Page 168 of 259
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Kingdom, even if a man pleads guilty, he is entitled to free legal aid, solely for the purpose of mitigation of the sentence.
This brings me to another point that the institution of an Ombudsman is required at once in the Colony, if British Justice is to prevail, for in most cases the Courts themselves are powerless by their very nature to deal with the legitimate grievances of citizens.
Another speaker today will dwell more on this subject, I believe. I only wish here to record my strong support for an Ombudsman—a completely independent Ombudsman.
My next point is about:
Labour Laws: The only labour law that seems to be well carried out in this Colony is the law of "laissez-faire". All laws for the protection of workers have a get-out of some kind. I find that there is no law to prevent an employer keeping a worker on a daily basis for ever, and after using him for ten or more years, dismissing him on the same daily basis. I find that an employer ordered by the Court to pay compensation for an industrial accident knows exactly how to disappear at the moment he has to pay up. (I wonder if the Inland Revenue Department allows a man to disappear when it is time to pay his tax-debts?) All that the Labour Department does in the despicable incidents mentioned, is to wring its hands and lament that it has no power to do anything. Laissez-faire certainly applies to one class only. If the Labour Department has no power to make or carry policies, whose responsibility is it? Is it the purpose of the Department to leave the workers to find their own methods of getting justice?
The much-boosted "talks" on labour conditions between the Governor and the British Government, the advice of "experts" on labour problems, and the visits of Ministers of State, have so far resulted in nothing but a miserable proposal to reduce by half-an-hour the daily working hours of women and young persons. No mention has been made of maintaining the daily wage level. My guess is that such a law can only result in a reduction of half-an-hour's wage, with an immediate request by the workers for half-an-hour's overtime and we are back in square one, which was probably the original purpose of the exercise.
Labour laws in Hong Kong are a farce, always providing a loophole to defeat their supposed purpose, but inevitably leaving the workers with a 7-day week if employers so wish.
I feel I must say something about:
Devaluation:
or shall I simply call it "last week's money mess-up"? The episode has shaken public confidence not only in the Government's ability but, much worse, in its honesty.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
310
311
move certainly gave anyone in the know an opportunity of making a nice packet out of it, and at the same time it safeguarded the big capitalists and industrialists. The permanent losers were labourers, white-collar workers, and small local businessmen. There seems to be no reason whatever for any devaluation, and although we are told it is small, I predict further unsettled labour conditions as the low-paid workers realize that rising prices have robbed them of about 10% of their income.
One final point—next year will be observed world-wide as Human Rights Year. It is too much to expect the Hong Kong Government to increase human rights, but at least it might make some outward show by producing a stamp commemorating Human Rights Year. Instead, it has been announced, I believe, that our stamps will commemorate the Year of the Monkey. Yet maybe after all three monkeys would be a good symbol for Hong Kong. At any rate it would be better to have monkeys than to commemorate Human Rights Year with any further negation of Human Rights such as that contained in the Public Order Bill recently nodded through the Legislative Council.
To return to the motion. Mr. Chairman, although I consider the motion to be totally inadequate to solve the present difficulties, because of the limited power we have on this Council, I support it as far as it goes. (Applause).
MR. H. M. G. FORSGATE:-Mr. Chairman, the transformation of our Annual Debates from an exchange of verbal brickbats on fairly mundane matters within the orbit of the Urban Council Ordinance, into the present rather classy show of histrionic brilliance on all matters of public interest, makes the choice of subject matter for inclusion in a speech in this debate, difficult, to say the least. Should one stick to one's brief, or be like our eminent leading Queen's Counsel and his amusing "tiger", who usually have a "go" at everything. Moreover, as all my unofficial colleagues know full well, and frequently at the cost of their own privacy, Urban Councillors are expected to hold, and express publicly, views on every subject deemed significant by the Press. Fortunately, no one has yet asked me to comment on the rather quaint suggestion made recently to the Family Planning Association, that some form of sex depressant be added to our water supply at source. Goodness knows, our water has enough flavour already.
I do not intend, myself, to digress too far or for too long from our bailiwick, but 1967 has been such a remarkable year in every way, that I feel it my duty as a Member of this Council, to comment on certain events and the reactions that have followed in their wake.
Page 310
Page 311
259