Page 228 of 243
368
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, nevertheless, I would like to point out that to criticize is easy, but it carries with it a responsibility. That responsibility devolves upon Unofficial Members to analyse carefully whatever subject they may wish to criticize and to apply objective evaluation of the circumstances. Subjective criticism without constructive suggestion for improvement has no value.
Mr. Chairman, I trust, and so do my colleagues, that all the points that were made will be carefully considered from now onwards and not lightly dismissed by speeches made by Official Members this afternoon. And we expect that through the respective Select Committees, replies, and adequate replies, will be given to the Members who made their points so tellingly three weeks ago. Again, on the part of the Select Committees, I think that the Chairmen should pursue the points in each and every case which their colleagues made concerning the spheres of activities of their respective Select Committees. This is the function of each Select Committee. The Chairman should take into account the views of all his colleagues, whether these views coincide with his own or not, and endeavour to analyse them and put them into practice if they mean an improvement in Hong Kong's circumstances.
I will not this afternoon concern myself with the many excellent proposals put forward by my colleagues, nor with some of the explanations given by you and your colleagues in reply. However, without introducing new matter, which I am prevented from doing under Standing Orders, I would like to re-emphasize certain fundamental issues.
Mr. Chairman, the first which concerns this Council very greatly is the matter of public housing. Public housing in Hong Kong is an achievement of the Government through the instigation of this Council. No one can decry that point for that is so, ever since the first resettlement project was put into existence and I believe through the now Secretary for Chinese Affairs. It was the result of a Committee which this Council set up to study the matter. And so, it is fit and proper that this Council should set down very clearly its thoughts on public housing.
The issues are simple and clear despite all the cobwebs which we now see in the Housing Board's Report! First and foremost, there must never in a civilized community be any discrimination against children; that should be done away with regardless of the cost. In point of fact, when resettlement goes down to as low as 16 sq. ft. or less in practice, half a unit for a child, is even less than what I am told the Education Department requires as minimum space for a school child: 8 sq. ft. Now, the second point is that as far as it is possible for the Government to do so, there should be a return to the minimum statutory requirement of 35 sq. ft. It is not proper to carry on with 24 sq. ft. which in itself is a concession to meet difficult circumstances.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
369
Many years have passed since this concession was made and it is time that we returned to what is considered by law to be the minimum requirement. And thirdly, I think, Mr. Chairman, that it has been said in this Council time and again, but it is worth repeating on this occasion, that there should be a gradual shift of emphasis, in fact, a faster shift of emphasis than what we have noticed up to the present time, from resettlement type of housing, no matter how good and Mark VI resettlement is, to the type of housing that is provided by the Hong Kong Housing Authority in keeping with the rising aspirations of the people as prosperity in Hong Kong becomes more evident, and percolates through to the lower income groups. These are the fundamental issues of public housing. We have come a long way since the time when the Government declared as its policy that resettlement estates would only be built when the land was required for other purposes and the squatters had to be cleared in consequence. The Urban Council thought that housing for low-income groups should be an aim in itself, because people who are integrated into the community should be given proper shelter. This has now become the policy of the Hong Kong Government. It was a noble policy on the part of the Government to have declared nearly 20 years ago that all who came here as refugees were to be considered henceforth as part of the population. Let us follow up that policy by concrete application of our prosperity to the betterment of the lot of the low-income groups in Hong Kong.
Mr. Chairman, the other fundamental issue that I would like to talk about this afternoon with great emphasis is the question of the reform of local administration. This is a matter which has exercised the mind of Urban Councillors for a long time. Discussion has taken place in private and on public occasions. Action has been taken by the Urban Council--positive action in the form of a unanimous report submitted to the Government. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then, but what positive action has Government taken? The question I would like to ask is: Is there the will to act in this matter? The Urban Council in its deliberations is going ahead with the next stage of its recommendations, and it is not telling tales out of court for me to say that the thinking of the Select Committee on Local Administration of the Urban Council is to recommend to the Government, and I say this to the public for the first time, that the reform should be undertaken in three phases, the timing of which the Select Committee will recommend in due course. The first phase should consist of giving the Urban Council actual financial responsibility; it should include a change of name which will be in keeping with the dignity of this structure of Government, the administrative council, not the name which we carry at the present time which is in fact a misnomer and connotes a different type of authority from that which is in existence in Hong Kong.
