After nearly two years of planning and extensive renovations, the Society’s Darling Harbour Child Care Centre in Ultimo formally commenced operation in February 1990. In accordance with government requirements, it provided Occasional Care service for 25 children aged from birth to five years.

However, Occasional Care meant that the Centre did not have a stable source of enrolments. For several months after opening, enrolments remained unsatisfactory, the utilisation rate was very low, and the Centre operated at a financial loss. The Society’s Board of Directors repeatedly raised the situation with the government department responsible for children’s services, hoping to convert the Occasional Care service to Long Day Care, which would provide more stable enrolments. However, the requests were consistently rejected.

By the second half of 1992, faced with ongoing operational difficulties, the Board decided to close the Centre. The Federal Government and the Powerhouse Museum were given one month’s notice. When notifying the relevant government department, the Society once again made a request: “If the Occasional Care service can be converted to Long Day Care, the Society would be prepared to reopen and continue operating the Centre.”

Shortly before the Centre was due to close, an incident occurred. A parent lodged a complaint with the relevant State department, alleging that the Teaching Director at the time had used an inappropriate method to discipline a child: when the child was disobedient, she had sealed the child’s mouth with adhesive tape. Given the seriousness of this incident of child abuse, the Society quickly closed the Centre and dismissed the Teaching Director in the process. All the other staff members also lost their jobs.

Several years later, an incident of child abuse at another child care centre prompted an investigation by the State Government department. The person under investigation was the former Teaching Director dismissed by the Society. It was discovered that she had again mistreated a child at another centre. That centre said that it chose to employ her because it was in receipt of a reference letter from CASS recommending the person.

Subsequent investigation revealed that when the dismissed Teaching Director requested a reference letter for a new job, one of the Vice-Chairpersons, as a representative of the employer, felt sorry that the Centre’s closure had caused the staff members to lose their jobs. Therefore, the Vice-Chairperson wrote a highly favourable letter of recommendation for her, however, the Vice-Chairpersons was unaware of the full circumstances about the performance of this staff member.

The State Government department strongly criticised the Society for irresponsibly issuing the reference letter. The Society learnt an important lesson from the incident. From then on, Henry admonished the directors and key management personnel that reference letters of recommendation should never be issued casually.

On 15 February 1993, after the Government agreed to convert the service to Long Day Care, Darling Harbour Child Care Centre reopened. The new Teaching Director improved its management and services. Enrolments gradually increased, and positive word of mouth among parents continued to grow. The Centre finally settled into stable operation.

Unfortunately, in April 2007, a serious traffic accident occurred outside the Centre. One of its walls was knocked down, causing structural damage to the building. After conducting an assessment, the Powerhouse Museum, which owned the premises, concluded that the building was situated at a busy intersection with a high risk of traffic accidents and was therefore unsuitable for use as a child care centre. It decided to terminate the lease.

The Society tried to relocate the Centre to another site in Chinatown, but its efforts were unsuccessful. On 30 April 2007, after more than 17 years of operation, Darling Harbour Child Care Centre ceased providing services and bid farewell to Chinatown.

🤔What other community services did the Society develop? There is more to share in the next article!

In its first Corporate Plan formulated in 1987, the Society resolved to continue its efforts to develop a child care centre in the Sydney CBD near Chinatown, thereby fulfilling one of its founding aims. Before long, the Board of Directors received some good news.

The Powerhouse Museum, which was about to open at its new premises, planned to have an Occasional Child Care Centre nearby so that parents with young children could visit the Museum without worry. After receiving the Museum’s request for assistance, the Federal Government’s child care department approached the Society and proposed that it establish the Centre. This was because the Society had achieved excellent results in managing Campsie Child Care Centre and had previously expressed its wish to operate a child care centre in the Sydney CBD.

The new Powerhouse Museum was located in Ultimo, close to Chinatown and Darling Harbour. The building was originally a disused coal-fired power station. Under the design and transformation by architects J Thompson and Lionel Glendenning, it was converted into a spacious and open modern museum displaying large exhibits such as old steam locomotives, vintage aircraft and space technology equipment. The project received the Sir John Sulman Medal for Public Architecture that year.

The proposed child care centre was to locate behind the Museum, at the corner of Harris Street and William Henry Street. It was in an excellent location, the rent offered by the Museum was low, and the Federal Government was willing to provide funding for the renovation and operation of the Centre. The Society therefore gladly accepted the offer.

On 10 March 1988, the Powerhouse Museum held a grand opening ceremony at its new premises. Several directors of the Society were invited to attend and witness this historic occasion.

