In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 Labour dispute at the Hong Kong Artificial Flower Works: The immediate trigger of the 1967 riots The hot summer of 1967 began in May, with the highest temperature reaching 34.4 degrees Celsius.1 The sweltering heat apparently presaged the upcoming heated political struggle between the colonial government and the leftist camp. The political storm started in a plastic flower factory in San Po Kong, Kowloon. The plastic flower industry had emerged as a booming industry in Hong Kong since the economy took off in the 1960s. By the end of 1962, there were 997 plastic flower factories in Hong Kong which employed more than 30,000 workers and churned out exports amounting to HK$300 million. The industry’s total value of exports increased to HK$823 million in 1967, accounting for 12 per cent of the total export of Hong Kong’s industrial output.2 Hong Kong Artificial Flower Works was one of the biggest plastic flower factories in the 1960s. The company had a plant at Belcher Street in Western District that employed 421 staff and another in San Po Kong, Kowloon, with 686 employees. On April 13, 1967, the factory management announced ten new conditions for workers, including the requirement of higher output (only those earning HK$160 per 15 days would be given an extra 10 cent bonus, compared with HK$120 beforehand) and those who were unable to earn HK$160 in two consecutive 15-day periods would be dismissed. The factory would not offer wages during periods when machines broke down and workers could only resume work after the machines were fixed. Besides, workers were not allowed to take leave and the factory would not retain the posts for the workers who took leave. Workers at the factory were dissatisfied with the new regulations which would reduce their wages and put their job security at risk. Under the new regulations, a worker would not be assigned to another machine if the one which he operated broke down. He would have to wait until that machine was repaired. It usually took half a month to repair a machine, making it difficult for a worker to earn HK$160 in two consecutive 15-day periods. The workers also found the ban on taking leave unreasonable. Shum Yat-fei, a commentator who studied at the Chinese University at the time, said the regulations issued by Hong Kong Artificial Flower Works were unreasonably harsh. “The management only cares about making profits and Cheung_02_ch02.indd 23 19/04/2011 2:31 PM 24 Hong Kong’s Watershed disregards the plight of workers. The workers lack security of employment under the ban on taking leave and the factory’s decision not to offer wages during periods when machines broke down,” he wrote in a commentary.3 According to an official report on social security published in 1967, Hong Kong workers in those days lacked security of employment. “For workers in industry, who now probably exceed half a million, there is little in the way of security of employment. It is very common practice for such workers to be employed on daily rates of pay and on piece rates. It becomes highly undesirable when this method of remuneration is widely regarded as implying casual employment which can be terminated at a moment’s notice. Cases of workers being laid off after many years of service, for reasons of doubtful adequacy, without any form of notice or wages in lieu or compensation for loss of employment are far too common,” the report said.4 In an article published in Undergrad, the journal published by the student union of the University of Hong Kong, a student who used the pseudonym Lung Chin said that the regulations were absolutely unreasonable and were testament to exploitation by the management. “The existence of such exploitation is a dirty mark for Hong Kong. Most civilised countries have gradually improved workers’ welfare and nearly eliminated the exploitation of workers,” he wrote.5 The workers decided to send representatives for negotiation with the management. They put forward a five-point demand to the management, including: (a) abolition of the conditions imposed on April 13; (b) payment of wages at $1.5 per hour whilst a worker was idle because of a defective mould; (c) fair allocation of moulds; (d) higher pay for producing low-priced parts; (e) no dismissals without good reason. But according to a veteran worker at Artificial Flower Works, the management found deliberate damage...

Share