Page 228 of 243
Page 228 of 243
Page 228 of 243
368
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, nevertheless, I would like to point out that to criticize is easy, but it carries with it a responsibility. That responsi- bility devolves upon Unofficial Members to analyse carefully whatever subject they may wish to criticize and to apply objective evaluation of the circumstances. Subjective criticism without constructive suggestion for improvement has no value.
Mr. Chairman, I trust, and so do my colleagues, that all the points that were made will be carefully considered from now onwards and not lightly dismissed by speeches made by Official Members this afternoon. And we expect that through the respective Select Com- mittees, replies, and adequate replies, will be given to the Members who made their points so tellingly three weeks ago. Again, on the part of the Select Committees, I think that the Chairmen should pursue the points in each and every case which their colleagues made concern- ing the spheres of activities of their respective Select Committees. This is the function of each Select Committee. The Chairman should take into account the views of all his colleagues, whether these views coincide with his own or not, and endeavour to analyse them and put them into practice if they mean an improvement in Hong Kong's circumstances.
I will not this afternoon concern myself with the many excellent proposals put forward by my colleagues, nor with some of the explana- tions given by you and your colleagues in reply. However, without introducing new matter, which I am prevented from doing under Stand- ing Orders, I would like to re-emphasize certain fundamental issues.
Mr. Chairman, the first which concerns this Council very greatly is the matter of public housing. Public housing in Hong Kong is an achievement of the Government through the instigation of this Council. No one can decry that point for that is so, ever since the first resettle- ment project was put into existence and I believe through the now Secretary for Chinese Affairs. It was the result of a Committee which this Council set up to study the matter. And so, it is fit and proper that this Council should set down very clearly its thoughts on public housing.
The issues are simple and clear despite all the cobwebs which we now see in the Housing Board's Report! First and foremost, there must never in a civilized community be any discrimination against children; that should be done away with regardless of the cost. In point of fact, when resettlement goes down to as low as 16 sq. ft. or less in practice, half a unit for a child, is even less than what I am told the Education Department requires as minimum space for a school child: 8 sq. ft. Now, the second point is that as far as it is possible for the Government to do so, there should be a return to the minimum statutory requirement of 35 sq. ft. It is not proper to carry on with 24 sq. ft. which in itself is a concession to meet difficult circumstances.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
369
Many years have passed since this concession was made and it is time that we returned to what is considered by law to be the minimum requirement. And thirdly, I think, Mr. Chairman, that it has been said in this Council time and again, but it is worth repeating on this occasion, that there should be a gradual shift of emphasis, in fact, a faster shift of emphasis than what we have noticed up to the present time, from resettlement type of housing, no matter how good and Mark VI resettlement is, to the type of housing that is provided by the Hong Kong Housing Authority in keeping with the rising aspirations of the people as prosperity in Hong Kong becomes more evident, and per- colates through to the lower income groups. These are the funda- mental issues of public housing. We have come a long way since the time when the Government declared as its policy that resettlement estates would only be built when the land was required for other purposes and the squatters had to be cleared in consequence. The Urban Council thought that housing for low-income groups should be an aim in itself, because people who are integrated into the com- munity should be given proper shelter. This has now become the policy of the Hong Kong Government. It was a noble policy on the part of the Government to have declared nearly 20 years ago that all who came here as refugees were to be considered henceforth as part of the population. Let us follow up that policy by concrete application of our prosperity to the betterment of the lot of the low-income groups in Hong Kong.
Mr. Chairman, the other fundamental issue that I would like to talk about this afternoon with great emphasis is the question of the reform of local administration. This is a matter which has exercised the mind of Urban Councillors for a long time. Discussion has taken place in private and on public occasions. Action has been taken by the Urban Council--positive action in the form of a unanimous report submitted to the Government. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then, but what positive action has Government taken? The question I would like to ask is: Is there the will to act in this matter? The Urban Council in its deliberations is going ahead with the next stage of its recommendations, and it is not telling tales out of court for me to say that the thinking of the Select Committee on Local Admini- stration of the Urban Council is to recommend to the Government, and I say this to the public for the first time, that the reform should be undertaken in three phases, the timing of which the Select Committee will recommend in due course. The first phase should consist of giving the Urban Council actual financial responsibility; it should include a change of name which will be in keeping with the dignity of this structure of Government, the administrative council, not the name which we carry at the present time which is in fact a misnomer and connotes a different type of authority from that which is in existence in Hong Kong.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.