1965 — Page 111

882

Page 111 of 382

200

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

said, since a lot of things have been covered since the original motion was put forward in this Council, it is for the best interest of this Council to deal with this matter, I support the motion that this matter to be referred to the full committee to discuss. Mr. Chairman, I think in the long run it's not for the interest of this Colony that the views ex- pressed by this Council shall be neglected. Furthermore, if we want our Council to progress gradually to a municipal council then the educational matter should be within the so-called jurisdiction of this Council. Sooner or later this Council should deal with the matter of education in the Colony so that these three points I think are the merits of the original motion of Mr. CHEONG-LEEN to which I originally sup- ported, and with these remarks I support the view of course expressed by the Chairman of the Reform Club and I support the motion put forward by Mr. Wilson WANG.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN: Mr. Chairman, it seems that I will have no alternative but to give my full support to the subsidiary motion partic- ularly since most members who have spoken feel that in the light of recent events the terms of my motion are now considered to be too mild and therefore they want to go even further. When I moved this motion 2 months ago, Mr. Chairman, I drew the attention of Government to the distressing fact that in our resettlement estates there were many thousands of children in primary schools, many thousands of children of primary school-age who were not going to school despite the fact that there were at the same time thousands of vacancy places. For this and other cogent reasons some of the elected members, or I hope all of them, have urged and felt that the Director of Education be a member of this Council. We are the only Council in the Colony of Hong Kong which has elected members and yet we have no say in regard to educa- tion. It is no wonder that the Government can afford to adopt a 'thumbs' down' attitude to the public and to take the backward step of reducing the education allocation from 15% to 13.5% of the annual budget. The Government now proposes to go further, to increase school fees in secondary schools in spite of very strong public opposition, so we can see quite clearly why the Government does not wish the Urban Council to have a more direct say in education. It prefers to have a free hand to do exactly as it wishes without further regard for the deep- felt sentiment of the community. If the Government claims that the proposed increase of secondary school fees will affect only 8% of school children from the so-called well-to-do families, why is it that opposition to the increase is so widespread? Is the Government so out of touch with public opinion or is it because our Government believes it has a primary responsibility to serve the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor by reducing the allocation of the annual budget from 15% to 13.5%. Just yesterday I was approached by a man who said, "I was born and raised in Hong Kong and I have lived here all my life. I

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

201

work in a bank and I earn a fair income, but I have 5 grown-up children, three of whom are in secondary school and it is expensive. If Govern- Can you elected ment increases school fees it's going to be worse. members do something to help us?" Mr. Chairman, what this man told me is typical of the view held by a large number of white-collar families in Hong Kong. They feel that Government is letting them down, and as one local English language newspaper commented on in- crease of secondary school fees, it isn't justice, it is victimization. This depressing situation will persist so long as the Government continues to perpetuate in Hong Kong the 19th century Colonial practice of taxa- tion without representation and so long as this practice is perpetuated, the elected members of the Urban Council, and I am now glad to see that the appointed members are entirely on our side, will continue to press for the right of the people of Hong Kong to have a direct say on educational policies through their elected members.

MR. SALES: Sir, before you put the question, I rise on a point of personal explanation. I hold the elected members in very great esteem and for them I have much respect, but I would like to remind Mr. CHEONG-LEEN that he is now supporting an appointed subsidiary motion, so much so that the elected members are on the side of the There appointed members and I am very glad that such is the case.

is nothing wrong with the Council having both elected and appointed members and I think that strengthens the position of this Council. But I would like for the record to correct Mr. CHEONG-LEEN that we are not on the side of the elected members. In the question before the house, the elected members have lent support to an appointed sub- sidiary motion.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, I am extremely glad to see that Mr. SALES has taken note of such a significant fact.

CHAIRMAN:-The motion that the subject of debate be referred to the Standing Committee of the Whole Council has been proposed by Mr. Wilson T. S. WANG and seconded by Mrs. Ellen Li Shu-pui.

The question was put.

The motion, as proposed by Mr. Wilson T. S. WANG, was carried, with 19 Votes for and 4 abstentions.

ADJOURNMENT — 7.24 P.M.

CHAIRMAN:-That concludes the business of this meeting. Council stands adjourned until Tuesday, 3rd August, 1965, at 4 p.m.

PRINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, HONG KONG