1966 — Page 211

Page 211 of 279

394

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

We

are only technical points which can, and should, be overcome. cannot let the technicalities defeat a sound and right principle. Suggestion can be made to the effect that either the Chairman of Urban Council should understand both English and Chinese. Or a system should be established that the Chairman of the Urban Council should be English understanding and the Vice-Chairman Chinese understanding. (Laughter). Members of the Urban Council can speak either in English or in Chinese at their choice. The meetings should of course be conducted jointly by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council. I think we must give the public such firm conviction that if anybody is willing to render his service or her service to the public, language is not the slightest barrier.

Still under the same principle, in order to encourage the local initiative, local citizenship must be created. A motion was debated in June last year in this Council entitled "That for the betterment of Hong Kong as a whole this Council recommends the creation of Local Citizenship". During the last 2 or 3 years, I have already advanced various reasons for such an institution. It gives Hong Kong people a true identity and sense of belonging. It is the duty of the Government to see that the local people will have their proper local status. Such basic measure must be taken at once. It cannot be further delayed. The creation of Hong Kong Citizenship and the adoption of Chinese language in administrative councils are indispensable to stimulate the local initiative and to carry out the Governor's principles concerning the future local authorities. Indeed, they are the basis for all reforms in Hong Kong, and at last I find echoes from the mouth of our Governor.

Reading the second principle carefully, the Governor has laid much emphasis on the word "local" or on the words "purely local". The logical question to ask is: what is non-local? What is not "purely local"? Is it the intention of the Government that any matter which does not touch the sovereignty of Hong Kong is within the scope of local affairs. If that is the case, then I would say that the scope of future local authorities so far as it does not concern the sovereignty of Hong Kong should be as wide as possible. The Article 19 of the Ad Hoc Report should be accepted which includes the matters concerning education, medical services and traffic. These matters in my view are all within the scope of local affairs.

About the 3rd principle which reads "Local authorities must both have adequate powers to discharge their functions and be held responsible for the manner in which they discharge them". I would say at the present, we as Urban Councillors, indeed have very limited power and responsibility. We may at best be termed as an advisory body for certain details of urban affairs. This is the reason why the elected members were prevented to fulfil their election promises. In future,

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

395

such abnormality should indeed be corrected. Power and responsibility should go side by side. I hope the Government would kick the ball to the side of the Urban Councillors.

Before leaving this subject, I would quote a passage from Encyclopaedia Britannica under the heading of "British Empire", it says under the sub-heading "Political Development”—I can only read from the book. (Laughter).

"This vast congeries of communities (that means British Empire) widely varying in character and absorbed within the empire by varying methods, is governed under the supreme headship of the British Crown, in several different forms. These forms of government are the outcome of a process of development which is continually at work. Underlying the great diversity of forms is the basic principle that the populations should have as great a degree of responsibility for the management of their own affairs as their circumstances permit, and that the various peoples are encouraged and actively assisted to progress stage by stage towards the eventual goal of self-government".

I have no reason to believe that Hong Kong should be the exception to such a great and established principle. It leaves us to have no alternative, Mr. Chairman, but a wholly elected municipal council as a start and gradually to have an elected legislative council. Beginning with two elected seats in the Legislative Council, Government should try to fulfil their moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong, i.e. to encourage and actively assist the local people to manage their own affairs by themselves.

After speaking about the local authorities, Mr. Chairman, I would now turn to the question of hawkers. I fully support what the Chairman of the Reform Club said about this question. I remember that in the last year's Annual Debate there were more than 8 members speaking about the hawker problem, which is indeed a social problem in Hong Kong. I suggested last year in the Debate that an Ad Hoc Committee should be set up to find ways and means to reduce the number of hawkers in Hong Kong. If the measure to reduce them is by way of refusing to issue more licences, then I would suggest that this Council must try to find an alternative offer to those who apply for, but are refused to have the hawker licences. Certain creative employment or training should be offered to them instead.

Other long term solutions to the hawker problem include the construction of more hawker bazaars. It is not the right policy to expand the on-street hawkers even on the side-streets because in doing so the right of a section of people would naturally be affected. The right approach to this problem is to build as many bazaars as possible,

Page 211 of 27