135
In the past, he claimed, the Chinese community was too divided to act in opposition to a measure it felt was objectionable. But now the Chinese were more vocal, more public-spirited and more conscious of their rights. It was time to take a stand, for “if we tolerate this ordinance and say nothing about it, other ordinances may be passed aiming at the Chinese, and if we keep quiet the Home Government will not know our grievances.”
Ho Tung took up the previous speaker's charge against the police: “If the police and the detectives would do their duty, we should have no robberies in Hongkong.” Perhaps he was somewhat too optimistic in this view.
He remarked about certain ways in which the Chinese were treated as an inferior group in the community. Chinese theatres had to close at 11 pm. At the City Hall, patronised by foreigners, functions could continue to 1 am.
There was also the matter of provisions for recreation. Ho Tung charged that “the Government gave all sorts of recreation for the European community. What have they done for the Chinese? They gave them a recreation ground in Taipingshan (at Possession Point). What kind of a place is that for recreation while latrines and urinals are there?”
Discrimination had an economic as well as social aspect: “We are the principal ratepayers in Hongkong; we pay more taxes than the Europeans, and derive the least advantage.
But not all the fault for the situation was Government's. Ho Tung reminded his audience that “if we have suffered any hardship before, it is we who are to blame for being silent. We should always bring our complaints to the notice of the Government in order to have them remedied.”
He concluded by stating that he did not wish those present to get the idea that the weight of wealth or position as represented by Ho A-mei and himself — should influence their decision on this public issue.
135
In the past, he claimed, the Chinese community was too divid- ed to act in opposition to a measure it felt was objectionable. But now the Chinese were more vocal, more public-spirited and more conscious of their rights. It was time to take a stand, for “if we tolerate this ordinance and say nothing about it, other ordinances may be passed aiming at the Chinese, and if we keep quiet the Home Government will not know our grievances."
Ho Tung took up the previous speaker's charge against the police: "If the police and the detectives would do their duty, we should have no robberies in Hongkong." Perhaps he was some- what too optimistic in this view.
He remarked about certain ways in which the Chinese were treated as an inferior group in the community. Chinese theatres had to close at 11 pm. At the City Hall, patronised by foreigners, functions could continue to 1 am.
There was also the matter of provisions for recreation. Ho Tung charged that "the Government gave all sorts of recreation for the European community. What have they done for the Chinese? They gave them a recreation ground in Taipingshan (at Possession Point). What kind of a place is that for recreation while latrines and urinals are there?"
Discrimination had an economic as well as social aspect: "We are the principal ratepayers in Hongkong; we pay more taxes than the Europeans, and derive the least advantage.
But not all the fault for the situation was Government's. Ho Tung reminded his audience that "if we have suffered any hard- ship before, it is we who are to blame for being silent. We should always bring our complaints to the notice of the Government in order to have them remedied."
He concluded by stating that he did not wish those present to get the idea that the weight of wealth or position as represented by Ho A-mei and himself — should influence their decision on this public issue.
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.