Page 91 of 206
162
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
this Council or the Resettlement Department to refuse to renew the lease except in the case of glaring actions by the tenant, in breach of his tenancy agreement.
Therefore in my submission, there is no room for outside people, that have no connection with resettlement, to be permitted to tender. It is not as if the compensation is in any way adequate, for instance, shopkeepers, in old buildings subject to an Exemption Order, would get a far higher compensation. And it is not as if there is any shortage of cleared shopkeepers who want a tender. For instance, I myself, have about 50 cleared shopkeepers from the Causeway Bay squatter clearance area that have been constantly coming to me in my Chai Wan Ward about this very thing. There are mainly middle-aged to elderly people, the majority of whom cannot possibly obtain other employment or take up another skill at their age.
Who have had to use up the compensation, to pay for their daily living and who are now almost destitute.
They had no alternative but to apply for permission to take part in the ballot for modular market hawker stalls, but this had been refused, because it is said, they are not hawkers but shopkeepers. But they must compete in open tender for resettlement shops against wealthy merchants who have no connection whatsoever with resettlement estates.
It is not as if this restrictive tender is a new idea. It has already been applied so I have been informed in the New Territories (I refer to a tender about a year ago of resettlement shops in the Yuen Long Castle Peak area where I believe, on the District Officer's representation, the Commissioner for Resettlement, who is the authority in the New Territories set up a restricted tender, confined to shopkeepers that have been previously cleared in that area).
I submit that there is no reason at all why outside people should take part in tenders, and it defeats the whole object of resettlement which is to resettle the family including the trade, in a suitable resettlement estate. I say trade deliberately because, not only were shopkeepers resettled in shops, but owners of small factories were as I said resettled in flatted factories, owners of workshops were resettled in workshops and it was only because of the failure of the ex-pig-breeders to run shops that they were eventually given compensation instead. That compensation is now being used by some people as a precedent for an object which it was never meant to have had. They therefore say, because we give compensation now to shopkeepers, let them stew in their own juice. Compensation, compensation indeed, this few thousand dollars, do you even dare to call it compensation. I warn members that if they run along with the Resettlement Department of Government's views, on this matter, they are sounding the death knoll
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
163
to the whole scheme of resettlement. I, for one, will have nothing more to do with it. It is unnecessary, and a breach of faith to the shopkeepers who have been compulsory cleared.
I now move that "applications for tenders for new shops in resettlement estates should be restricted to shopkeepers who have been cleared and who were entitled to shop resettlement under the old policy”.
MRS. ELLIOTT:- Mr. Chairman, I rise to second the motion moved by Mr. BERNACCHI.
Personally, if I had known the changes in policy that were to follow the decision to give compensation instead of resettlement shops to squatter shopkeepers involved in clearances, I for one should have opposed this new policy more strongly than I did. Our Committee was told initially that the new policy of compensation would eliminate some of the corruption practised in the allocation of resettlement shops, as well as tighten up irregularities such as transfer of shops, subletting and that it would solve the problem of imbalance of shops over squatter claimants, and ensure that only those with "know-how" would be able to obtain shops. We were not told that under the new system, the Tender net would be spread so wide that squatters involved in clearances would be virtually excluded, because few of them will be able to compete against the higher tenders that can be offered by big business outside the squatter community.
We have been told repeatedly that it is not the purpose of the Government to try to make money from the Tender System. If that is the case, what other motive could the Government have in calling for colony-wide tenders, which will automatically raise the tender prices?
The Hong Kong Housing Authority, which has more highly trained and experienced staff than the Resettlement Department, offers shops on a colony-wide basis, because the Authority is housing domestic tenants, not resettling squatters or squatter shops. The two cannot be compared in this respect. Yet even the Housing Authority has found from experience that shopkeepers obtaining shops also require domestic accommodation on the estates; failure to give them domestic accommodation would probably result in shopkeepers living illegally in their shops. But the Resettlement Department can, if it wishes, find among its own domestic tenants enough squatter shopkeepers to take care of the shops, shopkeepers who will not need to apply for domestic premises since they already have them on the same estates, and shopkeepers who are familiar with the ex-squatter customers they will be serving. Is this arrangement not better than having to waste additional domestic accommodation on shopkeepers from outside as they will most certainly ask for domestic accommodation?
