Page 199 of 243
310
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
trialists, generally, are concerned only with the operation of their particular enterprises. They are naturally interested in the overall community progress and stability, but they are not directly involved in community policy and community development, even less equipped for the establishment and administration of educational and training institutions. These are Government's responsibilities, and I say that Government would not be fulfilling its responsibilities to the community if it did not play an active part in the training of that vast body of people whose skills are necessary to ensure economic progress and social stability in our community.
The situation today is that very little satisfactory full-time institutional practical training is being given, and though there are a few training centres or vocational schools, none can justifiably claim to turn out trained craftsmen. The lack of qualified teachers is one of the difficulties, caused by our lack in higher technical education I intend to speak on later. The vast majority of the workers who are classified as "skilled" have picked up their skills on the job without any formal training. This is without doubt an inefficient system, producing a low level of skill with little or no theory training. A small handful of large companies in almost monopoly trades are able to provide formal craft training programmes, but the majority of factories in Hong Kong are small or medium and it is quite unrealistic to expect that they have the manpower or facilities to give proper training to workers. It seems to me that what is needed is a partnership between Government and industry in the setting up of training programmes, and many of us had hoped that with the appointment of the Industrial Training Advisory Committee that, indeed, was what would transpire. This Committee has been in existence for over three years, conducted several surveys and produced a number of reports, which, though revealing as well as convincing, have not been published for public consumption, nor is there any statement of what follow-up action Government proposes to take in the area of craft-training in the light of these findings. It is feared that further delay would render the surveys and reports out of date in our rapid development.
I would also call attention to our University education following the Report on High Level Manpower in our Manufacturing Industries. Commerce & Industry has long had the suspicion that academics tend to study, teach and/or research in the ivory tower, contemptuous of the humble beginnings of our industries, and oblivious to rapid development outside the campus. Students under such influence likewise develop little enthusiasm for practical work which is such an important part of their training, and concern themselves only with text-books and lectures aimed not so much to help develop creative thinking and wider vision but to pass examinations, so that upon graduation, devoid of knowledge and understanding of commerce & industry and unwilling
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
311
to learn at a lower start, the first choice is a government job with a higher pay and stability but little challenge and where demand for hard work and efficiency less exacting. The very few graduates turned out at great expense to the public (as high as $15,000 per student per year), seem to ensure sufficient employment opportunities in government or teaching fields for both of which one would expect other institutions should cater in the training of personnel, at least more suitably and economically.
A university lecturer recently spoke openly that university education in Hong Kong was still mainly colonialistic in that requirement on quality of our graduates was unduly restrictive and quantity output deplorably low.
Mr. Chairman, these are not empty allegations but painful truths, as borne out by the HLM Survey and Report which said that only 5% of all HLM University people or 2% of the total sample came from the Hong Kong University. The same Report also said that there was no doubt that Survey results reflected the general lack of contact between industry and the universities.
The argument given in the past was that Hong Kong industry was too primitive for such highly educated and trained (?) graduates for whose services commercial and industrial firms were unwilling to pay. I must say that this argument could not have been more irresponsible and calamitous, and has resulted in our present desperate position. The recent announcement of a 100% increase in some faculties over a ridiculously low original accommodation is welcome only in that it shows some change of mind, but the approach no doubt has to be bolder and more imaginative to meet the immediate needs of industry and our growing young generation for the following reason:
(1) The lack of university accommodation has driven many young people from families with means to study abroad, risking their non-return and accelerating the brain drain, and causing frustration to those unaccepted ones from poorer families, particularly those after two years in matriculation classes.
(2) Even in so many highly developed countries, the training of technologists, engineers and business administrators, has been greatly expanded, partly helped by new teaching methods and aids. Like in industry, they are turning out such people by mass production and effective quality control. This will improve the supply over demand situation for commerce & industry and channel graduates to go into industry for subsequent training and grooming to meet our HLM needs.
