廉價殯儀服務的倡議Advocating Low-Cost Funeral Services

廉價殯儀服務的倡議

一九七七年〈東華三院鑽石山殯儀館落成碑記〉記載，東華三院倡辦非牟利殯儀館之議始於一九六八年。由此可見，該計劃自醞釀至落成，歷時逾十年；其間歷屆董事局持續推動，並多次向社會各界及政府官員申明東華三院提供廉價殯儀服務的宗旨與決心。不過，政府檔案顯示，該倡議或可追溯至一九六七年，而最早向政府提出由東華三院參與廉價殯儀服務者，應為李耀祥（Iu-cheung Iee, C.B.E., J.P.）。李氏曾任華人事務諮詢委員會（Chinese Advisory Committee）委員、庚辰（一九四〇／一九四一）年東華三院董事局主席，並為東華三院永遠顧問。一九六七年四月，李耀祥與丁未（一九六七／一九六八）年董事局主席廖烈武（Lit-mo Liu, M.B.E., J.P.）一同到訪華民政務司署首席助理司長徐家祥（Paul Ka-cheung Tsui, C.B.E., J.P.），商討與東華三院有關的若干事項。

會面期間，二人提出研究提供一項體面而較完整的殯葬服務。李、廖認為，若按成本收費，僅加入必要營運開支，並以非牟利方式營辦，便可將費用降至當時香港多數低收入華人家庭可負擔的水平。據二人所述，當時全港僅有三間殯儀館：兩間位於香港島，一間位於九龍，且均屬商業經營。除二百元的貧民殮葬外，低收入工人即使舉辦一場較簡樸的殯禮，通常亦須支付不少於一千二百至一千五百元。相關費用包括棺木、仵工、安排墳場葬地、租用適當場所舉行殯殮儀式、將已入殮遺體運送至墳場，以及豎立墓碑等開支。

李、廖二人進一步指出，若能取得合適場所，例如殯儀館，該項完整服務即可在非牟利基礎上，以成本加必要營運開支的方式，以約五百元或以下的費用提供。徐家祥亦認為，若能達致此一目標，實際上即等於提供一項重要社會服務，足以惠及廣大市民，尤其是佔社群多數的低收入階層。

李耀祥當時曾構思成立一個不分配利潤的獨立法人團體，由該團體持有與計劃有關的土地及其他資產；再由該法人團體將此項「業務」交由東華三院董事局管理，以確保整個構想背後的慈善及社會服務宗旨得以維持。李氏之所以提出此一安排，是因為他認為，按東華三院當時的組織及權限，東華三院未必有權直接經營此類「業務」；而該項業務若要長期維持，雖不應分配利潤，卻仍須透過收費支持日常營運。

不過，徐家祥在備忘錄中指出，李耀祥的顧慮尚有商榷餘地。東華三院法團條例第4(g)條已將「華人的安葬及重葬」列為東華三院法團的法定宗旨之一；第5(6)條亦進一步授權該法團「為履行法團任何宗旨而作出一切依法可為之事」。換言之，尚不能即時斷定東華三院完全無權經營與殯葬相關的服務。徐氏並特別指出，與第4條(a)、(b)、(c)及(d)段不同，第4條(e)及(g)段並無「主要作為免費醫院」一類特定限制。因此，東華三院在殯葬服務方面究竟具有多大法律權限，尤其是能否以不分配利潤、但收費足以維持營運的方式提供服務，仍有待進一步釐清。

李、廖二人此行的真正目的，是希望華民政務司方面願意代為向政府陳情，促使政府以私人協約批地方式，批出兩幅土地予有關計劃使用：一幅位於香港島，一幅位於九龍，用以發展低價殯儀館。然而，徐家祥即時預見此議將面臨不少困難，故盡力勸喻二人不要對建議獲接納抱有過高期望。

相較之下，徐家祥建議李、廖二人轉而研究重建已停用的永別亭物業之可行性；該等物業的業權由東華三院持有。他亦建議二人考慮位於紅磡的政府「永別亭」（Government “Farewell Pavilion”），該處當時由市政局及市政事務署管理，並可研究是否提出接管申請。徐氏認為，採取此類替代方案，應可避開重新以私人協約方式分別在九龍及香港島批出土地所可能引起的種種反對意見，從而使計劃較易推進。

