1967 — Page 197

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

All of these expedients will help to contain the problem of the sale of cooked food by hawkers but will never eradicate it. For hawkers have an advantage over restaurants in their mobility and lack of overhead expenses. The ultimate solution to this and the hawker problem generally is a firm policy on hawking firmly carried out.

Playgrounds

A number of members, of whom I am one, share Mr. Lo's views on the equipment of playgrounds in our estates and I am sure this is a matter which constantly receives the attention of the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee whose chairman has already answered a question on it today. I would prefer to leave the further pursuit of it in their capable hands, and would only say that I am satisfied that the estates are now receiving a very fair slice of the cake that is available.

Appeals Procedure

Mr. Lo concluded his speech with an eloquent plea for a rationalization of our procedure for dealing with appeals. He illustrated his argument with a description of the course which an appeal is liable to take through an Appeal Panel of the Resettlement Policy Select Committee, the Resettlement Policy Select Committee itself, and finally the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. I suppose that, in general, his arguments would apply equally to cases outside the field of resettlement but falling within the jurisdiction of this Council, although I understand that appeals of this nature are less frequent. I would disagree with only two very minor points in his analysis. First, although I attend meetings of the Appeal panels, I am not a voting member of them since that would place me in the position of sitting in judgment on my own decision. Secondly, the appellant no longer appears, at least initially, before the Resettlement Policy Select Committee, but only if that Committee decides to hear him personally. While I fully support an arrangement which gives a member of the public a means of appealing to an independent body against what may seem to him to be an arbitrary and unfair decision, I share Mr. Lo's concern that, in bending over backwards to ensure that justice is seen to be done, we may be adopting a posture that will result in our losing our sense of balance, and in gravely wasting the time of members which could more usefully be employed for the benefit of the public at large. Unfortunately, we are rigidly tied down by our Standing Orders. Thus, paragraph (8) of Standing Order 22 lays down that no act of a sub-committee shall have effect until approved by a select committee. Again, paragraph (13) states that "in any case where individual rights or interests may be particularly affected by an act or decision of a select committee, the parties interested may, with the consent of the Chairman of that committee, be heard before the committee". Finally, paragraph (14) gives any party aggrieved by a select committee's decision the absolute right of further appeal to the Standing Committee. In dealing with aspects of resettlement for which the Council is the "competent authority", such as the management of urban estates, there is a further and statutory provision in sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Resettlement Ordinance for an appeal to this Council as "competent authority", although that section does not explicitly state that the appellant has a right to appear in person or through a representative. There is a somewhat similar provision at section 125 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance. These then are the stumbling blocks to bringing about any change in our present procedure. They are not, of course, irremovable, if it is the majority view that they should be changed. And if this Council's jurisdiction were to be markedly extended to include subjects now outside its scope, I for one would say that it would then be imperative to change them unless members are prepared to devote much longer hours than at present to their civic duties, and if the machinery of local Government is not to grind to a halt. Meanwhile, so far as appeals in the resettlement field are concerned, the burden has not yet become too heavy for my department; but if members feel that the time has come to review the present practice, they will no doubt seek an opportunity to do so in the Resettlement Policy or the Standing Orders and Procedure Select Committee.

Page 198 of 259

370

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Sharing of Rooms

Not unexpectedly, Mr. Henry Hu was concerned by some of the hardships which may confront our tenants. He suggested that "under no circumstances should two families be resettled in one and the same room". That certainly used to happen quite frequently and, naturally, has sometimes given rise to disputes between families who are sharing. But the need to share has been very much reduced and is now confined on first allocation only to the very smallest sizes of households. In Mark IV blocks, where the smallest room is 107 square feet, families consisting of 2 adults qualify for a room to themselves at a density of about 43 square feet per adult. Those of 1 or 2 adults either have to share or go to a D room in an old estate. In Mark V blocks the smallest size of room is 96 square feet, and families of 2 adults are allocated these rooms, thereby getting 40 square feet each, only those of 1 adult and a child have to share or accept a D room. Single persons are of course still required to share with others. I do not consider that we can at present afford to be more generous than this in view of the number of people who are still inadequately housed and of the degree of overcrowding in our older estates.

