1969 — Page 156

290

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

really can neither take the initiative about any matter nor cur advice be acceded to.

It is fortunate that the Government sometimes listens to the advice notwithstanding that such advice is only of one voice provided it is a genuine and good one. There are several examples but I will not enumerate them here. The recent decision of granting $6,000 per shop in resite areas in case of redevelopment was only initiated in the Select Committee level by one voice.

So that in the present set-up, we can only look to Government for any reform. If Government does not give us the green light, nothing can happen. Notwithstanding many beautiful speeches in Urban Council meetings, if there is anything good Government should take the credit. If there is anything wrong Government should be respon- sible. If Elected Members of the Urban Council are faithful to their voters, they should speak out in the Select Committees according to their conscience. If not, they may keep silent or say something for the sake of convenience. In my view the elected members are no more than powerless pawns in a chess game.

In the past five years I have advocated the creation of Hong Kong Citizenship and the introduction of Chinese as one of the official languages. Two motions were debated in this Council in June and October 1965 in order to realize these two ideas. Nothing happened because the ideas did not please Government. Our proposals on local reforms have been put into cold storage for more than two years.

I am therefore of the view that any reform in Hong Kong can only be initiated from the top and not from the bottom. The traditional Chinese philosophy points to that which reads, "The relation between the top and the bottom is like that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend, when the winds blow across it". (#72R, 小人之德草,草上之風必偃) It is also the inevitable result of Government policy since the War because Government wishes to control every corner of Hong Kong affairs. It does not wish the participation of the elected elements into Government affairs. The Urban Council is no more than a show window of Hong Kong democracy.

In 1949 the late Sir Man-kam Lo moved a motion in the Legisla- tive Council for having elected representatives in the Legislative Council and securing for the Urban Council, a greater measure of direct representation and an increase in its financial and administrative powers in municipal affairs. This motion was unanimously carried on the 22nd June 1949 with all official members abstaining but the Govern- ment did not pay any heed to such a resolution.

Government refuses to have any reform, constitutional or other- wise, on the pretext that Hong Kong occupies a very special geogra-

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

291

phical position. It may disrupt the normal relationship between Hong Kong and its neighbours. I really cannot see how the internal reforms can affect Hong Kong's external relations. Hong Kong people are quite mature to deal with their own affairs. Unless the Government can give a reasonable future for Hong Kong, the young people will perpetually be in a state of bewilderment. I therefore suggest that Self-Government should be the ultimate goal for any reform in Hong Kong. As an interim measure I would think that the adoption of Chinese as one of the official languages and the enlargement of the franchise, should be two indispensable steps. A licensed hawker or a bona fide resettlement resident should be eligible to vote.

Mr. Chairman, a few issues for Urban Council business need mention here:

(1) Hawker Problem

Basically, hawker is a social problem in Hong Kong and it is an indispensable link with Hong Kong's economic life. In my view, we should have sufficient data and information in order to solve the problem. Our policy must depend on the correct and sufficient data, without which, it would be very difficult for correct planning.

(2) Resettlement

As I have said before, resettlement is a successful policy of Government. It stabilizes the lower echelon of our popula- tion. However our policy towards domestic resettlement is too strict and not practical. Generally speaking, the local authorities should be responsible for housing if a resident has any genuine need for it. I have advocated that this should be our policy but I was told that it would not be possible in the present circumstances. It is therefore imperative that the compassionate quota and conditions in offering domestic resettlement should be greatly liberalised in order to alleviate hardships of the poor people. The 1964 White Paper con- cerning resettlement needs a thorough review as soon as possible.

I should perhaps mention that the staff of the Resettle- ment Department deserve our commendation. They are always conscientious in carrying out Government's policies while maintaining good relationships with the inhabitants. The staff should also be commended because 70% to 80% of all Ward cases concern resettlement and they discharge such extra heavy burdens with ability and patience.

I strongly advocate that each person, whether a child or an adult must have at least 35 sq. ft. to live without delay.

Page 156 of 237