Page 140 of 241
260
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
flow pattern through our abattoir systems until this is accepted. Regretfully, the planners of fifteen years ago did not take this into consideration. Such is the benefit of hindsight.
I understand also the economics and efficiency of the meat delivery service leaves a lot to be desired, and this should also be carefully examined.
I understand, Sir, a Working Party was set up in February 1969 to examine all these problems and report to you. If it has not already done so, it is high time it did. And, of course, my Select Committee hope to be given the opportunity of studying the Report.
Finally, Sir, may I congratulate you, or your scribe, on the high standard of this year's Departmental Report. I think some of the phraseology used in the Review displays literary talent of a high order, and what is more important to me, a keen sense of humour. Could it be you are harbouring a budding literary genius. If so, get him to work on some of the other official reports.
I have much pleasure in supporting the motion before Council. (Applause).
(Dr. Denny M. H. HUANG left the meeting at this point).
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, I have a number of subjects to bring before the Council and the Government. These subjects, while not coming directly under the jurisdiction of the Council, do have a connection, and they certainly pass through our wards for the simple reason that the people have nowhere else to turn with their problems. And the first one is social welfare.
This is one of the biggest headaches in the Ward work, and the department dealing with it leaves me in despair. While industrialists complain that workers' wages have risen, and the Government tolerates exorbitant rents, on the excuse that this reflects our booming economy, this pathetic department flatly contradicts our prosperity by continuing to dole out $33 worth of goods to a destitute adult and $16.50 to a hungry child. It is true that there has been inflation, in rents and prices but not so much in wages, and I find on enquiry that the minimum upon which any person (adult or child) can live is $60 a month for food, not to reckon lighting, rent and other basic necessities. I challenge the unconcerned Director of Social Welfare to feed his dog (or if he hasn't one, the Colonial Secretary's dog) on the amount he allocates monthly to a human being.
We have been hearing for nearly two years about proposed changes in the social welfare system. The first step promises very little improvement. Even then, what is a human being to do while waiting and waiting for that first step? Prices are not waiting for this department to make up its mind. It is a crying disgrace that money enough to solve our social welfare and many other problems is sent off to London from the pockets of the Hong Kong people, while here widows, orphans, the aged, mentally and physically handicapped people are neglected to the point of misery and privation. The Government has a law against begging, but it drives the disabled to begging; it has laws for the protection of children, but it fails to protect children from undernourishment.
I cannot find words strong enough to condemn the total inefficiency of this department which shows not the slightest concern for those most in need of care and protection.
A social security scheme is urgently needed, and it is a crime to talk of prosperity until this scheme for those unable to support themselves is made and implemented. May I add, for any who may misunderstand, that I am referring to people who CANNOT support themselves, and not to any who WILL NOT.
And now I would like to mention Education: The policies of the Education Department are something of an enigma to me. We have been assured that next year will see us with "free primary education for every child that desires it". The department has never spelt out exactly what this means. Does the Director assume that every child at present attending a private primary school has indicated that he does not WANT free education? Does the Director assume that every child labourer prefers to be a child labourer and does not WANT education? The Director has recently said some very unkind words about private primary schools, that they are out to make profit and that if they close down it is because of inefficiency. Can he really know all the facts when he says that? Has he ever examined the rents that some of them pay? Has he ever tried to help them by providing sufficient places for teacher training? Has he ever given them subsidy for the teachers' salaries? Has he ever tried to understand their difficulties? Has he examined the so-called "profits" some of them make? When these schools close down because of high rents and unfair competition with Government subsidized schools, does the Director have an adequate plan for their displaced students?
I am sure that everyone welcomes the idea of free primary education, which is long overdue, but I still wonder about the condition which adds: "for every child that desires it". I hope the Director will explain the points that I have raised.
And now about Chinese as an Official Language: This Council has already passed a Motion on the subject of language, insofar as it affects this Council. However, I should like to make it clear that if
Page 141 of 241
261
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL