OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Wednesday, 24 April 1996
せるら琍戳
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
とだ穦某秨﹍
MEMBERS PRESENT
畊某
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
畊独Щ祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
腜某C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
㏄辩睶┥某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
畕地某
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
糂祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
︙┯ぱ某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
甃ㄎ瞶某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
糂胺祸某O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE EDWARD LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
辩醇翬某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
朝岸穨某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
眎ゅ某
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
糕蚌┚某
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
毒浪膀某
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
︙庇古某
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA, M.B.E.
独綺笽某M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
糂紌某
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
ッ笷某
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
產不某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
地某
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
璣某J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., F.Eng., J.P.
独篿某M.B.E., F.Eng., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
独﹜グ某
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
法У地某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
独岸藉某
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
嘲糠某
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
バ玊某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
朝挪狶某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
朝篴篱某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
朝胞糭某
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO
綠產碔某
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
綠癡某
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
綠模磁某
DR THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG
眎▆某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
眎簙┚某
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
讲蚌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
Χギ棚某
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
︙玊く某
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
腑瓣辆某
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
糂ホ某
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
糂簙煌某J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
霉不瓣某
THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG
霉璓某
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
币某
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
辩模┚某
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
郭Θ某
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
霉睲某
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
馋莱某
THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
艷祸某
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
肅繟某
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI
虫ヲ昂某
THE HONOURABLE TSANG KIN-SHING
纯胺Θ某
DR THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSE WING-LING
谅ッ闹某
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
独窥ㄤ军某C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAWRENCE YUM SIN-LING
ヴ到圭某
MEMBERS ABSENT
畊某
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
琖皇某Q.C., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
瓣腳某O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
ぶ城某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
襖略ビ某
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
法此某
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
CHIEF SECRETARY
︽現Ы某ガ現朝よネC.B.E., J.P.
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
癩現拷琖ネJ.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
︽現Ы某現皑碔到ネC.M.G., J.P.
MR HAIDER HATIM TYEBJEE BARMA, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
笲块纉ゅネI.S.O., J.P.
MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
徖ネ褐繬霉璼O.B.E., J.P.
MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
癩竒ㄆ叭砛くネJ.P.
MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
毙▅参膚ッキネJ.P.
MR PETER LAI HING-LING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
玂兢紋圭ネJ.P.
MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
坝玕﹙┥J.P.
MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
砏购吏挂現辩腳篴ネJ.P.
MR ALAN LAI NIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY
畐叭兢ネJ.P.
MR LEO KWAN WING-WAH, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
竒蕾闽ッ地ネJ.P.
MRS STELLA HUNG KWOK WAI-CHING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
現叭ふ尝磃睲J.P.
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE
畊
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, SECRETARY GENERAL
毒更不ネ
MR LAW KAM-SANG, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
捌霉繟ネネ
MISS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
瞶ゅ地
MR RAY CHAN YUM-MOU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
瞶朝窜璟ネ
PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2):
Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Official Languages (Alteration of Text)
(Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance)
Order 1996 154/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Enforcement of Rights (Extension of Time)
Ordinance) Order (C) 29/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance)
Order (C) 30/96
Commissioner for Administrative Complaints
Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1)
Order 1996 155/96
Schedule of Routes (Citybus Limited) Order 1996 156/96
Medical Registration (Amendment) Ordinance 1995
(87 of 1995) (Commencement) Notice 1996 158/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Port Control (Cargo Working Areas)
Ordinance) Order (C) 31/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance) Order (C) 32/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Disposal of Uncollected Goods Ordinance) (C) 33/96
Order
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Protection of Non-Government Certificates
of Origin Ordinance) Order (C) 34/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Limitation Ordinance) Order (C) 35/96
Stamp Duty (Jobbing Business) (Options Market
Makers) Regulation 159/96
Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons)
(Amendment) Regulation 1996 160/96
Adoption (Amendment) Rules 1996 161/96
ゅン
ゅン沮盽砏材14(2)兵砏﹚τ矗ユ穦某畊凝
兜ヘ
妮猭ㄒ 猭そ絪腹
1996猭﹚粂ゅ(эゅセ)
(徊洛励穨兵ㄒ) 154/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ舦眏磅︽
(┑甶戳)兵ㄒ (C) 29/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
(徊洛励穨兵ㄒ) (C) 30/96
1996ビ禗盡兵ㄒ璹1 155/96
1996隔絬ぺΤそ 156/96
1995洛ネ爹璹兵ㄒ1995材87腹
1996ネら戳そ 158/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
翠恨砯杆跋兵ㄒ (C) 31/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
玂臔よ玂兵ㄒ (C) 32/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
礚Μ烩砯珇矪竚兵ㄒ (C) 33/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ獶現┎帽祇
玻ㄓ方靡玂毁兵ㄒ (C) 34/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ兵ㄒ (C) 35/96
祙靡ㄩ竒綪穨叭
戳舦缠產砏ㄒ 159/96
1996ρ皘璹砏ㄒ 160/96
1996烩緄璹砏玥 161/96
Sessional Papers 1995-96
No. 74 Report of changes to the approved Estimates of Expenditure
approved during the third quarter of 1995-96
Public Finance Ordinance : Section 8
No. 75 Mass Transit Railway Corporation
Annual Report 1995
No. 76 Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
Annual Report 1995
No. 77 Report of the Broadcasting Authority
September 1994 - August 1995
No. 78 Report of the Director of Audit on
the results of value for money audits
March 1996 - Director of Audit's Report No. 26
き︓せ穦戳ず矗ユゅン
材74腹 き︓せ材﹗
莉у癸秨や箇衡э厨
そ癩現兵ㄒ材8兵
材75腹 臟隔そ
き厨
材76腹 約臟隔そ
き厨
材77腹 約冀ㄆ叭恨瞶Ы厨
る︓きる
材78腹 计竝竝ぇ颗秖Α计挡狦厨
せる 计竝竝材せ腹厨
ADDRESSES
Mass Transit Railway Corporation Annual Report 1995
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, in accordance with section 16(4) of the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation Ordinance, I table the annual report and accounts of the Corporation for the year ended 31 December 1995.
In 1995, the MTR carried 813 million passengers, 1% more than 1994. Total revenue increased by 10% to $5,665 million, while total operating costs before depreciation increased by 13% to $2,521 million. Interest and finance charges were at $1,289 million, 2% higher than last year.
The Corporation has adopted a fare policy which offers a value-for-money service and generates sufficient funds to finance expenditure on upgrading and improving the existing system. Over the next five years, the Corporation will spend $8 billion on capital improvement projects.
The total debt outstanding at the end of 1995 was close to HK$15 billion. To finance the Airport Railway, the Corporation's borrowings are expected to increase in the next two years. The Corporation continues to enjoy respect in worldwide financial markets. Its debut, Yankee bond in the United States, was executed well and established another benchmark.
During the year, the Government injected equity totalling HK$11.7 billion for the construction of the Airport Railway. Progress on construction is satisfactory. I am pleased to note that the Corporation is confident of the Airport Railway being completed within estimate.
The Corporation's net profit for 1995 was $1,196 million compared with $1,038 million in 1994. The accumulated losses of $99 million at the end of 1995 will not be extinguished until 1996. The Corporation has not therefore declared a dividend for 1995.
Mr President, the Mass Transit Railway Corporation is obliged under the law to operate in accordance with prudent commercial principles and, accordingly, must ensure that taking one year with another, its revenue is at least sufficient to meet its expenditure and interest payments. It is through annual fare adjustments that the Corporation generates the necessary funds to implement comprehensive maintenance and service improvement programmes. It is in fact the ability to determine its own fares that has enabled the Corporation to enjoy high credit ratings and to raise funds in local and overseas markets successfully to finance new railway projects and build for the future. Since these arrangements have worked well from 1979, when MTR services came into operation, we should treasure them, and not tamper with them.
The Corporation's annual report provides ample evidence of the MTR's very successful performance. I congratulate the Chairman and the Corporation for their achievements in the past year.
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE Wing-tat, do you have a point of Order?
ッ笷某畊ネ硂拜肈и稱璶―坚睲
PRESIDENT: Do you wish to seek elucidation? Yes, please, Mr LEE.
ッ笷某畊ネゅン材琿矗沮猭ㄒ臟隔そ程ぶ璶Τì镑Μ蝴ㄤや㎝や叫拜癩現赣そきΤ12货じ硂琌竒环环禬筁猭ㄒ砏﹚
癩現畊ネ猭ㄒ琌璶―赣そ沮糵稸坝穨玥笲礚弧Μ痲┪ゲ斗﹚糷Ω┪キ
Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation Annual Report 1995
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, in accordance with section 14(5) of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC) Ordinance, I table the annual report and accounts of the Corporation for the year ended 31 December 1995.
In 1995, the KCRC carried over 1.1 million passengers each day, 5% more when compared with 1994. About two thirds of the passengers travelled on the heavy rail and the remaining one third on the light rail system.
The light rail system was extended to the centre of Tin Shui Wai new town in March 1995. The extension has provided an important transport service for the 85 000 residents of the new town.
Productivity improvements have made it possible for the Corporation to keep fares at an affordable level. Over the past five years, KCRC's fares have in fact declined 13% in real terms. In 1995, the KCR and LRT met or exceeded almost all their performance pledge targets, and successfully obtained ISO certification across an extensive range of functions.
The Corporation continued to develop and expand the container freight services launched in 1994. These services link the industrial centres of China with the port of Hong Kong.
The Corporation also aimed at strengthening and improving the quality of cross-border services. At a cost of $309 million, electric locomotives and rolling stock have been ordered for a new double-deck through train service between Hong Kong and Guangzhou.
In response to the Government's invitation, the Corporation has submitted proposals to the Government for the design, construction and operation of a new railway in the northwest New Territories. This will provide domestic and international passenger services and also carry freight from China to the container ports. The system will link up with the existing heavy rail and light rail systems, as well as the Mass Transit Railway and Airport Railway to enhance the existing rail network.
The Corporation maintained a satisfactory financial position in 1995. Total revenue rose to $2,973 million, representing an increase of 11% over 1994. Net profit for the year after tax was $901 million. Taking into account the Corporation's cash flow requirements and investment needs in the year ahead, the Government has not asked for any dividends.
The Corporation will invest $5.7 billion over the next five years in service improvements, including major projects such as automatic train protection, renovation of Hung Hom Station, and noise barriers.
Mr President, under its remit, the KCRC is obliged to conduct its business in accordance with prudent commercial principles. What I have said just a few moments ago about the MTRC equally applies to the KCRC. We must maintain the existing arrangements to enable the KCRC to benefit from capital markets, particularly for the Western Corridor Railway project which is in the pipeline.
The Corporation has continued to operate very successfully over the past year. I congratulate the Chairman, its Managing Board as well as the management and staff of the Corporation for their achievements during the past year.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Shortage of Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists
1. 霉璓某拜畊ネ挪獶現┎眃確狝叭诀篶戮穨獀励畍の瞶獀励畍も祏現┎セЫ
(a) 篒︓きるら洛皘恨瞶Ы"洛恨Ы"烈洛皘の穦褐竝戮穨獀励畍の瞶獀励畍戮╰絪戮计の计ヘ
(b) 篒︓きるら獶現┎眃確狝叭诀篶珹Ν戳毙▅の癡絤いみ疭ギㄠいみの疭厩戮穨獀励畍の瞶獀励畍戮╰絪戮计の计ヘ
(c) 現┎Τσ納獶現┎眃確狝叭诀篶戮穨獀励畍の瞶獀励畍祇ǒ骋瑉禟眏单诀篶矗ㄑ羱筍褐ま覸絯も祏薄鶪
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, in view of the detailed figures being asked for, I thought it would be easier for Members to refer to the tables in the written Annex to this answer which is laid before them today. The tables show the establishment, strength and vacancy of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in various sectors.
Moving now to the last part of the question, as Members may be aware, my Branch has set up a working group to address the shortage of clinical psychologists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The working group comprises representatives from both the government and non-governmental sectors and representatives of the relevant professional bodies in Hong Kong. The working group has completed its study of the situation regarding clinical psychologists and is now nearing completion of its study of physiotherapists.
It has become clear that we must increase the supply of these professions and take steps to facilitate their retention in the non-governmental sector. The package of proposals under consideration for physiotherapists includes the expansion of student places, a more balanced exposure between the health and welfare sectors for physiotherapy students in clinical placements, the creation of senior physiotherapist posts in non-governmental organizations, revised manning ratios, more flexible transfer arrangements for staff between the various sectors and the provision of scholarships for further training. Also under consideration is the feasibility and likely effectiveness of creating an allowance, such as an Extraneous Duties Allowance, for physiotherapists working in non-governmental organizations.
The working group is now examining all of these proposals and will soon finalize its recommendations on physiotherapists. We have begun the necessary detailed background research on occupational therapists and the working group will commence its study of this profession once the study on physiotherapists is completed. The measures needed to address problems faced by occupational therapists are likely to be similar to those we have so far drawn up for physiotherapists.
Annex
Manpower of Occupational Therapists as at 31 December 1995
Department/ Establishment Strength No. of Vacancy
Sector SOT OTI OTII SOT OTI OTII SOT OTI OTII
Hospital Authority 34 137 203 33 128 180 1 9 23
Social Welfare 1 6 0 1 6 0 0 0 0
Department (Rehab
Service)
*Subvented NGOs 1 64.5 23.5 1 58.25 8 0 6.25 15.5
(Rehab Service)
#as at 30.9.1995
Total 36 207.5 226.5 35 192.25 188 1 15.25 38.5
Manpower of Physiotherapists as at 31 December 1995
Department/ Establishment Strength No. of Vacancy
Sector SPT PTI PTII SPT PTI PTII SPT PTI PTII
Hospital Authority 57 246 301 55 236 287 2 10 14
Social Welfare 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Department
(Rehab Service)
*Subvented NGOs 1 60.5 23.5 0 40 1.4 1 20.5 22.1
(Rehab Service)
#as at 30.9.1995
Total 58 308.5 324.5 55 278 288.4 3 30.5 36.1
* including special schools subvented by the Education Department and rehabilitation non-governmental organizations subvented by the Social Welfare Department.
# The Social Welfare Department can only update the strength of non-governmental organizations once every six months based on the returns submitted by individual agencies. The latest figures available are those at 30 September 1995.
Note: The decimal points in the tables reflect the fractions of posts to which the non-governmental organizations are entitled based on approved manning ratios. If an agency is not entitled to a full post, it may combine the fractions of a post for different units in that agency into a full post, or top up their subvention in order to fill a post with someone full-time or employ part-time staff.
