Page 161 of 243
298
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
scheme for social security for the sick, the unemployed, the aged, and the handicapped? I am just SICK of hearing this talk, while hard-working people who fall on hard times are treated like beggars receiving hand-outs.
Sir, may I ask the Government to allocate funds to this Department, and to insist that it do something more than provide a few trinkets to show to United Kingdom politicians and other tourists?
Public Transport
Everyone must be tired of reading about transport surveys costing millions of dollars, but leaving the roads in chaos. Could it be that the transport monopolies are partly responsible for sabotaging progress? The bus companies, to take one example, have utterly failed in the past ten years at least, to provide “adequate" transport, which is a requirement by the terms of the franchise. I wonder if "adequacy” was taken into account when the Hung Hom Ferry decided to close down. Officialdom has been greatly concerned about maintaining the profitability of transport companies, but when anyone mentions "adequacy", the official reply is always, "What is an ‘adequate' service?”. We then have to call in expensive experts to find out what the four million people of Hong Kong know only too well, that the service is inadequate. Illegal transport operators need no expert advice. They see a need and they step right in.
Commuters often wonder why the Government does not legalize what is obviously needed, other bus companies, especially in the new estates. Illegal operators too wonder why the Government does not legalize them to do what they are already doing illegally. I think I now have the answer to this conundrum. If additional transport companies are legalized, the taxes from them will flow into the Treasury for the public good. But leave it illegal, and the unauthorized taxes (known as squeeze) will flow into private pockets. It has been obvious for some time that certain private pockets are of greater importance than public benefits.
Hawkers
A word about hawkers. Again we have talk, and talk, and talk. But what action is taken? I even wonder what action can be taken at all. After all, if the hawkers are left with no rights and have to break the law and anger the public, they are so much more vulnerable, so much easier to squeeze. One way to attract hawkers away from the trade might be to begin some big project such as the cross-harbour tunnel or an underground railway that would benefit the public and give work to large numbers of people who at present have no alternative but to hawk. Another way would be to devise more labour laws, with unemployment and sick benefit schemes. Apart from this we must recognize that hawkers are needed, and must be given rights which at present they have not, and lack of which makes them a prey to the unscrupulous. I warn that unless action is taken on this squeeze, any new policy is doomed even before it comes into force. At the moment, the racketeers are being protected; at the moment, Government policy appears to be producing only disharmony between hawkers and the public, and between hawkers and officials.
Finance
We are often told that the Colony cannot afford to finance the sort of schemes I have mentioned. This is sheer nonsense. There is enough money changing hands in graft, and enough in surplus profits to finance most of these schemes. Moreover, there is money lying idle (as far as Hong Kong is concerned it is idle) in London, money squeezed from the people of Hong Kong, and being hoarded up for only-officialdom-knows-what. This money belongs to Hong Kong, and the people here have the right to use it; the people here need it.
Human Rights
As this is Human Rights Year, I should like to end by reminding you, Sir, that last year I pointed out that the Government had shown a preference (at least in its stamps at the beginning of the year) for monkeys, these probably being most appropriate.
Little did any of us realize that the Government would take the opportunity in Human Rights Year to remove some of our civic liberties. The powers now vested in the Colonial Secretariat are totalitarian. The Colonial Secretary could, if he wished, remove from the scene anyone he liked. A man who supports the Government may now have a licence to do what he likes; an honest man who speaks his mind can find no organ through which to present his case, and could, if the Government wished, be imprisoned without charge or public trial. The disturbances of 1967 have been used only as an excuse for bringing in legislation that was formulated before any disturbances had taken place. Of course, if the Government imagines that this is the way to suppress dissatisfaction, it is entitled to think so. However, it should be remembered that steam will find an outlet where there is no safety-valve. Human Rights are the safety-valve that has been removed.
With these words, Mr. Chairman, I support the Motion, though I admit its limitations because of our limited jurisdiction. (Applause).
MRS. ELLEN LI SHU-PUI:—Mr. Chairman, during recent weeks considerable publicity had been given to the police raids on boarding houses, bars and vice dens with fancy names. At the same time, more
299
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 162 of 243
|||
ין
Page 161 of 243
298
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
scheme for social security for the sick, the unemployed, the aged, and the handicapped? I am just SICK of hearing this talk, while hard- working people who fall on hard times are treated like beggars receiving hand-outs.
