Page 94 of 195
157
1
156
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
housing blocks. I will not go into detail, but I can say that warnings on some of these particular estates were sounded over ten years ago, so the Government cannot plead ignorance. I draw particular attention to a landslide under a block in Tsz Wan Shan about ten years ago. The public was assured at that time that there was no structural danger. Now we are being told that there is structural danger. Action against the contractors should have been taken then, before the time limit expired. Taxpayers should not be asked to foot the bill created by this corrupt system. Responsibility lies with the Government servants who gave the contracts, and those who failed to test the materials used. Our monumental public housing programme has now become a monumental public scandal and a catastrophe to its tenants. Those responsible should be held accountable. However, there have been more sinister suggestions that the real aim of the Government in revealing the defects at this point in time is to force the domestic and business tenants of these blocks into new and higher rented premises, and to rebuild home ownership flats on the demolition sites to raise more money. Whether or not this rumour is true, the social impact on the tenants is horrendous. If the higher rent policy and the massive demolition programme both go ahead, we have a formula for social unrest and instability.
I am sure that Mr. SULKE will have a lot to say about our environmental problems. Suffice it for me to say that the Bhopal incident should convince the powers-that-be that we cannot take risks with people's lives, whether those risks result from gas cylinders sited near to housing estates, or from the apparently insuperable problem of dealing with nuclear waste. If profits must take precedence over human life, as they have already taken precedence over social justice, then I wonder for whom the much-vaunted cry for prosperity is intended.
Now I should like to make some reference to the political situation in Hong Kong.
Under the past colonial system there have been few if any political or legal rights for the vast majority of the people. Those who are now squealing loudest about preserving their rights after 1997 are by and large the same people who never cared a fig for the rights of the grassroots under the colonial system. In the September indirect elections for 24 Legislative Councillors, less than 1 per cent of the people of Hong Kong had a vote, and even that less than 1 per cent was in many cases influenced by pressures from wealthy power groups. So it ill becomes those vote-manipulators to shout for fair play when they have to be the candidates instead of the privileged Government appointees. Their motives would have been more credible if their voices had been heard concerning the injustices resulting from corruption, Government-connected triad-syndicated vice, commercial crime loopholes, bank and stock-market cheating, failure to compensate redundant industrial workers, framing in petty crime by police, monopoly profiteering, the undemocratic political system, and a thousand and one other injustices that those now-squealing people have closed their eyes to in the past because they were happily enjoying their own selfish privileges, which they are now afraid of losing. I would strongly advise such squealers that they are in danger of shaking our economy and destroying our prosperity, far more than any of the social pressure groups ever endangered our society in the past. If they care for Hong Kong, as they profess to do, but which I doubt, I would suggest that they expend more effort to co-operate and make the future work. If their aim is truly prosperity with fair play, I support them. If their aim is to monopolize power and privilege, I shall fight them to my last breath. May I add that there would have been more democracy in four popularly elected members of the Legislative Council than in 24 members who represent less than 1 per cent of the people of Hong Kong.
Two last questions to those who profess an interest in human and legal rights.
What has happened to the Bill for the Rehabilitation of Minor Offenders? While being totally inadequate, it appears also to have been completely forgotten. There are middle-aged people in Hong Kong still suffering because of some very minor offence they committed (or they did not commit but were found guilty of nevertheless) in their early youth. Has someone fallen asleep while others suffer?
And what is being done to make sure that there is legal aid for all minor offenders in the lower courts where the problem of records originates. Does anyone care about legal aid for those who cannot afford to engage a lawyer?
These are questions to which I would like an answer.
May I just close by saying that those who set themselves up as watch-dogs and bark about post-1997 should do some barking now on behalf of our present-day legally underprivileged.
With these words I support the Motion.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):- Mr. Chairman, Mr. Winston CHURCHILL said that if any paper is longer than one foolscap page, I will not read it. My speech today is only one foolscap page long and I originally composed it in English but I shall read it out in Cantonese.
Hong Kong people want a stable Government, investors also want a stable Government. But are we doing everything to ensure that we do get a stable Government? This is a question worth our discussion.