Occupational Therapists Physiotherapists
SOT Senior Occupational Therapist SPT Senior Physiotherapist
OTI Occupational Therapist I PTI Physiotherapist I
OTII Occupational Therapist II PTII Physiotherapist II
霉璓某拜畊ネи獶盽蔼砍钮徖ネ褐弧穦σ納肂瑉禟硂拜肈ぃ筁沮現┎矗ㄑ计獶現┎诀篶瞶獀励畍ゑ瞯琌94%и獺硂胺τ洛恨Ыゑ瞯玥4%秆∕硂拜肈よ現┎Τσ納璶―洛恨Ы瞷挡竨ノもτ琵獶現┎诀篶纔竨ノも
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: I think we should all recognize that both physiotherapists and occupational therapists are required in both the medical and the welfare sectors. To arbitrarily freeze or restrict the employment of such grades in one sector might not be in the best interests of people seeking treatment. However, recognizing the overall shortage of manpower in these two professions, we have a continuing liaison between the Hospital Authority, the Health and Welfare Branch and the welfare sector, in how to best make use of the pool of resources available in Hong Kong. There are opportunities for things such as sharing of resources, sharing of care and for the two sectors to make the best use of these very valuable professionals. I recognize that we have a shortfall in these numbers, and in the long term, the only way to increase these shortfalls is by increasing our places at the tertiary institutions.
︙庇古某拜畊ネ眖硂ㄇ计ㄓ洛恨Ы祏计ぃび蔼絪籔┕┕Τ稬М闽玒現┎и-
洛恨ЫΤ┷竨瞷螟τ埃场だ絪┪秨甶穝狝叭ぃ砞ミㄇ絪薄鶪ㄓ⊿Τê或腨現┎琌Τ诀菏诡瓃薄鶪洛恨Ы瞷莱Τも琌ぶ㎡畊ネ現┎氮滦ノ"絪"establishment迭沮и秆洛恨Ы琌⊿Τ絪叫拜硂ㄇ计琌︙眔ㄓ
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the numbers required by the Hospital Authority in respect of these professions must be decided by the Hospital Authority itself. It is certainly not for me to decide how many of each grade they should require. According to the numbers given, this is the best available information provided by the Hospital Authority in preparation for the reply to the question by the Honourable Member.
MR MICHAEL HO: Mr President.
PRESIDENT: Mr HO, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
︙庇古某拜琌畊ネи借高琌現┎琌Τㄇ诀菏诡眔и┮弧洛恨Ы埃絪拜肈沮и秆洛恨Ы琌⊿Τ絪現┎秆睦硂ㄇ计琌︙眔ㄓ
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the Government does not closely monitor the exact requirements of different grades of professions required by the Hospital Authority.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, this is the best available information provided by the Hospital Authority. But if the Member wishes me to explore this further, I can certainly ask for more information from the Hospital Authority and provide him with a written reply. (Annex I)
PRESIDENT: To clarify whether or not there is the concept of establishment in the Hospital Authority?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I will certainly refer that to the Hospital Authority and reply to the Member in writing.
谅ッ闹某拜畊ネ硂ㄇぃ獶現┎诀篶τ锣洛恨Ы璶琌洛恨Ы兵ン褐叫拜現┎穦σ納糤褐疭琌êㄇ獶現┎诀篶ㄏ-
痙ㄓτぃ穦锣洛恨Ы
SECRETARY FOR HELATH AND WELFARE: Mr President, there are a number of factors which affect a person's desire to work in one or the other sector, whether it is the medical sector or the welfare sector. First of all, there is a serious overall shortfall of manpower. Secondly, in the hospital setting there is a greater pool of expertise and more supervisory posts. And thirdly, a number of professionals desire to work in the hospital setting rather than in the welfare setting. But having said that, we are looking at the possibility of making work in the welfare sector far more attractive by a number of means and, that is, through the addition of supervisory posts or through the paying of additional allowances such as Extraneous Duties Allowance, in recognition of the additional responsibilities of the people in this sector.
地某拜畊ネи獺徖ネ褐種眖矗ㄑ计癸洛恨Ыㄓ弧獶現┎诀篶戮穨獀励畍の瞶獀励畍琌腨眔硂薄鶪穦紇臫êㄇ狦-
–ぱぃ钡硂ㄇ狝叭杠碞穦紇臫-
ō砰祇甶硂妓候薄鶪徖ネ褐矗ㄑ常琌ㄇ耕环よ猭и稱拜現┎Τ祏戳よ猭荷е秆∕確眃诀篶竨叫ぃも拜肈現┎妓ノ洛恨Ы戈方腊-
㎡
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, there is no immediate action that we can take to alleviate the shortage in the short term. However, what is happening is that the Government, together with NGO's are looking abroad for recruitment of the necessary professionals and we are about to start the recruitment of clinical psychologists overseas. Now if this proves to be successful and if the working party considers this also to be relevant in respect of the other two professions, such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists, we will consider launching another overseas recruitment exercise for these two professions.
As far as the shortage in the welfare sector is concerned, I have already mentioned before that there is perhaps greater scope for sharing of resources between the Hospital Authority and the welfare sector and for better collaboration in the delivery of services in the welfare sector.
Regulation of Chinese Herbal Medicine
2. ︙庇古某拜畊ネらΤカチ粇狝い媚"碍︔"い瑀斗皘獀瞶τ菏恨い媚猭ㄒ览﹚ぃ穦祏戳ずЧΘΤǎの現┎セЫ
(a) 筁Τぶカチ粇狝瑀┦い媚ま璓い瑀τ斗皘獀瞶
(b) (a)兜┮瓃い计︙の
(c) 猭ㄒ﹚玡現┎穦σ納璶―媚坝瑀┦い媚夹乓の穦蹦ㄤ︽現惫琁ňゎカチ粇狝瑀┦い媚τい瑀
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ
(a) ︑眖︓き戳丁Τㄢ蒥チ粇狝い媚τい瑀斗璶皘獀励セる︓るΤ蒥チ狝ノΤ瑀┦い媚"碍︔""艶"τ斗皘钡獀励
(b) 筁戳丁翠⊿Τ祇ネヴ︙狝ノい媚い瑀τ旧璓
(c) い洛媚祇甶膚称〆穦虏嘿"い洛媚膚〆穦"瞷タ絪璹疨┦〓瑀┦い媚虫ㄑ蒥チ把σ徖ネ竝籔い洛媚膚〆穦穦毙▅蒥チみ㎝タ絋ㄏノい媚
い洛媚膚〆穦戮砫ぇ琌現┎﹚崩約祇甶㎝恨い洛媚現郸膚称〆穦ョ璽砫╯セ翠い媚い媚だ綪い媚籹硑綪扳薄鶪Τ闽瑀┦い媚斗夹乓某盢穦ユパい洛媚膚称〆穦σ納
︙庇古某拜畊ネ徖ネ褐氮и拜肈(c)场だ琌獶盽ぃ睲贰и琌拜現┎Τ︙ㄣ砰︽現惫琁ㄓňゎΤ蒥チ粇狝瑀┦い媚ㄆン氮滦禗и-
穦毙▅蒥チ畊ネ瞷琌皌媚よ拜肈の媚睼馒蒥チ皌媚セ媚┍よ竒睼睹媚硂贺薄鶪現┎Τ︙ㄣ砰惫琁絋玂硂贺い瑀ㄆンぃ瞷
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ翠扳芥い媚场だㄓ︑い瓣嘲さΩ祇ネЖ馒"碍︔"ㄆン琌媚ㄓ翠ぇ玡竒睼"艶"ず┮и-
翠琌螟Τ快猭絋玂硂ㄇ媚タ絋夹乓い洛媚祇甶膚称〆穦獶盽闽猔硂よτ徖ネ竝祏戳ず穦σ納籔い瓣坝㎝翠綪扳坝坝癚︙絋玂い媚ㄓ翠玡夹乓硂よи-
琌惠璶琿丁秈︽㎝Τσ納獶暗
辩醇翬某拜畊ネиビ厨痲и琌硂膚〆穦Θ徖ネ褐(c)琿氮滦弧璶籹称闽硂ㄇ瑀┦媚珇虫ㄓ毙▅蒥チи谋眔羭ゼゲ笷ヘ场だ蒥チ碞禘常琌綼洛ネ秨或媚㎝綼┮孔"磝耫"磅或媚倒虫ゼゲ笷璓Θ拜肈琌讽徖ネ褐ゼ籔いよよタΑ坝癚絋﹚┮Τい媚笲翠痷ㄤ媚┮ボぇ玡穦σ納窽ゎ扳芥硂摸瑀┦媚Τ诀糵琩祇扳
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ辩某┮矗某快猭セ翠瞷猭ㄒぃ琌ぃ暗瞷い媚ぃ猭ㄒ恨祇ネ程硂ンㄆи-
籔い媚坝坝の綪扳坝АΤ盞ち羛蹈τ穨ずョ㎝贾種莱程ㄆン讽ミㄨ氨ゎ扳Τ拜肈┪祇ネ拜肈い媚疭琌"艶"硂贺媚Ж馒"碍︔"и-
辨膥尿籔穨ず羛蹈㎝蛤秈Τ闽ㄆ兜琌猭ㄒ┪︽現も琿ㄓ┪窽ゎ扳硂摸媚珇琌ぃ
馋莱某拜畊ネи稱江垫⊿Τ現┎恨ぃ筁產笵現┎砞Τ场ゅ繟寸浪琩江垫江垫Τ穦Τ瑀徖ネ褐(c)琿弧穦祇疨┦瑀媚虫┪籔坝╯︙恨い媚钮弧杠ョ螟и稱拜現┎瘤礛瞷粇狝い媚い瑀魁獶琌癸ㄇ瞷竒睼㎝瑀┦Θだ秈い媚現┎穦荷е﹚ㄇ惫琁ㄒ钩浪琩瑀垫妓琌媚秈秈︽ㄇ浪喷疭琌ㄇ籔⊿Τ瑀┦い媚摸Τ瑀い媚玂毁蒥チ潦媚ぃ璓潦睼㎝瑀┦い媚媚珇ㄤ龟瞷い媚琌竒Τ夹乓拜肈琌︙暗翴硂よひ絵
徖ネ褐氮и稱馋某┮矗某惠璶胑戈方暗璶浪琩㎝絋玂–贺い媚琌螟ぃ暗и-
ㄌ苦坝㎝よ暗┦夹乓и笵い洛媚膚〆穦甶秨╯硂よ拜肈
闽︙毙▅蒥チ続讽τㄏノい媚и-
斗璶蒥チフ琌惠璶竒筁い洛畍禘耞ぇ皌媚翠蒥チΤ会瑈︽策篋碞琌ゼ竒い洛畍┪洛畍禘獀獽︑︽皌媚狝ノ硂ョ琌и-
惠璶秈︽毙▅㎝暗ㄇ崩約
︓ゅ繟寸浪喷–уい媚ㄏ瞷垫江ぃ琌–兵江垫浪喷┮硂よи-
祇谋Τ腨拜肈σ納某┮矗惫琁ぃ筁某ョ種硂碭い媚Ж睼ㄤ疨┦媚薄ぃ
PRESIDENT: Mr MOK Ying-fan, you have raised your hand again, but I think it was an adequate answer. I will put you down for a further supplementary.
独綺笽某拜畊ネㄤ龟瞷セ炊硄κ砯そ耫齘潦禦Τ瑀┦い媚Θ媚Τ硂摸媚媚┬潦禦眔ョゼゲ﹚竒い洛畍矪よ磅皌硂薄鶪ぇ現┎临琌弧ぃゴ衡﹚璶Τ夹乓┪ㄤ惫琁璶单膚〆穦某叫拜Τ闽某︙矗ㄓ㎡Τ某ぇ︙Τ猭ㄒ㎡安祏戳ずぃΤ挡狦杠現┎琌痷璶单瞷徖ネ褐┮弧腨狦ㄒΤ礛蹦惫琁Τ瑀い媚綪扳︙現┎ぃ瞷碞ミㄒ恨瑀┦い媚
徖ネ褐氮恨い媚疭琌Τ瑀┦┪疨┦い媚琌膚〆穦璶ヴ叭祏戳ず阀せる碞﹚虫ㄑ把σぇノㄤΩи-
ョゴ衡把σい瓣嘲┮ノ夹乓㎝恨快猭祏戳ずи-
穦暗ㄇ毙▅よ㎝矗眶蒥チㄏノい媚続讽ノ猭い媚翠琌ゑ耕炊筂τい洛い媚琌翠尺舧ㄏノ洛励㎝獀励よ猭и-
ョ璶い瑀τ斗璶秈洛皘计︓きㄢせ琌τ眖⊿Τ狝い媚い瑀τ┮薄鶪獶腨
独綺笽某拜畊ネи借高ゼ莉氮滦膚〆穦︙闽夹乓┪ㄤミ猭よ某のΤ硂ㄇ某ぇ現┎箇璸︙盢猭ユミ猭Ы辨現┎氮и-
徖ネ褐氮畊ネи硂顶琿ぃ倒絋龟丁氮滦某琌и笵膚〆穦竒獶盽ち╯硂よ拜肈膚〆穦ぇョΤㄢ盡產舱╯い媚㎝い洛菏恨拜肈玈Τ厨┪祏戳ずΤㄇ或и辨荷еτ﹚ミ猭Ы徖ネㄆ叭〆穦厨
法У地某拜畊ネ現┎"碍︔"硂贺媚セō琌Τい媚励のウ琌妮現┎竒粄琌繧い媚ㄤい贺┪琌妮ゴ衡絪璶氮滦(c)琿┮瓃疨┦瑀┦い媚虫媚ぇ㎡
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ"碍︔"琌贺疨┦い媚ョΤウ疭﹚洛励ノ翠Τい洛畍ノ硂贺媚ㄓ皌よ琌狦続讽皌よ㎝続讽都ノ琌
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, in the first paragraph of the Secretary's reply, she said that very few people in Hong Kong have been intoxicated with Chinese herbs. I wonder if the Secretary is aware of the fact that in late 1989, the Health Panel of this Council actually requested the Administration to make a pro-active study of the number of cases from public hospital in which people developed harmful effects as a result of taking Chinese herbs. I wonder whether there is any result from this study or this survey and if so, what is the result of the survey so that Members of this Council and perhaps the Preparatory Committee for Chinese Medicine could base their further analysis on this meaningful data?
