Page 211 of 312'
398
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
intelligence and integrity. It would be a pity if their scope continues to be restricted through their own choice.
Sir, I have pleasure in supporting the motion before the Council.
MR. LI YIU-BOR:- Mr. Chairman, although I have almost reached an age when in the United States of America I should be regarded as a "Senior Citizen" for whom social security benefits would have to be provided, I always consider Dr. Raymond LEE to be my senior on this Council both in service and in experience. The fact that I take precedence before him in the order of speaking is the result of an arrangement agreed upon by Mr. BERNACCHI and Dr. Woo, for which I must tender Dr. LEE my apologies. On previous occasions I have usually promised to be as brief as possible, but I am afraid I cannot give such an assurance to-day, as I have recently imitated, of all things, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN's long-windedness (Laughter) which is as infectious as a common cold (Laughter) and no less depressing, and if I happen to go beyond the allotted time, I hope, Sir, I can rely on your indulgence in stretching the Standing Orders a little on this annual occasion.
I said last year, and I should like to repeat now, that it is not right for the people of Hong Kong to have no say at all in such important matters as education and medical facilities, particularly the former. In spite of the recommendation put forward in the Marsh/Sampson Report, I do hope that Government will not raise the school fees in Government and assisted schools. If it does, I am sure that many more children will have to go without schooling, thereby aggravating the problem of juvenile delinquency, on which, I am happy to say, Mr. BERNACCHI, my senior colleague, shares my view. The basic right of a child is his right to education. If Government is financially unable to provide universal education, it is the moral obligation of Government at least to keep the school fees as low as possible. Some might argue that an increase of a few dollars a month will not cause hardship to an average family, but let us take a concrete example: the family of a police constable earning about $350 a month and having four or five children going to school. An increase in school fees will undoubtedly be a heavy drain on his family budget and adversely affect his efficiency as a law enforcement officer of Government. Besides, an increase in fees in Government and assisted schools will boost up, to a large extent, fees in private schools, imposing further hardship on more parents. It is gratifying to note that Government has granted an increase to low-pay workers in the civil service; but if the school fees were to be increased later, it would look as if Government were giving them a benefit with the right hand and taking it back with the left.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
399
Whilst appreciating that Government has very heavy commitments in providing other services, I cannot agree that increasing school fees is an equitable way of raising general revenue. I have no doubt that the Honourable Financial Secretary can find better ways of augmenting Government income such as increasing duty on liquor, tobacco, and cosmetics as well as raising licence fees for bars, cabarets, and mahjong schools. (Laughter). A community is not a happy community where wealth is too unevenly distributed, that is, where you have the frightfully rich living together with the frightfully poor. The citizens of Hong Kong are well-known for their acts of charity, and I believe that there are many public-spirited citizens in the Colony who are able and happy to make generous sacrifices to relieve the plight of their less fortunate brethren who have to deny their children the right of education simply because they cannot afford to pay their fees.
For the past few years the Education Department has had no long-term planning whatsoever. In September 1960 without any apparently sound reason and without consulting experts in the field, the Department suddenly changed the 6-year middle school course into the 5-year middle school course. As far as I can see, this change has no merit and has resulted in a lowering of standards in the Chinese middle school. In May next year pupils from both types of school will sit for the Chinese School Certificate Examination. I have no information whether pupils from both types of schools will do the same papers in the examination, but I have been given to understand that pupils from the 5-year course will not be eligible for admission into the Chinese University, even though they may obtain better results than those from the 6-year course. The Department might well say that the admission of students into the Chinese University is a matter which rests with the authorities of the University concerned, but I feel strongly that it should have been the responsibility of the Education Department to plan well ahead for the benefit of these pupils instead of doing things in a happy-go-lucky manner. Had not the Department plunged into the 5-year middle school course merely at the suggestion of a few schools, I am sure much harm and confusion would have been avoided to-day.
Many responsible people will agree that Government cannot afford to increase the number of secondary school places to accommodate all pupils who have completed Primary 6, and that the introduction of the new primary system in January last year was dictated by financial necessity more than anything else. Few, however, will agree that the Education Department has, within the funds made available to education in the Government budget, planned a system acceptable to the Chinese community. As you know, Sir, Mr. MARSH and Mr. SAMPSON have been invited to review the overall educational policy in the Colony, and in my opinion their golden silence on the new primary system really speaks volumes.
Page 212 of 312
...
Page 211
398
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
...
Page 212
400
...