1973 — Page 173

274

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 173 of 212

275

were not made. One must not mix up this Securities Bill with the Bill for the Protection of Investors. Few probably raised any objection to the latter. We do not have any. The Securities Bill is completely a different animal—controlling the stock exchanges and the brokers. When it was first published, I said that it placed the brokers in a minefield. After the amendments, it is much more acceptable. Basically, it controls the brokers. They are not treated as professionals—if they were, they would be governed by brokers, such as bankers by bankers, accountants by accountants, legal practitioners by legal practitioners, and doctors by doctors. The compensation fund was put in because the United Kingdom has it, the United States has it, but in all other places, they are controlled completely by the exchanges. The Commissioner for Securities said it is a form of insurance. I doubt it, because in our case, the insurer pays the premium instead of the insured. A fund was provided in such an amount as if fifty brokers go bankrupt in one day. According to history, businessmen suffered much less financial loss arising from brokers than from many other contracting parties. Entering into a business venture must involve risks. During the past years, millions of dollars were taken away from brokers on account of dishonoured cheques given to them by their clients, and of forged share certificates. These losses were borne by brokers without a word of complaint. The compensation fund, in the present form, enables a person to bypass the ordinary process of law. Why is a creditor more "privileged" against a broker than against his banker or solicitors, considering that the broker, banker, and solicitor go bankrupt at the same time? In spite of the difference of opinions, however, the Exchanges, I hope, will try to be a good loser when the Bill is passed.

With these remarks, I support the motion before Council. (Applause.)

MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, what I am going to talk about today is local youths' schooling and employment, which is one of the serious problems existing in the community of Hong Kong and in urgent need of solution.

I believe nobody would deny that the thing which worries the community most is the ever-increasing number of "problem youths", perpetrators of quite a number of serious crimes. They are not tall and strong men; they are only in their early twenties, and some are children of 13 or 14 who have not grown up yet. This is a very special social problem which is getting more acute with each passing day. If the authorities do not devise a remedy to solve this problem, it would aggravate to an extent beyond rectification.

As it is well known, these growing youths are the future cornerstones of the community. They are to take over the roles vacated by members who will be pushed off into senescence. According to reasonable estimates, these youths will be the good and active members of the community after the lapse of ten years. If they are not properly looked after and consequently go astray, whom then should we blame? Indeed, the growing up of youths is intimately connected with family upbringing, school education, social morality, and Government's attention. Family, school, society, and Government share the responsibility of bringing up the youths properly.

(Mr. Charles C. C. SIN and Dr. Denny M. H. HUANG left the meeting at this point.)

So far as we know, many children aged 12 to 14 in the labouring class of the community are, due to their families' financial difficulties or other reasons, compelled to give up schooling after completing Primary 6. And some of these children cannot even finish primary education. Under the Labour Ordinance, they are not allowed to work in factories. As for commercial firms, they are not welcomed because they are too young in knowledge as well as experience. (Mr. Peter P. K. NG left the meeting at this point.) In some cases, the parents are not willing to let their children belonging to this age bracket go out and work. Therefore, many of these children are doing nothing but loitering about; they would become the prey of the community's corrupt morals. They might be threatened or cajoled into joining underworld societies, thus degenerating into black sheep. If the community does not give them assistance and save them from between hell and high water, I don't know what these youths would become after 10 years.

What I have pointed out above might sound like a threadbare argument, but it is truly a pending problem which warrants urgent solution. But how are we going to solve this problem? I personally think we should dilly-dally no more (I believe members of the community would agree with me). On this subject, I venture to put forth the following suggestions:

(i) Children below 14 and youths between 14 and 18 should be given adequate care and assistance. Households which have children and youths of the said age brackets who are neither at school nor in employment should report to the authorities concerned, asking for suitable assistance. To make this practice more effective, legislation should be passed to make it a must for parents or guardians who fail to report such to the