徖ネ褐氮иさぱも娩⊿Τ硂摸戈и穦某矗ㄑ氮滦(Annex II)
馋莱某拜畊ネ谅谅琵и拜拜肈徖ネ褐弧い媚翠ㄏノ炊筂タ炊筂┮и-
碞莱赣みи矗借高ぃ琌弧璶浪喷场い媚τ琌ㄇ㎝獶瑀┦い媚瑀┦い媚"碍︔"㎝"艶"┾琩硂ㄇい媚ぃ惠璶戈方叫拜現┎暗眔㎡
徖ネ褐氮畊ネи穦徖ネ竝锣笷某┮矗某
霉璓某拜畊ネ徖ネ褐氮滦辩醇翬某借高ボㄆパ坝︑氨ゎ綪扳氮馋莱某弧秈︽┾琩び胑ゼゲ暗眔╯澈現┎Τσ納筁躬纘坝秈︽┾琩㎡
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ種ǎ琌ぃ岿矗某и-
ョ穦蛤秈
Appointments to Committees, Boards and Advisory Committees
3. ヴ到圭某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 現┎羆服崩滤〆ヴ贺"〆穦""恨瞶Ы"の"吭高〆穦"獶﹛よΘ琌Τ琂﹚非玥ㄤ崩滤祘の縵匡筁祘︙
(b) Τσ納砏﹚斗崩滤膀糷跋某膀糷チ種眔赣单〆穦〓恨瞶Ыは琈の
(c) 讽Ы︙蝶莉〆ヴ瞷筁Τ莉〆ヴ瞷ろㄎτㄤ〆ヴ砆沧ゎ璝Τ计ヘΤぶ
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, in making appointments to advisory boards and committees, and other bodies, the Government seeks to secure the services of the best available persons to meet the requirements of the bodies concerned. The expertise, experience, integrity and commitment to public service of prospective appointees are carefully considered. Due regard is also given to the need to ensure a good balance of members in the body concerned. To achieve a reasonable turnover of membership, the Government, as a general rule, tries to avoid re-appointing someone who has already served on the same committee for six years. In addition, to ensure a reasonable workload, the Government normally does not appoint one person to sit on more than six committees at any one time. These are, however, general guidelines which may not be followed rigidly as some committees may find it necessary to retain the services of members who possess particular expertise and would provide continuity in the work of the committee concerned.
Recommendations to the Governor for appointments to advisory boards and committees, and other bodies are made by the relevant Policy Secretaries or Heads of Departments. Prospective candidates are selected in the light of the general criteria outlined above. In some cases, the individuals selected are already known to the concerned Branches and Departments. In others, they are nominated by professional bodies or other organizations in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. Where appropriate, suggestions are also sought from the Home Affairs Branch and Home Affairs Department, in view of their close contacts with people from a wide cross-section of the community.
In recommending appointments, the Government gives due consideration to the experience and background of people at the district level, including members of local groups such as district boards. I can assure the Honourable Member that this practice will continue.
Policy Secretaries and Heads of Departments are responsible for the assessment of performance of members of the boards and committees under their purview. In general, the performance of individual members is assessed against their contributions to discussions, their commitment to public service and the functions of the particular committees. It is not usual for us to terminate appointments prematurely. There is no record of any member of advisory boards and committees and other bodies whose term of service was terminated early on account of poor performance in the past three years. Any member who does not perform satisfactorily would normally not be recommended for re-appointment.
ヴ到圭某拜現┎–Ω羆服そガ〆ヴ虫ミ猭Ы矗ユ戈秆睦〆ヴêㄇ
現叭氮畊ネ碞〆ヴ羆服┮某硄盽穦ㄌ酚и┮弧σ納硂ㄇゅン硄盽更Τ戈の現┎ず场癚阶ぃ続﹜そガ
郭Θ某拜畊ネ璶氮滦矗〆ヴ穦だ臮のΤ闽刮砰Θよキ颗硂琌珹キ颗Θ某璉春┪現囊璉春磷ま璓┬独琍地ネ竒盽踞み┮孔現獀て拜肈狦Τ硂贺σ納︙現┎さΩ氮滦い⊿Τ㈱フ弧ㄓ
現叭氮畊ネ讽и-
σ納〆ヴ穦〆穦璶穦σ納〆穦砫ヴの璽砫讽礛и-
穦σ納琌惠璶〆ヴ盡穨竒喷そ獺の巨单拜肈現獀璉春獶璶σ納
辩模┚某拜畊ネ現┎璶氮滦材琿矗現┎穦だσ納讽(и︳璸硂琌陆亩拜肈莱赣琌"跋"璣ゅセ琌"district level")ㄤい珹跋某穦单よ刮砰Θ竒喷㎝璉春叫拜現┎︓ヘ玡ゎ瓃〆穦吭高〆穦㎝恨瞶Ы讽いΤぶ︗跋某莉眔〆ヴ狦現┎瞷ゼΤ戈よΑ矗ㄑ叫拜現┎穦σ納......
PRESIDENT: One supplementary at a time please, Mr LEUNG. Is your second supplementary related to the first supplementary?
辩模┚某拜叫拜現┎ヘ玡莉眔〆ヴ跋某穦某计ヘ琌ぶ
現叭氮畊ネиも娩⊿Τ虫虫跋某穦计狦琌跋杠珹跋某穦だ跋〆穦秏ㄆ〆穦㎝跋防竜〆穦玥き〆ヴ82
独岸藉某拜畊ネ現叭璶氮滦程琿矗蝶硂ㄇ〆穦Θ瞷穦跌-
癸癚阶癪膍狝叭穦荐港单ぃ筁и竒喷┮眔ΤㄇΘ〆穦计眖⊿Τ祇ē玱莉眔〆ヴ叫拜竒盽蹿觅跋笆琌才現叭┮弧狝叭穦荐港
現叭氮畊ネиぃび睲贰琌痷ΤΘ〆穦癚阶い眖⊿Τ祇種ǎτи谋眔и-
瞷螟眔ㄆ龟痷︓ㄇ癸よ蹿и獺琌贺癸よ狝叭┪癸穦癪膍蹿絋ㄏ笆眔秈︽и獺癸穦Τ痲矪
地某拜畊ネ沮и┮ㄇ〆穦㎝吭高〆穦い穦Τㄇㄣ現囊璉春ΘΤㄇ〆穦玱Ч⊿Τ硂摸叫拜現┎或非玥ㄓ∕﹚ㄇ〆穦惠璶現獀Θㄇ玱ぃ惠璶硂ㄇ非玥︙络﹚
現叭氮畊ネи氮滦虏虫碞琌現囊璉春┪現獀ぃ琌и-
σ納琌〆ヴㄤ琘〆穦璶
讲蚌某拜畊ネ筁ㄓチ匡跋某莉眔〆ヴ〆穦计ヘキА–ぃì30叫拜現┎Τ羆服崩滤硂ㄇы┪羆服ぃ腀種〆ヴ跋チ種
現叭氮畊ネσ納〆ヴи獺程璶琌跌璉春㎝盡琌続〆穦惠璶︓チ匡某⊿Τ莉〆ヴ〆穦и粄硂弧猭ぃタ絋и-
ぃ穦Τ種ぃσ納チ匡某
ッ笷某拜畊ネ吭高〆穦㎝猭﹚诀篶舱Θ砆у蝶Τろキ颗現┎〆ヴ计籔現┎種ǎ現┎璶氮滦材琿矗〆ヴ穦だσ納よキ颗玱ぃそガ︙笷璓キ颗ぃそ渤秆睦︙衡琌キ颗叫拜現叭硂︙そ渤谋眔キ颗㎡琌現┎璶и-
︑み烩穦ы┪現┎粄Τキ颗琌и-
ぃフ現叭碞"キ颗"迭秆睦
現叭氮畊ネ翠Τκ〆穦и獺產常種〆穦常ш簍ぃà︹Τぃ絛瞅讽и-
〆ヴ穦硂ㄇ〆穦程璶︙〆穦Τи-
穦碞〆穦惠璶ㄓσ納惠璶〆ヴよ"キ颗"獽琌硂よи-
穦琌惠璶〆ヴ盡穨Τ竒喷ㄣ穦ㄤ璉春ы┪跋单и-
辨匡よッ笷某┮弧笷キ颗ㄏよ種ǎ常〆穦ず笷
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE, I think you have made your point.
朝胞糭某拜畊ネи稱矗兜纯Τㄆ矗τ現┎临ゼ氮借高碞琌現┎瞷〆ヴ盡穨穨ず㎝膀糷κだゑぶ叫拜Τ非玥τΤ闽非玥κだゑ琌ぶ
現叭氮畊ネи纯弧筁翠Τκ〆穦┦借Τぃㄏ弧盡穨產癸ㄤ﹚竡常穦Τぃ種ǎēよ﹚竡ョ礛и-
螟﹚硂ㄇ﹚竡┪ㄨ種络﹚ㄇ计沮
眎▆某拜畊ネ竝瞶現叭絋龟弧吭高〆穦い安Θ竒盽Τ籔現┎Τ闽∕郸┪场猭┪〆穦瑈種ǎはǎ秆穦砆跌瞷ろㄎτぃ莉崩滤硈ヴ
現叭氮畊ネи-
ぃ穦硂τぃ〆ヴêㄇ獺產常種翠琌︑パ穦и-
辨よ常笷種ǎ
糂紌某拜畊ネ現┎璶氮滦矗-
荷秖ぃ穦丁ず〆ヴせ┪〆穦畊ネ硂琌佩и谋眔せ〆穦秖穦獶盽↖現┎и-
-
︳璸〆穦Θ穦ぶ丁Τぶせ┪〆穦ぶ畊瞯琌–ぶ50%
PRESIDENT: Miss LAU, are you seeking an answer to the first supplementary or the second supplementary?
MISS EMILY LAU: Sorry.
PRESIDENT: Your second supplementary was on the attendance rate.
糂紌某拜畊ネ砛ぃ穦уи┮Τ借高常琌Τ闽ぶ〆穦秖拜肈せ〆穦斗ぶ丁Τぶ⊿Τ畊狦⊿Τ畊穦某靡〆ヴ琌羭琌ひτ琌琵現┎氮
PRESIDENT: Are your seeking an answer to a supplementary only on the attendance rate of all those members who have been appointed to six committees? Or else, these will be two supplementaries.
糂紌某ぃ琌畊ネ
PRESIDENT: Would you like to rephrase your supplementary?
糂紌某拜ぃ琵и矗材兜借高ê獽痙ΩΤ诀穦矗и琌拜┮Τ畊ネぃ筁狦弧矗拜せ〆穦êㄇ畊瞯и獽拜硂ㄆ谅谅畊ネ叫拜せ〆穦畊瞯︙
現叭氮Τ闽糂某矗材兜干借高и稱坚睲せ〆穦琌筁硂拜肈и-
種ǎ琌""〆穦┦借常ぃ琘ㄇ秖耕琘ㄇ耕淮硂斗跌〆穦┮斗矪瞶и-
ㄓ竒喷ㄓせ〆穦琌耕瞶计ヘよи氮滦纯弧硂獶兜砏﹚狦и-
祇谋琘︗〆穦秖竒びи-
碞穦τぃ穦σ納〆ヴせ〆穦
糂紌某畊ネゼ氮и借高
PRESIDENT: I think the Secretary was attempting to answer your question and not the rephrased question. She was attempting to answer both supplementaries.
糂紌某拜畊ネぃ琌и琌拜ㄇ计弧秖ぃびи拜Τぶ琌せ〆穦-
┮丁︙常⊿Τ氮
PRESIDENT: Secretary, would you supply the figures in a written reply?
現叭氮畊ネΤ闽せ┪〆穦计ヘи穦Α氮滦Annex III
PRESIDENT: That was the first supplementary. The second supplementary was on the attendance rate of all members.
現叭氮狦Τ闽畊瞯よ畊ネи獺и-
璶丁秈︽╯眔硂よ戈и瞷⊿Τ硂ㄇ戈и-
ゲ斗吭高㎝场и-
Τκ〆穦иぃよ琌眔硂妓暗ぃ筁狦某惠璶硂ㄇ戈杠и-
穦沽刚暗 Annex IV
Traffic Accidents Caused by Container Vehicles
4. 朝岸穨某拜畊ネ闽ら钡硈祇ネ﹙砯耫ó陆凹種艭Θ㏑端現┎セЫ
(a) 筁祇ネ砯耫ó陆凹種计ヘ㎝┮旧璓端计の
(b) 現┎穦σ納ミㄒ砏﹚砯耫ó╈琜籔╈繷妓斗–浪喷絋玂╈琜笆╰参巨タ盽
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, over the past three years there have been an average of 21 accidents per annum in which container vehicles overturned. Details are given in the annex to my reply.
To put this in perspective, it should be noted that there are over 13 300 licensed container trucks and 21 000 trailers. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to be complacent and the Honourable CHAN Wai-yip is quite right in raising the question of inspections and control.
Under section 78 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, the Commissioner for Transport has powers to require the examination of all classes of motor vehicles before they are licensed. All tractors are now subject to annual inspections. As for trailers, only those over 10 years old have to pass an examination before relicensing. This is not satisfactory and, to enhance roadworthiness of trailers, the Administration plans to introduce annual inspections as soon as the necessary facilities and staff can be provided. Such inspections will include a functional check of the braking system.
Annex
Traffic Accidents Involving
Overturning Container Vehicles
in the Past Three Years
1993 1994 1995
Accident 21 20 23
Casualties
Fatal 3 1 0
Serious 6 7 7
Slight 27 16 21
Total 36 24 28
朝岸穨某拜畊ネи癸現┎瞷┯粄拜肈タ╯矪瞶よ猭ボ舧玱踞紐Τ闽璸购︙龟琁現┎セЫ︳璸︙痷タ辅龟–秈︽╈琜浪喷の硂琿戳丁碞╈琜浪喷ぃìτ旧璓诀ン瞷拜肈ㄆ現┎暗或磷τま璓種
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, one of the difficulties in arranging for the early inspection of trailers is the difficulty in finding sites. This is because of the length and the manoeuvrability of articulated vehicles, that is, both the trailers and the tractors. We need sites with good access which would not cause disruption to other traffic. We have searched for several sites; one in Yuen Long was recently rejected by the district representatives and other sites have also run into problems. Despite these setbacks, the Transport Department is trying to seek a successful outcome. But I fear it will be at least nine months to a year before we can actually implement the annual inspection scheme.
When it comes to the actual inspection of vehicles, there are many items which will have to be very carefully checked. These include items such as road-wheel tyres, trailer-couplings, the driving and seating controls, the brake- controls, the chassis frame and so forth. But I assure the Honourable Member that we will do our utmost to bring this into operation as soon as possible.
糂胺祸某拜畊ネ璶氮滦ず矗筁Τ64﹙疉の砯óの砯耫ó陆凹ユ硄種笲块セЫㄤいΤぶ﹙琌╈琜笆╰参ア艶τ旧璓Τぶ﹙琌╈繷笆╰参ア艶τ旧璓τ緇琌波┛τ旧璓
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I am afraid I do not have the exact and precise details that the Honourable Member has asked for. I think, obviously, when trailers are involved in accidents, they are of course attached to the tractors and it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint the precise cause. To provide the detailed answers that the Honourable Member wants would require a great deal of research. Bearing in mind that in total, over three years, there have only been 64 such accidents, I do not, with respect, think it is productive to analyze these causes. But obviously, the police do jot down the causes and if there are specific problems which need to be addressed, they are referred to the Commissioner for Transport.
