Page 154 of 242
288
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
good material for training in public housing, but they should not be over-taxed and subjected to dangerous influences, before they have the experience to know how to handle these problems. For our part, however, we must always remember that we, as individual councillors, for instance in the ward, have no power except an advisory power to offer possible solutions, for the Commissioner for Resettlement to consider. As Members of the Urban Council, especially if we are members of the relevant select committees, we can, by a majority vote, overrule the Commissioner for Resettlement; sometimes indeed we do, but that is an entirely different capacity from the capacity in which we visit resettlement estates as ward councillors.
Having said this, I would refer to the particular object that speaks of not giving preference to any particular resettlement tenant, to the disadvantage of other tenants. Again I entirely agree with and accept this in principle, but the success of the Ward system has been that as Ward Councillors, we do act as a sort of Ombudsmen. I myself often see more cases in one month, than the UMELCO sees in one year and, in that way, three very important points are seen to arise. The first is to ensure that the Policy is known to individual tenants and that he is getting the maximum benefit out of the policy, as laid down by the Urban Council itself. Another is that in some circumstances, cases are built up to a point where it is obvious to the Ward Councillor that the policy itself is wrong and he, therefore, requests that it be referred to the appropriate Select Committee for re-consideration.
The third point, but I must say that in my experience there are not very many of these cases, is where someone in the administration has slipped up, and an unjustified wrong has been done to an individual citizen which can be righted by bringing the mistake to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Now, that is my view of the present relation between the Council and individual councillors at the one end and the Resettlement Department, and indeed the U.S.D. at the other. A relationship which calls for understanding on both sides. But I should be disappointed if any individual councillor, or indeed the Commissioner for Resettlement or the Director of Urban Services themselves were on any occasion not to speak out against or indeed find means to cover up any cases of dishonest dealings.
I would now like to say a few words regarding hawkers. Hawking is a problem which has been with Hong Kong almost as long as Hong Kong has been in existence.
To prevent further hawking, legal or illegal, would require a massive staff on the ground, but what has happened is that by licensing them, and limiting the legal hawkers to those licensees, another trade has arisen, that of "sub-letting". There is evidence that a large number of licences are in fact sub-let and many of the operators are fairly big-time businessmen, who own a number of stalls. This is particularly so in the hawker bazaars, and goes from the pedlar hawkers up to and including the cooked food stall hawkers at the other end of the scale. Part of the reason for this is that for many years the Urban Council, almost of necessity, has been confining licences to welfare cases, and the S.W.D. or Medical Social Worker, looks on hawker licences as one of the means to give relief, whether or not the hawker is willing or capable of attending the stall him or herself. Now that a Public Assistance Scheme has been introduced, this particular need is of lesser necessity and, in the coming year, I intend, as Chairman of the Hawker Policy Select Committee, to put before my Committee a review of the whole problem of sub-letting and the system of granting licences on social welfare recommendations. I consider that there is much to be said for granting licences to the person who is actually hawking at that site, whether he be hawking entirely illegally or is hawking under the cover of another man's licence. In saying that, I hope we will not ignore the problem of the aged or maimed licensees, who, because of circumstances not of their own making, are able no longer to operate the stall. Hong Kong, with old people, especially, is not doing enough to give them a decent living. Indeed, I advocate very strongly that Hong Kong introduces a proper old-age pension scheme, as part of the obligation that the young have to the old and which should be a Government obligation. Finally, as the Chairman of the Hawker Policy Select Committee, I intend to maintain and improve liaison with all recognized hawkers associations and urge these associations to co-operate with the Urban Council. This co-operation is always, of course, appreciated. However, I would inform all officers of hawker associations that their first duty is toward members of their association, and for myself, I will not co-operate with any officer in whom I have a suspicion that his intention is to line his own pocket, or, in Chinese, to wet his own feet when passing the water.
I also owe the Council a report as Chairman of the Estimates Select Committee. At present, the work is almost nominal. We are not yet responsible for our own financing, and we almost simply rubber-stamp the staff estimates prepared by the U.S.D. Department. Indeed, the staff estimates prepared by the Resettlement Department, which in my opinion should go through this Select Committee, are only presented to a Resettlement Select Committee. I remember in the old days, having all the Senior officers of both departments attending before the Estimates Select Committee to justify their requests for more staff, etc. With changing years, however, it has not appeared exactly necessary to do this, since all our recommendations are inevitably altered by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, who seem to pay little
289
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 155 of 242