Supplementary Medical Professions, Midwives Registration and Nurses Registration (Amendment) Bill 1985
First Reading: 24.7.85
Second & Third Readings: 7.8.85
This Bill was mainly designed to seek certain amendments to the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance. In respect of that Ordinance, the Bill had three main objectives. It sought to expand the regulation making powers set down in the Ordinance, to bring optometrists within the ambit of the Ordinance and to require that at least one director of any company carrying on a business of a para-medical profession should be professionally qualified to the standard required to practise that profession on his own account.
Following publication of the Bill, the Hong Kong Society of Professional Optometrists expressed its dissatisfaction over the definition and functions of optometrists at a press conference. A number of organisations representing optometrists also criticised the Chinese translation of 'optometrists'.
A working group under the convenership of Dr HO Kam-fai considered the Bill and the views expressed by the optometrists. After seeking clarification from the Administration on a number of clauses, the Group supported the Bill.
At the debate on the Second Reading, Dr HO Kam-fai spoke in support of the spirit of the Bill. He said that it would raise the standard of health care and provide greater protection to those who sought treatment from members of the paramedical professions. He
welcomed the Government's initiative in placing the optometry profession under legislative control. However, he asked the Government to comment on certain queries raised by the optometrists regarding the definition and Chinese translation of optometrists. He also urged the
Government to require each company to have more than one qualified director with the increased supply of competent personnel in the future.
Dr Henrietta IP also supported the Bill. She considered it justifiable to give the 'grandfathers' in the optical industry due recognition. As regards the requirement of professionally qualified directors, she urged that with
adequate manpower, the majority of
directors of the companies should be professionally qualified. She stressed the importance of consulting the relevant professions in the drafting of the regulations. She advocated that the Supplementary Medical Professions Council should assume an advisory role. She also reflected the dissatisfaction of physiotherapists over the Chinese translation of their title. She asked the Government to look into other allied medical professions, such as chiropractors, acupuncturists and herbalists with a view to placing them under legislative control.
In reply, the Secretary for Health and Welfare thanked Dr HO and Dr IP for their support of the Bill. He explained the reasons which prompted the Government to adopt the definition of optometrist in the Bill. He pointed out that the Chinese translation of 'Optometrists' which appeared in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill had no force in law and assured that the optometrists would be consulted on an official translation in due course; the opportunity would also be taken then to examine the Chinese terms for other para-medical professions. Assurance was also given that the draft regulations on all five para-medical professions would be circulated to all concerned organisations before submission to the Executive Council.
The Bill was read the third time and passed on 7.8.85
Unofficial Members' Motions and Adjournment Debates During the year, two motions were moved by Unofficial Members to debate issues of major public concern. The issues were the 'White Paper on the Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong' and 'Select Committee on Trials of Complex Commercial Crimes'. The debates for these issues are covered under Chapter 2 (pp. 3-5) and pp. 13-16 in this Chapter respectively.
In addition to debating these motions, Unofficial Members also moved three adjournment debates, details of which are reported in the following paragraphs.
The Education Commission Report No. 1
An adjournment debate on the Education Commission Report No. 1 was held on 23.1.85. Nine Members took part; they were Dr HO Kam-fai, Mr Alex WU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Miss
Maria TAM, Dr Henrietta IP, Mrs Rita FAN, Mrs Pauline NG, Mr YEUNG Po-kwan and Mr Peter C WONG. Dr HO Kam-fai supported the Commission Report. In particular, he agreed that instead of setting up an open university, open education should be developed at all levels and a co-ordinating body should be established among organisers of these courses for planning and collaboration. He also urged the Government to improve the linkage between technical institutes and the two polytechnics in order to attract students to the vocational and technical streams of education. Mr Alex WU spoke on the importance of bilingual education. He agreed that both Chinese and English syllabuses should be re-designed and arrangements should be made for the publication of text books in both languages so that they would be available to all schools regardless of the language mode chosen. He urged the Government to expedite action on the establishment of a Chinese Language Foundation and he supported the recommendation that schools should be encouraged to teach Putonghua. He stressed that the arts should not be overlooked and urged the Education Commission to focus its attention on the arts in education in the near future.
Mrs Selina CHOW was of the view that the Junior Secondary Education Assessment (JSEA) should be abolished as soon as possible so that it would not persist as a public examination for merely administrative rather than educational reasons for another six years. She suggested that the Government could either buy places in private schools as an interim measure, or, as an alternative, advance the school building programme. She also commented that while the medium of instruction in mother tongue was to be encouraged, schools should be allowed the choice, giving due consideration and emphasis to tradition and achievement. As regards open education, she favoured the expansion of the educational function of the mass media and urged the Broadcasting Review Board to further examine this issue.
As a member of the Education Commission, Miss Maria TAM explained that the Commission had not recommended immediate abolition of the JSEA by buying places from private schools because this was not
22
22