I walked up the path to Yung Shue Long Old Village last night and found a new piece of land cleared and apparently more houses will go in soon. This is about 100 m up the path from the junction to Tai Peng, where there was an old garden. The sad thing is that there used to be a pond nestled up next to the banana trees. You wouldn't have noticed it unless you climbed across the drainage ditch and took a look or happened to walk by in spring or summer when the frogs were calling. One night I crossed the ditch to the pond and with my flashlight saw close to 100 frogs either in the pond or crawling on the vegetation nearby. It was an amazing sight. Five of the six species of frogs on Lamma bred there. Now the pond has been filled in, and soon there will be a bunch of concrete where there used to be a beautiful sound at night. What a depressing thing to see.

I guess people and the government will do what they want with "their" land, but if things keep going the way they are (i.e. Yung Shue Long drain) there won't be much beauty left in YSL valley.

Dear Nancy, as well as writing to this forum you may wish to take further action. Following a recent situation where I felt the natural environment was being compromised I complained to:

Lamma Donna's Office (no interest),
The Chairman of the Lamma Islands (North) Rural Committee (Mr Chan) who was very interested as it involved indigenous villagers,
The Police,
The Lands Department,
The District Office (Islands),
The Environmental and Hygiene Department
The Department of Ariculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
and finally the Ombudsman when none of the above seemed to do anything

While our issue is not yet fully resolved we have had a small victory in that we stopped a concrete path from being build illegally and replanting has already begun to replace the illegally chopped trees.

Take a few photos (if you have any before shots that would be great). Send emails or letters to the relevent departments (I personally hand delivered my letters for more impact)

Good Luck!

Thanks Siobhan for the suggestions; I appreciate them and will see what I can find out. Unfortunately, I don't have any before pictures up close, but I can certainly get lots of after pictures.

So, if according to other posts about the gravesites, the government owns the land, and not the people, how are locations for new houses determined? Does someone with money just decide that they like that bit of flat land over there and apply for a permit to build on it?

And aren't such projects supposed to be announced via fliers prior to commencement of construction? I never saw any fliers in the area.

The 1972 village house policy entitles every indigenous New Territories male villager aged 18 and above to a plot of land on which to build a three-story 2,100 sq ft house (indigenous means they can trace their ancestry back to 1889 through the male line)

Villagers also retain the right to transfer ownership of their houses, in other words they get the land for nothing and can build and sell purely for profit.

I am not sure how the site for the dwelling is chosen. Does anyone know?

I am finding the following 2 articles quite enlightening regarding village house policy. According to the little that I've read so far villagers don't get the land for free, but can purchase govt. land at a conessionary rate or else convert already owned agricultural land to building land 'without premium' (whatever that means).

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/44/4402408.pdf

http://www.civic-exchange.org/publicati ... 0-%20E.pdf

_________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
----- Margaret Mead

Currently, a male descendant who has been allocated land can build a 3 storey house for about $1 million on free land. He then pays a land premium of $600,000 to sell it to a non indeginous person and resells it for on average 5-6 million. He walks off with about $3 million in profit. He then rewards his ancestors for such largesse by building a big grave for them - preferably with a good view.

The arrangement was built into the original lease of the NT by the British in 1898 - based on land rights extant under the Chinese Imperial Government.

Currently, villagers throughout Hong Kong stand together on this benefit, and are represented by the Heung Yee Kuk. There is no prospect of change so long as the government needs the patronage of the HYK. They also have the ability to cause a good deal of trouble. Expat trouble makers can just be denied a visa. Which side would you choose?

No, the Small House Policy was introduced in 1972, supposedly to stem the disappearance of traditional villages.


Really? Evidence for this claim?

Try to check the facts before you post on serious subjects.

You are pretty acerbic, aren't you, Thunderbird 3. You'd think anybody with a cartoon avatar wouldn't take himself so seriously.

The 1972 Small House Policy was an attempt to codify existing traditional rights, which extend from land law in Imperial China. Hence the reference to the 1898 Treaty.

My second point is tongue in cheek - but you need a sense of humour to understand it.

Having said that, the Immigration Department have used their power to deny entry to "dissidents" on a number of occasions. They cannot do that to indigenous villagers, can they?

I don't follow the "hence". The rights you mentioned were not in the 1898 treaty. The specifics of our current corrupt and dysfunctional system were laid out in the 1972 ordinance, ostensibly to protect traditional village culture. It was a reaction to events in the 1970s, not the 1890s.


Sadly, there are many more dumb than funny statements made online, so lacking any contrary indication, I assumed the former.



There is a big difference to denying entrance to "dissidents" (such as Falun Gong, Taiwan politicians, and others "unfriendly" to China) and denying residents the right to return. And if they have Permanent Residency status (which most expats can get after 7 years), almost impossible.

Chinese Customary Land Rights extend from the Ching Dynasty. Hong Kong inherited these when it signed the lease on the New Territories in 1898. Hong Kong Law continued to recognise these traditional rights even when they were abolished by the PRC in 1949. Hence the Rights extend from 1898 not 1971. Interestingly they do not extend from the Treaty of Nanking, because under that Treaty, land was ceded in perpetuity, and all pre-existing rights were subsumed.

The small house policy merely codifies pre-existing rights. This was done to reduce squabbling between villagers. No doubt the specifics were greased to some extent.

"Merely"?
Prove it.

The specific rights in question were granted in 1972.

Present some documentation if you want to dispute this.
That does not mean "no doubt" this and that.

I lost track of this thread for a while.

Customary rights in English Common Law are upheld through the Courts. There have been cases where Land Rights under the Ching Dynasty have been recognised by Hong Kong Courts - and that provided the basis for the Government Policy in 1972 - they didn't invent it from thin air.

Since I do not subscribe to Lexis Nexis, it might take me a while to find the best reference - but I'll have a hoke around.

Chinese customary law

Some aspects of Chinese customary law apply in Hong Kong. For example, under section 13 of the New Territories Ordinance (Cap 97) the courts may recognise and enforce Chinese customs or customary rights in relation to land in the New Territories; and Chinese law and custom is recognised in the Legitimacy Ordinance (Cap 184).

Source:

http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/legal/index.htm