PRESIDENT: Mrs LAU, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
糂胺祸某拜琌笲块弧⊿Τ快猭и矗ㄑ氮滦叫拜甧砛и矗借高砛穦耕眔и┮惠璶氮滦叫拜笲块Τぶ﹙種琌笆╰参ア艶礚阶琌╈繷┪╈琜τ旧璓и獺笲块穦Τ硂计沮
SECRETARY FOR TRASNPORT: I shall provide the answer to the Honourable Member in writing. (Annex V)
PRESIDENT: That is if the police have those records.
SECRETARY FOR TRASNPORT: Yes.
眎簙┚某拜畊ネ砯耫ó陆凹種┕┕穦ユ硄捧喝瞷︽逼現┎穦ノㄇ诀ㄓ秆∕拜肈叫拜現┎穦璸购潦竚ㄇ诀矪瞶砯耫ó陆凹種睲瞶
PRESIDENT: I am afraid this is outside the scope of the original question.
讲蚌某拜畊ネ現┎セЫ筁砯耫ó陆凹種いΤぶ﹙籔诀Τ钡闽玒ㄒ琌-
м砃㎝竒喷拜肈
PRESIDENT: I am afraid this is also outside the scope of the original question.
独岸藉某拜畊ネ沮︽ず弧ㄇ砯耫ó陆凹種琌パ诀―よ獽⊿Τрó进籔砯絚嘉繷硈钡癬ㄓ璓锣舠砯絚耚笆τ硑Θ陆凹種и稱拜拜......
PRESIDENT: Your question is also outside the scope of the original question.
独岸藉某畊ネ......
PRESIDENT: The original question was if there would be inspection of trailers and tractors.
Road Safety of Heavy Container Trucks
5. 朝胞糭某拜畊ネら玡繟そ隔ユ蹲矪祇ネ砯耫ó陆ユ硄種闽猔砯耫ó︽緋のユ硄種堵翴笵隔拜肈碞現┎セЫ
(a) 旧璓砯耫ó種璶Θ︙穦莱э到惫琁
(b) 穦σ納﹚甅"砯耫óㄏノ笵隔"ま旧诀︙緍緋の
(c) 穦σ納э到ユ硄種堵翴笵隔薄鶪ㄒ浪癚隔砞璸のゼ堵翴玡荷Ν砞竚搭硉ボ礟
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the results of police investigations have indicated that the main causes of accidents involving container trucks are: driving too closely to the vehicle in front, careless lane changing, loss of control of the vehicle, and defective brakes.
The first three causes relate directly to driving behaviour. Container truck drivers have been reminded periodically of the dangers of tailgating and careless lane changing through their associations and at seminars. There have also been publicity campaigns and APIs on television. These will be repeated in the coming months.
As an experiment to further alert drivers, a trial road marking scheme will be shortly introduced on a section of Tolo Highway near Taipo in July 1996. Distinctive chevron markings, spaced apart, will be painted on the carriageway to help drivers judge what would be a safe and correct distance from the vehicle in front.
As I have indicated in my reply to the previous question, both trucks and trailers are subject to licensing checks to ascertain their roadworthiness.
As regards guidelines, the Road Users' Code provides advice on safety for all road users, including goods vehicle drivers. The Code is currently being revised and updated. Separate advisory booklets for goods vehicle drivers will be produced. In addition, advice on keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front will be highlighted in future editions of the Road Safety Quarterly which is published by the Transport Department.
Blackspots are defined as those where there have been six or more accidents involving pedestrians or nine or more accidents involving passengers in a vehicle during a 12-month period.
Blackspots are monitored closely by the Administration in an attempt to reduce the number of accidents. The remedial measures taken include the provision of better signage, roadmarkings, more police spot checks as well as improving the layout of the roads and the laying of anti-skid road surfacing.
朝胞糭某拜畊ネ谅笲块冈灿量瓃現┎程惫琁иご礛闽み拜肈碞琌パい翠ㄢ砯耫óユ硄だ繵羉τㄤい瞣疉ㄢ更砯秖Τぃ夹非拜肈叫拜硂琌砯耫ó竒盽瞷種ぇ
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, what I can say is, for those drivers who come from the other side of the border, to qualify to drive in Hong Kong, obviously they must have proper driving licences and to that extent we must be satisfied that they are qualified. In our dealings with the Container Associations and in our discussions with the drivers themselves, through the Transport Department, they will be reminded of the point made by the Honourable Member. We shall take this up in our further publicity campaigns.
PRESIDENT: Miss CHAN, are you claiming that your question has not been answered? You have to point out which part has not been answered.
朝胞糭某拜琌и借高琌瞷い瓣籔翠更砯秖砏﹚ぃ硂琌ユ硄種Θぇи辨笲块秆氮
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: I am afraid, Mr President, I cannot give a definite answer, but I shall certainly ask the police to check and if in fact, for example, the cause of cabbing the trailer and the tractor is a cause, then obviously we will follow up this and take necessary action.
綠模磁某拜畊ネ沮穨ずは琈種ǎ戳砯耫óユ硄種穦疉のΤ翠砯耫ó緍緋磅酚ず诀現┎穦σ納穝浪癚ず诀σ礟絋玂-
眔礟酚剪眡翠笵隔吏挂㎝緍緋家Α
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I am not sure whether the comment by the Honourable Member is in fact accurate. As I said in my reply to an earlier supplementary, those drivers from China must meet our own driving standards.
朝篴篱某拜畊ネ沮瞷Τㄇい瓣砯耫ó诀Τセ翠礟酚叫拜硂摸砯耫ó诀Τぶ-
セ翠祇ネㄆ珿薄鶪︙
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, all drivers in Hong Kong must possess the necessary driving licences which are recognized. Given the vast number of licensed drivers, it is not possible to identify those who come from China.
眎簙┚某拜畊ネ叫拜瞷セ翠砯耫ó禬更薄鶪琌腨Τぶ﹙ユ硄種琌禬更τ旧璓
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, overloading is indeed a problem and in reply to a question in this Council in January, I provided some figures. As far as the causes of accidents are concerned, this is not one of the main causes, it is a supplementary cause. As I have tried to illustrate, the total number of accidents which involve container trucks, although they are a cause for concern, is small. In terms of traffic accidents in Hong Kong, the total number of which amounts to nearly 20 000 a year, it is not a great number.
We are taking specific measures against overloading. We are going to require construction sites, for example, to have weighing-scales and we will step up enforcement. Last year, we also introduced higher penalties fixed penalties for overloading and the police will continue to enforce this.
独岸藉某拜畊ネи借高闽種Θ獺穦籔璶借高ず甧Τ闽ㄇ穨ずセ砯耫óの砯絚斗钡婚嘉繷诀―よ獽⊿Τр硂嘉繷本钡τ硑Θ陆凹種叫拜笲块筁Τぶ﹙陆凹種琌パ诀⊿Τ本钡嘉繷τ硑Θ㎡現┎︙ňゎ硂贺薄鶪瞷
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I obviously cannot provide specific statistics on the different types of accidents or their causes; I do not have my computer with me. But I shall try and obtain the information and provide it to the Honourable Member. (Annex VI)
糂胺祸某拜畊ネ笲块セЫ現┎穦σ納ㄇ竒粄﹚ユ硄堵翴よ秈˙┪搭ó进程蔼︽óó硉―搭種瞯
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, where it is proven that in fact the speed limit is inappropriate, of course we will consider adjusting the speed limit at blackspots. If I can, as an example, refer to the recent accident outside the Shing Mun Tunnel along Cheung Pei Shan Road, in March this year. We have looked into the site. Because space allows us, we will try to provide what is known as an escape lane for the container trucks which lose their brakes. This is common in other parts of the world. So we are taking such measures.
Also, in this particular case, the 50 kph speed limit will be extended to a 100 m stretch. These are measures which will be taken where it is possible to do so, site conditions permitting.
PRESIDENT: Last supplementary. If Mr CHOY Kan-pui wishes to ask his original supplementary to the previous question, he may ask it as a supplementary to this question.
讲蚌某拜畊ネ現┎セЫ筁Τぶ﹙砯耫ó陆凹種琌籔诀Τ钡闽玒ㄒ籔-
м砃㎝竒喷Τ闽
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I have indicated in my main reply that the primary causes of accidents, not only for container trucks but also for other types of motors, is normally because of driver behaviour and these are: changing lanes, speeding tailgating and careless driving. But I am unable to indicate the specific numbers of accidents which have been caused by the non-observance of traffic regulations by drivers.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Financial Support for Voluntary Agencies
