TNAG-0231-FCO40-267-Conditions-of-employment-of-labour-force-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 141

Mr. A. M. Hetherington.

2

1st April, 1970

Mr. Sedgwick, introduced new Labour Legislation and said, "The now regulations will not bring hours of work for women and young persons in Hong Kong completely into line with internationally accepted standards and, as I have already suggested, positive advances will have to be made in due course

The regulations now before honourable Members nevertheless represent a considerable step forward (even if it is only the first step) in Hong Kong's labour legislation."

The first step' still obtained when I visited the colony in 1966, when to my disgust, I found that women nd young persons were still working a 60-hours week. I do not need to recount the steps that I took in order to get the women in Hong Kong working the same hours as is permitted in other Asian countries, but the fact remains that when the legislation was being prepared by you, an attempt was made for the legislation to provide for a working week of between 48 and 60 hours and a working day of between 8 to 10 hours. The effect of this so-called improvement would have been to give the employer the opportunity of reducing the hours of work for women by one minute per day and thus comply with the suggested 'improved'

'improved' legislation. Fortunately this was prevented. Nevertheless, in the final legislation that was introduced, thic hours of work for women will be reduced from 60 to 48 per week over a period of 4 years from December 1st, 1967 and och reduction of working hours clso means a reduction in wages, which is something that does not apply in any other country in the world. Furthermore, this 'improved' legislation, allegedly designed to reduce working hours provided for women to work increased over-tiue to the

•

extent of 300 hours per year.

Now we come to more recent days and I was delighted to learn that you had refused permission for night work for women, but the Administration, in my opinion, ran true to form when your decision was reversed in spite of the opposition of ell the Trade

Unions.

I now

come to your letter end I egin repeat that I have never made any statement alleging that child labour was being illegally employed in Hong KonTM. I have however, read certain press statements including the one made by Mr. D. R. Boy, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, from which it is openly acknowledged that certain employers do illegally engage child labour, and I quoted from the article of larold Yau in the Hong Kong Standard of February 17th, 1970.