會面後，李耀祥與廖烈武將低調跟進此事。徐家祥在備忘錄中亦清楚表示，他並未代表華民政務司署作出任何承諾；不過，他預期有關問題在不久將來仍會再次提出。

Advocating Low-Cost Funeral Services

The 1977 inscription commemorating the opening of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Diamond Hill Funeral Parlour records that Tung Wah first advanced the proposal for a non-profit funeral parlour in 1968. On this account, the scheme took more than a decade to progress from conception to completion. During this period, successive Boards of Directors continued to promote the proposal and repeatedly explained to both the public and government officials Tung Wah’s purpose and determination in providing low-cost funeral services. Government records, however, suggest that the initiative may be traced back to 1967, and that the first person to propose to the government that Tung Wah should participate in low-cost funeral services was probably Iu-cheung Iee, C.B.E., J.P. Iee had served as a member of the Chinese Advisory Committee, as Chairman of the Tung Wah Board of Directors in 1940/1941, and as a permanent adviser to Tung Wah. In April 1967, Iee and Lit-mo Liu, M.B.E., J.P., Chairman of the 1967/1968 Board, visited Paul Ka-cheung Tsui, C.B.E., J.P., Chief Assistant Secretary of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, to discuss several matters concerning Tung Wah.

During the meeting, the two men raised the idea of providing a respectable and relatively comprehensive funeral service. Iee and Liu believed that, if the service were charged at cost, with only necessary operating expenses added, and operated on a non-profit basis, the fee could be reduced to a level affordable to most low-income Chinese families in Hong Kong at the time. According to them, there were then only three funeral parlours in the whole of Hong Kong: two on Hong Kong Island and one in Kowloon, all operated commercially. Apart from pauper burials, which cost $200, a low-income worker usually had to pay no less than $1,200 to $1,500 even for a relatively modest funeral. These costs included the coffin, funeral attendants, arrangements for a burial site in a cemetery, the hiring of a suitable place for funeral rites, the transport of the encoffined body to the cemetery, and the erection of a gravestone.

Iee and Liu further pointed out that, if a suitable venue such as a funeral parlour could be obtained, this comprehensive service could be provided on a non-profit basis, at cost plus necessary operating expenses, for about $500 or less. Tsui also considered that, if this objective could be achieved, it would in effect constitute an important social service, benefiting many people, especially the low-income groups who made up the majority of the community.

At that time, Iee had considered establishing an independent corporation that would not distribute profits. This corporation would hold the land and other assets connected with the scheme, and would then entrust the management of this “business” to the Tung Wah Board of Directors, so as to preserve the charitable and social-service purpose underlying the whole plan. Iee proposed this arrangement because he believed that, under Tung Wah’s organisation and powers at the time, Tung Wah might not have the authority to operate such a “business” directly. At the same time, if the service were to continue in the long term, it would still need income to support its daily operation, although profits should not be distributed.

However, Tsui noted in his memorandum that Iee’s concern remained open to discussion. Section 4(g) of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Incorporation Ordinance listed “the burial and reburial of Chinese” as one of the statutory objects of the Tung Wah corporation. Section 5(6) further empowered the corporation “to do anything which may lawfully be done in order to carry out any of the objects of the corporation”. In other words, it could not be immediately concluded that Tung Wah had no power at all to operate funeral-related services. Tsui also pointed out that, unlike sections 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d), sections 4(e) and 4(g) did not include a specific restriction such as “chiefly as a free hospital”. Therefore, the extent of Tung Wah’s legal powers in relation to funeral services, especially whether it could provide such services on a non-profit-sharing basis with charges sufficient to sustain operations, still required further clarification.

The real purpose of Iee and Liu’s visit was to ask whether the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs would be willing to put forward their case to the government, in the hope that the government might be persuaded to grant, by private treaty, two sites for the scheme: one on Hong Kong Island and one in Kowloon, for the development of low-cost funeral parlours. Tsui, however, immediately foresaw many difficulties with the proposal, and therefore tried his best to discourage them from placing too much hope in its acceptance.

Instead, Tsui suggested that Iee and Liu should study the feasibility of redeveloping the disused Wing Pit Ting properties, whose titles were held by Tung Wah. He also suggested that they consider the Government “Farewell Pavilion” at Hung Hom, which was then managed by the Urban Council and the Urban Services Department, and examine whether they might apply to take it over. Tsui believed that such alternative approaches could avoid many of the objections likely to arise from a fresh private treaty grant of one site in Kowloon and another on Hong Kong Island, thereby making the plan easier to pursue.

After the meeting, Iee and Liu were to follow up the matter quietly. Tsui also made clear in his memorandum that he had made no commitment on behalf of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs. Nevertheless, he expected that the issue would be raised again in the near future.