HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL-13 January 1988
633
ble income for the Lotteries Fund-our only major funding source for pital social welfare projects, the higher level of funding falls far short of our expectations.
The explicit objective of the Lotteries Fund, clearly stated in the Betting Duty Ordinance amended in 1975 and known to the general public, is to provide an entity through which unspent money raised by the Mark Six lotteries could be channelled to social welfare activities. The fund established back in 1965 thus gives meaning and justification to an otherwise strictly gambling activity. It can be said that the Mark Six owes its popularity to public endorsement of a collective fund-raising effort for social welfare purpose. However, to what extent funds raised could in fact benefit social welfare is a matter that has remained undebated.
Let us examine closely the budgeting on the total proceeds from the lotteries. Since 1975, a big slice of the cake, that is 60 per cent, has been allocated for prize money, albeit a downward revision in 1985 to 59 per cent, which according to the 1987 Bill has to remain at this level in order to sustain public interest. Another largesse is taken up by betting duty, which rose from 25 per cent in 1975 to 30 per cent in 1985. Of the remaining 11 per cent, administrative costs combining operation costs for lotteries and horse betting paid to the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club is now fixed at 7.5 per cent of the lotteries proceeds, leaving a small fraction of 3.5 per cent to the Lotteries Fund. Indeed, what seems to be a considerable increase in share for the fund, estimated at an additional $27 million for 86-87 is but a tiny crumb left over from the lotteries cake consumed generously by the other parties.
Here, I wish to draw Members' attention to the capital grant given to the construction of the Jubilee Sports Centre totalling HK$150 million. This is three times the amount of net proceeds from the lotteries paid annually into the Lotteries Fund, averaging less than HK$50 million and covering more than 80 social welfare capital projects. Obviously, social welfare has been denied the same kind of magnanimity shown to recreation, although both social services are designed to promote human development and social well-being of our society.
Sir, funds generated by the lotteries speak for the fact that Hong Kong does not lack community support for its social welfare services. The problem lies with an unfair distribution of public funds. If the name of the Lotteries Fund is any indication of its objective, then the inequitable and preposterous appropria- tions proposed in the Bill, which benefit the government treasury and the Jockey Club at the expense of Lotteries Fund recipients are totally unacceptable. The increase in betting duty, claimed to be necessary for fiscal reasons, explains the reduction in the share for the Lotteries Fund which dropped from 5.75 per cent in 1983 to 1.5 per cent in 1985. Also for fiscal reasons, adjustments recom- mended by the Bill, leaving the entire share of betting duty untouched, aims basically at a reduction of administrative costs; which in my opinion could be further trimmed down simply by eliciting the lotteries operating cost from the Jockey Club's computerised facilities.