Page 122 of 182
234
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
never
I am sure that other members will report on their own particular Council Committee work, but I should like to mention a subject that has probably been mentioned before in this debate, that is, the work of our ward offices. Ward offices were set up over twenty years ago because Urban Councillors were the only persons elected to represent the people at that time. The ward system has built up a great deal of goodwill with the public as well as better relations with and understanding of the workings of Government Departments. Councillors have dealt with every kind of problem in housing, social welfare, immigration, labour and legal issues, and many other fields that are not under the jurisdiction of the Urban Council. Beginning in 1981, District Boards were set up in all the urban districts, and they have relieved Urban Councillors of some of the heavy workload, but in spite of that, the Urban Council ward offices still deal with hundreds of cases every month.
The Government has now decided to set up the office of Commissioner for Administrative Complaints, commonly known as the Ombudsman. It has been stated that complaints to the Ombudsman will pass through the OMELCO office. I have no objection to complaints passing through OMELCO, but I disagree that OMELCO should be the only channel. With all their experience at the grassroots level where most complaints occur, I believe that the Municipal Councils and the District Boards should be included as channels for complaints. I would agree that the Municipal Councils and the District Boards should take care to vet the complaints first, and try to solve them departmentally, and that they should not pass on to the Ombudsman frivolous complaints, or complaints that are out of time. However, to have to pass all cases first through OMELCO would cause undue delays. I also disagree that the Ombudsman should not handle complaints against police. This, in my estimation, is the biggest flaw of all. The present system of investigation of complaints against police does not work. It takes up to a year to receive the results of a complaint, and the usual reply is that the complaint has not been substantiated. A few people in privileged positions have been able to succeed in their complaints against police, but the little man has no hope of success, and yet that is where most injustices occur.
I therefore suggest that the Ombudsman should accept complaints from all representatives of the people in OMELCO, in Municipal Councils, and in District Boards. I also propose that unresolved complaints against police should be investigated by the Ombudsman.
I would now like to mention a subject outside the jurisdiction of the Council, that is, education. It is clear that in spite of so-called 'Consultation', the Government has already made up its mind to implement certain unpopular options in the No. 3 Report by the Education Commission. I would therefore like once more to register my strong opposition to the Direct Subsidy Scheme, and to the 3-year University recommendation.
The Direct Subsidy Scheme seems to be aimed at restoring the old privileged education system which we have been trying since 1978 to phase out. Even if I am wrong in judging the motive of this proposal, the end result would be the same, that there would be privileged education and second-class education, according to what parents could afford to pay. If the scheme goes blindly forward, as seems likely, we shall have taken a big leap backwards at least ten years in education. The proposal has been strongly opposed by most commentators, and it says little for representative government and public consultation if this scheme is to be implemented.
As to the proposed 3-year University Scheme, it may be claimed to be optional, and that the Tertiary Institutions have a choice, but there is nothing optional when one of two choices is controlled by the purse-strings which are in the hands of the other. It seems shameful to me that the scheme of education for the future generation is in the hands of persons, some of whom have no first-hand knowledge of the education system except insofar as it affects their own children.
I put it to the Government again, that we cannot afford to play around with the future generation by adopting options that save money, favour the privileged, and provide only second-class education for the bright children of the less privileged. Our economy needs the bright children no matter what their economic background. The whole scheme of education from top to bottom needs revision. Children should have equal chances from their earliest childhood. I believe that education should begin at 5 for every child and continue to the minimum age of 15, when those who so wish may leave with a Form 3 leaving certificate. Those wishing to continue should take the School Leaving Certificate at Form 6, and this examination would form the entry point to tertiary education. The introduction of a credit unit system at tertiary institutions would then give flexibility to accommodate the different capabilities of students or the length of the courses studied. The present shortage of professional and technical skills is the direct result of penny-pinching on education in the past, and this cannot continue if our economy is to grow. It is incumbent upon the Government to prepare for the future needs of the community, by laying a good foundation of education in the present.
Sir, with these words I support the Motion.
MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):—
Elderly
Mr. Chairman, last year, I proposed the introduction of concessionary rates for the elderly aged 60 and above and this has now been introduced into Council's cultural and sports facilities during non-peak periods; i.e. from opening till 5.00 p.m. on weekdays.
This is particularly welcome especially since 11.5% of Hong Kong's total population is over 60, which is above the 10% norm based on international standards.
Page 122 of 182
235
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL