279
Page 76 of 21
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.