Page 85 of 242
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MRS. ELLIOTT: Mr. Chairman, has it changed in the past five years to that extent?
MR. HU: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one supplementary? Did the Resettlement Department ever contact the Electricity Company to apply for a line for the electricity?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.
MR. HU: I think probably you were refused to be given any electricity.
MRS. ELLIOTT: Mr. Chairman, the reply here says the Company would not instal it at their own expense. Did this Department lead them to think it was going to be at China Light & Power's expense? I made it perfectly clear that people were willing to pay for it.
CHAIRMAN: May we pass to the next question?
MRS. ELLIOTT: Well, I wanted an answer because this is untrue you see.
MR. HU: If I can say a few words, I think.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hu, are you answering a question or asking?
MR. HU: I will ask a supplementary to clarify this position. Was it constructed with timber or was it constructed with iron sheet or anything like that? If iron sheet I don't think the electricity company would give electricity.
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: Whatever are the materials, the Company rules out timber and tin sheet. I would not quarrel with the expert technical knowledge of the company so far as electricity is concerned.
(8)
MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:
Did the Department make firm promises of resettlement shops to pig-breeders and cultivators about ten years ago? Is there any justification for breaking a written promise to people who have waited so long for its fulfilment?
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE RESETTLEMENT POLICY SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:
Between the years 1957 and 1965 cultivators and pig-breeders cleared from land in the urban area required for development were eligible for allocation of shops in resettlement estates provided they satisfied the requisite eligibility criteria. Letters were sent to those to whom shops could not be allocated saying their names had been put on a waiting list.
A letter dated 23rd March, 1971 was sent out by the Resettlement Department to those ex-cultivators/pig-breeders who were promised a shop during the period 1957 to 1965 and who were on the waiting list, cancelling their shop eligibility and offering instead, cash allowances in lieu of shops. This letter is the result of a decision made by the Resettlement Policy and Resettlement Management Select Committees of this Council on 22nd October, 1970. Members of the Joint Resettlement Policy and Resettlement Management Select Committees decided at that meeting to cancel the resettlement shop right of the ex-cultivators/pig-breeders on the waiting list and to compensate them in cash. The Joint Committee when making this decision was aware that these ex-cultivators/pig-breeders had been on the waiting list for shops for a long time; however, their prospects of being allocated a shop were very dim in view of the serious shortage of available shops. Taking this into account the Joint Committee therefore recommended cash compensation of $10,000 (instead of $6,000 as originally offered) to those eligible for a through-bay shop and $7,000 for those for a half-bay shop. This decision was subsequently ratified by the Executive Council in late 1970.
The department, when sending out the letters of 23rd March, 1971, was in fact implementing the decision of the Joint Meeting of the Resettlement Policy and Management Committees held on 22nd October, 1970, at which meeting Mrs. ELLIOTT was present and had accepted this decision.
MRS. ELLIOTT: Mr. Chairman, may I first clarify that I did not accept this decision and I have it in writing from the Assistant Commissioner that although it didn't appear in the minutes I did object to this decision. I was in agreement with the $10,000 but not instead but as an alternative if people wanted it. Now having said that may I ask if any Committee of this Council has the right and the power to cancel a promise made in writing by a Government department to the people?
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: That could be a legal point at issue, Mr. Chairman, but all I can say is that at this particular meeting it was so decided and it was referred to Executive Council which confirmed the decision and action has subsequently been taken. Up to date I am
Page 86 of 242
150
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
151
Page 85
Page 86
242
Page 85 of 242
150
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MRS. ELLIOTT: Mr. Chairman, has it changed in the past five years to that extent?
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask one supplementary? Did the Resettlement Department ever contact the Electricity Company to apply for a line for the electricity?
Yes.
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: -Mr. Chairman, the answer is
MR. HU:--I think probably you were refused to be given any electricity.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, the reply here says the Company would not instal it at their own expense. Did this Department lead them to think it was going to be at China Light & Power's expense? I made it perfectly clear that people were willing to pay for it.
CHAIRMAN:-May we pass to the next question?
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Well, I wanted an answer because this is untrue you see.
MR. HU:-If I can say a few words, I think.
CHAIRMAN:—Mr. Hu, are you answering a question or asking?
MR. HU:-I will ask a supplementary to clarify this position. Did Was it con- Mr. Tsui explain how the building was constructed? structed with timber or was it constructed with iron sheet or anything like that? If iron sheet I don't think the electricity company would give electricity.
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT: —Whatever are the materials, the Company rules out timber and tin sheet. I would not quarrel with the expert technical knowledge of the company so far as electricity is concerned.
(8)
MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:-
Did the Department make firm promises of resettlement shops to pig-breeders and cultivators about ten years ago? Is there any justification for breaking a written promise to people who have waited so long for its fulfilment?
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE RESETTLEMENT POLICY SELECT Committee, replied as follows:-
Between the years 1957 and 1965 cultivators and pigbreeders cleared from land in the urban area required for develop-
..........
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
151
ment were eligible for allocation of shops in resettlement estates provided they satisfied the requisite eligibility criteria. Letters were sent to those to whom shops could not be allocated saying their names had been put on a waiting list.
A letter dated 23rd March, 1971 was sent out by the Resettle- ment Department to those ex-cultivators/pigbreeders who were promised a shop during the period 1957 to 1965 and who were on the waiting list, cancelling their shop eligi- bility and offering instead, cash allowances in lieu of shops. This letter is the result of a decision made by the Resettle- ment Policy and Resettlement Management Select Com- mittees of this Council on 22nd October, 1970. Members of the Joint Resettlement Policy and Resettlement Man- agement Select Committees decided at that meeting to cancel the resettlement shop right of the ex-cultivators/ pigbreeders on the waiting list and to compensate them in cash. The Joint Committee when making this decision was aware that these ex-cultivators/pigbreeders had been on the waiting list for shops for a long time; however, their prospects of being allocated a shop were very dim in view of the serious shortage of available shops. Taking this into account the Joint Committee therefore recom- mended cash compensation of $10,000 (instead of $6,000 as originally offered) to those eligible for a through-bay shop and $7,000 for those for a half-bay shop. This decision was subsequently ratified by the Executive Council in late 1970.
The department, when sending out the letters of 23rd March, 1971, was in fact implementing the decision of the Joint Meeting of the Resettlement Policy and Management Committees held on 22nd October, 1970, at which meeting Mrs. ELLIOTT was present and had accepted this decision.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I first clarify that I did not accept this decision and I have it in writing from the Assistant Com- missioner that although it didn't appear in the minutes I did object to this decision. I was in agreement with the $10,000 but not instead but as an alternative if people wanted it. Now having said that may I ask if any Committee of this Council has the right and the power to cancel a promise made in writing by a Government department to the people?
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-That could be a legal point at issue, Mr. Chairman, but all I can say is that at this particular meeting it was so decided and it was referred to Executive Council which confirmed the decision and action has subsequently been taken. Up to date I am
Page 85Page 86
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.