On 8 March last year, I ventured to discuss the pros and cons of 'Ministerial Form of Government' at a Lion's Club meeting in an attempt to stimulate more discussion on the topic. With the exception of one newspaper, the text of my speech was not published in full, so I am annexing a copy of that speech as part of today's speech (Appendix A). Particularly as this topic is so hotly debated today, I believe that the information in this paper would be of value to the public, perhaps more so today than one year ago. I am delighted to note that more and more people, in particular recently, are now expressing views on the development of our governmental system and the people discussing
Page 94 of 195
157
1
156
Page 94 of 195
Page 94 of 195
157
1
156
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
housing blocks. I will not go into detail, but I can say that warnings on some of these particular estates were sounded over ten years ago, so the Government cannot plead ignorance. I draw particular attention to a landslide under a block in Tsz Wan Shan about ten years ago. The public was assured at that time that there was no structural danger. Now we are being told that there is structural danger. Action against the contractors should have been taken then, before the time limit expired. Taxpayers should not be asked to foot the bill created by this corrupt system. Responsibility lies with the Government servants who gave the contracts, and those who failed to test the materials used. Our monumental public housing programme has now become a monumental public scandal and a catastrophe to its tenants. Those responsible should be held accountable. However, there have been more sinister suggestions that the real aim of the Government in revealing the defects at this point in time is to force the domestic and business tenants of these blocks into new and higher rented premises, and to rebuild home ownership flats on the demolition sites to raise more money. Whether or not this rumour is true, the social impact on the tenants horrendous. If the higher rent policy and the massive demolition programme both go ahead, we have a formula for social unrest and instability.
I am sure that Mr. SULKE will have a lot to say about our environmental problems. Suffice it for me to say that the Bophal incident should convince the powers-that-be that we cannot take risks with people's lives, whether those risks result from gas cylinders sited near to housing estates, or from the apparently insuperable problem of dealing with nuclear waste. If profits must take precedence over human life, as they have already taken precedence over social justice, then I wonder for whom the much-vaunted cry for prosperity is intended.
Now I should like to make some reference to the political situation in Hong Kong.
Under the past colonial system there have been few if any political or legal rights for the vast majority of the people. Those who are now squealing loudest about preserving their rights after 1997 are by and large the same people who never cared a fig for the rights of the grassroots under the colonial system. In the September indirect elections for 24 Legislative Councillors, less than 1 per cent of the people of Hong Kong had a vote, and even that less than 1 per cent was in many cases influenced by pressures from wealthy power groups. So it ill becomes those vote-manipulators to shout for fairplay when they have to be the candidates instead of the privileged Government appointees. Their motives would have been more credible if their voices had been heard concerning the injustices resulting from corruption, Government-connected triad-syndicated vice, commercial crime loopholes, bank and stock-market cheating, failure to compensate redundant industrial workers, framing in petty crime by police, monopoly profiteering, the undemocratic political system, and a thousand and one other injustices that those now-squealing people have closed their eyes to in the past because they were happily enjoying their own selfish privileges, which
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
they are now afraid of losing. I would strongly advise such squealers that they are in danger of shaking our economy and destroying our prosperity, far more than any of the social pressure groups ever endangered our society in the past. If they care for Hong Kong, as they profess to do, but which I doubt, I would suggest that they expend more effort to co-operate and make the future work. If their aim is truly prosperity with fairplay, I support them. If their aim is to monopolize power and privilege, I shall fight them to my last breath. May I add that there would have been more democracy in four popularly elected members of the Legislative Council than in 24 members who represent less than 1 per cent of the people of Hong Kong.
Two last questions to those who profess an interest in human and legal rights.
What has happened to the Bill for the Rehabilitation of Minor Offenders? While being totally inadequate, it appears also to have been completely forgotten. There are middle-aged people in Hong Kong still suffering because of some very minor offence they committed (or they did not commit but were found guilty of nevertheless) in their early youth. Has someone fallen asleep while others suffer?
And what is being done to make sure that there is legal aid for all minor offenders in the lower courts where the problem of records originates. Does anyone care about legal aid for those who cannot afford to engage a lawyer?
These are questions to which I would like an answer.
May I just close by saying that those who set themselves up as watch-dogs and bark about post 1997 should do some barking now on behalf of our present-day legally underprivileged.
With these words I support the Motion.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, Mr. Winston CHURCHILL said that if any paper is longer than one foolscap page, I will not read it. My speech today is only one foolscap page long and I originally composed it in English but I shall read it out in Cantonese.
Hong Kong people want a stable Government, investors also want a stable Government. But are we doing everything to ensure that we do get a stable Government? This is a question worth our discussion.
On 8 of March last year, I ventured to discuss the pros and cons of 'Ministerial Form of Government' at a Lion's Club meeting in an attempt to stimulate more discussion on the topic. With the exception of one newspaper, the text of my speech was not published in full, so I am annexing a copy of that speech as part of today's speech (Appendix A). Particularly as this topic is so hotly debated today, I believe that the information in this paper would be of value to the public, perhaps more so today than one year ago. I am delighted to note that more and more people, in particular recently, are now expressing views on the development of our governmental system and the people discussing
Page 94 of 19
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.