Rents

Mr. Hu's second point was that "rents in resettlement estates should not be increased from time to time". If this suggestion is based on the supposition that resettlement rents have been or will be increased

Page 199 of 259

371

Edit History

2026-05-14 02:53:53 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL All of these expedients will help to contain the problem of the sale of cooked food by hawkers but will never eradicate it. For hawkers have an advantage over restaurants in their mobility and lack of overhead expenses. The ultimate solution to this and the hawker problem generally is a firm policy on hawking firmly carried out. Playgrounds A number of members, of whom I am one, share Mr. Lo's views on the equipment of playgrounds in our estates and I am sure this is a matter which constantly receives the attention of the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee whose chairman has already answered a question on it today. I would prefer to leave the further pursuit of it in their capable hands, and would only say that I am satisfied that the estates are now receiving a very fair slice of the cake that is available. Appeals Procedure Mr. Lo concluded his speech with an eloquent plea for a rationalization of our procedure for dealing with appeals. He illustrated his argument with a description of the course which an appeal is liable to take through an Appeal Panel of the Resettlement Policy Select Committee, the Resettlement Policy Select Committee itself, and finally the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. I suppose that, in general, his arguments would apply equally to cases outside the field of resettlement but falling within the jurisdiction of this Council, although I understand that appeals of this nature are less frequent. I would disagree with only two very minor points in his analysis. First, although I attend meetings of the Appeal panels, I am not a voting member of them since that would place me in the position of sitting in judgment on my own decision. Secondly, the appellant no longer appears, at least initially, before the Resettlement Policy Select Committee, but only if that Committee decides to hear him personally. While I fully support an arrangement which gives a member of the public a means of appealing to an independent body against what may seem to him to be an arbitrary and unfair decision, I share Mr. Lo's concern that, in bending over backwards to ensure that justice is seen to be done, we may be adopting a posture that will result in our losing our sense of balance, and in gravely wasting the time of members which could more usefully be employed for the benefit of the public at large. Unfortunately, we are rigidly tied down by our Standing Orders. Thus, paragraph (8) of Standing Order 22 lays down that no act of a sub-committee shall have effect until approved by a select committee. Again, paragraph (13) states that "in any case where individual rights or interests may be particularly affected by an act or decision of a select committee, the parties interested may, with the consent of the Chairman of that committee, be heard before the committee". Finally, paragraph (14) gives any party aggrieved by a select committee's decision the absolute right of further appeal to the Standing Committee. In dealing with aspects of resettlement for which the Council is the "competent authority", such as the management of urban estates, there is a further and statutory provision in sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Resettlement Ordinance for an appeal to this Council as "competent authority", although that section does not explicitly state that the appellant has a right to appear in person or through a representative. There is a somewhat similar provision at section 125 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance. These then are the stumbling blocks to bringing about any change in our present procedure. They are not, of course, irremovable, if it is the majority view that they should be changed. And if this Council's jurisdiction were to be markedly extended to include subjects now outside its scope, I for one would say that it would then be imperative to change them unless members are prepared to devote much longer hours than at present to their civic duties, and if the machinery of local Government is not to grind to a halt. Meanwhile, so far as appeals in the resettlement field are concerned, the burden has not yet become too heavy for my department; but if members feel that the time has come to review the present practice, they will no doubt seek an opportunity to do so in the Resettlement Policy or the Standing Orders and Procedure Select Committee. Page 198 of 259 370 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Sharing of Rooms Not unexpectedly, Mr. Henry Hu was concerned by some of the hardships which may confront our tenants. He suggested that "under no circumstances should two families be resettled in one and the same room". That certainly used to happen quite frequently and, naturally, has sometimes given rise to disputes between families who are sharing. But the need to share has been very much reduced and is now confined on first allocation only to the very smallest sizes of households. In Mark IV blocks, where the smallest room is 107 square feet, families consisting of 2 adults qualify for a room to themselves at a density of about 43 square feet per adult. Those of 1 or 2 adults either have to share or go to a D room in an old estate. In Mark V blocks the smallest size of room is 96 square feet, and families of 2 adults are allocated these rooms, thereby getting 40 square feet each, only those of 1 adult and a child have to share or accept a D room. Single persons are of course still required to share with others. I do not consider that we can at present afford to be more generous than this in view of the number of people who are still inadequately housed and of the degree of overcrowding in our older estates. Rents Mr. Hu's second point was that "rents in resettlement estates should not be increased from time to time". If this suggestion is based on the supposition that resettlement rents have been or will be increased Page 199 of 259 371

