1967 — Page 129

of 259

Page 129 of 259

Page 129 of 259

234

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

resettlement should only be offered to persons seriously incapacitated, meaning incapacity of a serious and permanent nature.

It will also be necessary to determine in each case the extent and nature of the injury and also how the family are housed at present and other relevant circumstances. For these, the services of the Medical Department and the Social Welfare Department are required and we have enlisted their help.

I think we now have a workable scheme to offer resettlement to victims of the disturbances. Of course, members will appreciate that to the dependants of persons killed and to persons seriously incapacitated, case payments and other forms of help can never adequately compen- sate for the loss they have suffered, but I believe such help would be welcomed by the victims both financially and also as a gesture of sympathy and support from the community as a whole. It is in this spirit that I ask members to support this motion.

MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, after having supported the motion pro- posed by one doctor, I am pleased to lend my support to the motion proposed by another doctor, namely Dr. BELL. I will not repeat the reason why I support this motion, because I have already said what I wanted to say when I supported the motion proposed by Mr. Woo Po-shing last month, but I have one query in supporting this motion to-day. Could you clarify, Mr. Chairman, whether Dr. BELL's motion is within the meaning of the word in "future" in Dr. P. F. Woo's motion, because in Dr. P. F. Woo's motion it says that "in future on every motion passed at a public meeting". Is the motion proposed by Dr. BELL now within the meaning of the word in "future" in the motion proposed by Dr. Woo? With this point to be clarified, I support the motion.

MR. WONG:-Mr. Chairman, it gives me greater pleasure to sup- port this motion for two reasons. First, this motion follows the exact motion which we debated at the last Council meeting. Secondly, it follows the pattern that the relevant committee, whose function it is to consider, has passed the motion first and it comes to this Council next. In this day, I think specialization and division of labour is most important. Therefore, we have formed the Select Committees to moot not only the pros and cons, but the details, and having done that, it comes to this Council for passing of the final resolution which means a finished product. I think that in many instances we should utilize this procedure that we have set up. I do think that in a number of instances, where we have referred the general motion to the Select Committee, the motion may yet come to life after all the kinks have been ironed out. I support this motion.

MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, I intend to abstain from voting on this motion. Not that I disagree with it, I do agree with it, but I

it.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

235

am going to abstain on the grounds that I believe all persons who meet with some disaster involving the loss of home or the death or incapacitation of the breadwinner, here I include the ones mentioned in the motion, should be given resettlement if their circumstances merit This I have tried for years to persuade this Council to accept. Now, by singling out one particular group at this time we, as an Urban Council, who should be concerned with the welfare of the whole community, are laying ourselves open to a possible change of taking part in propaganda. Sir, if the motion included all persons suddenly deprived of their means of livelihood, I should certainly sup- port it and I want to repeat that I do agree with getting resettlement under these circumstances, but not to make a special group of these people.

MR. BERNACCHI:-I almost feel inclined to say, as it is true, that I did not intend to speak, but the speeches of the last two speakers do call for an answer. First of all, Mr. WONG. My last fairly lengthy speech incidentally brought out the usual procedure of this Council in the past. That has been to approve motions in principle and then to refer them to a Select Committee, not vice versa. In reply to Mrs. ELLIOTT, many of the victims of disaster, natural and otherwise, are listed in the priorities on which this Council was consulted originally. They are, of course, subject to this $400 rent in advance. Now, this Council is not responsible for that. This Council has always been against this rent in advance proposal that has been imposed on this Council by higher Councils. So I do stress to Mrs. ELLIOTT that if her only reason for abstaining is that it does not take notice of other victims of disaster, I would like to point out that they are listed in the priorities list already, except for one thing and that is this $400 rent in advance, and on that we have no control and we as a Council have always opposed it.

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:--Mr. Chairman, I certainly was not intending to speak on this motion, although I intended, and I do intend, to vote in favour of it. I rise purely on a point of clari- fication in case there should be any misunderstanding. It might be thought from the remarks of Mr. BERNACCHI that any victim of any natural disaster, who is to be resettled, is required to pay rent in advance The only such amounting to $400 per adult. That, of course, is not so. persons who are required to pay this rent in advance are the former domestic tenants of dangerous buildings who opt for resettlement when the building is closed. I will not go into the history of this rent in advance scheme, but I would just remind Members that the persons who pay these sums are themselves almost certain to receive com- pensation from the landlords in due course, and in any case, in the mean- time, receive an advance on half the estimated compensation which they will receive. This is paid out by the office of my friend the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. I think, therefore, that it is not quite such an