2
fortunate in getting their money back from the public coffers. But would the motoring public ask why not pay the victims of these motor accidents from the public coffers?
It may be argued that depositors should take an investment risk due to the profitable return. Then the same argument may apply to traffic accident insurance as quite a large portion of motor vehicles are used in business or for making a profit.
If one looks up the Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics, one may find that the list of licensed motor vehicles comprises of motor tricycles, taxis, public buses, light buses, goods vehicles, special purpose vehicles and government vehicles, all business-like and prosperous. Even motor cycles, private buses, private light buses and private cars are not so "private". The acid test is whether their expenses may be included in their owners business returns and deductable as
expenditure for tax purposes.
The trend in the business circles nowadays is for the trade to ask its members to contribute to a fund which insured insolvent members and provide limited assurance to their clients. Such businesses are the share market, gold market and tourism. Business as a whole is now collectively contributing to the Protection of Wages in Insolvency Fund. So why should the insurance trade be the exception? As long as we legislate to govern the compulsory contribution, levy and proper operation of a fund, then whether the insurance companies charge it as expenditure and share it with their clients is another matter. It would add to the image that the foundation of the insurance
trade is on solid rocks.