HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The argument has been advanced that less people would be housed annually, were this formula to be used. This would have been a compelling argument if we were just playing with numbers in a housing game and not accommodating human beings. If under this formula, more buildings must be put up even to maintain the present rate of resettlement, would the effort not be worthwhile when the lot of human beings is bettered in consequence?
Mr. Chairman, the Urban Amenities Select Committee knows well what open space and recreational facilities Hong Kong needs and has done much work, drawing up amenity zone plans, determining requirements, formulating proposals, executing projects and so on, through the Urban Services Department from whose Amenity Division we have received energetic and intelligent co-operation. In short, this Council is doing all in its power to improve the situation, but Government has the whip hand. It is true that in this decade Government has already given the Council more land and money than in previous years. But the shortage is so great that far more must be done. Not only is the population constantly increasing, but people live in such very high density, hence Government must set aside far more public open space, both in the urban areas and in the New Territories. To tell us as Government does "hands off the New Territories" is not realistic for urban dwellers go out there in their thousands looking for the rest and relaxation that they need. Even the New Territories people are dissatisfied with the shortage of sports facilities for their own use, as you well know, Sir. So Government must not dilly-dally. Time does not stand still while Government inter-departmental committees slowly make up their minds if they do so at all. The public wants more parks and playgrounds now, not a generation hence.
I cannot rid myself of the feeling that this Council does not get unqualified co-operation from other Government departments in every aspect of our activities. My feeling is not prompted by my short experience in the ward office; rather, it has grown over the years in this Council. I am sorry to say that I even suspect that a subtle effort is made to frustrate our interest. I hope I am wrong; let Government prove me so.
Members of this Council give much time and thought to their work which has increased considerably since the setting up of ward offices. There, it is believed, they receive generally more representations in a day than UMELCO has been reported in the press to get in a month. Attendance is only part of our service for work really starts in earnest when representations by members of the public are followed up with the departments with which they are concerned. Government would only be misleading the public in their belief that such wards could serve their interests effectively, unless Government publicly assured this Council that all representations would be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. Because they are complaints by the public on various grounds, they cannot be ignored by the authorities, even though some may prove wrong and unfounded in the end as must be expected.
Nobody in Hong Kong who feels aggrieved need fear at any time that his case will not be heard beyond our confines. For the right of any citizen to make representations to the Secretary of State through the proper channels is clearly expressed in Colonial Regulations No. 169, which reads:
"Any person in a colony has the right to address the Secretary of State, if he thinks proper; in which case he shall transmit his communication, unsealed and in triplicate, to the Governor, requesting him to forward it in due course to the Secretary of State. Every letter, memorial, or other document which may be received by the Secretary of State from a colony otherwise than through the Governor will be referred back to the Governor for his report or return to the sender."
All the more reason then why this Council or its members ought to be given a full hearing and a satisfactory answer when, either collectively or individually, we try to interpret public opinion, seek to improve the living condition of the people, or even attempt to redress a private grievance. It is my intention to pursue this matter in committee so that we may have clearly established working procedures.
Sir, there is dissatisfaction among the local born that their interests are not fully protected in their own place of birth. For instance, where else in the world would the local born be actually discriminated against in the civil service to the extent that is done here? True, there appears to be equality of opportunity. Still, equality of opportunity is not enough. For sure, there must be full parity of treatment. I repeat, there must be full parity of treatment. All pay and benefits must be attached to a post, not graded according to who holds it, local or overseas, male or female. In this day and age, for an industrious and enterprising community which survives on its merits, no other basis should be acceptable. If, for reasons of their own, overseas people want to take employment in Hong Kong, they must be prepared to accept whatever remuneration is considered adequate for the post. The whole system of salaries and benefits ought to be rationalized in a fair and objective manner without making any reservation which cannot be justified in open discussion. It should not matter from where a person is engaged so long as Hong Kong gets the best available person so that the public service may not suffer. But the public will want to be assured that all applicants will be offered equal remuneration and that there will be no other benefits on any account whatsoever for whoever gets the post regardless of sex or origin. Of course, it is
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 225
428
Page 226
429
$82
Page 225 of 382
428
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The argument has been advanced that less people would be housed annually, were this formula to be used. This would have been a compelling argument if we were just playing with numbers in a housing game and not accommodating human beings. If under this formula, more buildings must be put up even to maintain the present rate of resettlement, would the effort not be worthwhile when the lot of human beings is bettered in consequence?
