Page 149
5.
241
Page 149 of 241
278
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Kong is still a Colony; there is no fixed concept of value. Secondly Government did not take into consideration the pros and cons of entrusting this matter to our Police Force. Many people think that the Anti-Corruption Branch should be independent from Police Force. I subscribe to this view. Police Force is too much a favourable child of the Government which rely on police force not only for maintaining law and order but for other duties as well. It may sometimes upset the whole constitutional set-up of Hong Kong, or it may lose balance between one department to another.
Language Issue
The next topic is about the language issue. I remember that about six years ago when I first advocated that Chinese should be one of the official languages, it was for the purpose of achieving the fundamental fairness and equality among the members of the community. As early as in December 1965, I also advocated that we should find ways and means to solve this problem and I did say at that time that in our Magistrate Courts we should allow the people to plead guilty in Chinese without interpretation. But there was no reaction from the Government to my suggestion. I think the time has now come that all our laws, that is to say Ordinances and Regulations, should be translated into Chinese as soon as possible and from a date specified by the Government all laws should be enacted and published both in English and Chinese. It goes without saying that in both the Urban Council and the Legislative Council the proceedings should be conducted in a bi-lingual system. We have passed the resolution that Section 45 of Urban Council Ordinance should be so amended that in the Urban Council both Chinese and English could be used. I was asked by many student bodies whether Government is legally bound to accept this motion or not. I should think that in a democratic system like ours the Government perhaps has the quasi-legal obligation to put this motion into effect. It is much higher than merely a moral obligation. In my view, the language issue is one of social problems. As being a social problem, it really cannot be solved in a very short period or by a stroke of pen. It needs the change of certain social or historical factors before the Chinese can really be one of the official languages. It is also interesting to note that in the United Nations this year people once again also stress the course of decolonization. In Hong Kong newspapers, there was not very much publication about the news yet if one listens to B.B.C. one would hear it. About the recently-constituted Language Committee for wider use of Chinese in official business, I would not criticize the individual members at this moment because there are some brilliant members in it. But it seems to me that the whole committee is lack of independence or detachment from the Government and the terms of reference should be for the study of wider use of Chinese as an official language instead of limiting to official business. It would be more accurate and satisfactory in reflecting the true state of affairs. So far as myself I am concerned, I am willing to give my views to the Committee in an appropriate time.
Education
About education, I think that the Government owes a duty to the public to explain why four technical institutes in Cheung Sha Wan, San Po Kong, Kwun Tong, and Tsuen Wan cannot be materialized. If it is simply because of the question of money then I would regret to say that Government has reached a decision which is not for the benefit of Hong Kong. Similarly, I would like to see the realization of free and compulsory primary education in Hong Kong because there are indeed very few countries in the world where this system has not been carried out yet. On the other hand, it is also reasonable and sensible suggestion that the free education should go side by side with the social assistance scheme having regards to the actual circumstances of Hong Kong. But one would be surprised to note that after Governor's speech on the 1st of October there was no official reply or explanation how this Social Assistance Scheme would be worked out, how much this Social Assistance Scheme would benefit the public and in what way this Social Assistance Scheme would benefit the free primary education. No word from officials. Nobody did say anything on the Budget Debate of 9th October this year. I heard that this was due to the fact that the Director of Social Welfare was not a member of the Legislative Council at the relevant time, yet there is no excuse why other relevant department heads did not say a single word about this important issue. I now quote what the Governor said, "The revised public assistance scheme, now getting under way, come in here. Grants under this should help in some cases to reduce the need to make children earn rather than go to school". It is regrettable that no officials in Government did spell out anything in the Budget Debate which can help the poor family to send their children to school. In the United Kingdom, even under the Conservative Government, it was recently announced that a family with one child should have a minimum income of £12-13s-1d (about HK$180.00) a week. If a family's income is below that amount, the U.K. Government will pay the rest. More than 500,000 children would be benefited from this scheme.
Still in the education field, Mr. Chairman, it will also be most urgent to find ways and means to give proper education to our children between the age limit of twelve and fourteen. The gap must be filled with the useful education suitable to Hong Kong's condition. I would suggest that some sort of technical education would be desirable in the circumstances. It is the positive way to solve the problem of the so-called child labour. I hope Hong Kong's industrialists can co-operate with the Government to solve this problem.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
279
Page 149
5.
241