Page 27 of 194
38
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The problems that confronted the common people in Victorian England are largely the problems that face us today in Hong Kong. The measure of our prosperity surely is the measure in which our social conditions keep pace with the growth in industry. Danger lies in too much disparity between the two.
Today I should like to concentrate my attention on a few of the problems in which I feel we have failed our people in Hong Kong, namely, education, housing, hospitals, and democratic progress. All these are as necessary to our peace and happiness as rice or bread is to our bodies.
In education the picture is far from bright. Much has been done for education, against tremendous odds, in the past ten years. But now officially we have no refugees, and cannot make the refugee problem an excuse for any shortcomings. The likely rise in the population of Hong Kong has been known for a long time, and we have had time to make use of this population in industry, yet strange to say, we seem to deny that we have had time to provide adequate education. According to the Hong Kong Annual Report for 1962, there are probably 25% of the children of primary school age in Hong Kong without education. Of the 75% who do go to school, large numbers study in poor conditions, not through the fault of the school managers, but simply for lack of suitable buildings.
Large numbers of children still pass their days on the streets, opening car doors, begging, boot-blacking, gambling, carrying narcotics, in fact doing anything but glorifying the society which leaves them there uncared for. These children are a challenge to our complacency; they give the lie to our prosperity.
The Director of Education has shown his concern for the children who leave school at 12 before the employable age of 14. He is to be commended for this concern; we believe that he has an earnest desire to solve this problem. But his task is an impossible one if he is to be tightly limited for finance. The Chinese proverb says that even a good housewife cannot be expected to make a good meal without rice. Where is our boasted prosperity, if we do not provide even primary education for all the children of those who do the hard work that makes Hong Kong prosperous? Are we going to allow some of the children to be robbed of their heritage, education, while we allow others to hoard up useless millions?
The new primary school system has been well studied, and well criticized or praised throughout Hong Kong, and there is little that I can add. It does seem, however, that the Director has had to cut the bottom off the sheet and sew it to the top, only to find that his sheet is shorter instead of longer. His kindness in allowing private schools to accept or reject his proposal has left them without any choice at all. If they do not accept the new plan, what will happen to their primary school graduates if they want to pursue a high school course? Can the Education Department promise them all a place in Form I? And I wonder if the Government has considered how the private schools can afford to pay their Form I and Form II teachers, unless they raise the fees which parents already find hard to provide? Or where will the private schools get the extra classroom for Form II, or the equipment needed for the additional subjects? The headaches for private schools loom larger as we study them. What a pity that we teachers were not given the chance to study the problems before the change was made! The Director deplores the strain put upon young children, and thinks that seven is early enough for them to be studying. I do not know if this is a fact or only a theory. I know that teachers in the United Kingdom do not all agree on this matter. A normal child likes to learn, and while the syllabus does not need to be heavy, the child will not appreciate all this concern to stop him learning when he really wants to learn. Granted, there are some who press too far and overburden the child, but that can be adjusted. However, the main point is not whether or not the child should study at the age of six, but what will he do if he cannot go to school then. If the new plan is to save the 12 and 13 year-olds from the streets, what is going to save the five and six year-olds from the same fate? The Director himself has said that these early years are "a highly formative period in a child's life". Is he thinking of the normal child in the United Kingdom with the mother constantly there to train the child? Do we realize how many young children in Hong Kong will be left on the streets without parental control, through no fault of the parents, but just because one breadwinner does not earn enough to support a home here? The hardest hit of course will be the poorest, as they cannot afford either amahs or kindergarten fees. This is the aspect of the new plan that worries me most. I cannot see that the raising of the school entrance age will help children who have nothing to fill their time except possible mischief. Child delinquency may show in the court at 12 or 13, but it begins at 6 or 7, or even 5.
I am not a stickler for tradition, indeed, just the reverse; but if changes are made they should be for better, not for worse. Emergency plans are all right for emergencies, but education is not an emergency. Education is nothing if it is not long-sighted. The Chinese say "Education is a hundred years' plan" This can be applied in many ways. Hong Kong needs a long-term policy in education, taking all factors into consideration; and we cannot afford to be miserly with our children. If we are, we shall see the result later in the law-courts.
Moreover, since the Government has not provided education for all, and half the children at school are catered for by private schools,
39
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 28 of 194