898
48. It has proved most unfortunate for property owners that the speech of the Att rney General in introducing the 1901 Ordinance Was such 8.5 not to arouse
the slightest suspicion among the unofficial Members of the Council that the changes pro- posed were other than as described by that learned gentleman, and that they were satisfied with his statement that "the substance of the law remained entirely unchanged."
49. It may be argued that if the three words added to the 1901 Ordinance were so oppressive, how is it that no serious complaints were made until after the section containing them was re-embodied in the 1903 Ordinance.
50. The reason is not far to seek. The 1899 and 1901 Ordinances contained succ eding clauses which provided that houses built after the enactment of these Ordinances could dispense with back yards if they had a lane of a certain width in the rear. Old houses having a certain open space at the rear could and did obtain exemption from providing back yards,
51. In fact, at these periods the Government encouraged landlords to provide lanes in lieu of back yards, but in the Health Ordinance of 1908, the succeeding and modifying clauses contained in the 1899 and 1901 Ordin Does were entirely deleted with disastrous results to property owners.
52. Houses completed at the end of 1902 or the beginning of 1903 1.assed by the Sanitary Board and the Building Authority as being built in accordance with the law and which in
fact were the very creatures of the law (being built more or less under the direct encourage- ment and advice of the Government who sold land in lots to suit blocks of houses of a certain height, width and depth, and of a design with which they were perfectly familiar) were condemued as illegal."
53. Lanes were no longer to be encouraged as against backyards and lanes privately owned are not allowed to count as open space. Even public roads fifty feet or more in width are not allowed to count as open spaces and under sub. section 2, it would seem that a building with a wide public read back and front is consilered far more insanitary than one with only one frontage. If the effect of all this were not so serious, it would be ludicrous.
54. For instan e, we would remind Your Excellency of the case of the present building of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, which at any moment might under the terms of the Ordinance be called upon to provide an open space as a back yard in the rear (ie., on the North side) although open from Des Voeux Road to the Kowloon Peninsula.
55. Over and above all, the Government have lately been advised by its legal adviser that under section 175 the Sanitary Board has only power to recommend modifications and not exemption from the section. The sole remaining safeguard of property owners was thus swept away with r.sults which have temporarily if not per- manently jopardised the progress and pros. perity of the Colony.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
58. The Sanitary Department is carrying on a more vigorous campaign than ever as regards the enforcement of this section (175) notwith- standing that such enforcement would, in many cases, appear to be illegal by the ignoring of the proviso contained in section 268 of the Ordinance, 57. Land is the foundation of all prosperity and any legislation which lessens its security of. tenure (as section 175 does) must be disastrous to the community affected by it and in the end to the Government itself which cannot separate its interests from the community it governs.
58. We are of opinion that section 175 of the Ordinance requires to be completely revised and that compensation should be given under sub- section 1.
|
|
59. In recommending the introduction of a drastic law for the entire abolition of cubicles or sub-divisions of the floors of the Chinese tenement houses, the advisers of the Government apparently did not study the question thoroughly or fully realise the effect of the legislati n they proposed. This is evidenced by the passing of Ordinance 23 of 1903 -nd the numerous minutes, which bave been written suggesting modifica tions.
60. It must be borne in mind that the only means the Colony possesses of housing the Chinese population is by means of these sub- divisions, without which it is impossible for the
|
middle and poor classes of Chinese to live | comfortably and decently.
61. Ordinance 1 of 1903 totally prohibited the erection of cubicles and when it was found
anworkable, it was consequently amended as above stated to allow one cubicle to be erected on each of the upper floors of existing houses and none on the ground floor. Under ooth Ordinances, however, the erecti n of cubicles in the newly built houses is entirely forbidden.
62. As it has appeared in evidence, the amended Ordinance is still found impracticable and inflicts too much hardship on the Chinese who feel compelled to send their families back to the mainland of China, owing to the con sequent increase in the cost of living and want of domestic comfort and privacy.
63. Those who cannot very well send their families away, have been driven to use cloth, and in the case of the poor class, rage,
in place of wooden partitions to secure a little privacy for their women folk.
64. This has made the condition of sanitation go from bad to worse, in so much as the cloth partitions, while preventing ventilation as much as the wooden ones, accumulate dirt to a far greater extent, and are more liable to cause fires.
65. The Chinese tenement houses are so peculiarly constructed that every storey or floor as it is commonly called is simply one long room. The rent of each room ranges from $10 in the poor districts to $50 per month in the busiest part of the city. Very few Chinese oan afford to take a whole storey. Generally two or three families keep a floor together, in order to bring it within their means to keep their wives and children with them.
66. An instance may be given of a Chinaman earning $40 a month as a clerk, though: $40 a month is above the average earuing of a Chinese clerk. He must live in a fairly respectable manner as his position requires it. He cannot live far away from his business amongst the coolies, Не has to rent a floor in the Central District, which costs at least $20 per month, accommodating above twelve persons. Practically half of his wages is absorbed by the rent, the remaining half being barely sufficient to pay for his daily necessaries, for, ander the present law, it is impossible for him to save 40 per cent, to 50 per cent of the rent by partitioning off the floor and sharing it with another family as before.
