1969 — Page 153

Page 153 of 237

284

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

by the Government as the eyes and ears of the community, that the Secretariat should be kept in touch with the public, not only through the system of City District Offices, but also through the Kai Fongs. A need exists for a system of appeals against injustice operating through a structure independent of the Government, to which the Government is receptive. A man with a complaint is unlikely to suppose he will have a better hearing at a City District Office than at his own Kai Fong. The first is an organ of the administration. It will not take up a case against another organ of the same administration. Even if it does, it will not be thought capable of doing so. Its vision is not broad enough. Its effectiveness is limited. But the Kai Fongs are non-governmental. They do not receive a cent of aid, and so are independent, closer to the people, more approachable, more acceptable, more likely to provide the services that are sought. It seems to me Mr. HOLMES has created the opportunity for the Kai Fongs to take up the role of Ombudsman. With a little assistance and a little encouragement, it can be done. I think we should take the matter up from this new point of view. No one has thought of using the Kai Fongs as Ombudsmen because very often people do not see the wood for the trees—but surely when Mr. HOLMES asks the Kai Fongs to tell him plainly their problems, he must mean that he hopes to help them solve them. If the Ombudsman is understood by the public as an organ designed to solve problems, our ombudsman has been with us for 20 years. The only misfortune is that he has not been properly used. All things considered, I do not see Hong Kong in the middle of a general "boom" but if our affairs

are allowed to continue as they are, I fear a general "bang" will be unavoidable.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Motion. (Applause).

MR. H. M. G. FORSGATE:--Mr. Chairman, listening to the previous speakers I felt like a little boy waiting in a queue outside a sweetie shop in wartime Scotland. All the good sweets gradually disappeared until when it became his turn all the shelves were bare. I feel a bit like that. Most of the gems in my carefully prepared speech have already been put on show, but nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the challenge of the Seventies is upon us and I would like to see the Members of this Council, Official, Unofficial, Elected and Appointed, metaphorically speaking pick up the gauntlet, the demands of the new decade has thrown at our feet, and respond to this challenge, as did St. Andrew, the Patron Saint of Scotland, to a similar task centuries ago; St. Andrew's birthday, incidentally, will be celebrated by Scots all over the world on the 30th November.

The manner in which we respond to the challenge of our problems, depends on how we define our respective roles as Urban Councillors. Men and women of vision and experience, placing their collective

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

285

wisdom at the disposal of the people of Hong Kong in an effort to improve the general well-being of our fellow citizens, and working behind the scenes in a constructive manner to achieve these ends. Or are we merely nagging fault-finders; blind, not only to our own achievements, but to those of the Government Departments with whom we work; or to use the modern parlance, are we nit-pickers, or do we aspire to the role of practical visionaries cast from the same mould as St. Andrew of Scotland.

But just in case you think I have been indulging myself too freely in Atholl Brose, that delicious nectar of the Gods, associated with Scotland, I will bring myself down to earth and attempt to define in the broadest terms, the problem areas that are giving me concern in our Urban Council responsibilities. The sort of role which I believe should form a large part of our function, lies in giving constructive ideas to our Official Colleagues to ponder, define, and where financially and otherwise practical, initiate action with their skilled and able staff.

To be more specific, Government sponsored housing seems to have reached a plateau. After years of determined effort and achieving results unmatched anywhere in the world, we have to decide where we go next. In Resettlement, many of our tenants have achieved a state of comparative affluence undreamed of when they were plucked from filthy wooden squatter huts on the hillsides, or areas needed for redevelopment; or from the many disastrous fires of the fifties and early sixties. A new dimension in demand has emerged, fostered in part by our own policy, but also by the natural human desire to look for something better. Unfortunately, one of the principles behind resettlement, namely that tenants once better off, would move into a higher class, less subsidized form of housing, is, except in a few cases, not being realized. The old adage, that people would get something for nothing, or almost nothing, are not likely to give it up willingly, is as true of Hong Kong to-day, as it is of anywhere else in the world. What is the solution to tenants who selfishly hang onto an inferior form of housing when their income justifies a higher standard? A Means Test, and make them pay according to their ability? Compulsory decantation to outlying estates, to make way for an improved type of housing in the earlier estates, which could then absorb the unfortunate members of our community still living in squalor on hillsides not suitable for development, or in crumbling tenements in the overcrowded districts of urban Hong Kong and Kowloon?

This is only part of the many problems that we must consider, but I pose the question: Are we going about this problem in the best way? True, we have many committees, some charged with direct responsibility; for example our own Resettlement Policy and Management Select Committees, and our role in the Housing Authority. But

Page 153 of 237