Page 129 of 206
236
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
for convenience with disregard to progress and efficiency. Surely, it must be possible from among the Members who make up this Council to find someone not only suitable but admirably equipped to do this admittedly very onerous job well.
Suggestions from members to having someone from outside this Council would, in no uncertain terms, spell out lack of confidence in themselves and their colleagues and in fact a declaration of inefficiency and incompetence.
I don't think it can be repeated enough that the kind of person to be chosen will reflect the responsible acceptance of the new autonomy conferred on this Council by the White Paper. Indeed, it will not be an easy function to fulfill, and will require time and devotion to the job, a highly developed sense of social and civic responsibility and to crown all, a sympathetic "father confessor" attitude towards his colleagues. I would like therefore to urge my colleagues to consider these points and to remember that their choice must be made in reflection to the efficiency of the Council and improvement of the conditions to the benefit of the community. I am glad, I am not a candidate.
Finally, Sir, I would like to turn to the new innovation which is being introduced today. Many of my colleagues have worked very hard indeed towards achieving this bi-lingual system and they must be very pleased and proud that at long last it is here to stay. No doubt the benefits of this system are many, particularly in the field of greater community interest and sense of involvement on the part of the young people. But I would like to submit a cautionary note about the possible abuses of this system. With greater publicity there will be no doubt greater temptation to use this very expensive toy to play to the gallery. Responsibility as community representatives must be brought into this sphere at a very early stage before it brings this Council into disrepute.
Sir, I beg to support the Motion. (Applause).
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (In English):-In the past, this Annual Debate appears to have been a continuous battle to try to convince the authorities in Hong Kong of the needs of the Hong Kong people in housing, recreation, social welfare and other community services.
It is refreshing this year to notice one outstanding difference, that is, that the Governor has joined in the battle for social improvement.
It is not necessary for me to repeat anything that has been more ably expressed by the Governor himself in his recent speech in the Legislative Council, but I should like to refer mainly to one of the subjects he covered, as it is a matter of concern to this Council, namely, HOUSING.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
237
subjects he covered, as it is a matter of concern to this Council, namely, HOUSING.
I doubt if any bureaucrat in Hong Kong in the past has ever looked straight at this problem and calculated the needs of the people. I have a feeling that in the past every effort has been made to avoid investing Hong Kong's money in the Hong Kong people. I am therefore more than happy that the Governor has acknowledged the critical need for housing, and has decided that in the long run, secure housing solves a great number of social problems in any society. The Governor's speech has come quite early in his term of office, and for that he is to be congratulated; but it has come none too soon for Hong Kong, as there is now literally nowhere for lower income people to find even one room to rent. More and more people living in resettlement rooms at reasonable rents are insufferably overcrowded, and I see a steep rise in the number of mental cases, which I believe are mainly the result of concentrated living. More and more people are now being evicted from resettlement rooms for one reason or another, and more and more are being evicted from private housing for any reason the landlords can find, or even for no reason at all.
Consequently, people are pleading for permission to erect huts, even in areas that have already proved dangerous in floods and typhoons, for the simple reason that there is no alternative except to live on the streets. And because so many people are now driven to ask for sites for huts, it appears that the Resettlement Department has set up its own regulations to try to stem the tide of movement from houses into huts. Maybe other Councillors besides myself have noticed that the Resettlement Department has now instituted its own social welfare investigations of applicants for sites in licensed areas, and is refusing them to some persons on the grounds of income. I can find nothing in the regulations in any Government White Paper which states that homeless people must have below a certain income to get a hut space. In fact I have no objection to income limits provided they are reasonable, that they are officially recognized, and that the Department is sure that the family concerned can certainly rent a room. Does the Resettlement Department know, for example, that the cheapest and smallest room now costs about $300 monthly, and landlords will not accept tenants with children or permit cooking. One desperate father wrote and asked me, "Since when have children been refused housing rights?" Yet that is the position in the private sector.
During the 1967 disturbances, families living in resettlement were invited to apply for the addition of relatives they wished to bring into their rooms; later, only married sons were allowed to add their wives to the tenancy; then sons could only add their wives if they
Page 129 of 206