1971 — Page 162

Page 162 of 242

304

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

education, as instructed by MARSH and SAMPSON in 1963, who in turn were undoubtedly instructed by the Government. Thus teachers, nurses, postal clerks, resettlement assistants, clerical assistants and others are called upon to do the same job with less pay, while in business the richest become richer on the lowest of taxes, the monopolies squeeze by "reviewing" their charges, the Government squeezes from water charges, higher rents, exorbitant land prices, increased statutory fines in court for minor offences, and in a thousand other ways; and in the meantime, more and more people ask for huts to live in because they cannot afford to live in houses.

The lessons of 1966 and 1967 have not been learned. The immediate danger is over, and so is the desire to build bridges between the Government and the people. All political aspirations are quelled with greater alacrity than crime is quelled. Even newspapers tell less of the truth than before. The scene is thus set for the next outburst of frustration, and some new scapegoat will have to be found to excuse the Government's utter contempt for the aspirations of the people, especially of the young. Sir, as I have the greatest suspicion of the purpose of some of the aims described in this Motion, especially those on resettlement and hawkers, I shall abstain from voting. (Applause).

Mr. H. M. G. FORSGATE:- Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your kind words about the new Committee. I am sorry I missed them. I promise to do my best. Coming across on the ferry I couldn't help thinking how much more pleasant it would be to have this Debate out in the sunshine at say Victoria Park or even better at the newly opened Kwun Tong Swimming Pool than in these dull and dismal Chambers.

White Paper on Urbco Reform

With all the ammunition provided by Government's White Paper on the Reform of this Council, I do not think there is any need to stray outside our purview in search of topics for this year's speeches. This would, of course, indicate that we had paid attention to the admonition contained in your lengthy peroration last year, and also that we are genuinely interested in reforming ourselves, not in our own selfish interests, but in the interests of the Hong Kong public, who think of us, that is when they do think of us, as either a power mad bunch of half baked politicians, or an effete lot of dilettantes toying with dust bins between pink gins. Neither of these impressions is, of course, accurate, as you pointed out in your quite handsome tribute to Members of this Council in your speech last year. What are we trying to achieve?

But

When I came on the Council in 1965, there was intensive discussion taking place about the expansion of our domain, and I was quite staggered at the seemingly lighthearted and almost irresponsible manner in which some of my colleagues laid claim to one massive Government Department after another. With some practical experience of commercial administrative problems, I was appalled and frankly still am, at the real lack of appreciation shown by some of us of the complexities of the administrative processes needed to run Hong Kong.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

305

Fortunately a more reasonable compromise was reached, and our 1969 Report contained suggestions less ambitious, but more in keeping with our proven ability, if not fulfilling the ambitions and aspirations of all.

However, Government in its infinite wisdom has now made what on the surface looks like a reasonable counter-proposal. To me, the message seems to read loud and clear-"Alright, you want more responsibility, well, here is a fair measure of it". Government has, and I think quite justifiably, some misgivings about our ability in certain fields of endeavour. I think the manner in which we sometimes dither and change policy to suit individual resettlement and hawker problems is enough to make any self-respecting administrator pause and wonder if we are really capable of running a bigger show. But if we accept the challenge of the White Paper, and it is a very real challenge to our ability, there will be no room for dithering.

I think it would be helpful and constructive from our own and the public's point of view, if some of us stopped moaning about what we have not got, but sat down and thought constructively over the future offered to us. Personally, I have always felt rather lukewarm about Urbco's lust for power, probably because I am not politically motivated and would rather do a job than talk about it.

The thought of this Council without you, Sir, and your other Official Colleagues, frankly appals me. Who is going to hold our hand when the going gets rough? And there's not going to be nearly so much fun arguing the toss with each other, as it is now when we can conveniently pass the buck to the Government representatives on this Council. But in all seriousness, the fixing of responsibility and accountability on to this Council for all the consequences of its actions after 1973 is a far-reaching piece of legislation. I wonder, if in all the excitement and or disappointment raised in the wake of the White Paper, how many of us have made a sober appreciation of what is entailed—a great deal more work for us all, that's for sure. Chairmen of Select Committees will have to not only know their subject, but do their thing as well. Members of Select Committees will have to toe the line and support the work by regular attendance and participation, otherwise the burden on Chairman and the more conscientious Members will become intolerable. Much more time will inevitably be

Page 163 of 242