1971 — Page 213

Page 213 of 242

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

I am surprised to hear that the rentals paid are about 20% down from the maintenance and marked value costs, depreciating the building over 40 years at 3% interest, because, of course, the financial bodies, if I might call them such, when the resettlement blocks were first put up did advise the Council on what to charge so that the Government does get its money back over 40 years, plus interest, plus resettlement management expenses, and there have been at least two increases of rent since that time so that I can only say that either Hong Kong is heading for a major disaster due to the highly inflated cost of living or, indeed, that the resettlement staff managing the estates are too large and should be decreased. It is amazing to me that the position has arisen of this 2% under-estimate of the costs.

I see that you are looking at your watch, Mr. Chairman, but I have only just completed the reply to the Commissioner for Resettlement.

The Director of Social Welfare. I can only say that I support Mrs. Symons' proposals 100%, and we must turn the problem of youth into the asset of youth. More should be done by Government instead of relying so heavily on voluntary agencies. I support her proposal for a Department of Youth 100%.

The Director of Public Works' address to this Council was admirable, and I congratulate him because he does disclose to the Council future plans that are the responsibility of his Department. As regards the complex where the railway station is at present situated, I hope that any provision of facilities is complementary to the City Hall, and I agree with him on that. Do not disregard or reduce the essential facility of a museum either by providing for a separate floor of sufficient square feet in the building. That is most important because we have been urging a Museum for a very long time now.

As regards his remarks on building resettlement estates and low-cost housing in the New Territories, I agree with him that we must extend Urban Kowloon into the New Territories or create, not dormitory towns, but new towns. But I would still plead that there are many areas of Hong Kong Island that surely could be developed on the South Coast of Hong Kong, and what has happened to the idea of a tunnel through from Aberdeen to the Central District. Has it been given up entirely or would it be possible to build resettlement estates or low-cost housing on that side of the island even though the site formation would be expensive. If further development of that nature is to go into the New Territories, then we must definitely decide that it is to be a new town and not just a dormitory area and that, of course, means that not housing accommodation is to be built but facilities for a town and, again, I mention Chai Wan. The error in building Chai Wan originally was that Chai Wan was built as a dormitory but, in fact, it is too large, too far out of town to be a dormitory town and lacks many of the essential facilities.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify. Chai Wan is not a new town, it is a private kingdom. (Laughter).

MR. BERNACCHI: When the Director speaks of quantity changing to quality, I say why not both. The need is for quantity, but the need is also for quality.

And when he says, for instance, that 35 sq. ft. per person nett, exclusive of toilet, cooking area and verandah, is now the common design standard, I would remind him that the Buildings Ordinance before the War did say exactly that, and it was cut out of the post-war conditions of the Building Ordinance.

Although seeming critical, I do congratulate him on a very clear exposition of the future programme of his Department.

Then comes Dr. Craig, the Vice-Chairman, and really I agree with his remarks except of course that one never completely accomplishes or completely perfects anything. Hong Kong is a moving reality and the situation changes from year to year, from month to month and I think to completely attempt perfection would mean that Hong Kong would stagnate. But the main thing, I think, to comment on Dr. Craig's remarks, is that it is all very well to say that in theory, but have we the staff on the ground because, if we are to insist on this high degree of health standards, and I agree with it, then we must have the staff on the ground and if we have, all that happens is that there is very big corruption. We have to pick and choose individual restaurants, individual food premises. The point I am making is that there should be sufficient staff to control everything that is under the Urban Council control and not just have to pick and choose. And, of course, when he says the insanitary habit of littering and that sort of thing, Singapore is so different. I went to Singapore early this year, and it is amazing to see how the average member of the public is against littering. The taxi man will stop and tell his own client, passenger, to get out and get the cigarette that he has thrown out of the window. It is, I think, because the Singapore citizens have a sense of belonging, and I think we on the Urban Council must create this sense of belonging to Hong Kong. This is why I said in my own address, the White Paper does not go as far as we would have liked it to go and, in particular, it does not create an elected majority so that the people of Hong Kong know that it is the Council that looks after their day to day business, their day to day development as their own Council. Of course, when he says that it is the Council's policy to establish permanent off-street collection points, may I point out that it is the Council's intention to also establish permanent

406

407

Page 214 of 242