112
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
With the growing interest in culture and the arts, perhaps the time has come for Government to designate a particular date during the year as "Culture Day" so as to instil among our people, particularly young people, a greater awareness of and love for culture and the arts.
Mr. Chairman, I have pleasure in seconding the Motion.
(Mr. Edmund W. H. CHOW left the meeting at this point.)
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English): -Mr. Chairman, the members of this Council have now been left with this one day in the year when they may officially voice their opinions on matters of real concern to the public, and I intend to avail myself of this opportunity; I shall therefore avoid mentioning any of the trinkets that make up our Urban Council stock-in-trade, as these can be handled throughout the year. I wish today to concentrate on three main subjects:
1.
Constitutional Reform
For 134 years, the Hong Kong Government has been finding excuses to keep power in the hands of British colonials and their business friends, to the exclusive benefit of themselves and their business associates here and abroad.
The recent increase in the number of appointed Legislative Council Members is not a reform, but rather an emphasis on the continued aim of the Government to rule out any popular choice of the people through the process of election. While the British Government's representative in Geneva sits mouthing platitudes about majority rule in Rhodesia, its Hong Kong representatives sit hypocritically mouthing Ian Smith-type rationalization to explain why Britain supports a Rhodesian-type, self-motivated government in Hong Kong.
Whenever constitutional reforms in Hong Kong are mentioned, we hear a chorus in unison from the Hong Kong Colonials and their business associates, and this chorus is parroted by most visiting Members of Parliament from their standard briefings on Hong Kong, that "Peking wouldn't like it" if we had any constitutional changes here. This makes an excellent conscience-salver, both here and in Britain, when the motive is really to preserve the status quo for business exploitation. The Government knows that Peking, being a city, cannot issue a denial, and no official in Peking has been named as the author of such a statement. However, the fact that no official in Peking has objected to constitutional reforms in Macau gives the lie to propaganda put out by self-interested parties here in Hong Kong.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 73 of 135
113
In this undemocratic situation, the Hong Kong Government, with approval from Britain, has taken the opportunity of scooping in revenue from every possible source at the bottom end of the social scale, while encouraging big business to amass bigger and bigger profits from the same source. The result is that for the past few years there has been a steady decline in living standards and in the quality of life of the low-paid workers, both in Government and in industry; at the same time, small businessmen have been dispossessed of their livelihood at every advance of big business.
This business-controlled Government is deliberately widening the gap between rich and poor, and is making sure that this trend will be perpetuated by continuing the appointment-system in the Government constitution. Perhaps the Governments of Britain and Hong Kong would prefer to learn the hard way, as Ian Smith has been forced to do in Rhodesia.
2.
Housing
If anyone doubts what I have just said, may I draw his attention for example to the much-boosted housing programme, which I think must be the hoax of the century here. Senior councillors, in 1973, fell into a well-laid trap. They were told that in order to speed up the housing programme, they would be shorn of their responsibility for housing, which would be put into the hands of a new high-powered Housing Authority, made up entirely of Government officials and appointees. Within ten years, they were told, there would be 1.8 million units of low-cost housing. Nothing was mentioned at that time about the Housing Department becoming a business monopoly run by highly-paid executives, and making profits at the expense of the poorest of our community; however, unlike a public company, this Department does not have to account to anyone for its policies, and it sets its own salaries by creating new posts; it holds no public meetings, where questions may be raised. Instead of holding public meetings, the Department has set up an enormous propaganda machine to enchant the public with fairy tales about better living conditions, more space, better management and so forth, all of which exist only on paper.
What, in fact, is the true picture? In the 31 years since the new Housing Authority was set up, there has been less, not more, housing, and most of this has gone to development clearances, not to those who most need housing. When the demand for housing for poor people grew, and the homeless begged even for a hut space, which is their right, the Housing Department claimed there were no