HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I question Government's sincerity on the Chinese Language Issue: On 20th of January 1972 a Government spokesman announced that a senior official would be appointed by the Colonial Secretariat to assist the Secretary for Home Affairs to implement the Government's policy on bilingualism. Two months later Mr. Christopher WONG was so appointed. It is most regrettable to note that since then the Commissioner for Chinese Language has twice been changed and what is more, such an important post has been turned from a full-time into a part-time job. It is not unexpected that the Chinese Language Branch of the Home Affairs Department has, to my knowledge, proved a most inefficient part in the Civil Service and it is only natural that people are beginning to question the sincerity of Government in implementing its publicised policy.
As a Chinese language campaigner I suggest that:
(i) the Chinese Language Office should be put under direct control of the Colonial Secretariat as originally suggested by the Chinese Language Committee headed by Sir Kenneth P. F. FUNG and the post of Commissioner be made full-time one:
(ii) the Colonial Secretariat should review and scrutinize the qualifications of senior officials of the Chinese Language Branch and their past performances, if any.
(iii) The Commissioner should inform the general public what has been done in the past, what is being done now and what future activities are being planned and their tentative dates of completion. In this conjunction I would like solemnly to advise officials of the Chinese Language Branch, all of whom are presumably Chinese, that they must not let millions of Chinese people down and work hard and take their jobs seriously.
Mr. HADDON-CAVE, your time is up!
Should there be a popularity poll to be conducted in Hong Kong, I personally believe that our Financial Secretary would prove the most unpopular figure in Hong Kong. The reasons are many but may be summed up by saying that he has failed in his duty as Financial Secretary. Not only has he failed to handle our public money properly, he has also failed to protect the interests of the general public. Here are just a few examples:
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 137 of 187
235
(i) Our reserves in London.
In 1967 when the pound sterling was first devalued, I called for the withdrawal of our over $7,000 million reserves from London to be used in Hong Kong for welfare projects as well as investment in other stronger currencies. Since then I have made many similar suggestions, which have been echoed by many economists, community leaders and bankers, but Mr. HADDON-CAVE turned a deaf ear to our appeals.
As a result, more than 2,000 million hard-earned dollars belonging to the Hong Kong people were lost. Since no detailed information has ever been made available to the public as to how our reserves were handled, there could be a much greater loss than the known figure.
(ii) Indifferent attitude towards speculation.
The people of Hong Kong are not familiar with various speculative businesses such as share markets or commodity exchanges and the unscrupulous maneuvers of some finance and investment companies. The Financial Secretary has the duty to protect the general public's interests by laying down various rules and taking necessary action when indicated.
(iii) In the last ten years many overseas swindlers have milked many millions of dollars out of Hong Kong in the name of investment but the Financial Secretary failed to take any action. In June 1972 when our stock exchanges were rapidly turning into areas of frenzied speculation and all sorts of people who knew little or nothing about shares, were pouring their savings into the market, I urged immediate control and pointed out that our Company Law was still that of 1929, so that there was hardly any protection for small shareholders. I also made a number of suggestions, based on the advice of local economists, to remedy the dangerous situation but all were ignored by the Financial Secretary and our extremely highly paid experts from London.
As a result, overseas swindlers pocketed over 10,000 million dollars and departed with our Financial Secretary's blessing, leaving Hong Kong with a semi-collapsed economy.
(iv) The underground railway plan has been unnecessarily delayed and gone astray.
As early as 1964 the Government realised the necessity of a rapid transit system for Hong Kong and engaged a first group
234
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I question Government's sincerity on the Chinese Language Issue: On 20th of January 1972 a Government spokesman announced that a senior official would be appointed by the Colonial Secretariat to assist the Secretary for Home Affairs to imple- ment the Government's policy on bilingualism. Two months later Mr. Christopher WONG was so appointed. It is most regrettable to note that since then the Commissioner for Chinese Language has twice been changed and what is more, such an important post has been turned from a full-time into a part-time job. It is not unexpected that the Chinese Language Branch of the Home Affairs Department has, to my knowledge, proved a most inefficient part in the Civil Service and it is only natural that people are beginning to question the sincerity of Government in implementing its publicised policy.
As a Chinese language campaigner I suggest that:
(i) the Chinese Language Office should be put under direct con- trol of the Colonial Secretariat as originally suggested by the Chinese Language Committee headed by Sir Kenneth P. F. FUNG and the post of Commissioner be made full-time one:
(ii) the Colonial Secretariat should review and scrutinize the quali- fications of senior officials of the Chinese Language Branch and their past performances, if any.
(iii) The Commissioner should inform the general public what has been done in the past, what is being done now and what future activities are being planned and their tentative dates of com- pletion. In this conjunction I would like solemnly to advise officials of the Chinese Language Branch, all of whom are presumably Chinese, that they must not let millions of Chinese people down and work hard and take their jobs seriously.
Mr. HADDON-CAVE, your time is up!
Should there be a popularity poll to be conducted in Hong Kong, I personally believe that our Financial Secretary would prove the most unpopular figure in Hong Kong. The reasons are many but may be summed up by saying that he has failed in his duty as Financial Secretary. Not only has he failed to handle our public money properly, he has also failed to protect the interests of the general public. Here are just a few examples:
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 137 of 187
235
(i) Our reserves in London.
In 1967 when the pound sterling was first devalued, I called for the withdrawal of our over $7,000 million reserves from London to be used in Hong Kong for welfare projects as well as investment in other stronger currencies. Since then I have made many similar suggestion, which have been echoed by many economists, community leaders and bankers, but Mr. HADDON-CAVE turned a deaf ear to our appeals.
As a result, more than 2,000 million hard earned dollars be- longing to the Hong Kong people were lost. Since no detailed information has ever made available to the public as to how our reserves were handled, there could be a much greater loss than the known figure.
(ii) Indifferent attitude towards speculation.
The people of Hong Kong are not familiar with various specu- lative businesses such as share markets or commodity exchanges and the unscrupulous maneuvers of some finance and investment companies. The Financial Secretary has the duty to protect the general public's interests by laying down various rules and taking necessary action when indicated. (iii) In the last ten years many oversea swindlers have milked many millions of dollars out of Hong Kong in the name of investment but the Financial Secretary failed to take any action. In June 1972 when our stock exchanges were rapidly turning into areas of frenzied speculation and all sorts of people who knew little or nothing about shares, were pouring their savings into the market, I urged immediate control and pointed out that our Company Law was still that of 1929, so that there was hardly any protection for small shareholders. I also made a number of suggestions, based on the advice of local economists, to remedy the dangerous situation but all were ignored by the Financial Secretary and our extremely highly paid experts from London.
As a result, oversea swindlers pocketed over 10,000 million dollars and departed with our Financial Secretary's blessing, leaving Hong Kong with a semi-collapsed economy.
(iv) The underground railway plan has been unnecessarily delayed
and gone astray.
As early as 1964 the Government realised the necessity of a rapid transit system for Hong Kong and engaged a first group
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.