Mr. Chairman, the Urban Amenities Select Committee knows well what open space and recreational facilities Hong Kong needs and has done much work, drawing up amenity zone plans, determining requirements, formulating proposals, executing projects and so on, through the Urban Services Department from whose Amenity Division we have received energetic and intelligent co-operation. In short, this Council is doing all in its power to improve the situation, but Govern- ment has the whip hand. It is true that in this decade Government has already given the Council more land and money than in previous years. But the shortage is so great that far more must be done. Not only is the population constantly increasing, but people live in such very high density, hence Government must set aside far more public open space, both in the urban areas and in the New Territories. To tell us as Government does "hands off the New Territories" is not realistic for urban dwellers go out there in their thousands looking for the rest and relaxation that they need. Even the New Territories people are dissatisfied with the shortage of sports facilities for their own use, as you well know, Sir. So Government must not dilly-dally. Time does not stand still while Government inter-departmental com- mittees slowly make up their minds if they do so at all. The public wants more parks and playgrounds now, not a generation hence.
I cannot rid myself of the feeling that this Council does not get unqualified co-operation from other Government departments in every aspect of our activities. My feeling is not prompted by my short experience in the ward office; rather, it has grown over the years in this Council. I am sorry to say that I even suspect that a subtle effort is made to frustrate our interest. I hope I am wrong; let Government prove me so.
Members of this Council give much time and thought to their work which has increased considerably since the setting up of ward offices. There, it is believed, they receive generally more representations in a day than UMELCO has been reported in the press to get in a month. Attendance is only part of our service for work really starts in earnest when representations by members of the public are followed up with the departments with which they are concerned. Government would only be misleading the public in their belief that such wards could serve their interests effectively, unless Government publicly assured this
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
429
Council that all representations would be taken seriously and investi- gated thoroughly. Because they are complaints by the public on various grounds, they cannot be ignored by the authorities, even though some may prove wrong and unfounded in the end as must be expected.
Nobody in Hong Kong who feels aggrieved need fear at any time that his case will not be heard beyond our confines. For the right of any citizen to make representations to the Secretary of State through the proper channels is clearly expressed in Colonial Regulations No. 169, which reads:
"Any person in a colony has the right to address the Secretary of State, if he thinks proper; in which case he shall transmit his communication, unsealed and in triplicate, to the Governor, re- questing him to forward it in due course to the Secretary of State. Every letter, memorial, or other document which may be received by the Secretary of State from a colony otherwise than through the Governor will be referred back to the Governor for his report or return to the sender."
All the more reason then why this Council or its members ought to be given a full hearing and a satisfactory answer when, either collectively or individually, we try to interpret public opinion, seek to improve the living condition of the people, or even attempt to redress a private grievance. It is my intention to pursue this matter in committee so that we may have clearly established working procedures.
Sir, there is dissatisfaction among the local born that their interests are not fully protected in their own place of birth. For instance, where else in the world would the local born be actually discriminated against in the civil service to the extent that is done here? True, there appears to be equality of opportunity. Still, equality of opportunity is not enough. For sure, there must be full parity of treatment. I repeat, there must be full parity of treatment. All pay and benefits must be attached to a post, not graded according to who holds it, local or over- seas, male or female. In this day and age, for an industrious and enterprising community which survives on its merits, no other basis should be acceptable. If, for reasons of their own, overseas people want to take employment in Hong Kong, they must be prepared to accept whatever remuneration is considered adequate for the post. The whole system of salaries and benefits ought to be rationalized in a fair and objective manner without making any reservation which cannot be justified in open discussion. It should not matter from where a person is engaged so long as Hong Kong gets the best available person so that the public service may not suffer. But the public will want to be assured that all applicants will be offered equal remuneration and that there will be no other benefits on any account whatsoever for whoever gets the post regardless of sex or origin. Of course, it is
Page 225Page 226
1382
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.