648
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 20 January 1988
bankruptcy, if the employer goes bankrupt. Now, if the same benefit is given to higher-paid employees, this means there will be less, in certain circumstances, less funds available for lower-paid ones, so the higher-paid would be receiving their protection to some extent at the expense of the lower-paid. It is possible one could find ways round this particular problem but this is something that would have to be taken into consideration if one was amending the present provisions.
MR. SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, could the Government inform this Council whether the unreasonable demarcation between manual and non-manual workers in society will be removed if we are to do away with the ceiling and that all employees will be treated on the same footing?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, if the ceiling was abolished altogether, then the present distinction between manual and non-manual employees would indeed disappear.
MR. TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, has the Government considered that there are the following problems inherent in the Ordinance? (1) The line between non-manual and manual workers is difficult to draw and (2) with the advance of technology and automation, more and more types of work will become non-manual in nature. If we have this particular ceiling and this particular ceiling becomes the dividing line, then we will be providing an opportunity to the employer to make use of the legal loophole.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I am not aware of this distinction having caused any problem so far nor am I aware of it having led to any loopholes being exploited. If any member has any information on this point, I would be very interested to hear it.
MR. SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, could the Government inform this Council of the recent deliberations of the Labour Advisory Board over this point. Has a consensus really been unanimously reached? Many years ago when I was a member of the Labour Advisory Board and whenever this matter was brought up for discussion, we did not see any unanimity in views between the employers' and the employees' representatives.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: No, Sir, there has not been unanimity of views. I was not intending to suggest there had been.
MR. DESMOND LEE (in Cantonese): Sir, could I ask whether there had been any cases of employees in the past who because they were afraid of losing the particular protection under the Ordinance, had refused a raise in salary exceeding $11,500?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I have heard this idea mentioned in conversation as a possibility. I am not aware of there being any actual cases.