HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN: -Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting is called to order. The debate on the Statement of Aims for 1971, which was adjourned from Tuesday's meeting, will now resume. I call on the first speaker, Mr. BLAKER.
The Poor
MR. D. J. R. BLAKER:-Mr. Chairman, on reading the speeches made in the Legislative Council Debate last month, I was struck by one feature that ran through them. They dealt almost invariably with managerial points about managerial matters. Very little reference was made to the needs of the poorer section of our community as such. This is perhaps inevitable since people will speak on matters they know about, or are lobbied about. But the poor as a whole have no lobby, so who is left to speak for them? In our Ward Offices a lot of trouble is taken with individual requests, but a voice is also needed to speak on their collective problems, and it is some of these that I will touch on today.
It may not be generally appreciated that, in spite of rising incomes, the middle household income in Hong Kong today is still only HK$580 a month. That means that half of our families still have an income less than this. Much thought has gone into the problems and needs of the upper half, but I should like to examine some of the needs of the poorer half.
Our Financial Secretary made so bold as to say more than eighteen months ago that we could then well afford HK$20 million a year in public assistance. Since wages and costs are continuing to rise, I imagine that if he were provoked today, he would admit that the same purpose would now require a rather larger figure. Perhaps HK$25 million? With a budget surplus in prospect, he might even go further and say that we could actually afford an increased sum for this purpose. Certainly it must be admitted by all that the need is there, and that any such sum would be money well spent. But the scheme has been too long in coming, and by the time it arrives, we will be ready for the next step.
What provision is made for the old and needy? The Governor suggested earlier this month that contributory pensions for all were not appropriate for us in Hong Kong. I think we would all agree that in our more limited financial position any extravagant scheme such as that in Britain would be money wasted. But what we do surely require is selective assistance for those who elsewhere would be old age pensioners, when they need it. The number of old persons is growing. Their problems are not passing with time. I cannot believe that money is the limiting factor. I think that we should by now be considering a scheme for a form of old age pension, as of right, for those in need, on a selective means-tested basis.
It is estimated that there are in Hong Kong between 6,000 and 7,000 children who suffer from various mental and physical handicaps, other than the blind and the deaf, and who need special education. Some 90% of these do not at present receive an appropriate education. Without it they are likely to become a burden on the community, whereas if provision were made for them, they could instead be self-sufficient, and contribute themselves to society. In our hit-or-miss approach to social welfare, their needs have not yet even been accurately assessed, much less catered for.
There are moreover no apparent plans for the employment of physically and mentally handicapped adults. We have scarcely begun to assess their number and their problems, much less to cater for their individual needs. There is in the case of both the children and the adults, a clear need for an examination of the problems involved, and a concerted approach to a solution to them, on the part of both government and private bodies.
Although public housing is provided for a very large proportion of our population, there remain two categories for whom no direct provision is made. Squatters whose land may accidentally not be required for development, and overcrowded residents of private tenement buildings, particularly those dating from before the war. It may well be argued that low-cost housing is available for them, but there exists no provision to marry up the supply of what is available, with the need, according to its varying degree of urgency.
It has also been suggested that the income limit for public housing should be raised, so as to enable those with a higher income to enjoy it. But before we do this, would it not be better to ensure that those at the bottom end of the scale, who are in worse conditions, and in greater need of public housing, should get priority? I believe that it would be premature at this stage to raise the income limit, and I would prefer to see priority given to those with lower incomes, until the backlog of such demand is satisfied.
Much thought has been given to the needs of private cars and car parking. But the poor are more interested in public transport. In spite of the very considerable efforts that have been made, the bus services still remain lamentable, and far below the standard that we should be able to achieve in Hong Kong today. Has, for instance, thought been given as to who should operate bus services across the harbour?
Page 157 of 241