Page 179 of 237
334
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
owners of these premises, restricted by rent control after the war do not have any opportunity to share any property boom during the recent months and at any time. They are unable to sell their premises because there are no takers. Advertisements bring no enquiries. In other words, the delay in the slum clearance are all at the expense of these owners. Personally I like to see that every and each property owner in the colony who makes equal contributions in time of housing shortage should have in turn equal opportunities in good times.
A number of provisions in the Landlord and Tenants Ordinance regarding restricted rents was designed to protect the tenants from eviction by landlords who were planning private development of the properties. As Hong Kong's economy is developing rapidly, it is now found that these provisions may seem unrealistic and unfair to the landlords and in most cases the landlords themselves need protection rather than the tenants. Therefore, I think that those unrealistic and unfair provisions should be abolished as soon as possible because many people prosper on unfair competition at the expenses of the owners of these restricted premises.
On the hawkers problem, we now are having or going to have an agreed hawker policy. I say having because we have decided on a number of phases of the hawkers problem. I say "going to have" because, no matter how complicated the problem is I have confidence in the policy select committee. One thing we have been all talking about but have not yet decided is the sociological treatment of hawkers -- whether it is in industry or whether it is in social welfare or both. I think we should decide on this point as quickly as possible because we have been attending to so many hawkers' problems, hawkers' appeals, complaints against the hawkers and so many reports on hawkers fighting with the control force with violence. I think that the social welfare officers are wasting a lot of time and efforts on checking the compassionate grounds of the appellants (including those on resettlement). My personal view is that when the public assistance scheme is brought into force, the compassionate cases should be left to the Director of Social Welfare by assistance in cash or other form except by hawking whenever possible. Personally, I quite agree that hawking may help a family to stand on its feet as it can be proved that the income earned from hawking is always better than that offered to unskilled workers in industry.
On the cooked food stalls which is definitely an industry I think that a relaxation of the restaurant licensing may probably help. Instead of building cooked food bazaars to which cooked food stalls may be resited, I think that it is more economical for the Council to rent shops in suitable areas in urban areas, design these shops into stalls and sublet them to these cooked food operators. When such shops are available, cooked food stalls in that particular district should not be allowed.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
335
stalls and sublet them to these cooked food operators. When such shops are available, cooked food stalls in that particular district should not be allowed.
Finally, I think I have to make some comments on Urban Council itself. When I knew that I was appointed to the Urban Council I had tried to seek some advice from some seniors, and they have told me that "Peter, I think you are alright in the Urban Council but the only advice I like to give you is that you must try your best to appreciate the jokes expressed between Sonny Sales with Brook and Hilton". During the past 20 months in the Council I observe that they are very polished politicians and I am very glad to have an opportunity to learn from them. Another thing I observe during the past 20 months is that all the Official Members, Appointed Members and Elected Members are working closely together and I like to say to other people that the Urban Council is one family and I am very glad that I am a Member of that family.
With these words I support the Motion before Council. (Applause).
MR. HENRY WONG:- Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my deep concern regarding three problems confronting us today. In my opinion they demand our immediate attention, for the first two relates to our most precious asset -- the Youth of Hong Kong.
First, I should like to deal with the problem of Education. To begin with, not enough is being done to care for the technical and vocational needs of our youth. Our present system is too much linked to familiarity with text books and learning by heart. It concentrates too much on the importance of examinations. It has always been geared to the white collar workers and does not adequately provide an education which leads to an honourable and well-paid job in industry. The result is that our industry is crying out for more skilled labour, yet our streets and places of amusement seem crowded with wandering youth wasting their energy and time. Is Government paying enough attention to this matter?
Although it is true that Government is planning for subsidized primary education for all in the very near future there is still a gap between 12 and 16 years old groups after taking into account the 6-year primary education period. It should be clear that this gap is an obvious breathing space for delinquency. Why, then, cannot Secondary Schools be subsidized?
Page 179 of 237
Page 179 of 237
334
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
owners of these premises, restricted by rent control after the war do not have any opportunity to share any property boom during the recent months and at any time. They are unable to sell their premises because there are no takers. Advertisements bring no enquiries. In other words, the delay in the slum clearance are all at the expense of these owners. Personally I like to see that every and each property owner in the colony who makes equal contributions in time of housing shortage should have in turn equal opportunities in good times.
A number of provisions in the Landlord and Tenants Ordinance regarding restricted rents was designed to protect the tenants from eviction by landlords who were planning private development of the properties. As Hong Kong's economy is developing rapidly, it is now found that these provisions may seem unrealistic and unfair to the landlords and in most cases the landlords themselves need protection rather than the tenants. Therefore, I think that those unrealistic and unfair provisions should be abolished as soon as possible because many people prosper on unfair competition at the expenses of the owners of these restricted premises.
On the hawkers problem, we now are having or going to have an agreed hawker policy. I say having because we have decided on a number of phases of the hawkers problem. I say "going to have" because, no matter how complicated the problem is I have confidence in the policy select committee. One thing we have been all talking about but have not yet decided is the sociological treatment of hawkers --whether it is in industry or whether it is in social welfare or both. I think we should decide on this point as quickly as possible because we have been attending to so many hawkers' problems, hawkers' appeals, complaints against the hawkers and so many reports on hawkers fighting with the control force with violence. I think that the social welfare officers are wasting a lot of time and efforts on checking the compassionate grounds of the appellants (including those on resettlement). My personal view is that when the public assistance scheme is brought into force, the compassionate cases should be left to the Director of Social Welfare by assistance in cash or other form except by hawking whenever possible. Personally, I quite agree that hawking may help a family to stand on its feet as it can be proved that the income earned from hawking is always better than that offered to unskilled workers in industry.
On the cooked food stalls which is definitely an industry I think that a relaxation of the restaurant licensing may probably help. Instead of building cooked food bazaars to which cooked food stalls may be resited, I think that it is more economical for the Council to rent shops in suitable areas in urban areas, design these shops into
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
335
stalls and sublet them to these cooked food operators. When such shops are available, cooked food stalls in that particular district should not be allowed.
Finally, I think I have to make some comments on Urban Council itself. When I knew that I was appointed to the Urban Council I had tried to seek some advice from some seniors, and they have told me that "Peter, I think you are alright in the Urban Council but the only advice I like to give you is that you must try your best to appreciate the jokes expressed between Sonny Sales with Brook and Hilton". During the past 20 months in the Council I observe that they are very polished politicians and I am very glad to have an opportunity to learn from them. Another thing I observe during the past 20 months is that all the Official Members, Appointed Members and Elected Members are working closely together and I like to say to other people that the Urban Council is one family and I am very glad that I am a Member of that family.
With these words I support the Motion before Council. (Applause).
MR. HENRY WONG:-Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my deep concern regarding three problems confronting us today. In my opinion they demand our immediate attention, for the first two relates to our most precious asset--the Youth of Hong Kong.
First, I should like to deal with the problem of Education. To begin with, not enough is being done to care for the technical and vocational needs of our youth. Our present system is too much linked to familiarity with text books and learning by heart. It con- centrates too much on the importance of examinations. It has always been geared to the white collar workers and does not adequately provide an education which leads to an honourable and well-paid job in industry. The result is that our industry is crying out for more skilled labour, yet our streets and places of amusement seem crowded with wandering youth wasting their energy and time. Is Government paying enough attention to this matter?
Although it is true that Government is planning for subsidized primary education for all in the very near future there is still a gap between 12 and 16 years old groups after taking into account the 6-year primary education period. It should be clear that this gap is an obvious breathing space for delinquency. Why, then, cannot Secondary Schools be subsidized?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.