Government then switched our attention to their
secondary argument on the principle as to whether hospital expenses should be borne by motorists directly or indirectly via TAVAS, insurance company, and MIB on the one hand; or by the public as taxpayers through Government subvention. Government argued that there is no justification that motorists alone should have to meet the full cost of treating persons injured because a survey conducted in 1980 indicated that only 10% of the cases had the insurance companies admitting liabilities. The motorists and the pedestrians are both taxpayers having contributed subsidies to medical expenses. If the motorists were to require to meet the full cost of medical expenses again for treating the injured, they may be making a double payment, as a taxpayer and as a motorist. The overriding reason for the Bill was to repeal the previous scheme which was based on faulty principle. It was on this basis that the Ad Hoc Group was finally convinced to support this Bill.
Thorugh the course of studying this Bill, the Ad Hoc Group has revealed the following deficiencies within Government
administration :-
firstly it took Government 27 years, between 1951 when
the Ordinance was first enacted to 1978 to institute arrangements to recover hospital expenses from insurance companies;
secondly, when administrative difficulties arose after 1 year of its implementation, the Management Service Division was brought in to assist in 1979. However, after 8 years, none of its 6 recommendations were
adopted;
thirdly, Government had no legal authority to suspend
the scheme in 1981;