6. MR DAVID CHU asked: It was mentioned in the Progress Report on Individual Undertakings in the Governor's 1992 policy address that a sum of $2.3 billion had been injected into the Lotteries Fund to meet the recurrent expenditure on various social welfare and rehabilitation services up to 1996-97. In this connection, will the Administration inform this Council what arrangements have been made to ensure that the voluntary agencies responsible for providing such services will receive adequate financial support so that they can continue to provide such services in the long run?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, to provide a secure source of funding to assist in implementing the significant expansion of social welfare and rehabilitation services announced in the Governor's address to the Legislative Council on 7 October 1992, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved on 6 November 1992 an injection of $2.3 billion into the Lotteries Fund. This amount is principally being used to pay for the recurrent cost of services required to meet the key targets for the period from 1993-94 to 1996-97. This arrangement will come to an end in 1997-98. As I assured this Council on 29 March and 2 November 1995, the General Revenue Account will be able to absorb from that year onwards all the recurrent expenditure being met from the Lotteries Fund in 1996-97. Under this arrangement, non-governmental organizations providing services with recurrent subventions from the Lotteries Fund at that time will receive funds from the Government to continue such services beyond 1996-97.
Consultation Paper on the Review of Industrial Safety in Hong Kong
7. 纯胺Θ某拜Τ闽るそガ翠穨浪癚吭高ゅン現┎セЫ
(a) ゼㄓ讽Ы盢蹦︙贺惫琁眏戮穨胺眃Ы虏嘿"戮Ы"のà︹辅龟吭高ゅン某の
(b) 戮Ыの現┎よΤ箇璸莱吭高ゅン某τ眏戮Ыのà︹┮惠秨や︙璝Τㄣ砰秨や兜ヘの璸购︙璝︙
毙▅参膚氮畊ネ
(a) タきる祇翠穨浪癚吭高ゅン┮某らセ翠羭快の参膚戮穨癡絤の崩約戮穨種醚盢パ戮Ы璽癬璶砫ヴ現┎瞷タ籔戮Ы候盞﹚赣Ыゼㄓ计笆璸购の癩現箇衡獽赣Ы镑膥尿磅︽崩約翠戮穨璶︓阁禫箂箂箂
戮Ы耎甶笆璸购珹
钡恨骋矪戮穨癡絤よ┮璽┮Τ砫ヴ
璽砫参膚祇甶坝の┯坝单Τ闽よ┮羭快縱穨癡絤
砏家灿そ崩︽毙▅糤そ癸戮穨粄醚
砞ミ躬纘璸购古砛縱絃崩︽Т到惫琁
硉秈︽Τ闽癡絤㎝毙▅╯
(b) 現┎玃叫戮Ы┯踞砫ヴ沟沟㎝カチ渤矗ㄑ戮穨肈癡絤の-
崩約㎝肚戮穨阀├莱現┎㊣苸戮Ы碞兜笷璓硂ㄇヘ夹τ﹚耎甶璸购矗ユせ︓Μや箇衡赣Ыせ︓箇衡莉現┎у┮疉の秨や笷47,553,000じ耕き︓せ璹秨や糤55.8%箇衡莉眔уㄏノ璶兜ヘ竒禣眔碩矗蔼
莉у秨や肚笆11,600,000じ戮穨㎝胺眃肈癡絤〓╯〓臮拜19,600,000じΤ闽戮穨㎝胺眃吭高〆穦の穦某〓癚穦3,080,000じΤ闽戮穨㎝胺眃戈癟㎝瓜繻狝叭700,000じ
Non-departmental Quarters and Private Tenancy Allowance
8. 綠產碔某拜Τ厨笵ヘ玡セ翠Τ秖竚蔼そ叭盝虫︗よ現┎玱倒ぉそ叭︑︽瑉禟︘╬︘虫︗–や计κ窾璸現┎セЫ
(a) 筁–そ叭矗ㄑ︑︽瑉禟羆肂︙
(b) そ叭瞒戮︙矪瞶竚蔼そ叭盝
(c) ヘ玡Τぶ竚蔼そ叭盝虫︗
(d) 瞷そ叭︘現┎矗ㄑ蔼そ叭盝计ヘ籔︑︽瑉禟︘╬︘虫︗计ヘのゑㄒ︙の
(e) ︙Τ计ぃぶ蔼そ叭盝虫︗竚現┎临膥尿そ叭矗ㄑ︑︽瑉禟
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネ箂る讽Ы穝┷竨矗ㄑ︑︽瑉禟の蔼そ叭盝硂ㄢ贺┬褐τぇ﹡┮戈璸购の穝璹︑竚﹡┮戈璸购赣ㄢ兜璸购戈戳程笷120る羭Ξ躬纘そ叭︑竚穨搭現┎环┬褐秨や︑そ叭癸蔼そ叭盝の︑︽瑉禟璸购惠―ら场だ膥瞒戮┪匡拒把﹡┮戈璸购獺蔼そ叭盝惠―穦尿安ら讽Ч蔼そ叭盝の︑︽瑉禟硂ㄢ贺┬褐
讽Ы秆現郸锣跑穦祇揣Θ璹﹚甅璸购よ硋˙氨ゎノ╬加蔼そ叭盝扳ㄇブ搭ぶ盝筁逞薄鶪︓ヘ玡ゎ蔼そ叭盝计ヘ碩パ箂る3 135搭ぶ︓せる1 926烩︑︽瑉禟そ叭计ョパ箂る2 428碩搭ぶ︓せる778
程讽ЫΘミ舱浪癚Τ闽璸购秈蝶︳ゼㄓ蔼そ叭盝惠―戳惠璶秸俱舱坝﹚兜惫琁珹竚虫︗のр虫︗扳单祏戳惫琁獽ブ扳┪эㄤノ硚玡荷秖到ノ筁逞盝
瞷酵酵兜Τ闽借高
筁︑︽瑉禟秨や
︓︑︽瑉禟秨や1.9货じ︓き2.22货じき︓せ玥2.25货じ
竚盝だ皌よ猭
ヘ玡現┎砞Τㄢ摸盝蔼そ叭盝场盝蔼そ叭盝琌現┎戈そ叭狝叭兵ンτ矗ㄑ┬褐硂琌戈兜舦场盝玥琌膀惠璶矗ㄑτ獶贺舦癸禜璶琌场钉硂ㄇ盝琌パΤ闽场恨瞶氮硂兜借高и穦皐癸蝶阶蔼そ叭盝竚薄鶪
そ叭ㄆ叭盝絪皌舱璽砫蔼そ叭盝恨瞶Τそ叭乃盝虫︗盝絪皌〆穦獽穦そガ㏄獽︽だ皌倒ㄤ戈そ叭ゼぉだ皌τ逞緇虫︗穦跌薄鶪ぉ扳倒そ渤┪эㄤ現┎〓刮砰〓跋ノ硚
ㄑだ皌蔼そ叭盝
セ戳盝絪皌硄┮更蔼そ叭盝Τ130ㄑだ皌倒戈そ叭︘
︘蔼そ叭盝籔烩︑︽瑉禟そ叭ゑㄒ
瞷Τ1 737そ叭︘蔼そ叭盝烩︑︽瑉禟そ叭玥Τ778ゑㄒそ叭烩︑︽瑉禟癸祔稬ㄢそ叭︘蔼そ叭盝
祇瑉禟ぉ戈︘盝そ叭
箂るら玡竨そ叭璶⊿Τ把﹡┮戈璸购┪︑竚﹡┮戈璸购獽玂痙烩︑︽瑉禟舦そ叭ス笷羆羱材34翴獽ビ烩︑︽瑉禟癸辨ビ烩硂贺┬褐沟現┎琌ゲ斗糹︽砫ヴ
蔼そ叭盝だ皌ぉΤ戈︘そ叭箂るら玡戮τ羱笷羆羱材45翴Τㄇそ叭瘤礛才硂戈玱匡拒烩︑︽瑉禟τぃ︘蔼そ叭盝Τ闽せる莉眡現┎盢穦︽ㄏ舦ぃ祇︑︽瑉禟硂ㄇ莉眔硄惠璶る戳ず綞ノ︑︽瑉禟︘虫︗-
匡拒綞蔼そ叭盝┪烩﹡┮戈瑉禟戳筁讽Ы穦氨ゎΤ闽祇︑︽瑉禟︓ヘ玡ゎΤ34そ叭τ斌烩︑︽瑉禟
и-
粄甧砛ぃ戈ビ叫蔼そ叭盝︘硂ㄇ盝琂ぃ続讽ョぃ才Θセ痲硂暗猭Ч笻はи-
現郸タ玡ゅ┮и-
Τ種р筁逞盝扳┪эㄤノ硚硂琌続讽暗猭瘤礛и-
ご穦┕癸羆羱材45翴τご戈烩︑︽瑉禟そ叭糹︽砏﹚砫ヴ
British Beef and Canned Beef Products
9. 璣某拜現┎瘤窽ゎ块璣瓣ψ璣瓣イの砒繷ψ珇玱ぃ窽ぇ碞現┎セЫ
(a) カチ︙眡ㄇㄑ摸の笆ノ獶璣瓣籹ψ砒繷珇のㄤノψ籹ノ珇獶璣瓣唉籹Θ
(b) 現┎Τ戈陪ボ眖洛厩のて厩╯┮浩痝痜瑀砒繷珇いネの羉崔
(c) パ讽Ы盢ぃ穦竩Μ潦璣瓣ψ現┎︙ňゎΤ闽竩臮ㄑ莱璣瓣ψ珇の
(d) 瞷︽暗猭埃獶靡龟琘贺紇臫カチ胺眃玥ぃ窽ゎ扳讽Ы穦σ納璹瞷︽猭ㄒㄏぇち穦龟悔惠璶
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ徖ネ舱麓ヘ玡礚靡沮陪ボ"摸粗福痜"玌嘿"浩痝"籔摸Τ诀穦稰琕摸痚痜"緗滇紈懂痝"嘿"懂ん痜"絋Τ闽硈ùさごゼ絋﹚稰琕"緗滇紈懂痝"籔ノ璣瓣ψΤ闽稼瑆〆穦セるらガ窽ゎ璣瓣ψ草らセ翠現┎ョガ既窽ゎ璣瓣ψ秈惫琁Ξ磷カ初瞷睼睹琵カチ確獺み膥尿みノㄤ瓣產秈ψ獶ňカチ胺眃紇臫
瘤礛虫咎夹乓礚猭笵獶璣瓣籹玻珇琌Τ璣瓣ψ︑癬兜箇ň"浩痝"惫琁辅龟崩︽璣瓣現┎窽ゎ盢﹚唉ず纽ㄑ摸ノ┪唉琕"浩痝"﹚唉ず纽琌程甧稰琕痜瑀场だきる璣瓣現┎窽ゎ綪扳のㄏノ﹚唉ず纽笆箎︑眖稼瑆〆穦セる窽ゎ璣瓣ψ綪璣瓣氨ゎㄤ瓣產块ψ籹硑ㄑ摸ノ┪笼箎笆玻珇
瞷戈陪ボ砒繷珇籹硑筁祘ゼゲ"浩痝"痜砰过┏防筀ゎウ-
羉崔
讽Ы硄竩莱臮弧┮ㄑ莱ψ玻
そ渤徖ネのカ現兵ㄒ材132彻材54(1)兵璹ヴ︙扳┪秸籹ヴ︙ㄑ扳珇τ赣单珇览ㄑノ龟悔玱ぃ続﹜ノА妮デ竜讽Ы粄兜兵ゅ玂毁そ渤徖ネよそタτち龟︽穦ぃ浪癚
Government Sale of Basic Law Copies
10. 產不某拜現┎セЫ現┎綪扳矪穦扳芥翠疭︽現跋膀セ猭璝︙
現叭氮畊ネΤ闽琩高и-
靡龟現┎タ非称現┎綪扳矪翠疭︽現跋膀セ猭ㄑカチ禣綷ㄏ硂璶ゅンセ翠跋眔程約獂肚綷
Code of Industrial Safety for Toys and Plastics Industries
11. 糂ホ某拜沮眡翠ㄣ穦程羛翠鹅溅穨紅坝穦Τそ穨竝ビ叫挤蹿100窾じノ絪甅皐癸ㄣの鹅溅穨穨玥Τ闽ビ叫ご糵某い碞ㄆ﹜現┎セЫ
(a) 琵セЫのそ渤把綷赣ビ叫
(b) 穨竝ㄌ沮或非玥颗秖挤蹿籔の
(c) ㄤ刮砰ビ叫摸挤蹿
坝氮畊ネ翠ㄣ穦の翠鹅溅穨紅坝穦纯穨や穿戈璸购ビ叫挤蹿56.8窾じτ獶100窾じ戈-
絪璹鹅溅穨の胺眃玭現┎せるу赣兜ビ叫
闽借高(a)场ㄓ弧穨や穿戈璸购ビ叫琌ぃ穦ㄑミ猭Ы┪そ渤綷ビ叫┪兜ヘ某セō┪穦ㄇビ叫ぃ腀そ秨戈τи-
蝶糵筁祘い碙硂兜玂盞玥よビ叫ぃざ種盢戈そ秨繦硂妓暗︓莉眔挤蹿ビ叫ビ叫ЧΘΤ闽兜ヘゲ斗盢╯挡狦㎝Θ狦Τ闽の〓┪そ渤そ秨τ硂ㄇ╯挡狦㎝Θ狦琌ㄑセЫのそ渤綷
闽借高(b)场∕﹚莱у挤蹿璶非玥珹
(a)某兜ヘ穦セ翠穨盿ㄓ或矪
(b)靡某兜ヘ琌Τ惠璶秈︽
(c)ビ叫м砃キの恨瞶Τ闽兜ヘ
(d)某兜ヘ琁︽璸购琌㏄冈┮惠丁琌瞶
(e)览某戈蹿肂琌瞶のち瞷龟
(f) 某兜ヘ琌耕続﹜パㄤ竒禣ㄓ方厩毙▅戈〆穦┪莱ノ╯祇甶璸购挤蹿戈
(g)某兜ヘ琌┪狡や穿穨刮砰ヘ玡秈︽の
(h) 斗や竒盽秨や秨やのㄤ︽現禣ノ某兜ヘ琿丁琌Τ︑璽莲
闽借高(c)场┮Τや穿穨舱麓穨禩穦蔼单毙▅皘盡穨刮砰の眖ㄆ╯诀篶АΤ戈穨や穿戈璸购ビ叫挤蹿疭薄鶪セ爹そ靡ㄤ兜ヘ獶洪玃秈そ痲τ琌穦ㄏ俱籹硑穨磃玥ㄤビ叫ョ莉眔σ納
Pirated Compact Discs
12. DR DAVID LI asked: In a report to the United States Congress on trade barriers, the Office of the United States Trade Representative stated that the United States music industry estimated that 20% of the recorded music sold in Hong Kong was pirated. Will the Government inform this Council how it plans to strengthen its law-enforcement efforts to crack down on hawkers and retailers as well as the criminal syndicates that supply pirated compact discs in the territory?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the Government is totally and firmly committed to the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in Hong Kong. In this context, the Government has been pursuing a number of initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of its enforcement measures against copyright piracy. They include:
(a) increasing the staffing resources in the Intellectual Property Investigation Bureau of the Hong Kong Customs by 40%, from 117 in 1994-95 to 164 in 1996-97, in order to strengthen intelligence gathering, border surveillance and interceptions. Intensified enforcement action against the various blackspots selling pirated copyright products has been taken by the Customs in recent months and will continue. A hotline to receive IPR infringement-related information has been set up in the Customs since March this year;
(b) a pro-active enforcement approach in the form of intelligence gathering and investigation work relating to alleged triad and organized criminal involvement in local and cross-border copyright piracy activities. The Customs and the police have been closely co-operating with each other on this front, resulting in a number of successful raids on storage premises for pirated CD-ROMs;
(c) providing new legislative tools to more effectively combat copyright piracy. The statutory maximum penalties against copyright piracy were substantially increased last May. New copyright piracy offence provisions are expected to be passed today in the Intellectual Property (World Trade Organization Amendments) Bill 1995 to help tackle masterminds of cross-border piracy activities. New customs border measures will soon be put in place to facilitate copyright owners to take civil infringement action against pirates; and
(d) forging closer co-operation between the Hong Kong Customs and the relevant counterpart authorities in China. Good progress has been made in the past month with the IPR-related enforcement agencies in the Guangdong Province and the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone on a number of initiatives, including setting up of specific contact points, exchange of information and intelligence, organization of seminars and visits, and where appropriate, the possibility of mounting joint anti-piracy operations.