Sir, may I ask the Government to allocate funds to this Department, and to insist that it do something more than provide a few trinkets to show to United Kingdom politicians and other tourists?
Public Transport
Everyone must be tired of reading about transport surveys costing millions of dollars, but leaving the roads in chaos. Could it be that the transport monopolies are partly responsible for sabotaging progress? The bus companies, to take one example, have utterly failed in the past ten years at least, to provide “adequate" transport, which is a requirement by the terms of the franchise. I wonder if "adequacy” was taken into account when the Hung Hom Ferry decided to close down. Officialdom has been greatly concerned about maintaining the profitability of transport companies, but when anyone mentions "adequacy", the official reply is always, "What is an ‘adequate' service?”. We then have to call in expensive experts to find out what the four million people of Hong Kong know only too well, that the service is inadequate. Illegal transport operators need no expert advice. They see a need and they step right in.
Commuters often wonder why the Government does not legalize what is obviously needed, other bus companies, especially in the new estates. Illegal operators too wonder why the Government does not legalize them to do what they are already doing illegally. I think I now have the answer to this conundrum. If additional transport com- panies are legalized, the taxes from them will flow into the Treasury for the public good. But leave it illegal, and the unauthorized taxes (known as squeeze) will flow into private pockets. It has been obvious for some time that certain private pockets are of greater importance than public benefits.
Hawkers
A word about hawkers. Again we have talk, and talk, and talk. But what action is taken? I even wonder what action can be taken at all. After all, if the hawkers are left with no rights and have to break the law and anger the public, they are so much more vulnerable, so much easier to squeeze. One way to attract hawkers away from the trade might be to begin some big project such as the cross-harbour tunnel or an underground railway that would benefit the public and give work to large numbers of people who at present have no alternative but to hawk. Another way would be to devise more labour laws, with
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
299
unemployment and sick benefit schemes. Apart from this we must re- cognize that hawkers are needed, and must be given rights which at present they have not, and lack of which makes them a prey to the unscrupulous. I warn that unless action is taken on this squeeze, any new policy is doomed even before it comes into force. At the moment, the racketeers are being protected; at the moment, Government policy appears to be producing only disharmony between hawkers and the public, and between hawkers and officials.
Finance
We are often told that the Colony cannot afford to finance the sort of schemes I have mentioned. This is sheer nonsense. There is enough money changing hands in graft, and enough in surplus profits to finance most of these schemes. Moreover there is money lying idle (as far as Hong Kong is concerned it is idle) in London, money squeezed from the people of Hong Kong, and being hoarded up for only-official- dom-knows-what. This money belongs to Hong Kong, and the people here have the right to use it; the people here need it.
Human Rights
As this is Human Rights Year, I should like to end by reminding you, Sir, that last year I pointed out that the Government had shown a preference (at least in its stamps at the beginning of the year) for monkeys, these probably being most appropriate.
Little did any of us realize that the Government would take the opportunity in Human Rights Year to remove some of our civic liberties. The powers now vested in the Colonial Secretariat are totalitarian. The Colonial Secretary could, if he wished, remove from the scene anyone he liked. A man who supports the Government may now have a licence to do what he likes; an honest man who speaks his mind can find no organ through which to present his case, and could, if the Government wished, be imprisoned without charge or public trial. The disturbances of 1967 have been used only as an excuse for bringing in legislation that was formulated before any disturbances had taken place. Of course, if the Government imagines that this is the way to suppress dissatisfaction, it is entitled to think so. However, it should be re- membered that steam will find an outlet where there is no safety-valve. Human Rights are the safety-valve that has been removed.
With these words, Mr. Chairman, I support the Motion, though I admit its limitations because of our limited jurisdiction. (Applause).
MRS. ELLEN LI SHU-PUI:—Mr. Chairman, during recent weeks con- siderable publicity had been given to the police raids on boarding houses, bars and vice dens with fancy names. At the same time, more
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.