Page 90 of 136
[
146
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
'sleep in streets'? Obviously, housing is no less but more important than rice. Today, under the correlation effects, it is said that the Secretary for Housing, in view of the fact that price and rent of private premises has soared to such an extent that there is a wide gap between the rent of private premises and that of public housing, intends to raise the rent of public housing by 20% in April this year. This is again a consequence of the malpractice of flat speculation. The authorities cannot bear this sight and say, 'I will also make an increase.'
In another case, some of those who cannot afford to purchase property or those who are unable to pay the high rent for private housing are thus forced to become squatters. As a result, the number of squatters has not diminished, revolving around 370,000. This phenomenon has certain bearing on the soaring prices of premises.
Although in recent years, there was the influx of legal and illegal immigrants from China, which totalled at least 300,000 in the past year, the abrupt increase of population no doubt renders the problem of residential housing more pressing. However, it is known that 99% of these immigrants are 'penniless' and cannot afford to purchase property of their own. Hence, it is unjustified to say that they contribute to the scramble for property. Furthermore, most of them take up their abode with their relatives and are catered for by them.
It is nonsensical to say that if rent control curbs the speculation of flats, no one will invest in property and realty developers will no longer be interested. We should bear in mind that the profit of companies or large enterprises in general is confined to 13% and there is a large number of interested investors. Is it that the development of private property must be aimed at profiteering? This is indeed incredible.
In conclusion, the monopoly and speculation of property and land, in particular residential buildings, should not be allowed to continue. The authorities concerned should immediately adopt effective action to impose control so as not to aggravate the hazard on the society and economy and not to ruin the prosperity. Otherwise, even if the Hong Kong Government speeds up and expands the construction of housing estates and releases more land for residential purpose, with the realty developers and speculators continuing to join hands in making up the 'false impression' of flat shortage, no realistic effect can be achieved.
I support the motion.
(Dr. Denny M. H. Huang left during Mr. Chan Chi-kwan's address.)
MR. JOHN MACKENZIE (in English): Does Mr. BERNACCHI wish to precede?
CHAIRMAN (in English): Will you please note that Mr. MACKENZIE has offered you the floor, Mr. BERNACCHI?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 90 of 136
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): I would prefer now to speak last.
CHAIRMAN (in English): Certainly. Mr. MACKENZIE, please go ahead.
147
one
MR. JOHN MACKENZIE (in English): Mr. Chairman, according to definition a Debate is 'to engage in formal argument'. Here, we engage in no direct argument; and it seems that we gather each year to be harangued by the expected few and to listen politely to progress reports from more earnest Councillors. However, Sir, I shall revert to the spirit of debate and enter a few counter-points this afternoon against the extravaganza of those members who constantly seek to denigrate the Council while demanding 'more power' for ill-defined purposes. I shall also offer the Council a few home-truths which some members would prefer not to hear!
With last year's Elected walk-out in mind, I found myself in a somewhat ambivalent position in preparing for this Debate. Therefore, I have noted to commence my speech with expression of appreciation/regret that some/none of our elected colleagues have left the Chamber in protest against this, or that, imagined grievance. Mr. Chairman, I shall reserve the ambiguity by not declaring whether I am glad, or sad, that there have been any, or no, departures! Indeed, time remains for the disenchanted to make their exit! This is my 9th and, anticipatedly, last Council Debate. I have mused a little through last records in an attempt to find some inspiration. Alas, I find myself only discouraged by the negative attitudes of certain Elected councillors over these years, and by the constant attempts to distort and impair the popular image of this hard-working Council.
Year after year, we listen to the same dreary complaints about the inequities of Government and the 'weaknesses' of the Urban Council; coupled with calls for 'greater powers' and the removal of Appointed Members. In my first Debate in 1971, Mr. BERNACCHI was demanding 'an immediate elected majority' on the Urban Council. Mrs. ELLIOTT was warning us about the exploitation of the masses, and of the anger arising from 'Government's utter contempt for the aspirations of the people'. Predictably, over the years, these big guns have continued to fire their annual salvoes of frustration against the Council, 'big business' and Government.
In these years, we have been projected to the public as a 'Tuppence-half penny Council' and a '$10-a-vote Council'! (B.B. 2/74). We have been told that Hong Kong is a 'Semi-police state' (B.B. 1/76), and that a 'wholly-elected Council' should be given jurisdiction over housing, education, social welfare transport and 'other matters'. What a prospect! Only three years ago, we were advised of dire consequences arising from 'the steady decline in the living standards of the workers' (E.E. 12/76). The fault for this bleak situation lying, we were informed, with the 'Rhodesian-type Government' in Hong Kong! (E.E. 12/76).
