- 4 -
form of confrontation with authority is normally necessary:
is it the only, is it the
I wonder whether this is so:
best way? In a free society like Hong Kong, such actions
st be allowed to take their normal course within the
bounds of the law. It seems to me that this method may be
effective in certain circumstances but wide use surely will blunt its edge and would, I imagine, prove counter-productive.
But I accept that all bureaucracies run the risk of becoming
too inward-looking and require critics to keep them on their
toes. However, criticisms, if they are to be taken seriously,
must be constructive and well-based in fact. And it is for
authority to ensure that there are proper and effective channels
of communication through which such criticims may be expressed.
In Hong Kong, we have many of these ranging from building-
based Mutual Aid Committees to district-based Advisory Boards
and City District Officers in Hong Kong and Kowloon or District
Officers in the New Territories; to central organs like the
Office of Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative
Councils, as well as petitions and appeals to the Government
Secretariat or to Government House. As far as the social
welfare field is concerned, there are both regular and ad hoc
advisory, management and planning forums through which social
workers can express their views. But is this enough? What
effective channels of effective communication
-
other if any
are necessary?
―
A responsible social work profession can do much to act
as a catalyst for greater or renewed awareness in the
Government of the community's social needs. But what sort
of person should the social worker be? What sort of
professional associations should you have? It has been