Baseline (Original)

of 259 Page 197 of 259 368 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL All of these expedients will help to contain the problem of the sale of cooked food by hawkers but will never eradicate it. For hawkers have an advantage over restaurants in their mobility and lack of overhead expenses. The ultimate solution to this and the hawker problem generally is a firm policy on hawking firmly carried out. Playgrounds A number of members, of whom I am one, share Mr. Lo's views on the equipment of playgrounds in our estates and I am sure this is a matter which constantly receives the attention of the Parks, Recreation and Amenities Select Committee whose chairman has already answered a question on it today. I would prefer to leave the further pursuit of it in their capable hands, and would only say that I am satisfied that the estates are now receiving a very fair slice of the cake that is available. Appeals Procedure Mr. Lo concluded his speech with an eloquent plea for a ration- alization of our procedure for dealing with appeals. He illustrated his argument with a description of the course which an appeal is liable to take through an Appeal Panel of the Resettlement Policy Select Com- mittee, the Resettlement Policy Select Committee itself, and finally the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. I suppose that, in general, his arguments would apply equally to cases outside the field of resettle- ment but falling within the jurisdiction of this Council, although I under- stand that appeals of this nature are less frequent. I would disagree with only two very minor points in his analysis. First, although I attend meetings of the Appeal panels, I am not a voting member of them since that would place me in the position of sitting in judgment on my own decision. Secondly, the appellant no longer appears, at least initially, before the Resettlement Policy Select Committee, but only if that Committee decides to hear him personally. While I fully support an arrangement which gives a member of the public a means of appeal- ing to an independent body against what may seem to him to be an arbitrary and unfair decision, I share Mr. Lo's concern that, in bending over backwards to ensure that justice is seen to be done, we may be adopting a posture that will result in our losing our sense of balance, and in gravely wasting the time of members which could more usefully be employed for the benefit of the public at large. Unfortunately, we are rigidly tied down by our Standing Orders. Thus, paragraph (8) of Standing Order 22 lays down that no act of a sub-committee shall have effect until approved by a select committee. Again, paragraph (13) states that "in any case where individual rights or interests may be particularly affected by an act or decision of a select committee, the parties interested may, with the consent of the Chairman of that com- mittee, be heard before the committee". Finally, paragraph (14) gives any party aggrieved by a select committee's decision the absolute right HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 369 of further appeal to the Standing Committee. In dealing with aspects of resettlement for which the Council is the "competent authority", such as the management of urban estates, there is a further and statutory provision in sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Resettlement Ordinance for an appeal to this Council as "competent authority", although that section does not explicitly state that the appellant has a right to appear in person or through a representative. There is a somewhat similar provision at section 125 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordin- ance. These then are the stumbling blocks to bringing about any change in our present procedure. They are not, of course, irremovable, if it is the majority view that they should be changed. And if this Council's jurisdiction were to be markedly extended to include subjects now out- side its scope, I for one would say that it would then be imperative to change them unless members are prepared to devote much longer hours than at present to their civic duties, and if the machinery of local Government is not to grind to a halt. Meanwhile, so far as appeals in the resettlement field are concerned, the burden has not yet become too heavy for my department; but if members feel that the time has come to review the present practice, they will no doubt seek an opportunity to do so in the Resettlement Policy or the Standing Orders and Proce- dure Select Committee. Sharing of Rooms Not unexpectedly, Mr. Henry Hu was concerned by some of the hardships which may confront our tenants. He suggested that "under no circumstances should two families be resettled in one and the same room". That certainly used to happen quite frequently and, naturally, has sometimes given rise to disputes between families who are sharing. But the need to share has been very much reduced and is now confined on first allocation only to the very smallest sizes of households. In Mark IV blocks, where the smallest room is 107 square feet, families consisting of 21 adults qualify for a room to themselves at a density of about 43 square feet per adult. Those of 1 or 2 adults either have to share or go to a D room in an old estate. In Mark V blocks the smallest size of room is 96 square feet, and families of 2 adults are allocated these rooms, thereby getting 40 square feet each, only those of 1 adult and a child have to share or accept a D room. Single persons are of course still required to share with others. I do not consider that we can at present afford to be more generous than this in view of the number of people who are still inadequately housed and of the degree of overcrowding in our older estates. Rents Mr. Hu's second point was that "rents in resettlement estates should not be increased from time to time". If this suggestion is based on the supposition that resettlement rents have been or will be increased

2026-05-14 02:53:53 · Baseline

View content

of 259

Page 197 of 259

368

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Playgrounds

Appeals Procedure

Mr. Lo concluded his speech with an eloquent plea for a ration- alization of our procedure for dealing with appeals. He illustrated his argument with a description of the course which an appeal is liable to take through an Appeal Panel of the Resettlement Policy Select Com- mittee, the Resettlement Policy Select Committee itself, and finally the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. I suppose that, in general, his arguments would apply equally to cases outside the field of resettle- ment but falling within the jurisdiction of this Council, although I under- stand that appeals of this nature are less frequent. I would disagree with only two very minor points in his analysis. First, although I attend meetings of the Appeal panels, I am not a voting member of them since that would place me in the position of sitting in judgment on my own decision. Secondly, the appellant no longer appears, at least initially, before the Resettlement Policy Select Committee, but only if that Committee decides to hear him personally. While I fully support an arrangement which gives a member of the public a means of appeal- ing to an independent body against what may seem to him to be an arbitrary and unfair decision, I share Mr. Lo's concern that, in bending over backwards to ensure that justice is seen to be done, we may be adopting a posture that will result in our losing our sense of balance, and in gravely wasting the time of members which could more usefully be employed for the benefit of the public at large. Unfortunately, we are rigidly tied down by our Standing Orders. Thus, paragraph (8) of Standing Order 22 lays down that no act of a sub-committee shall have effect until approved by a select committee. Again, paragraph (13) states that "in any case where individual rights or interests may be particularly affected by an act or decision of a select committee, the parties interested may, with the consent of the Chairman of that com- mittee, be heard before the committee". Finally, paragraph (14) gives any party aggrieved by a select committee's decision the absolute right

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

369

of further appeal to the Standing Committee. In dealing with aspects of resettlement for which the Council is the "competent authority", such as the management of urban estates, there is a further and statutory provision in sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Resettlement Ordinance for an appeal to this Council as "competent authority", although that section does not explicitly state that the appellant has a right to appear in person or through a representative. There is a somewhat similar provision at section 125 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordin- ance. These then are the stumbling blocks to bringing about any change in our present procedure. They are not, of course, irremovable, if it is the majority view that they should be changed. And if this Council's jurisdiction were to be markedly extended to include subjects now out- side its scope, I for one would say that it would then be imperative to change them unless members are prepared to devote much longer hours than at present to their civic duties, and if the machinery of local Government is not to grind to a halt. Meanwhile, so far as appeals in the resettlement field are concerned, the burden has not yet become too heavy for my department; but if members feel that the time has come to review the present practice, they will no doubt seek an opportunity to do so in the Resettlement Policy or the Standing Orders and Proce- dure Select Committee.

Sharing of Rooms

Not unexpectedly, Mr. Henry Hu was concerned by some of the hardships which may confront our tenants. He suggested that "under no circumstances should two families be resettled in one and the same room". That certainly used to happen quite frequently and, naturally, has sometimes given rise to disputes between families who are sharing. But the need to share has been very much reduced and is now confined on first allocation only to the very smallest sizes of households. In Mark IV blocks, where the smallest room is 107 square feet, families consisting of 21 adults qualify for a room to themselves at a density of about 43 square feet per adult. Those of 1 or 2 adults either have to share or go to a D room in an old estate. In Mark V blocks the smallest size of room is 96 square feet, and families of 2 adults are allocated these rooms, thereby getting 40 square feet each, only those of 1 adult and a child have to share or accept a D room. Single persons are of course still required to share with others. I do not consider that we can at present afford to be more generous than this in view of the number of people who are still inadequately housed and of the degree of overcrowding in our older estates.

1967 — Page 197

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note