Page 90
Page 91
Page 91 of 136
Page 90 of 136
[
146
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
'sleep in streets'? Obviously, housing is no less but more important than rice. Today, under the correlation effects, it is said that the Secretary for Housing, in view of the fact that price and rent of private premises has soared to such an extent that there is a wide gap between the rent of private premises and that of public housing, intends to raise the rent of public housing by 20% in April this year. This is again a consequence of the malpractice of flat speculation. The authorities cannot bear this sight and say, 'I will also make
an increase.'
In another case, some of those who cannot afford to purchase property
are thus forced
or those who are unable to pay the high rent for private housing to become squatters. As a result, the number of squatters has not diminished. revolving around 370,000. This phenomenon has certain bearing on the soaring prices of premises.
Although in recent years, there was the influx of legal and illegal immigrants from China, which totalled at least 300,000 in the past year, the abrupt increase of population no doubt renders the problem of residential housing more pressing. However, it is known that 99% of these immigrants are 'penniless' and cannot afford to purchase property of their own. Hence. it is unjustified to say that they contribute to the scramble for property. Furthermore, most of them take up their abode with their relatives and are catered for by them
It is nonsensical to say that if rent control curbs the speculation of flats. no one will invest in property and realty developers will no longer be interested. We should bear in mind that the profit of companies or large enterprises in general is confined to 13% and there is a large number of interested investors. Is it that the development of private property must be aimed at profiteering? This is indeed incredible.
In conclusion, the monopoly and speculation of property and land, in particular residential buildings, should not be allowed to continue. The authorities concerned should immediately adopt effective action to impose control so as not to aggravate the hazard on the society and economy and not to ruin the prosperity. Otherwise, even if the Hong Kong Government speeds up and expands the construction of housing estates and release more land for residential purpose, with the realty developers and speculators continuing to join hands in making up the 'false impression' of flat shortage. no realistic effect can be achieved.
I support the motion.
(Dr. Denny M. H. Huang left during Mr. Chan Chi-kwan's address.) MR. JOHN MACKENZIE (in English):-Does Mr. BERNACCHI wish to precede?
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Will you please note that Mr. MACKenzie has offered you the floor, Mr. BERNACCHI?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 90 of 136
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):-I would prefer now to speak last. CHAIRMAN (in English):-Certainly. Mr. MACKENZIE, please go ahead.
147
one
MR. JOHN MACKENZIE (in English):-Mr. Chairman, according to definition a Debate is 'to engage in formal argument'. Here, we engage in no direct argument; and it seems that we gather each year to be harangued by the expected few and to listen politely to progress reports from more earnest Councillors. However, Sir, I shall revert to the spirit of debate and enter a few counter-points this afternoon against the extravaganza of those members who constantly seek to denigrate the Council while demanding 'more power' for ill-defined purposes. I shall also offer the Council a few home-truths which some members would prefer not to hear!
With last year's Elected walk-out in mind, I found myself in a somewhat ambivalent position in preparing for this Debate. Therefore, I have noted to commence my speech with expression of appreciation/regret that some/ none of our elected colleagues have left the Chamber in protest against this, or that, imagined grievance. Mr. Chairman, I shall reserve the ambiguity by not declaring whether I am glad, or sad, that there have been any, or no, departures! Indeed, time remains for the disenchanted to make their exit! This is my 9th and, anticipatedly, last Council Debate. I have mused a little through last records in an attempt to find some inspiration. Alas, I find myself only discouraged by the negative attitudes of certain Elected council- lors over these years, and by the constant attempts to distort and impair the popular image of this hard-working Council.
Year after year, we listen to the same dreary complaints about the in- equities of Government and the 'weaknesses' of the Urban Council; coupled with calls for 'greater powers' and the removal of Appointed Members. In my first Debate in 1971, Mr. BERNACCHI was demanding ‘an immediate elected majority' on the Urban Council. Mrs. ELLIOTT was warning us about the exploitation of the masses, and of the anger arising from 'Government's utter contempt for the aspirations of the people'. Predictably, over the years, these big guns have continued to fire their annual salvoes of frustration against the Council, 'big business' and Government.
In these years, we have been projected to the public as a 'Tuppence-half penny Council' and a '$10-a-vote Council'! (B.B. 2/74). We have been told that Hong Kong is a 'Semi-police state' (B.B. 1/76), and that a 'wholly- elected Council' should be given jurisdiction over housing, education, social welfare transport and 'other matters'. What a prospect! Only three years ago, we were advised of dire consequences arising from 'the steady decline in the living standards of the workers' (E.E. 12/76). The fault for this bleak situation lying, we were informed, with the 'Rhodesian-type Government' in Hong Kong! (E.E. 12/76).
Page 90Page 91
Page 91 of 136
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.