Page 91 of 206
Page 91 of 206
162
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
this Council or the Resettlement Department to refuse to renew the lease except in the case of glaring actions by the tenant, in breach of his
tenancy agreement.
Therefore in my submission, there is no room for outside people, that have no connection with resettlement, to be permitted to tender. It is not as if the compensation is in anyway adequate, for instance, shopkeepers, in old buildings subject to an Exemption Order, would get a far higher compensation. And it is not as if there is any shortage of cleared shopkeepers who want a tender. For instance, I myself, have about 50 cleared shopkeepers from the Causeway Bay squatter clearance area that have been constantly coming to me in my Chai Wan Ward about this very thing. There are mainly middle aged to elderly people, the majority of whom cannot possibly obtain other employment or take up another skill at their age.
Who have had to use up the compensation, to pay for their daily living and who are now almost destitute.
They had no alternative but to apply for permission to take part in the ballot for modular market hawker stalls, but this had been refused, because it is said, they are not hawkers but shopkeepers. But they must compete in open tender for resettlement shops against wealthy merchants who have no connection whatsoever with resettlement estates.
It is not as if this restrictive tender is a new idea. It has already been applied so I have been informed in the New Territories (I refer to a tender about a year ago of resettlement shops in the Yuen Long Castle Peak area where I believe, on the District Officer's representation, the Commissioner for Resettlement, who is the authority in the New Territories set up a restricted tender, confined to shopkeepers that have been previously cleared in that area).
I submit that there is no reason at all why outside people should take part in tenders, and it defeats the whole object of resettlement which is to resettle the family including the trade, in a suitable resettle- ment estate. I say trade deliberately because, not only were shop- keepers resettled in shops, but owners of small factories were as I said resettled in flatted factories, owners of workshops were resettled in workshops and it was only because of the failure of the ex-pig-breeders to run shops that they were eventually given compensation instead. That compensation is now being used by some people as a precedent for an object which it was never meant to have had. They therefore say, because we give compensation now to shopkeepers, let them stew in their own juice. Compensation, compensation indeed, this few thousand dollars, do you even dare to call it compensation. I warn members that if they run along with the Resettlement Department of Government's views, on this matter, they are sounding the death knoll
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
163
to the whole scheme of resettlement. I, for one, will have nothing more to do with it. It is unnecessary, and a breach of faith to the shop- keepers who have been compulsory cleared.
I now move that "applications for tenders for new shops in resettle- ment estates should be restricted to shopkeepers who have been cleared and who were entitled to shop resettlement under the old policy”.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, I rise to second the motion moved by Mr. BERNACCHI.
Personally, if I had known the changes in policy that were to follow the decision to give compensation instead of resettlement shops to squatter shopkeepers involved in clearances, I for one should have opposed this new policy more strongly than I did. Our Committee was told initially that the new policy of compensation would eliminate some of the corruption practised in the allocation of resettlement shops, as well as tighten up irregularities such as transfer of shops, subletting and that it would solve the problem of imbalance of shops over squatter claimants, and ensure that only those with "know-how" would be able to obtain shops. We were not told that under the new system, the Tender net would be spread so wide that squatters involved in clearances would be virtually excluded, because few of them will be able to complete against the higher tenders that can be offered by big business outside the squatter community.
We have been told repeatedly that it is not the purpose of the Government to try to make money from the Tender System. If that is the case, what other motive could the Government have in calling for colony-wide tenders, which will automatically raise the tender prices?
The Hong Kong Housing Authority, which has more highly trained and experienced staff than the Resettlement Department, offers shops on a colony-wide basis, because the Authority is housing domestic tenants, not resettling squatters or squatter shops. The two cannot be compared in this respect. Yet even the Housing Authority has found from experience that shopkeepers obtaining shops also require domestic accommodation on the estates; failure to give them domestic accom- modation would probably result in shopkeepers living illegally in their shops. But the Resettlement Department can, if it wishes, find among its own domestic tenants enough squatter shopkeepers to take care of the shops, shopkeepers who will not need to apply for domestic premises since they already have them on the same estates, and shopkeepers who are familiar with the ex-squatter customers they will be serving. Is this arrangement not better than having to waste additional domestic accommodation on shopkeepers from outside as they will most certainly ask for domestic accommodation?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.