The Society then began preparing for the establishment of the new child care centre. The leased building had originally been a post office. It was more than 100 years old and was heritage-listed. Its exterior could not be altered, while the interior had to be renovated to meet child care service standards and requirements. The project was therefore far more difficult and complex than an ordinary renovation.

Eventually, the Society received a grant of $300,000 from the Federal Government for the renovation and negotiated the details of the lease with the Museum. Renovation work formally commenced at the end of 1988.

Owing to the age of the building, it was very difficult to locate the relevant building plans and documents. As a result, one problem after another emerged during construction. The most difficult issue concerned the stormwater drainage system. The architect said that no information about the local stormwater system could be found. He therefore proposed digging a deep pit in the middle of the Centre’s children’s playground and directing the collected rainwater into it.

When Henry learnt of the proposal, he strongly objected. He argued that the arrangement might not cause a problem during light rain, but in a severe storm, a large volume of accumulated water could flow towards the adjoining Powerhouse Museum. The Museum housed many valuable exhibits. If they were damaged, the loss could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, which the Society could never afford to pay. Henry stipulated that if any loss occurred, the architect would have to accept responsibility for the compensation. Faced with such a condition, the architect did not dare to proceed hastily.

Henry firmly believed that the local council must have records of the stormwater drainage system in the area. After contacting the Sydney City Council, the architect finally located the relevant information, and the stormwater drainage problem was readily resolved.

Five years later, Sydney experienced a severe rainstorm, and both Harris Street and some parts of the Powerhouse Museum were flooded. It was fortunate that Henry had strongly opposed the architect’s original proposal.

🤔Would the renovation of the child care centre be completed smoothly? There’s more to share in the next article!

On 15 August 1987, the Board of Directors of our Society formulated its first Corporate Plan. Apart from developing child care services, the Plan also covered other areas, including assisting with the development of the “Elderly Home”, providing settlement services, combating racial discrimination and organising cultural activities. These diversified services set the direction for the Society’s future development.

Just as Henry was looking forward to put the Plan into action, on the evening of 4 January 1988, he suddenly felt the world spinning around him. He was unable to stand and suffered severe vomiting. After seeking medical assistance several times, he was diagnosed with the “incurable” Meniere’s disease. His doctor advised him to reduce his workload and have more rest. Over the following two years, he had to substantially reduce his involvement in the affairs of the Society.

At the time, the Society was actively assisting the “Elderly Home” aged hostel project to apply for government funding. Henry was responsible for preparing the funding submission and negotiating with government department. Despite suffering from Meniere’s disease, he persisted in completing and submitting the application. Within a short period, by May 1988, the funding application was approved.

During the same period, the number of Asian migrants in Australia continued to increase, and anti-Asian remarks appeared from time to time. In February 1988, Ron Casey, a broadcaster at Radio 2KY, repeatedly made insulting remarks about Asian people during his program on air. Although members of the Chinese community were deeply offended, no action was taken to lodge complaints.

The directors of our Society believed that, in accordance with the Corporate Plan’s commitment to “safeguarding the rights of the Chinese community”, there was a need to speak out. Henry suggested publishing articles in the Chinese newspapers, calling on members of the Chinese community to stand together against racial discrimination. A sample complaint letter was also included to encourage people to lodge complaints with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

The initiative quickly received an enthusiastic response from the community. Eventually, the Tribunal received more than 1,200 similar complaint letters.

After seeing the strong response generated by the Society’s pioneering action, the Australian Chinese Community Association also took action. At the time, it was a larger organisation providing a number of government-funded services. Some of its members had legal backgrounds and represented the community in dealing with the Tribunal, helping to move the case towards a formal hearing.

This was the first large-scale and united collective action taken by the Chinese community in Australia to defend its rights. In the end, the Tribunal suspended Ron Casey from broadcasting for three months. When he returned to the air, a supervisor was required to be present with a button that could terminate the program at any time.

The campaign greatly raised the profile of our Society in the community. Some people wondered, “Why would an organisation providing child care services stand up against racial discrimination?”

.

In response to such questions, the directors began to consider whether the name “Sydney Chinese Child Care and Community Co-operative Society” should be changed. In fact, the Society’s work was no longer confined to children’s services. It had expanded to provide different types of social services in response to the needs of the community. At the Annual General Meeting held on 19 March 1989, the organisation changed its name to the “Chinese Australian Services Society”. As its services became increasingly diversified, it also adopted “CASS” as its brand name.

Around the end of 1988, having recognised the Society’s excellent performance in managing Campsie Child Care Centre, the relevant Federal department commissioned our Society to establish a child care centre at Darling Harbour.

