Sessional_Paper_1931 — Page 153

142

Part VIII.

OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES.

For purposes of Census statistics of employment it is essential to make a clear distinction between occupation and industry. Occupation might be defined as the employment pursued by an individual, while industry is the nature of the employ- ment or service for which a number of individuals, often of various occupations, are organised into a firm or under one head. Examples have already been given of persons following one occupation being employed in one or other of several indus- tries. For instance, a carpenter may be employed in the house-building industry or, if he is engaged by a railway company to repair rolling-stock, his industry is the construction and repair of vehicles; similarly, a man whose occupation is that of a clerk may have as the industry or service with which he is connected, shipping. banking, insurance or any one of several such groups. This twofold description of employment is important; but it has not always been practised in the taking of a Census.

The classification used in the United Kingdom in 1911 and earlier censuses was only in part occupational, and was very largely industrial in nature. Then a change was made in accordance with resolutions passed at the British Empire Statis- tical Conference of 1920 in favour of separate and independent tabulations by occupation and by industry. The Conference recommended that "the classification should be based on two lists, the one of industries and the other of occupa- tions,

and the headings should be so arranged as to be capable of grouping into classes according to a fixed and defined system" and that "the basic principle of the industrial classification should be the product or type of service and that of the occupational classification the process carried out and the material worked in."

As a result of considerable deliberation on these resolutions two tabulations were produced in the 1921 Census Report for England and Wales which were in large measure different from those produced in any previous Census.

Unfortunately, this method was not immediately adopted in Hong Kong. In 1921 only one enquiry was made locally, namely, that of occupation, and the classification carried out was in part occupational and in part industrial. In view of this no attempt has been made to draw comparisons with the 1921 figures. Consequently this report, so far as concerns Occupations and Industries, lacks that analytical comparison which is one of the chief interests of a Census report.

For the present Census the two quesions were asked, one on occupation, and the other on the industry or service with which the worker is connected and, in tabulating the answers received, the classifications prepared for use in the 1931 Census in the United Kingdom have been followed in Hong Kong with a few modi- fications to suit local conditions. Full occupational and industrial lists have thus been produced. It should, therefore, be possible to make accurate comparisons with these figures when future censuses come to be taken.

There is another consideration which has to be borne in mind when dealing with these statistics of employment. Reference has already been made to the difficulties experienced by the temporary staff of posting clerks in learning the codes of occupations and of industries. Great stress was laid on the necessity for accuracy and instructions were issued that in all cases of doubt reference should be made to the Superintendent. Unfortunately, these instructions do not appear to have been fully carried out, and posting clerks who had reason for doubt do not appear to have been aware of their doubts, as an examination of the lists will show. Professional occupations; in particular, seem to have given great trouble and the per- plexities of the posting clerks have resulted, for example, in priests, monks and nuns of all religions being grouped together under one heading of religious workers. Again, professional engineers in both civil and mechanical engineering, as well as architects and naval architects, appear in larger numbers than are probably war- ranted by strict professional qualifications for these titles. These, it might be said,