Fraud in Sale of Properties
13. 地某拜牡よ程そガ疉の畕玙穨ōだ扳加禕腇Τ碩ど镣墩碞現┎セЫ
(a)Τ祇瞷
(i) 瞷︽菏恨穨锣琵猭ㄒ
(ii) Τ闽加禦芥猭祘
(iii) 矪瞶┪э現┎郎ず籔穨穨舦Τ闽戈ㄒ坝穨祅癘の穨穨舦祅癘祘
Τ簗瑌璓畕Τ诀
(b) 穦σ納浪癚穨锣琵祘の璹ミ玥棒峨摸ン祇ネ诀穦璝︙の
(c) Τㄣ砰惫琁ゴ阑摸竜玂毁穨舦痲
砏购吏挂現氮畊ネ
(a) ︑せㄓ牡よ(坝穨竜秸琩)祇瞷14﹙疉の畕玙穨禦芥加场だい安玙穨Μ禦よ璹パ礚猭ボタセ⊿ΤЧΘ加禦芥ㄇい禦よ安玙穨眡计や加基祇瞷穨锣琵獶痷タ穨┮ΤㄆンАΤ闽爹矪祅癘ゅン玡祇ネ
挪芥よ┪处ōだ琌芥よ畍砫ヴ秈︽禦芥芥よ┪处斗-
畍ボタセňゎ竜祇ネの玂毁穨㎝禦よ痲矪瞶禦芥畍の蝗︽膥尿秈︽┪芥よ祇处穨タセ玡ゲ斗矗蔼牡谋癸芥よ矗ユōだ靡のゅン⊿Τタセ禦よぃ莱や加基
(i)(ii) и-
ゼ祇瞷瞷Τ猭ㄒ㎝猭祘ヴ︙簗瑌璓畕甧玙穨┪秈︽Τ闽穨锣琵禕腇穨穨舦锣琵祘琌パ畍の畍穦﹚玂毁臮舦痲ぃ筁и-
穦紉高畍穦㎝ㄤΤ闽舱麓種ǎσ納琌Τ惠璶浪癚瞷猭ㄒ
(iii) ㄤよ爹矪翠爹矪Τ爹癘魁ㄑカチ琩綷瞷Τ闽琩綷のэず戈祘蹦ì镑ň絛惫琁ず秈程穝戈琌パ癡絤Τ爹蹦ノΤ玂砞称爹筿福╰参磅︽爹穦癸ず戈絋玂籔畍靡礚粇ず┮更戈
(b) 叫把綷ゅ(a)兜
(c) 牡よせるら秨癘┷穦厨Τ闽穨禕腇ン玃叫カチ矗蔼牡抱牡よ矗眶カチ︑嘿Τ種潦禦┪ノ加矗ㄑōだ靡畉昏Μ沮の处ㄑ蹿单ゅン捌セゲ斗み牡よр冈更らン厨癳ユ翠畍穦の翠蝗︽そ穦獽硂ㄢ舱麓硄妮穦矗蔼牡谋牡よョタ逼硂ㄇ舱麓の诀篶膚快策痁量瓃︙挪鞍硑ōだ靡ゅン翠蝗︽そ穦せるら穦祇まㄤい更贺箇ň惫琁戳荷秖搭ぶ祇ネ硂摸禕腇诀穦
Local and Expatriate Terms for University Teaching Staff
14. 霉不瓣某拜現┎セЫ厩毙▅戈〆穦"毙戈穦"琌眡
(a) 丁厩竨ヴ毙戮┮蹦ノ"セ沟兵ン"㎝"沟兵ン"Τ︙畉
(b) 丁厩瞷"沟兵ン"竨ノ毙戮计だ︙の
(c) 丁厩癸"沟兵ン"現郸だ︙
毙▅参膚氮畊ネ
(a) パ毙戈穦戈せ丁厩の拉玭厩皘络﹚毙戮竨ノ兵蹿よ琌ㄉΤ︑舦Τ闽兵蹿斗单τ獶蔼現┎そ叭竨ノ兵蹿毙戈穦笵丁戈皘┮矗ㄑ沟ノ兵蹿琌Τセのㄢ贺ぇだ畉璶琌Τ戈ㄉノ禣瑉禟︽瑉禟┬褐㎝毙▅瑉禟
(b) 篒︓きるらゎ沟ノ兵蹿竨丁毙戈穦戈皘毙厩计ヘ更ン⑾
(c) 沮毙戈穦矗ㄑ戈︑き癬翠穦厩""翠瞶厩"瞶"拉玭厩皘"拉玭"の翠いゅ厩"い"А蹦ノ参狝叭兵蹿ㄓ竨ノ戮の穝狝叭兵蹿ネ尿︓翠カ厩""翠м厩""の翠厩"翠"玥ヘ玡ご膥尿セのㄢ贺沟ノ兵蹿ヴノ穝┷竨ぃ筁赋穦きる硄筁よ莱荷秖セ沟ノ兵蹿竨ノ戮Τ疭薄鶪よ矗ㄑ沟ノ兵蹿ョタ览甅参沟ノ兵蹿埃セのㄢ贺狝叭兵蹿畉钵の翠ヘ玡タ浪癚セōセ沟の沟狝叭兵蹿獽﹚甅参狝叭兵蹿
ン⑾
沟ノ兵蹿竨毙戈穦戈皘毙厩计ヘ
皘沟ノ兵蹿竨毙厩计ヘ
134 71拉玭 34い 241瞶 145 251翠 386羆计 1 263
戈ㄓ方毙戈穦矪
Government Land Grant to Non-governmental Organizations
15. 谅ッ闹某拜Τ闽現┎挤ぉ獶現┎诀篶稯到褐ノ硚ㄆ﹜現┎セЫ
(a) 現┎Τ碞摸挤璹﹚非玥
(b) Τぶ诀篶よΑ莉眔挤赣单诀篶┮莉羆縩︙
(c) 現┎︙菏恨摸龟悔ノ硚絋玂ㄤ才ビ叫┮瓃ノ硚
(d) 扳摸琌斗竒現┎種璝礛現┎ノ︙非玥糵у硂ㄇ芥ビ叫の
(e) 筁摸芥计ヘのㄤ┮疉の蹿兜だ︙現┎Τ菏恨眖摸芥┮眔蹿兜ノ硚絋玂赣单蹿兜琌ノ稯到褐ㄆ﹜
砏购吏挂現氮畊ネ
(a) 虏虫ㄓ弧現┎ビ叫у稯到の褐ノ硚ビ叫ゲ斗
(i) 莉眔穦褐竝竝や
(ii) 靡非┯уΤ竒蕾祇甶赣竒犁恨瞶览矗ㄑ狝叭の
(iii) ㄏ現羆竝竝獺赣穦眔程ㄎ笲ノ
琌Τ続翴赣ノ硚ョ琌兜璶非玥
ㄓ弧穦褐竝竝穦酚砏﹚やビ叫
(i) 璸购┦借ゲ斗籔褐Τ闽
(ii) 赣跋癸览矗ㄑ狝叭Τ┮惠―
(iii) ビ叫ㄣ称┮惠竒蕾镑祇甶の犁快赣兜璸购珹Τや戈セΘセの竒盽禣ノの
(iv) ビ叫ㄣ称犁快览矗ㄑ狝叭Τ闽竒喷の
(b) ︑きㄓ現┎25诀篶挤稯到の褐ノ硚у30碩羆縩12.89そ臣現┎礚絪籹き玡硂摸у参璸计
(c) –Ωу硂摸уゅンА砏﹚Τ闽ノ硚硂籔ビ叫爹ノ硚琌妓┯урㄤノ硚┪氨ゎㄏノ赣┪赣ㄏノ瞯現┎Τ舦Μ赣
(d) 現┎ぃ砛扳硂摸ぃ筁赣ゼ荷ㄤノ┯уビ叫р穝祇甶現┎穦酚薄鶪σ納–﹙τ–﹙ビ叫ョ斗莉羆服穦︽現Ы疭уの
(e) 瓃(d)兜哪硂摸ぃ扳и-
ゼ矗ㄑ某璶―戈
British Naturalization
16. MISS EMILY LAU asked: In view of the large number of people who have applied for naturalization last month, will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) of the number of applications for naturalization received in each of the past three years as well as in the first three months of this year;
(b) how long the applicants have to wait for a decision on their applications given that there are only 433 days left before the transfer of sovereignty;
(c) whether the successful applicants will be given adequate time to apply for and be issued with the British National (Overseas) passports; and
(d) how many applications have been rejected in the past three years and whether the applicants have been notified of the reasons for the rejection; if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) The number of applications for naturalization/registration as British Dependent Territories Citizens in the past three years and in the first three months of this year is as follows:
Year No. of applications
1993 17 391
1994 17 803
1995 34 580
1996 217 603
(b) The Hong Kong Immigration Department aims to complete processing of all outstanding naturalization/registration applications by the end of September 1996.
(c) Article 4(5) of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986, as amended by the Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993, allows a successful applicant to apply for a British National (Overseas) passports within three months after the date he has obtained a naturalization/registration certificate.
(d) The number of applications rejected in the past three years and in the first three months of this year is as follows:
Year No. of applications
1993 147
1994 282
1995 451
1996 (Jan-Mar) 348
In line with the practice in the United Kingdom and in accordance with section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, the reasons for rejection of such applications are not disclosed.
Debts of Correctional Services Department Staff
17. 独岸藉某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 胓毙竝恨瞶糷琌眡胓毙竝戮筁ろ杜计肂のろ杜の
(b) 胓毙竝恨瞶糷Τ︙诀ňゎ戮羭杜τ紇臫
玂氮
(a) 胓毙竝7 184戮いヘ玡ろ杜Τ13ろ杜羆肂183窾じ︓璽杜玥Τぃㄒ膀瞶パ蹿щ戈ぃ讽┪戒痴单и-
礚筁Τ闽参璸计
(b) 胓毙竝穦躬纘ろ杜籔赣竝戮褐ヴ羛蹈璶―-
矗ㄑ種ǎ㎝徊旧狦眡琘戮璽杜穦ぉ钡ǎ览﹚睲临杜兜璸购恨瞶糷盢膥尿盞ち菏诡Τ闽薄鶪矗ㄑ秈˙種ǎ㎝ま
Processing of Estate Duty Cases
18. MR ERIC LI asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the total number of deceased persons registered in the territory, as well as the number of cases where the estate of the deceased is subject to estate duty, in each of the past five years (that is, from 1991-92 to 1995-96);
(b) of the number of cases referred to in (a) above which were outstanding as at 31 March in each of the five years in question, together with a breakdown by age of the deceased and estimated total amount of estate involved;
(c) what are the reasons for those cases which have not been settled within two years from the date of filing the application; and
(d) what measures have been adopted by the Inland Revenue Department to settle estate duty cases expeditiously so as to avoid causing undue hardship to the families of the deceased?
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr President,
(a) The total number of deceased persons registered and the number of cases where the estate of the deceased is subject to estate duty in each of the past five years, that is, from 1991-92 to 1995-96 are as follows:
(i) Number of deaths registered:
For year ended 31 March
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
30 258 30 085 30 054 30 493 25 060
(up to 31.1.96)
(ii) Number of estate duty cases filed:
For year ended 31 March
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
No. of dutiable 365 429 468 408 217
cases
No. of 10 289 10 633 10 926 11 169 11 460
non-dutiable
cases
Total number 10 654 11 062 11 394 11 577 11 677
of affidavits/
statements in lieu
of affidavits filed
(b) The number of cases outstanding as at 31 March for each year in the past five years with age analysis and the estimated amount of duty involved:
For year ended 31 March
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Dutiable cases 693 770 728 649 517
Non-dutiable cases 1 004 1 125 836 1 051 980
Total 1 697 1 895 1 564 1 700 1 497
For year ended 31 March
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Estimated amount $400m $500m $700m $700m $750m
of duty involved*
Estimated amount $7,400m $9,300m $13,000m $13,000m 13,900m
of estate involved
(dutiable cases only)
* These amounts are rolled-over from year to year. About two-thirds of the amounts represent the additional duty collectable on assets which were either undisclosed or were declared below market values.
The Inland Revenue Department does not keep statistics on the age of the deceased in the outstanding cases or the estimated amount of estate involved in non-dutiable cases.
(c) The main reasons for those cases which have not been settled within two years from the date of filing the application are:
(i) pending outcome of litigation (in most cases between executors and beneficiaries);
(ii) disputes on valuation of landed properties and shares in private companies;
(iii) valuation of a deceased's interest in a complicated predeceased's estate;
(iv) in-depth inquiry into potential tax avoidance schemes;
(v) slow response to enquiries from executors and third parties;
(vi) tracing of a deceased's life-time gifts;
(vii) tracing of undisclosed assets; or
(viii) disputes between beneficiaries of the estate.
(d) It has always been the Inland Revenue Department's policy to settle estate duty cases as expeditiously as possible. In fact, the Estate Duty Office's current performance pledge is to finalize 98% of the exempt and simple cases (not involving landed properties, private company shares and interest in business) within six weeks from the receipt of the application; 80% of the other exempt and simple cases within six months; and 75% of the complicated or dutiable cases within two years. The senior management of the Department and its Users' Committee regularly review actual performance as compared to pledged targets. The actual performance achieved for the past two years is shown in Annex.
Where a deceased's dependants have difficulties in meeting his funeral expenses or providing for their own maintenance, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue may authorize banks to release money from the deceased's bank accounts to relieve the hardship.
Where a case cannot be finalized within a reasonable time because of the need to trace life-time gifts and so on, the executor or the administrator can apply for the issue of provisional estate duty clearance papers upon production of a satisfactory guarantee (that is, bank guarantee, equitable mortgage, deposit of quoted shares, transfer of bank account balances as payment on account). The executor or the administrator can then proceed with the application for the grant to administer the estate. For duty payable on the leasehold properties held solely by the deceased, the executor may opt to settle by instalments.
Annex
Processing of Estate Duty Affidavits
Apr 94 to Mar 95 Apr 95 to Mar 96
Target Output Target Output
(Cumulative) (Cumulative)
EXEMPT AND SIMPLE cases
not invoiving landed properties,
private shares or business interests
Performance evaluation
Achieved Achieved
Assessments or certificates issued within
first 6 weeks 98% 99.6% 98% 99.7%
next 10 weeks 100% 100.0% 100% 100.0%
Number of cases processed 6 295 6 383
EXEMPT AND SIMPLE cases
involving landed properties,
private shares or business interests
Performance evaluation
Achieved Achieved
Assessments or certificates issued within:
first 6 months 80% 97.0% 80% 92.86%
next 12 months 100% 100.0% 100% 99.56%
Number of cases processed 3 600 4 459
DUTABLE or COMPLICATED Cases
Acceptable Acceptable
Performance evaluation
Assessments or certificates issued within
1 year 25% 62.8% 50% 61.15%
2 years 70% 87.3% 75% 84.43%
3 years 90% 93.5% 90% 91.28%
4 years 95% 96.4% 95% 95.08%
5 years 100% 97.9% 100% 96.38%
Number of cases processed 1 316 919
Liberalization of Local Fixed Telephone Networks
19. 霉不瓣某拜現┎セЫ
(a) ︑る秨セ㏕﹚筿杠呼蹈產穝莉祇礟竒犁そ穨叭祇甶︙の
(b) 玃秈竒犁セ㏕﹚筿杠呼蹈產そそキ膙τ﹚ㄣ砰現郸い︙窖龟︽︙ご璸购い
竒蕾氮畊ネ
(a) 穝丁㏕﹚筿癟呼蹈狝叭そ杆Тウ-
羆ユ传诀加秨﹍カチ矗ㄑ狝叭丁そ瞷常矗ㄑ"瓣悔筿杠セ钡婚"狝叭钡婚翠瓣悔筿癟瓣悔筿杠狝叭タ縩伐秨甶ㄤ筿癟呼蹈せるら丁そ癬籔翠臟隔そ帽璹某ㄤ稦絬呼蹈杆砞胖筿苐丁そョ羛カ初璶竒犁そ翠筿杠Τそ穝膀祘ず杆筿苐の恶跋の穝诀初矗ㄑ穝ユ传诀加砞琁パ丁穝そ惠璶丁祇甶セō呼蹈珿ヘ玡パ丁穝そ矗ㄑ钡钡婚狝叭め计ヘご礛ぃ籔丁穝そタ硓筁"瓣悔筿杠セ钡婚"狝叭筿杠腹絏㎝瓣悔筿杠忘狝叭ミㄤめ呼
(b) 現┎硓筁璹筿癟兵ㄒ㎝丁そ㏕﹚筿癟呼蹈狝叭礟酚玃秈㏕﹚筿癟呼蹈狝叭そぇ丁そキ膙崩︽ㄣ砰惫琁璸Τパ筿癟恨瞶ЫЫ钡恨筿杠腹絏璸购磅︽そキだ皌筿杠腹絏現郸崩︽筿杠腹絏拟┦めэ筿杠そ玂痙瞷Τ筿杠腹絏砏﹚そぃ狝叭秨ミ縒ミ眀ヘ菏诡贺狝叭ぇ丁ユが干禟薄鶪パ筿癟恨瞶ЫЫ穨穨祇甶坝の恨瞶そ祇闽そА秈╬加そノ场だまの祇Τ闽呼蹈钡婚ま㏕﹚筿癟呼蹈狝叭礟酚更Τ砏﹚窽ゎЙ锚膙︽㎝垒ノカ初纔墩︗の璶―そノ"娟繴"砞琁璶竒犁そ翠筿杠ΤそΜ禣ョ筿癟恨瞶ЫЫ砏恨
現┎穦膥尿菏恨筿癟カ初笲の磅︽筿癟兵ㄒ㎝㏕﹚筿癟呼蹈狝叭礟酚砏﹚и-
瞷タ浪癚筿癟兵ㄒゴ衡さ耕丁ミ猭Ы矗兵ㄒタㄤいㄇタ兜ヘ眏て籔祇甶㏕﹚筿癟呼蹈狝叭カ初そキ膙Τ闽兵ゅ
Use of natural Gas as Bus Fuel
20. 独岸藉某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 瞷現┎琌タ秈︽ぱ礛蠢猳ぺ縐╯璸购璝礛赣璸购Τ︙秈甶
(b) 砏﹚セ翠盡ぺ锣ノぱ礛м砃Τ︙螟龟琁︽┦︙の
(c) ╯筁祘い現┎Τ紉高穨ず種ǎ把σ璝︙
砏购吏挂現氮畊ネ
(a) и-
程Θミ阁场舱碞锣ノㄤ縐秨笆ó进珹ㄏノぱ礛ó进の筿笆ó进参膚Τ闽╯ㄇ╬犁そョ癸セ翠ぱ礛═ó縐м砃︽┦秈︽╯瘤礛и-
ョ纯把籔戳璸购ùさゼΜヴ︙絋某
(b) セ翠盡ぺ镑锣ノぱ礛玡и-
ゲ斗╯ㄇ拜肈珹莉眔ぱ礛ㄑ莱㎝ㄓ方琌铆﹚纗㎝だ皌ぱ礛逼干ぱ礛砞称穦Τ続ㄏノぱ礛ぺ皌セ翠笲块惠―杆砞㎝蝴ぱ礛╰参┮惠膀セ砞琁㎝や穿の繧㎝拜肈
(c) и-
ごσ納セ翠ぱ礛═ó縐璸购膀セ砞琁のм砃よ┮疉の拜肈и-
ゼ瞷顶琿紉高穨ず種ǎ
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
PLANT VARIETIES PROTECTION BILL
MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
CONSUMER GOODS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
TOYS AND CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
PLANT VARIETIES PROTECTION BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to provide for the protection of plant varieties."
