1986 — Page 150

258

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

began to have elected seats. The 1985 Legislative Council election was an important change in the political history of Hong Kong in that the general public may be selected into the nucleus of power through elections. This top tier of power is no longer a product of the traditional 'elite' system instituted by the government.

Candidates standing for election to the District Boards are required to look after and advise on district affairs. District Board members may elect from among themselves members to the decision-making Legislative Council or Regional Council, or stand for election to the Urban Council. Once they are elected into the Urban Council, they have to abandon the objectives set when they stood for election to the District Boards. Members of the Urban Council may attend meetings of the District Boards. The Regional Council can set up district committees in the various districts. District Boards are dominated by the District Management Committees of the CNTA, and have to look after more than 100 Area Committees and certain district bodies. Under the Area Committees, there are over 6000 Mutual Aid Committees and Owners' Corporations etc. But the general public have little understanding of the above system before and after they cast their votes. They are confused on the questions of 'responsibility' and 'legality' and the relations among the constituents of the political system.

Many consider that the existing 'three-tier system' results in duplication, decentralization of talent and waste of resources. I agree that it is a waste of resources as the government has to spend large sums of money to conduct elections and keep members at work.

But from a practical point of view, at present and in the near future, the 'three-tier system' is a necessity. It may perhaps cause some duplication, but if only it is good for the public, can increase channels of communication and boost the public's confidence in and sense of belonging to the government and society, duplication as a political insurance is not bad at all. To introduce one more elected seat, more people will have the opportunity to participate in person in community affairs. This will go a long way in fostering future political talent and is beneficial to the democratic self-administration after 1997. As the late Sir Edward repeatedly pointed out, there is need to maintain the present 'three-tier political system'.

If the 'three-tier' system is really intolerable, I suggest that the 'middle tier' be reformed into a territory-wide body of power incorporating the consultative third tier with specific functions and powers, for example, in fields of culture and recreation, environmental hygiene, medical service, education or housing etc. Such a system will be easier to manage. But whether it is suitable or not for our society, we still need to evaluate and study in detail.

The consultative document on Central Provident Funds is finally out and has become a hot topic widely discussed by different sectors. Being an advocate of the scheme, I am particularly concerned about the course of the matter. In fact,

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 150 of 201

259

as early as 1976, the Hon. Sir Sze-yuen CHUNG had in the Legislative Council called on the government to set up Central Provident Funds for manual workers. Thus the issue is in no way a new topic.

Whether welfare for workers is adequate in Hong Kong is a matter of opinion. At present, retired workers are not safeguarded by a sound retirement scheme. For a worker who has no savings, and not safeguarded by such source of income as pension, he will not know how to make his living, when he is too old to work. At present, about 75 per cent of our workers are not safeguarded by any source of income after retirement. As the population becomes older, more social problems are sure to come. This is thus the right time to introduce a contributory social security scheme.

According to surveys conducted by certain organizations, contributory Central Provident Funds are in keeping with the wishes of workers in general. In fact, 80 per cent of the interviewees have expressed the hope for such a scheme and necessary legislation. Central Provident Funds are different from existing social welfare in that they are contributed to by both employers and employees, and not related to government expenditure. But the scheme has to have the support of the government and legislation. Present population and economic patterns in Hong Kong are favourable for the introduction of such a security scheme. As spending on welfare for old people will increase, if the government does not prepare early, it will be faced with a very heavy burden in future.

When the Central Provident Funds scheme was first discussed, there was a serious divergence of views. But recently people are beginning to come to a consensus. I hope the issue will be resolved soon. The government is sandwiched between two strata. This is a problem that has to be solved urgently in the course of social development. The government should carefully evaluate all the factors and the implications of employer-employee relations, to decide what type of scheme to introduce. This is to safeguard the living of retired workers so that they can spend their later years in comfort and peace.

APPENDIX

In Hong Kong, the sudden death of Sir Edward was mourned by all and seen as a loss to Hong Kong.

Sir Edward had laid the foundation for Hong Kong's future. It is a pity and indeed a loss to Hong Kong that he did not live to finish his task. In this period of change, the people of Hong Kong will certainly remember Sir Edward for his achievement and devotion to work. A godsend he was to us at a time of difficulties. But he was hastily away after serving Hong Kong for four and a half years. Sir Edward is certainly a great figure hard to come by in the history of Hong Kong.

Page 150

Page 151