Page 100 of 154
167
166
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
One may argue that elected members gain only 3,000 to 8,000 votes each, and appointed members none at all. But members of the public who take the trouble to use their votes are responsible people who expect elected members to stand for some kind of democratic principles.
But what, in fact, do the elected members stand for? We are split up mainly into quasi-political groups who take turns in making secret coalitions with the majority of appointed members in exchange for the Vice-Chairmanship of the Council. To see the power struggle going on to wrest control of the Urban Council, this empire in a teacup, may be only a laughing-stock to satirists, but it is a frustration to those whose livelihood depends upon our policies. This power game should be stopped, and we should get down to the business of solving urgent policy problems and seeking constitutional changes that will enable us better to improve the lot of the Hong Kong people. The appointed side should be abolished, all seats should be elected by the identity card holders of Hong Kong, and the Council should have jurisdiction in Housing, management of schools, social welfare policies, and other matters that cry out for change of policy.
I am not criticizing ALL our policies, of course.
We are pretty good at house decoration such as the activities at the City Hall, but when we make policies for people who live in a different world from ours, such as hawkers (who form a considerable section of the population) the results are catastrophic. We need members who can truly represent the hawkers. But we treat the hawkers as if they had no right to a say in their own lives, as second-class citizens who should be grateful if we condescend even to read their complaints. I have heard members of this Council rise and make tirades against hawkers without even knowing the policies, let alone understanding the hawkers' problems. Others speak purely with the interests of industrialists in mind, bemoaning the fact that the people prefer hawking to factory work. It never occurs to them that this preference is a simple one dictated by the hawkers' need to support their families. To these industrialists I say: offer the workers some security in the form of housing and a Government-backed unemployment scheme, and you may attract young people into factories. But in the past the workers have been offered only the chance to be exploited when there was work to do, and the sack when there was none, leaving them without even public assistance in times of unemployment. This irresponsible attitude of industry and the Government made up of industrialists and big business, has driven the workers into self-employment as hawkers, or, in the case of those less honest than hawkers, into crime and vice which pay higher dividends.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Our hawker policies have for years been a shambles. Our latest absurdity is to charge the cost of triad-controlled hawker permitted areas for unlicensed hawkers to the account of the licensed hawkers, who for the past year have been offered no service whatever, on the grounds that personnel are too busy in the Hawker Permitted Areas, where millions of dollars and thousands of man hours are benefiting only the triads. The unlicensed hawkers, who are willing to buy licences, are driven to one of two alternatives: either to hawk where they will have their goods confiscated, or to suffer the daily squeeze by thugs in the permitted areas.
I will not attempt here to offer any solutions. The public, and the hawkers, as well as myself, are tired of offering solutions, all of which are ignored or rejected. I see no point in making further suggestions on the subject; and unfortunately that leaves us only negative criticisms to resort to.
To turn now to the general picture in Hong Kong, I should like to warn the Government of some dangers I predict this year.
While there is hope that the general economy will improve, there will be a great deal of disruption caused by the MTR, affecting the livelihood of many people standing in its path. In my opinion, the Government has no right to destroy the livelihood of small business for the sake of big business, unless suitable compensation and rehabilitation are offered. It is quite clear from the cases of Sai Yeung Choi Street and Ngau Chi Wan that no adequate plan has been made beforehand. A number of families are going to be thrown on to the Social Welfare Department as a result of clearances so far. The Government destroys families at its own risk—it has not yet learned the lesson of what happens when the welfare of the people is neglected.
I should also like to voice my concern about the cut-back in education, as well as in other forms of social service.
terms:
In 1972, the Governor made a speech that gave us all hope. At that meeting on 18th October, 1972, the Governor said in unequivocal "Our absolute objective is the provision of three years secondary education for all in the 12-14 year age group, and your Government proposes that we should address ourselves to this objective forthwith." He then proceeded to give details of what should be done.
Within months of making such promises, they were broken. Instead of more education we are to have less. All the lessons of the past, the trend towards crime among drop-outs and others in the 12-14 age group have been forgotten: the substitute for education seems to be the demand for hanging.