竒蕾璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄从珇贺玂臔兵ㄒ
禩舱麓某醚玻舦某砏﹚┮Τ帽竝Θ讽い珹翠ずゲ斗璹﹚玂臔从珇贺舦惫琁セ兵ㄒΞ糹︽硂よ砫ヴ
兵ㄒ某〆ヴ寒笰矪矪从珇贺舦矪矪パ糵某Τ闽从珇贺舦爹ビ叫
兵ㄒ璹从珇贺莉σ納玂臔玡斗才非玥﹚Τ舦莉眔玂毁Τ闽㎝玂毁戳の絛瞅τēビ叫斗靡览ビ叫爹从珇贺琌穝の縒疭珇贺羆ㄓ弧琘贺从珇贺舦甭舦靡竒祇┯甭北赣从珇贺羉崔㎝坝穨ノ硚20硂贺玂毁癸セ㎝从▅贺常続ノ
ゎ獶猭ㄏノ从珇贺坝穨ノ硚兵ㄒ璹籔店安羘店安朝瓃のぃ讽ㄏノ玂臔从珇贺嘿Τ闽竜︽–兜竜︽某程蔼籃玥籃蹿10窾じ
璶Θ蚌▅㎝祇甶続綪扳穝珇贺ㄒ江垫㎝芠洁从惠璶胑щ戈㎝Τ瞶坝穨厨玡春兵ㄒ某盢穦玂毁瞷セ翠蚌▅从㎝江垫そ㎝のΤ種翠崩穝从珇贺从▅贺醚玻舦硂癸翠竒蕾㎝禣常Τ籺痲и略某セЫ硄筁兵ㄒ
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping (Safety) Ordinance."
竒蕾璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄1996坝差璹兵ㄒ
坝差拜肈琌瓣悔ㄆ舱麓や┮帽璹瓣悔そ砏恨硂ㄇ瓣悔ㄆ舱麓そ兵ゅ笲穨钡ゲ斗宽瓣悔夹非パ硂ㄇ瓣悔そ続ノ翠珿翠ゲ斗龟琁そ┮更夹非ヘ玡夹非琌虑坝差兵ㄒ璹ミ砏ㄒτ龟琁硂ㄇ砏恨ㄆ兜妮蔼м砃┦拜肈斗ぃ璹珿瞷︽祘硂ㄇ璹礚好︽現Ыの現竝猭览秖よ翠ゲ斗の糹︽Τ闽瓣悔┦猭砫ヴ玥翠瓣悔笲獺臕盢穦紇臫
搭淮︽現Ы秖ㄏ赣Ы镑栋い矪瞶璶現郸拜肈の祏丁ず龟琁Τ闽瓣悔そ兵ゅセ兵ㄒ砏﹚盢场だ璹ミ砏ㄒ舦パ羆服穦︽現Ы锣甭ぉ竒蕾獽龟琁続ノ翠瓣悔そ兵ゅ璹斗盢赣单兵ゅΤ闽砏ㄒ┪更ㄤ兵ゅ莱セ翠吏挂τ斗ゲ璶эの続莱
и-
ョ惠璹坝差兵ㄒ璹坝差兵ㄒ砏﹚喷差狝叭禣ノ坝差兵ㄒ妮猭ㄒず
坝差兵ㄒ﹚玡ㄆ琌パ坝差兵ㄒ砏恨の坝差兵ㄒネ盢籔ㄆΤ闽セ猭ㄒ侯癬ㄓ讽坝差兵ㄒい璝闽喷差狝叭㎝砏﹚兵ゅョ锣更坝差兵ㄒずぃ筁讽Ыご礛沮坝差兵ㄒ妮猭ㄒ坝差Μ禣砏ㄒΜ喷差狝叭禣ノи-
ゴ衡膥尿硂暗猭и-
粄莱砰兵ㄒい絋璹硂兜逼セ兵ㄒタ癸坝差兵ㄒΤ闽淮稬璹
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Immigration Ordinance."
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1996.
The purpose of the Bill is to prevent certain Vietnamese migrants from seeking release from detention in the wake of a recent Privy Council judgement.
Since 16 June 1988, Vietnamese migrants arriving in the territory who request to stay are detained pending determination as to whether they are refugees and, if they are determined to be non-refugees, pending removal to Vietnam. They are encouraged to return to Vietnam through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) voluntary repatriation programme. Otherwise, they are subject to the orderly repatriation programme run by the Hong Kong Government. Clearance by the Vietnamese authorities is required before a Vietnamese migrant can be repatriated. This applied to both the voluntary and the orderly return programmes.
In 1994, the UNHCR brought to our attention that a number of voluntary repatriation applicants had been awaiting clearance for return for some time. We examined these cases and concluded that there were 124 migrants who, because of their individual circumstances, had little prospect of being returned in the immediate future and thus their further detention might be unlawful. They were accordingly released on recognizance in November 1994.
Between early 1995 and March 1996, a habeas corpus action involving four Vietnamese migrants was considered successively by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. These Vietnamese migrants argued that the Vietnamese authorities had a policy of not taking back non-nationals, that they were non-nationals and, thus, if they applied to return they would be rejected; consequently, the purpose of their detention was therefore spent and they could no longer be lawfully detained. The Privy Council accepted these arguments in respect of three of the appellants. As for the fourth one, although neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal found him to be a non-national, the Privy Council believed that given the time that he has been awaiting clearance, he would not be accepted for return and should also be released.
Consequent to the Privy Council judgement we have, after careful consideration, released 254 Vietnamese migrants to date who, in our judgement, fall within the terms of the Privy Council judgement and could thus no longer be lawfully detained.
The issue of "non-nationals" was raised with the Vietnamese Government during the visit of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office Minister Mr Jeremy HANLEY to Hanoi on 9 April. The Vietnamese authorities agreed to study this problem again. We have also sought clarification on whether Taiwan would accept those released migrants who claimed to have Taiwanese papers, and a response is awaited.
Although we have already released all the migrants who came to our knowledge to date as failing within the terms of the Privy Council judgement, we are obliged to continue to release any new cases brought to our attention which fall under those terms. There is thus a risk of further releases.
Against the background that the Vietnamese authorities had to deal with over a hundred thousand cases from Asia and from Europe for repatriation, we do not believe that the hitherto apparently lengthy period for obtaining a response from the Vietnamese authorities should in general be treated as evidence of refusal or rejection by them. We thus propose in the Bill that where a request has been made to the Vietnamese Government for the repatriation of a Vietnamese migrant, the court shall not find that the purpose of his detention has failed, or become spent, until the request has been rejected by the Vietnamese Government, or unless the court finds that, in all the circumstances, the Vietnamese migrant has been detained for an unreasonable period. We also propose an additional, minor amendment which seeks to put beyond doubt the power to enable the released migrants to enter into recognizance.
We believe that the longer the relevant provisions of the Immigration Ordinance remain unamended, the greater the risk of having to make further releases. This in turn could lead to an erosion of our detention policy and will not be welcomed by the community; it will also increase our difficulties should the Vietnamese authorities later clear them for return, and we then have to search for and redetain them pending removal.
Since we have made known our intention to legislate in this regard, there have been some unfounded criticisms, mainly centred on whether we are seeking to legislate for indefinite or arbitrary detention. I should like to reiterate a few key points here. First, the need to detain Vietnamese migrants, even for long periods of time, is recognized by the courts as essential in order to maintain effective immigration control. Secondly, this detention policy is, of course, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, and we are not seeking to change this. In particular, we are not seeking to legislate to bar a Court from ordering the release of a Vietnamese migrant on the grounds that his period of detention is too long. Thirdly, we are only seeking to ensure that in deciding claims by Vietnamese migrants that they are non-nationals, the court may not assume that they will not be accepted back unless the Vietnamese authorities have rejected them. Fourthly, there are over 7 000 Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong whose clearance is not yet obtained, and there is a real risk that fraudulently obtained documents may be produced by them to seek release from detention. In the Administration's view, this is a potential loophole which should be closed as quickly as possible.
In short, Mr President, the Bill does not seek to provide for arbitrary or indefinite detention, nor does it set a precedent for such; in our view, it is consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong. It does not offend against the spirit of common law. It should not be read across to other kinds of detention, as section 13(D) of the Immigration Ordinance relates solely to Vietnamese illegal entrants and is there to deal with the massive influx of Vietnamese migrants that has occurred in the past. Once the Vietnamese migrant problem is completely resolved, that section of the law will have served its purpose and may then be repealed.
I would also like to make it clear that the introduction of this Bill in no way indicates disrespect to the Privy Council. The role of the Judiciary is to decide what the current law is, and to apply it to the facts of the case before it. But it is incumbent on the executive and the legislature to decide what law is best for the community. If we decide that the law should be changed, we are merely fulfilling our roles as policy-makers and as legislators. This is standard procedure in democratic societies subscribing to the basic concept of separation of powers, whether those societies be Hong Kong, the United Kingdom or any other common law jurisdiction. I trust Honourable Members will consider the Bill on its merits without fear of acting improperly towards the Judiciary.
Finally, the Administration urges Honourable Members to deal with the Bill expeditiously. We will be working closely together with the subcommittee established to examine this Bill; indeed the subcommittee has already begun its work this morning. I hope it will come to a conclusion speedily.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
CONSUMER GOODS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance."
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, I move that the Consumer Goods Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1996 be read the Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to enhance consumer protection by requiring all consumer goods covered by the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance to have all safety markings or labels provided in both English and Chinese, that is, the bilingual safety labelling requirement. It seeks to do so by empowering the Secretary for Trade and Industry to establish safety standards or safety specifications which she believes will materially enhance the safety of consumer goods. The proposed bilingual safety labelling requirement may then be established by regulation made by the Secretary for Trade and Industry under the new provision. It will be enforced by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise.
The Bill is proposed in response to requests from the community for the imposition of mandatory product labelling requirement in Chinese for all consumer goods, regardless of what the original language of the labelling is.
Having carefully considered the requests, we agree that safety labelling in Chinese, which is a language widely understood by the community, is of paramount importance to ensure consumer safety. We also see the need to ensure that the English-speaking-only community in Hong Kong understands the safety labelling on consumer goods. We therefore proposed that all safety markings or labels on consumer goods covered by the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance must be expressed in both English and Chinese.
The bilingual safety labelling requirement will be confined to markings or labels relating to warning or caution phrases concerned with the safe keeping, use, consumption or disposal of the consumer goods. Such markings or labels should be legible and placed in a conspicuous position on the consumer goods, the packaging or a document enclosed in the package, as the case may require. By doing so, the proposed requirement will achieve the objective of enhancing consumer safety while at the same time avoid imposing an undue burden on manufacturers, importers or suppliers.
Upon enactment of the Bill, I will table the Consumer Goods Safety Regulation in the Council for Members' approval by the negative procedure. Members may wish to note that a similar regulation on the introduction of requirement for bilingual safety labelling for toys and children's products covered by the Toys and Children's Products Safety Ordinance will also be made. To give the industry and trade sufficient time to adjust, there will be a grace period of 12 months before the Regulations come into operation.
Mr President, I move that debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
TOYS AND CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Toys and Children's Products Safety Ordinance."
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, I move that the Toys and Children's Products Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1996 be read the Second time.
The Bill provides for the adoption of safety standards other than the British Standards Institution (BSI) standards for children's products under the Toys and Children's Products Safety Ordinance. The Bill is made in response to requests from the trade and industrial organizations that multiple safety standards should be adopted for children's products because adoption of the BSI standards alone is considered too restrictive and would limit consumers' choice.
At present, the Toys and Children's Products Safety Ordinance only permits the adoption of the BSI safety standards for children's products. This is because when the Ordinance was enacted, the BSI standards were considered to be the most comprehensive in product range and safety aspects.
We have no objection in principle to the proposed adoption of multiple safety standards other than the BSI standards for children's products, provided that the alternative standards are equivalent in their safety requirements to the existing BSI standards already adopted in the Ordinance. Preliminary examination by the Government Chemist on a number of non-BSI safety standards applicable to children's products, including those suggested by the trade and industrial organizations, reveals that some of them are suitable for adoption as alternative standards. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to empower the Secretary for Trade and Industry to adopt alternative safety standards other than the BSI ones for children's products. Clause 4 empowers the Secretary for Trade and Industry to amend the Schedule. This includes the addition of alternative safety standards and updating of existing standards. In order to ensure that the level of safety requirement will not be compromised when alternative standards are adopted, the Secretary for Trade and Industry must be satisfied that any new standards intended to be adopted are equivalent to the existing BSI standards already adopted for that particular children's product in terms of safety requirements.
The proposed adoption of multiple safety standards of children's products will encourage competition in the Hong Kong market and hence increase consumers' choice.
Mr President, I move that debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Stamp Duty Ordinance."
