Page 103 of 120
172
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
fear can be removed by restricting the opening hours to the early evening, say, 8.00 p.m. so that it cannot cater for social function. With factory canteens, I trust the policy must be the more the merrier.
Liquor Licence
The Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board has indicated that measures are being taken to prevent the employment of under age girls in liquor licenced premises where the employees are engaged in activities of a vice establishment. The need to amend regulation 29 of the Dutiable Commodities (Liquor) Regulations Cap. 109 in order to bar any girl under 18 from such employment had also been expounded by other members in the last Conventional Debate suffice to say that the Liquor Licencing Board will differentiate between these 'vice establishments' and Bona Fide restaurants so that no hardship would be caused to the latter.
Immigration
May I traverse outside of the scope of Urban Council duties and say a few words on Immigration, which, I think is the major public issue as we move from 1980 to 1981. No one who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of Hong Kong would fail to support the abolition of the touch base policy. However, the work did not stop there, we still have illegal immigrants from other parts of the world than China to deal with.
Of these other illegal immigrants there are many from Macao. About 4,000 of them are applying for Hong Kong Identity cards. An initial survey made of the 619 Macao IIs who provided details to a 'consultation centre' set up to advise them how to prepare for interviews with the Immigration Department showed that 52.4% of them are married with family in Hong Kong. The survey was made on the 1st and 2nd of November 1980. They were mainly tailors, jewellery makers, restaurant employees and skilled factory workers as there was no university in Macao. Over 80% were able to show their employers would keep them in employment if they were permitted to stay.
Since the 1st of November 1981 the picture has changed. The centre now receives daily reports of arrests, removals as well as notification of issues of Hong Kong Identity Cards. However, what criteria are adopted to distinguish one applicant from another remains a complete mystery and strangely enough, very few, if any questions are asked.
The Government in its formal replies to the representatives of the Macao IIs states that each case would be carefully considered sympathetically on humanitarian grounds. We have heard nothing to the contrary. Just before the new year 9 members of a family were arrested leaving the wives and children of 3 of them in panic and a general apprehension in the minds of others with families as to whether they should turn up for interviews. Later on it was revealed that this family had 3 times been removed and 4 times ran the gauntlet: and even then after investigations were made 2 of the male members were released and given identity cards and one of the female members will return from Macao to join her husband.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
173
Page 103 of 120
ran the gauntlet: and even then after investigations were made 2 of the male members were released and given identity cards and one of the female members will return from Macao to join her husband.
Up until a week ago about 690 Macao IIs and about 210 'overstayers' from other parts of Asia had been given permission to stay in Hong Kong. Just over 200 removal orders had been executed or recommended so far. In terms of Macao IIs 3 out of 4 applicants were successful. The overall percentage of successful application is 70%. I believe the Government has kept to their 'promise' of giving sympathetic consideration to these people who are keen not to become 'underground citizens'.
However other hardships remain. The queue of interviews are now reaching into May 1981. Some of these applicants are holders of a kind of an anomalous white card which bears no photograph or finger print to identify that the holder is indeed the person named in the card. This document is not accepted as proof of the holder's identity in order to secure employment. Minus job and income would not be easy for them to wait for their turn in the queue.
From the point of view of a Hong Kong citizen I hope that the public is informed soon why one family is to be split and another is kept together? Are we giving our citizenship to those who have been here for 3 years or 5 years or 7 years? Do we differentiate between couples where the husband is a Hong Kong citizen from that of the wife being a Hong Kong citizen?
Also after this Herculean task is done I hope the Government will consider issuing a new type of identification card. Until then, I don't think our immigration problems are over.
Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.
(Mr. Kenneth LO left during Miss Maria TAM's address.)
MR. AUGUSTINE S. K. CHUNG (in English):----Another year has gone by with the Council having completed more and better facilities and provided better service to the community than before. The Council owes this to the support of the public and the efforts of the members who have shown more co-operation and less conflict than in previous years. Although I have a great deal to say on a number of matters arising from the Council's work in the past one year, I find it appropriate to touch only the following matters in this meeting because of the limited time allowed. As a matter of fact, there are only two subjects:
Keep Hong Kong Clean
Many people think that it is the sole duty of the Urban Council to keep Hong Kong clean. This view is not correct because such responsibility is borne not only by the Council but by the entire population of Hong Kong. The indifferent attitude to environmental hygiene and the lack of sense of
Page 103 of 120