In this regard, the Report significantly pointed out that a far greater number of our industrial executives come from Chinese
Page 199 of 243
310
Page 200 of 243
312
Page:
Page 199 of 243
310
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
trialists, generally, are concerned only with the operation of their partic- ular enterprises. They are naturally interested in the overall community progress and stability, but they are not directly involved in community policy and community development, even less equipped for the estab- lishment and administration of educational and training institutions. These are Government's responsibilities, and I say that Government would not be fulfilling its responsibilities to the community if it did not play an active part in the training of that vast body of people whose skills are necessary to ensure economic progress and social stability in our community.
The situation today is that very little satisfactory fulltime institu- tional practical training is being given, and though there are a few training centres or vocational schools, none can justifiably claim to turn out trained craftsmen. The lack of qualified teachers is one of the difficulties, caused by our lack in higher technical education I intend to speak on later. The vast majority of the workers who are classified as "skilled" have picked up their skills on the job without any formal training. This is without doubt an inefficient system, producing a low level of skill with little or no theory training. A small handful of large companies in almost monopoly trades are able to provide formal craft training programmes, but the majority of factories in Hong Kong are small or medium and it is quite unrealistic to expect that they have the manpower or facilities to give proper training to workers. It seems to me that what is needed is a partnership between Government and industry in the setting up of training programmes, and many of us had hoped that with the appointment of the Industrial Training Advisory Committee that, indeed, was what would transpire. This Committee has been in existence for over three years, conducted several surveys and produced a number of reports, which, though revealing as well as convincing, have not been published for public consumption, nor is there any statement of what follow-up action Government proposes to take in the area of craft-training in the light of these findings. It is feared that further delay would render the surveys and reports out of date in our rapid development.
I would also call attention to our University education following the Report on High Level Manpower in our Manufacturing Industries. Commerce & Industry has long had the suspicion that academics tend to study, teach and/or research in the ivory tower, contemptuous of the humble beginnings of our industries, and oblivious to rapid development outside the campus. Students under such influence likewise develop little enthusiasm for practical work which is such an important part of their training, and concern themselves only with text-books and lectures aimed not so much to help develop creative thinking and wider vision but to pass examinations, so that upon graduation, devoid of knowledge and understanding of commerce & industry and unwilling
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
311
to learn at a lower start, the first choice is a government job with a higher pay and stability but little challenge and where demand for hard work and efficiency less exacting. The very few graduates turned out at great expense to the public (as high as $15,000 per student per year), seem to ensure sufficient employment opportunitites in government or teaching fields for both of which one would expect other institutions should cater in the training of personnel, at least more suitably and economically.
A university lecturer recently spoke openly that university educa- tion in Hong Kong was still mainly colonialistic in that requirement on quality of our graduates was unduly restrictive and quantity output deplorably low.
Mr. Chairman, these are not empty allegations but painful truths, as borne out by the HLM Survey and Report which said that only 5% of all HLM University people or 2% of the total sample came from the Hong Kong University. The same Report also said that there was no doubt that Survey results reflected the general lack of contact between industry and the universities.
The argument given in the past was that Hong Kong industry was too primitive for such highly educated and trained (?) graduates for whose services commercial and industrial firms were unwilling to pay. I must say that this argument could not have been more irrespon- sible and calamitous, and has resulted in our present desperate position. The recent announcement of a 100% increase in some faculties over a ridiculously low original accommodation is welcome only in that it shows some change of mind, but the approach no doubt has to be bolder and more imaginative to meet the immediate needs of industry and our growing young generation for the following reason:
(1) The lack of university accommodation has driven many young people from families with means to study abroad, risking their non-return and accelerating the brain chain, and causing frustration to those unaccepted ones from poorer families, particularly those after two years in matriculation classes.
(2) Even in so many highly developed countries, the training of technologists, engineers and business administratives, has been greatly expanded, partly helped by new teaching methods and aids. Like in industry, they are turning out such people by mass production and effective quality control. This will improve the supply over demand situation for commerce & industry and channel graduates to go into industry for sub- sequent training and grooming to meet our HLM needs.
In this regard, the Report significantly pointed out that a far greater number of our industrial executives come from Chinese
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.