🤔How would the new child care centre develop? There’s more to share in the next article!

Our Society was formally established on 8 March 1981 and was known as the “Sydney Chinese Child Care and Community Co-operative Society Ltd.” Its goal was to seek government funding to establish a Child Care Centre to provide child care service to the Chinese community.

The project faced hurdles right from the beginning. However, our Society did not give up and initiated a telephone referral service. The service brought good outcomes and gained the recognition of the relevant government department. In late 1984, our Society was awarded funding to buy the Campsie Kindergarten which was renamed to Campsie Child Care Centre. On 29 March 1987, the then Federal Minister, Hon. Tom Uren, officially opened the Centre at a ceremony. This milestone marked our Society’s achievement in its founding aim of establishing a Child Care Centre.

From its establishment to 1987, it took our Society 6 years of hard work to achieve its goal of “establishing a Child Care Centre”. Regrettably, some directors of our Board who had dedicated themselves to our Society’s work in its initial difficult period felt that they had already accomplished our Society’s mission and decided to leave the team for various reasons.

This was a common phenomenon for many community organizations. Many founding members with shared missions fought together to achieve the organization’s establishment goals, but once those goals were achieved, some would leave the organization while new members would join, who had different visions and the organization gradually drifted away from its original direction and lost its continuity.

In Henry’s view, an energetic community organization would not stop at achieving one mission. It would respond to emerging community needs and continued to develop services. He gathered our Society’s Board members, friends and volunteers to discuss what the organization needed to do.

On 15 August 1987, they gathered to share their views and canvass suggestions. They agreed on the following:

1. Continue to work on establishing a Child Care Centre in the Sydney CBD near Chinatown, fulfilling the original mission;
2. While The Australian Chinese Community Association (ACCA) had obtained government funding from 1979 to provide settlement services in the Chinese community, there is strong and increasing needs for settlement services in the community, including information sessions, form filling, helping community members to understand English documents and helping new migrants with issues relating to medical, education and welfare. This is an area our Society could venture into.
3. There is increasing need for elderly services. The Society should actively work with other amicable organizations, such as Chinese Youth League, to develop services for seniors.
4. As racist remarks appeared frequently in the mainstream media, there is a need to coordinate the Chinese community with other community organizations on measures to protect the rights and interests of various communities and speak out on issues affecting the community’s rights, welfare and interests.
5. Continue organising cultural and social activities to promote social harmony and interaction.

Based on the above suggestions, our Society formulated the first 5-year Corporate Plan since establishment. It provided direction for our Society’s future endeavour.

Even though there was no financial support, in 1987, a group of volunteers of our Society, including Henry and some Board members, began assisting people in form filling and reading English documents, etc. They began applying for government settlement services funding but were not successful.

🤔How did the Corporate Plan guide the development of our Society? There is more to share in the coming article!

After the abolishment of the White Australia Policy in 1973, the Government began implementing the Multiculturalism Policy. However, the undercurrent of anti-multiculturalism often appeared and created ripples.

In March 1984, a famous historian in Australia, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, repeatedly made remarks during many meetings saying that multiculturalism policy was detrimental to the interests of the country and majority of Australians, and he was against taking Asian migrants.

His remarks sparked immediate attention. Some federal members of parliament supported his remarks, including the then federal member who later became Prime Minister, John Howard. At the same time, there were reports that some Asians were spit upon on the streets and anti-Asian graffiti appeared in public places.

Facing the rapidly rising anti-Asian political sentiment, a group of concerned people in the Chinese community began to respond. Mr. Francis Lee who was active in the media, published a commentary in ‘The Australian’ in October 1984 to refute Professor Blainey’s viewpoints. This led to heated debates in the media. He and a group of like-minded friends formed the ‘Australian Chinese Forum’ in October 1985 with Francis Lee as the Chairperson (the name was later changed to the current one ‘Chinese Australian Forum’).

Regarding the fallacy of Prof Blainey, Henry and the directors of the Society were also concerned. They believed there was a need to initiate discussions and responses from the community. In March 1985, a forum was held at the Society’s Campsie Child Care Centre to discuss the viewpoints of Blainey and Howard, and the impacts of their views. Conclusions of the discussions was submitted to relevant government departments in the form of opinion letters.

With the widespread publicity of the discussions, leaders of a number of  Chinese organisations, including the Australian Chinese Forum, Chinese Youth League and The Chinese Masonic Society etc., met to discuss how to get everyone together to form a national organization as a voice for the Chinese communities in Australia.

To achieve this goal, it was suggested to organize a ‘National Get Together’ at the end of 1986 in Sydney. The original aim was to gather people of the Chinese communities from all the different states and territories to further mutual understanding and share views.

