1971 — Page 31

f

242

Page 31 of 242

42

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

in the next ten years or so. Without our massive public housing programme we would not have broken the back of the appalling housing problem of our people in the last ten years or so. We have all said that, if Government had depended on private housing, the people of Hong Kong would still be on the hillsides living in abjectly miserable conditions. Even for the private sector to act, Government had to set up a building Loan and Development Corporation to lend money to the people to buy flats in these high-rise buildings that private enterprise put up. Were it not for the Government through the Housing Authority putting up so many estates, and thus showing to private enterprise that there was a very bid demand and it could well follow the Authority's lead by also building low-cost housing to sell to the people and still made a profit, I dare say private enterprise would not have moved in as it did before the crisis to provide this type of housing in a way that was still remunerative. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are other aspects of public housing that must be looked into: what is the whole picture of low-cost housing for the people? It is not our concern as members of the Housing Authority merely to accommodate people, to move them into new buildings and thus just shelter them like cattle, but it is certainly our concern that we should raise their standard of living by providing better housing with well-qualified management. And on this question of management, perhaps to answer Mr. Henry Hu, when the Working Party was functioning, at that time the Housing Authority was so exercised over the importance of giving in-service training and pro- viding housing management courses for the people in Hong Kong, so that we would build up a well-trained cadre of housing administrators, which we have now done, that we did not think that it was necessary for the Working Party on resettlement to concern itself with a problem that was already exercising the close attention of the Hong Kong Housing Authority.

Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. BERNACCHI that the time has come to review the usefulness of the Housing Board. Perhaps Mr. BERNACCHI might remember that I put forward to the Working Party the proposal for the creation of such a Housing Board and I intended the selection to be a very high-powered one, but it did not eventually find the form that was intended and so the Housing Board has come to exist, not in the way that we meant it to do, but somewhat differently, lagging well behind the Urban Council and the Housing Authority in its recommendations to the Government. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the point that the Government owes it to the people of Hong Kong, who have all worked so hard to bring about the present affluence--this strong position in which Hong Kong finds itself to-day-that Government owes it to the people of Hong Kong to help raise the quality of life for them. In Hong Kong's circum- stances they need and deserve far better housing than the resettlement type. Indeed, we have suggested that the key-stone to public housing

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

43

be the Hong Kong Authority type of accommodation. Government has moved towards that but far too slowly. We are told by the Director of Public Works that we have now got to Mark VII and even Mark VIII. Let Government declare, here and now, that the standard of housing in the future will be at least that set by the Housing Authority. Mr. Chairman, let Government not fall into the same mistake in public housing policy as Government did originally in resettlement. It may surprise our new members to know that Government said, at that time, until we strongly objected, that Government provided resettlement for the people simply because Government needed Crown Land for redevelopment. And, we said "no", but that it was Government's duty in our society to provide housing to the people who could not find housing for themselves. That in itself is the best of all reasons: not to clear land just because it was needed for redevelopment but because it was right and proper for Government to provide housing of a standard that the people need as human beings. Mr. Chairman, I support this Motion and I would like to add a rider; that it be urgently considered by the Standing Committee of the Whole Council, so that it will not be shelved and, when it is considered, that specific recommendations be made to the Government. Then perhaps, this Council might again debate those recommendations. I support the Motion.

MR. PETER C. K. CHAN:-Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one remark. I support the Motion, but by supporting the Motion I wish it to be recorded that I am not suggesting that the staff of the Resettle- ment Department has not been doing their duty well.

CHAIRMAN: —If there are no other speakers, I shall take a vote on this Motion which is before us through the use of Standing Order 10(1) and on which I shall abstain.

MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to say something. I would just like to try and persuade the Commissioner to vote with us because I think he mis-read the Motion. I think he read something into it that wasn't there when he asked the question "does the Motion say we have lost confidence in ourselves" and the answer is "no". I think Mr. BERNACCHI touched the point we want to standardize management throughout the Housing Authority, through Low-cost Housing and Resettlement Estates. I am sure the Commissioner agrees with us so I don't known why he is going to abstain.

CHAIRMAN :-Because I think Mrs. ELLIOTT, subject to any views that he might have, this Motion is before us under Standing Order 10(1), and for that reason I shall abstain. I shall now take a vote on this Motion which is set out under 4(1) of the Order Paper.

The question was put.