Page 100
Page 101
Page 100 of 154
167
166
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
One may argue that elected members gain only 3,000 to 8,000 votes each, and appointed members none at all. But members of the public who take the trouble to use their votes are responsible people who expect elected members to stand for some kind of democratic principles.
But what, in fact, do the elected members stand for? We are split up mainly into quasi-political groups who take turns in making secret coalitions with the majority of appointed members in exchange for the Vice-Chairmanship of the Council. To see the power struggle going on to wrest control of the Urban Council, this empire in a teacup, may be only a laughing-stock to satirists, but it is a frustration to those whose livelihood depends upon our policies. This power game should be stopped, and we should get down to the business of solving urgent policy problems and seeking constitutional changes that will enable us better to improve the lot of the Hong Kong people. The appointed side should be abolished, all seats should be elected by the identity card holders of Hong Kong, and the Council should have jurisdiction in Housing, management of schools, social welfare policies, and other matters that cry out for change of policy.
I am not criticizing ALL our policies, of course.
We are pretty good at house decoration such as the activities at the City Hall, but when we make policies for people who live in a different world from ours, such as hawkers (who form a considerable section of the popula tion) the results are catastrophic. We need members who can truly represent the hawkers. But we treat the hawkers as if they had no right to a say in their own lives, as second-class citizens who should be grateful if we condescend even to read their complaints. I have heard members of this Council rise and make tirades against hawkers without even knowing the policies, let alone understanding the hawkers' prob- lems. Others speak purely with the interests of industrialists in mind, bemoaning the fact that the people prefer hawking to factory work. It never occurs to them that this preference is a simple one dictated by the hawkers' need to support their families. To these industrialists I say: offer the workers some security in the form of housing and a Government-backed unemployment scheme, and you may attract young people into factories. But in the past the workers have been offered only the chance to be exploited when there was work to do, and the sack when there was none, leaving them without even public assistance in times of unemployment. This irresponsible attitude of industry and the Government made up of industrialists and and big business, has driven the workers into self-employment as hawkers, or, in the case of those less honest than hawkers, into crime and vice which pay higher dividends.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Our hawker policies have for years been a shambles. Our latest absurdity is to charge the cost of triad-controlled hawker permitted areas for unlicensed hawkers to the account of the licensed hawkers, who for the past year have been offered no service whatever, on the grounds that personel are too busy in the Hawker Permitted Areas, where millions of dollars and thousands of man hours are benefiting only the triads. The unlicensed hawkers, who are willing to buy licences, are driven to one of two alternatives: either to hawk where they will have their goods confiscated, or to suffer the daily squeeze by thugs in the permitted areas.
I will not attempt here to offer any solutions. The public, and the hawkers, as well as myself, are tired of offering solutions, all of which are ignored or rejected. I see no point in making further suggestions on the subject; and unfortunately that leaves us only negative criticisms to resort to.
To turn now to the general picture in Hong Kong, I should like to warn the Government of some dangers I predict this year.
While there is hope that the general economy will improve, there will be a great deal of disruption caused by the MTR, affecting the livelihood of many people standing in its path. In my opinion, the Government has no right to destroy the livelihood of small business for the sake of big business, unless suitable compensation and rehabilita- tion are offered. It is quite clear from the cases of Sai Yeung Choi Street and Ngau Chi Wan that no adequate plan has been made before- hand. A number of families are going to be thrown on to the Social Welfare Department as a result of clearances so far. The Government destroys families at its own risk-it has not yet learned the lesson of what happens when the welfare of the people is neglected.
I should also like to voice my concern about the cut-back in education, as well as in other forms of social service.
terms:
In 1972, the Governor made a speech that gave us all hope. At that meeting on 18th October, 1972, the Governor said in unequivocal "Our absolute objective is the provision of three years secon- dary education for all in the 12-14 year age group, and your Govern- ment proposes that we should address ourselves to this objective forthwith." He then proceeded to give details of what should be done.
Within months of making such promises, they were broken. Instead of more education we are to have less. All the lessons of the past, the trend towards crime among drop-outs and others in the 12-14 age group have been forgotten: the substitute for education seems to be the demand for hanging.
Page 100Page 101
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.