67. Even when a better paid man can afford to pay $10 to $30 rent a month, the present Ordinance presses with undue severity on him. He may have a mother, a sister or a brother liv. ing with him, besides his own wife and children, and one or two servants, The only cubicle allowed to be put up is used by himself and his wife. His mother, children and all the members of his family have to sleep and do everything in full open view of each other in the remaining space.
68. Excert in the cubicle, there is no other privacy available. The law does not allow even a little space to be enclosed for the sake of convenience, dressing and washing. Reduced to this primitive state, life amongst the wage earning classes of Chinese has become almost unbearable.
69. The Chinese merchants and traders, too, are not left without a share of the hardship. The rent of their shop varies between $30 and $100 per floor, which is similar in construction to the floors of the tenement houses. To meet their business requirements, an office or ac- count's room must be put up on the ground floor. The present law requires it to be con structed with an open frout above the counter, which is unsuitable for the conduct of business, requiring privacy and security.
70. The common practice of a Chinese mer- chant is to keep his safe and valuable papers in the account's room, andthe caretaker of these, the accountant or shroff is to sleep in the room, but the law also forbids this for any enclosed space used for sleeping purposes is a cubicle and therefore illegal.
7. The other floors of a Chinese firm are also partitioned into so many cubicles for the manager and the clerks, and any cubicles which are not required for the staff, are in the majority of cases let to the agents for other smaller businesses outside the Colony. It is therefore obvious that the hardship consequent upon the
|
|
[May 27, 1907.
prohibition of the erection of more than one cubicle on the upper floors of the existing honsas is keenly felt by Chinese of all classes.
72. In his evidence, the Principal Civil Medical Offer has admitted that sections 158 and 154 dealing with onbicles are drastic and unpracticable. The remarks and suggestions embodied in the statement of Mr. A. Carter, the Sanitary Surveyor, which is sppended hereto, are worthy of consideration. From the evidence before us, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the revision of the law in this direction deserves the serious attention of the Government and the Legislature.
73. It is impossible to make a hard and fast rule in this matter, but we are of opinion that cubicles are a necessity to the Chinese popula tion, and that the whole question in the general interest require; careful consideration and thorough revision.
74. Under section 6, sub-section 9, it is laid down that the Building Authority means Director of Public Works, or such other person as the Governor-in-Council may from time to time appoint, to give effect to the provisions of Part III of this Ordinance amanding the same.
75. Unde rsection 205, dangerous buildings may be so declared by the Building Authority or an officer deputed by the Governor in-Council in that behalf.
76. Under section 230, where the existence of a nuisance under Part III of the Ordinance is brought to the attention of the Building Authority or of any officer deputed by such Authority in that behalf, or to the attention of the Principal Civil Medical Officer, then any of these officers can issue notices to abate the same.
77. A list of nuisances under Part III is given in section 2'9, sub-sections 1 to 8, bat sub-section 6 seema to cover not only the anis1nce specified in Nos. 1 to 5, but every nuisance under the Ordinance.
78. In the first place, we would point out the inconsistency of sub-section 9 of section 6 and sections 205 and 230, in so far as the appoint- ment of delegates to the Building Authority is concerned, as by the first two of these sections the delegate must be appointed by the Governor- in-Council, and by the third the power is given to the Building Authority himself to nominate and depute a substitute.
79. Mr. Parkins of the Building Authority Department has been deputed by the Governor. in-Council to issue notices, &c., under section 205.
80. The Secretary of the Sanitary Board has been deputed by the Building Authority to issue notices under Part III of the Ordinance, but as is pointed out in paragraph No. 77 of this Report. this covers every nuisance in the Ordinance, we do not consider such delegation proper or satisfactory, as the Secretary of the Board bas no technical knowledge of Building Construction, and is therefore dependent on the Sanitary Inspectors, and obliged to sign any notice which in the opinion of the Inspector And we have even kaown should be served Oases where the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Sanitary Board has signed notices on behalf of the Building Authority,
81. In another instance a building was declar. ed dangerous by an overseer, who served a notice, which he signed for the Bulding Authority, but this may have been an oversight, and we cannot find that there have been any other com- plaints of this nature,
82 The Building Authority admits that much of the work delegated to the Sanitary Inspectors is of such a nature that they are not fully qualified to deal with, and should be the work of the Engineer.
83. We consider the power given to the Principal Civil Medical Officer under section 230, to deal with Building Nuisances, misplaced, as by his own admission he is not qualified to deal with some of them, which should properly be dealt with by an engineer.
in-
84. Several prosecutions have been stituted by the Building Authority against contractors for using bad mortar in the con- struction of buildings.
85. The contractors employed professional assistance on their behalf as they believed the tests applied by the Building Authority were fallacious, and the convictions consequently unjust.
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.