Page 151 of 237
280
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I sincerely hope these remarks will find focus.
I beg to support the Motion before Council. (Applause).
MR. SOLOMON RAFEEK:---Mr. Chairman, much water has flowed under the bridge since we last met in annual debate. We have brought problems up for discussion in times of adversity, and uncertainty, and today we are talking at a moment in times which the communications' media have chosen to describe as a period of boom. It is the word "boom" that I wish to take up as my theme. I regret that I must confess I was unable to discover evidence of any "boom" in relation to the advancement of the economic fortunes of the man in the street. He reads and hears about a "boom" in Hong Kong today, but when he searches into his own affairs for a proof of it, he meets with a blank, and in some cases, even the reverse of it. I consider it wrong that catch phrases looking good on paper are distorted and given a coat of varnish so that they are seized upon as a reflection of general conditions. A man whose salary has not increased, but whose market bills have risen by 20 per cent, and whose rent by 15 or even 30 per cent, will tell you that he is not conscious of any boom. He will tell you that he is gravely conscious of serious inroads into his pocket instead, that elementary things like the cost of meat and fish, clothing for his children, and the maintenance of an independent roof over his head, are giving him cause for concern. He will tell you of a growing sense of dismay felt by the masses as they read of astronomic annual profits by vested interests, while their own stationary incomes, since they remain static, imply a progressive decline in purchasing power of the only money that means anything to them. So that it is a misrepresentation of facts to talk of a "boom" in Hong Kong. It is true that the rich are getting richer, but it is not true that the poor are getting richer. For to whom does the "boom" apply?
It applies to landlords. Since we last met in similar circumstances, a shortage of housing has developed, and the landlords have seized upon this chance to advance their fortunes. I understand that one industrial landlord in North Point a few weeks ago raised the rent of a factory in his premises by 100 per cent. He certainly agrees that a "boom" has arrived, but I wonder if the manufacturer who will now have to find alternative premises, or pay through the nose a rental that must accordingly raise the cost of his goods, shares his view? Headlines almost every day announce fantastic advances in the export trade, another record in the sale of specific lines, another astronomical turnover. The world has the impression this wealthy Colony is living off the fat of the land, and the mass media preserve this illusion.
But we in this room know better. Who can say in all honesty that the "boom" enjoyed by landlords, industrialists and monopolists has percolated down to the man in the street? Can we say that the rate of suicide resulting from economic despair has gone down? Can we say that hundreds of thousands of clerks, shop assistants, waiters in restaurants, children with their "dim sum" trays, have been given a new deal?
Where is the Shop Act that even the mass media have been demanding for some time? Precisely at a period when it has become a universal truth that less and less women are willing to become servants, we are given a Workmen's Compensation Bill covering the amah.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
281
When there was a need to insure her, she had no insurance. Now that the need has been removed because she no longer wishes to become an amah, she is protected. I have heard of stable doors being locked when the horse has bolted, but I did not expect to live to see the day of “cook” insurance when she is not there to boil the soup. Or has the Government another kettle of fish in mind? If this is the yardstick to measure the rate of progress of social security in Hong Kong, or the arrival of benefits when their dispensation has been over-taken by events, we can expect a Shop Act when department-store assistants have become joint owners, and an old-age pension scheme when all the elderly have been buried. In Singapore and Malaysia, a provident-fund scheme has been in operation for some years. When we ask for this in Hong Kong, the Director of Social Welfare tells us to be satisfied with additional homes for the aged that will take care of another 2,500. Mind you, another 2,500 people in a city of four million.
One retired Colonial Secretary told us a few years ago that the Colony should take pride in the opening of a new school every few days. No such claim is now advanced by the educational authorities, but I believe it is true that a new school is opened every few days--- a dancing school, a mahjong school, a beauty school. Yes, indeed, these classes are packed to overflowing, but I do not know if the graduates contribute materially to the national income of Hong Kong: I do not know that juvenile delinquency has gone down as a result.
Industrialists have been clamouring for more schools with an industrial bias, more technical classes, the creation of more courses that will transform the illiterate into skilled workmen. Two years ago, we were promised a Polytechnic. A working party was set up to look into this matter, and then only the other day, we were told it would accept 24,000 pupils in 1973. Speaking in the Legislative Council the other day, the Director of Education made it plain that the Government would not be able to undertake any scheme for a rapid expansion of secondary-school places without the active participation of private enterprise and missionary bodies. It is no longer a question of one legitimate school every few days. The implication is that if private schools are not built, with or without Government aid, the demand for school places will outgrow supply to reach a critical point very soon. Yet,
Page 152 of 237