As news about the meeting was spread, it attracted positive responses from people in the Chinese communities among all different states and territories, with huge responses from New South Wales and Victoria, while some states or territories had one or two people only wishing to participate.

During the planning and preparation stages, many diverse and complex situations already appeared among people in the local Chinese community. While there was appeal for the leaders of the different Sydney Chinese community to work together cooperatively and harmoniously for the holding of the event, some of the people from the groups based in south western Sydney (Cabramatta and Fairfield areas) were swearing in meetings due to differing opinions. Someone even held a knife, grasped the collar of another participant and threatened to kill.

The event was planned to be held over 3 days from 28 to 30 November 1986 at the then well-known Mandarin Club in the City of Sydney. Proceedings included keynote speeches, discussions and dinner. Over 100 people attended the event.

Unfortunately, the meeting was often disrupted by heated debates on topics unrelated to the welfare and safeguard of rights of Chinese in Australia. The event ended in chaos, with no final consensus communique published, nor any action afterwards. It was the only national get together for the Chinese communities in Australia.

🤔How would CASS further develop under such circumstances? There’s more to share in the next article!

On 6 September 1992, our Society organized the “Dragon Charity Walk 92” for the first time at Darling Harbour to raise funds for Elderly Australian Chinese Homes Co-operative Ltd (EACH). Notwithstanding in terms of its scale, the number of participants involved or the amount of funds raised, the event was unprecedented in the Chinese community.

A presentation ceremony was held at our Society’s Campsie Activity Centre two months later, on 8 November 1992, to present certificates to those enthusiastic participants, business sponsors and prize winners. The Chairperson of EACH, Dr Cecilia Fong, who was also the Deputy Chairperson of our Society at the time, received the cheque of $52,000 from Henry at the ceremony.

With the success of ‘Dragon Charity Walk 92’, many people were looking forward to ‘Dragon Charity Walk 93’. Community support for aged care services was also very high. The main sponsor of the event, Po Hong Group of Companies, indicated its willingness to continue support.

Since our Society undertook the “EACH Project” in 1989, close to $120,000 had already been raised, not far from the original target of $140,000.

Most Board directors of our Society believed that when the target fund for EACH was fulfilled after “Dragon Charity Walk 93”, attention should return to the development of our Society.

With the success of ‘Dragon Charity Walk 92’, many people were looking forward to ‘Dragon Charity Walk 93’. Community support for aged care services was also very high. The main sponsor of the event, Po Hong Group of Companies, indicated its willingness to continue support.

Since our Society undertook the “EACH Project” in 1989, close to $120,000 had already been raised, not far from the original target of $140,000.

Most Board directors of our Society believed that when the target fund for EACH was fulfilled after “Dragon Charity Walk 93”, attention should return to the development of our Society.

In early 1993, our Society employed a manager to oversee its daily affairs. Henry was contemplating the development of our Society. He realised that there was an urgent need for more aged care services in the community. In this regard, our Society started the “Hua-An Senior Activity Group”. “Hua” represented our Society while “An” represented “EACH”, symbolized the partnership between the two organizations.

On the other hand, Henry felt that “Dragon Charity Walk 93” would definitely raise enough funds for EACH and should donate part of the money raised to the children’s hospital. There was objection and the person insisted that all funds raised should be donated to EACH.

“Dragon Charity Walk 93” was held on 12 September 1993. Mr. Michael Photios, NSW Minister for Multicultural Affairs representing the Premier, the wife of the Premier and the wife of the leader of the State Opposition attended the event. Exercise coach, Ms Julie Diamond, once again led the participants to do warm-ups. Mr Francis Lee, Ms Chen Jian and Mr Ernest Wong were the Masters of Ceremony.

While “Dragon Charity Walk 93” followed the successful structure of the previous year, the scale of the event and community participation fell short of its previous performance due to the appearance of differences among Board directors of our Society and EACH. The number of participants and sponsors was half of the previous year. Eventually, a total of $30,000 was raised, and $3,000 was donated to the children's hospital.

The regrettable situation led Henry to reconsider the relationship between the two organizations. When our Society undertook the “EACH Project”, the thinking was that EACH would be part of our Society serving the seniors. However, when some people spreading the view that “the two organisations are separate, and the Society should continue directing all energy to assist EACH; the Society should just operate child care services and there is no need for the Society to further develop in other services”. This thinking was certainly working against the interests of our Society.

It was in 1995 that our Society held the “Dragon Charity Walk” again. However, the aim, the format and scale were not the same.

🤔What would the future development of our Society be like? There is more to share in the next article.