This is the entire of
RESTRICTED
5.
However, the section's most glaring errors appear in another of the eye-catching boxes, headed "How the Government Promotes Exploitation". It is stated, again in heavy print, that, amongst other things, there is "no paid maternity leave" which is absolutely untrue. Suggestions that there are "no sickness benefits" "no unemployment insurance" and "no insurance provision for young widows with children" conveniently: overlocks the social benefits which are available for those in need and which go under another name. "No compulsory education" conceals the true position which is that all primary education is free and that the Director of Education has power to order parents to send a child to school. "No maximum hours of work for males over 18", is also included under the heading of Exploitation. instance?
Has Britain such a law? Or West Germany, for
Much is also made of a letter sent to the Editor of Ta Lung Pao complaining of the absence of help from official sources for a sick worker. Readers who do not know Ta Eung Fao is a communist newspaper might be surprised, after reading all about the "authoritarian nature" of the "colonialist regime" and the attempt in the previous section to portray Hong Kong as a kind of police state, to learn that left-wing newspapers and publications with large circulations are published and distributed freely and without interference.
5.
Economic and Social Conditions
This section is highly critical of Hong Kong's housing.
"In December 1971, 50 people were found to be living in one flat 15 x 35 feet - i.e., with hardly enough room to lie down, rust (sic) less live."
The source is quoted in the impressive-looking notes at the end as the "outh China Morning Post, 9 December 1971.
11 It should be 28th December and the word "nearly" is missed out in relation to numbers of people.
The report goes on to describe the comments in 1972 of delegates to the Commonwealth Conference on Development and Humar. Ecology who were reported as being
"incredulous and shocked by the government slums" and who were "appalled to see the human cost of such a crash building programme".
The comments relate to the emergency building begun in 1954 to house Hong Kong's population swollen by massive post-war immigration and aggravated by a disastrous fire which deprived 58,000 squatters of their homes. At the time, people were well content to move into the blocks which provided better housing for them than before. The writers exclude another part of the same
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.