1997 — Page 513

Page: of 654

50$

# HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

I would like to talk about the economy which affects the Urban Council's policies. I remember seeing billboards in the streets in 1997 with the words 'Oppose the modern-day Wu San-gui for letting the devils in to create chaos in Hong Kong.' I pondered those words then but could not fathom their meaning. I could not figure out who the modern-day Wu San-gui was. It was not until Mr. Donald Tsang, the Financial Secretary, used HK$1 billion to rescue the Thai baht that I realized he was probably the modern-day Wu San-gui. We know that it is not fair to place all the blame on Wu San-gui for the downfall of the Ming Dynasty. However, the fateful chain of events leading to the downfall began with Wu, just as the financial turbulence of the last two months in Hong Kong began, I think, with the use of the $1 billion. As you all know, the property market had been excellent since the Government's policy address was delivered. However, soon after the $1 billion were used, Hong Kong's stock market came tumbling down. In his commentary, Mr. CHIM Pui-chung described the method used by the Hong Kong Government to save the market and the dollar as 'digesting poison to kill the tiger'. I find this analogy very appropriate. We only know how to hike interest rates to save the dollar, causing the stock market to plunge. Another interest rate hike, and the market plunged further, pulling down with it the property market as well. Faced with these problems, the SAR Government seems to be at a loss for action. Members of the public are also affected. Many of those who own stocks had their cash tied up. Those who had shares to split but did not do so also suffered a loss. As for myself, my monthly mortgage payment has also gone up by over $2,000. Whom should I go after for my loss?

I read from the Apple Daily this morning that many people were pointing their fingers at Mr. TUNG Chee-hwa in front of the bank and asking for his resignation. But up to now, the call for Mr. TUNG's resignation is not widespread; there is no need for him to take the blame and step down. Hong Kong people are kind and forgiving: the political climate here is milder. Nevertheless, the financial storm has set the stage for an economic decline in the territory. Once this begins, we know that those who suffer the most are not stock-holders or mortgage-payers, but workers. Their livelihood will be affected and the Urban Council will have contributed to it. The Urban Council's policy of contracting out its work has caused many low-income workers to lose their decent jobs. Market worship is to be blamed for this. We have always believed in better efficiency, but as I have said before, this worship of efficiency is only a very narrow form of worship that is used to improve the efficiency of resources and facilities. Both Ms. Carlye Tsui and Mr. Daniel To of this Council had spoken about TQM (Total Quality Management). The deadliest weapon of TQM is, in fact, to improve efficiency. But we find that while efficiency is being improved, the situation of low-income workers goes from bad to worse. For example, under the Urban Council's privatization policy, many cleaning jobs and projects are contracted out. Before this, cleaning workers who work in the Government were pretty well paid. The cleaning workers or janitors employed by the Government are now paid,