畐叭璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄1996祙璹材2腹兵ㄒ
セ兵ㄒ珹ㄢ兜璶某材兜某琌盢︘穨禦芥紉Μ祙惫琁﹚ッ惫琁材兜某琌癸︑腀掉﹚狝叭Μ场Θセ玥紉Μ禣ノ
琵и酵酵Τ闽禦芥︘穨祙惫琁и稱弧硂兜惫琁璉春︗某┪砛ご礛癘眔硂兜惫琁程る龟琁筀ゎ︘穨芥笆ㄤい兜惫琁硂兜惫琁妮羬┦借斗ぃ盢Τ戳┑セЫるΩр硂兜惫琁Τ戳┑ㄢ︓き┏るиセЫ笆某硄筁∕某┑硂兜惫琁Τ戳ㄢ︓┏赣∕某莉セЫ硄筁笆某硄筁赣兜∕某иョボи-
Τ種セミ猭穦戳ず癸祙兵ㄒ璹盢硂兜惫琁﹚ッ惫琁さぱи某矗ユ兵ㄒΞ龟︽硂兜某瞷琵и秆睦и-
盢硂兜惫琁﹚ッ惫琁
材瞷︽惫琁靡Τゴ阑︘穨芥笆瞷穨蒥初铆﹚ㄓτщ诀芥笆ョΜ鞬р硂兜惫琁﹚ッ惫琁癸芥穨Τ尿ыノ礚阶蒥初薄鶪︙跑笆ョ虑硂兜惫琁ゴ阑硂陪ボи-
绊∕ゴ阑穨芥戳ヘ夹
材硂琌兜そキ惫琁ウ絋玂現┎–﹙︘穨ユ珹祏戳锣扳ユ紉Μ祙ョㄏи-
眔碞膀セ妮坝穨禦芥穨ユい莉眔柬紉Μ眔祙眖揭祙àㄓ弧硂兜惫琁莱﹚ッ惫琁
材硂兜惫琁埃笷癸芥笆のㄏ祙そキヘ癸痷タ竚穨礚紇臫-
斗菠矗Ν煤ユ祙
и-
Τだ瞶パ盢硂兜惫琁﹚ッ惫琁и-
ぃ箇戳ら穦瞷ヴ︙薄鶪穦惠璶戳┪既篗綪硂兜暗猭и-
某璹祙兵ㄒ盢硂兜惫琁﹚ッ逼
и-
フΤㄇ某闽猔祙癸竚穨┮硑Θ璽踞и-
癸╯粄﹚戳浪癚祙祙瞯挡篶眖τ搭淮竚穨璽踞琌続讽㎝ち龟︽よ猭獺︗某穦癘眔и-
纯搭Μ基300窾じ┪穨祙ㄏ竚穨磃セ癩現箇衡いи-
某秈˙搭穨ユ祙ㄏ潦禦基350窾じ┪加磃硂兜祙叭糴搭癸êㄇ潦竚い基加珹潦竚﹡Τㄤ虫︗のЖみ顶糷┬璸购穨穦Τ┮籺痲
瞷и稱锣酵セ兵ㄒ材兜璶某祙掉﹚筁祘い祙竝竝穦碞ゅ琌ぉ紉Μ祙ボ種ǎの斗紉Μ玥蝶﹚赣ゅぉ紉Μ蹿肂掉﹚だㄢ摸眏掉﹚琌玂毁現┎祙Μτ癸琘摸ゅ┮秈︽掉﹚︑腀掉﹚玥琌パビ叫︑笆璶―秈︽瞷ぃ阶掉﹚狝叭琌眏┪︑笆璶―薄鶪秈︽祙叭Ы常穦紉Μ禜紉Α禣ノ
计竝竝きЧΘΤ闽掉﹚狝叭眀ヘ糵琩某莱Μ场Θセ玥紉Μ掉﹚禣ノ竒浪癚и-
粄眏掉﹚の︑腀掉﹚莱絋跋だパ眏掉﹚璶琌玂毁現┎Μτ秈︽莱礚斗Μ禣Τ︑腀掉﹚狝叭斗Μ场Θセ玥ㄓ络﹚Μ禣и-
種ǎ莉現┎眀ヘ〆穦钡и-
某璹赣兵ㄒ龟琁硂兜场だ掉﹚狝叭Μ禣某
и-
ョ虑硂Ω璹兵ㄒ诀穦盢赣兵ㄒ结ぉ羆服穦︽現Ы舦いぃ疉の璶現郸σ納场だ锣甭畐叭搭淮羆服穦︽現Ы璽踞讽礛Τ闽舦︽ㄏご斗篋盽よΑセЫ菏诡
畊ネи略朝勉某セЫ硄筁セ兵ㄒ
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 8 November 1995
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, the Medical Registration (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995 was introduced into the Legislative Council on 8 November 1995. The purposes of the Bill are to expand the Medical Council and to revise its committee structure, to provide for the establishment of a Specialist Register and to streamline the procedure for transacting businesses of the Medical Council.
A Bills Committee, of which I am the Chairman, was set up to study the Bill. The Bills Committee has received submissions from seven interested organizations and individuals and has met deputations from five of the organizations as well as the Chairman of the Medical Council. It has held seven meetings with the Administration to discuss the various provisions of the Bill.
I will briefly describe the main issues considered by the Bills Committee.
The first issue relates to the composition of the Medical Council.
Members consider it essential to have lay members participating in the work of the Medical Council, particularly in the areas concerning the interests of the public, such as the Preliminary Investigation Committee's investigations into complaints against medical practitioners and the disciplinary inquiries.
Under clause 3(1)(e), it is proposed to increase the number of lay members in the Medical Council from one to two. Members see the need to further increase the number so that there will be sufficient lay members to monitor the work of the Council. After discussion, a majority of Members agree to increase the number of lay members to four. This is agreed by the Administration and the Secretary for Health and Welfare will move an amendment to effect the change.
The Bills Committee's proposal to increase the number of lay members to four will mean a total of 14 appointed members, which outnumbers the 12 elected members. In order to maintain the balance between appointed and elected members, Members and the Administration agreed to increase the membership to 28, with 14 elected members and 14 appointed members including the four lay members.
The second issue relates to inclusion in the Specialist Register which is a major issue of concern to the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, the Hong Kong Medical Association and the North American Medical Association.
The proposed new section 20K spells out the requirement for inclusion in the Specialist Register. Following discussion with the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine after the introduction of the (No.1) Bill in the last Legislative Council Session, the Medical Council has proposed changes to allow an applicant who is not a Fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine but who satisfies the Education and Accreditation Committee that he is of good character and has achieved the necessary professional standards and continuing medical education requirements to be included in the Specialist Register.
The Hong Kong Academy of Medicine considers that the Medical Council should approve such an application under exceptional circumstances only and this should be reflected in the Bill. It argues that the absence of the phrase "under exceptional circumstances" in the (No. 2) Bill would cause misunderstanding that either the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine or the Medical Council could assess specialist qualifications and suggests that phrase which was included in the (No.1) Bill should be reinstated in the present Bill. The Hong Kong Medical Association holds the same view. On the other hand, the North American Medical Association supports the new section because it provides an alternative route for specialists trained in North America to become listed as specialists in Hong Kong without taking remedial training in Hong Kong as required of them for Fellowship of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine.
The Medical Council is of the view that basically, specialists who are qualified for inclusion in the Specialist Register should be a member of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine as it is the statutory body to provide specialist training and to assess and accredit specialist qualifications. However, there may be circumstances under which a specialist, who does not wish to join the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine but is professionally qualified for inclusion in the Specialist Register, may wish to practise as a specialist in Hong Kong. The Medical Council would consult the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine regarding the qualifications of the specialist before making its decision.
The Administration further explains that the new section 20K(5) is added to provide a redress channel for those who are not Fellows of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine but who wish to apply for inclusion in the Specialist Register. It points out that under Article 18 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, people in Hong Kong are guaranteed freedom of association which also means that no one should be forced to become a member of any association. If a specialist does not want to join the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, the Administration should not force him to do so by imposing Fellowship as a definite requirement for inclusion in the Specialist Register.
Some Members are worried that if medical practitioners are allowed to apply first to the Medical Council for inclusion in the Specialist Register under the proposed new section 20K(5), no one would apply under the new section 20K(3) which requires Fellowship and recommendation of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine.
After further discussion with the Bills Committee and following consultation with the Medical Council and the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, the Administration has worked out a new proposal in which an applicant for inclusion in the Specialist Register shall approach the Registrar who will have the following three options:
(a) If the applicant is a Fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, the Registrar will submit the application to the Education and Accreditation Committee directly;
(b) If the applicant is not a Fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine but has obtained from it a certification that he has achieved a professional standard and has satisfied continuing medical education requirements comparable to those of its Fellowship, the Registrar will submit the application to the Education and Accreditation Committee directly, or
(c) If the applicant is not a Fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine and has not obtained any certification from the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, the Registrar will submit the application to the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine for certification. If the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine certifies that the applicant has not achieved a professional standard or has not completed postgraduate medical training and satisfied continuing medical educational requirements comparable to those recommended by the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine for the relevant speciality, the Registrar shall reject the application, stating the reason for rejection.
If the application is rejected by the Registrar, the applicant may appeal to the Education and Accreditation Committee.
The Bills Committee supports the proposal. The Secretary for Health and Welfare will move an amendment to the clause at the Committee stage.
The composition of the various committees to be established under the Medical Council has also been carefully examined by Members.
Members note that under the new section 20S, the Preliminary Investigation Committee comprises a chairman, a deputy chairman, four medical practitioners and one of the lay members of the Medical Council and that quorum of a Preliminary Investigation Committee meeting is three, including the chairman or deputy chairman, or both.
Since it is the task of the Preliminary Investigation Committee to look into evidence produced by the complainants and the medical practitioners concerned and to make recommendations to the Medical Council for the holding of disciplinary inquiries, Members agree that lay representation in Preliminary Investigation Committee meetings is essential and therefore the quorum should include at least one lay member subject to the majority being registered medical practitioners. The Administration agrees and will move an amendment to that effect.
Members have also deliberated on the need for inclusion of lay members in the Health Committee. They note that the Medical Council strongly opposes the formal inclusion of lay members in the Health Committee which is an internal review committee conducted by the medical profession to ascertain whether a particular medical practitioner is medically fit to continue his practice.
The Administration has pointed out that under the proposed new section 20U(1)(f), the Medical Council shall appoint to the Health Committee, inter alia, "1 to 3 persons, not being members of the Council, whom the Council considers appropriate" and therefore it will have the discretion to appoint lay persons if considered appropriate.
Some Members wish to include lay members in the Health Committee, preferably lay members of the Medical Council who would be in a better position than ordinary lay persons to handle the sensitive nature of cases involved and to make an objective judgement, and to spot irregularities, if any.
Other Members have doubts as to whether a lay member would be able to function effectively in the Health Committee. They observe that without the necessary professional knowledge, it would be difficult for the lay member to spot irregularities, if any, and to challenge the professional judgement of other members.
Members have divided views on this issue and no consensus has been reached.
In this connection, I would like to mention that the Honourable LAW Chi-kwong, a Member of the Bills Committee, will move an amendment at the Committee stage to include one of the four lay members of the Medical Council in the Health Committee.
The Bills Committee has also scrutinized the composition of the meeting of the Council held for the purpose of an inquiry under section 21.
The new subsection (1) stipulates that at any meeting of the Council held for the purpose of an inquiry under section 21, either five members of the Council or not less than three members of the Council and two assessors from the panel appointed under subsection (2) shall be a quorum. Members consider that there should be at least one lay member attending each disciplinary inquiry. After discussion, the Administration has agreed to amend the new section 21B(1) to the effect that at least one of the five persons forming the quorum shall be a lay member, subject to the majority being registered medical practitioners.
As regards the panel of assessors to be appointed under the new subsection (2), Members note that the panel serves as a pool of reserves to supplement members of the Medical Council for the purpose of conducting an inquiry under section 21 and that its composition is modelled on that of the Medical Council.
In considering the composition of the Preliminary Investigation Committee, Members have noted that under clause 26(3), a new section 21(4A) is added to provide that a member of the Preliminary Investigation Committee who is also a member of the Council shall not attend the subsequent disciplinary inquiry, if there is one. In order to ensure that there will be lay member's participation in such inquiries, Members consider that the number of lay member on the panel of assessors should be increased so that they can take turns to attend disciplinary inquiries, if required. Some Members also observe that lay persons serving on the panel could become suitable candidates for appointment to the Medical Council in future after they have acquired sufficient experience on the panel.
After discussion, Members and the Administration agree that the number of lay members on the panel of assessors should be increased from two to four.
The Administration has proposed to add a new clause 39A. Section 5 of the Medical Registration (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 87 of 1995) added a new section 7A to the Medical Registration Ordinance to state the eligibility criteria for taking the Licensing Examination.
Members note that since the introduction of the Licentiate Examination in 1977-78, the Medical Council has an internal guideline under which overseas medical graduates must have undertaken a period of internship before taking the Examination as the Medical Council considers that internship is part and parcel of the medical training programme.
To provide legislative support for this practice, the Administration has proposed a new clause 39A to amend section 5 of the Medical Registration (Amendment) Ordinance to state that for the purpose of subsection 1(b)(i), the five-year full-time medical training shall include a period of internship as approved by the Council. Members support the proposed provision.
The various amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Health and Welfare at the Committee stage are supported by the Bills Committee.
Mr President, with these remarks, I commend the Medical Registration (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill to Honourable Members.
辩模┚某璓勉畊ネ碞1995洛ネ爹璹材2腹兵ㄒず甧ㄓ弧и粄Τㄢ翴琌Τ拜肈材翴琌籔洛叭〆穦Θ舱麓Τ闽瘤礛琌兜兵ㄒ盢穨Θ计糤︓籔穨ずΘ计ゑご妮熬计ぃìだは琈カチ渤種ǎ材翴玥琌闽矪瞶洛ネ弘ㄆ﹜胺眃鶪舱赣舱Θ舱麓ぷㄤぃ瞶澈礛硈穨Θ⊿Τ碞琌弧穨種ǎЧ礚猭赣舱は琈ㄓ
膀硂ㄢ翴и琌荡癸ぃ獺狝㎝や硂兜兵ㄒ疭琌硂洛叭〆穦ョ珹矪瞶洛ネ笵紈巨拜肈ㄒΤ闽洛ネ穦砪芥窽媚穦腇痜禘┪琌癸痜Τぃ笵紈︽单单狦穨ぃ碞硂ㄇ拜肈把籔笷種ǎ┪ヲ掉琌パ穨ずヲ掉杠и稱﹚穦Τ熬会薄鶪瞷琘兜盡穨磅穨砞ミ〆穦ゲ斗そキそ秨のㄏカチ癸ㄤ糤獺み穦┮钡
產笵ささら翠カチチ種醚の舦種醚タぃ耞糤璶―現┎糤硓τ洛叭〆穦硂薄鶪玱ぃ镑抖莱チ種盢穨计糤杠и谋眔獶盽框狙и硂ビи辨洛叭〆穦盢ㄓ穨计穦ぃ耞糤τ胺眃鶪舱Θョ穦ㄇ穨и朝勉虏虫程璶琌и兵ㄒ糵某〆穦ず纯笷и種ǎτ讽иョ矗の瞷洛叭〆穦眔穨ご礛琌ぃì镑и硂ビи︑ミ初и琌ぃ觅Θ硂ㄢ舱Θ舱麓τи朝勉璶琌皐癸硂ㄢ翴
谅谅畊ネ
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I welcome this Bill which I support. This Bill has been very carefully studied and scrutinized by the Bills Committee under the able chairmanship of the Honourable Edward HO. But I would like to make two simple points. First is on the dangers of protectionism, and secondly, on membership.
As regards the first point, Hong Kong has achieved a present excellent position by the legacy of a high standard through international recognition. To pursue this recognition, I think we should not be drawing in our horns or withdraw from the wisdom of our international involvement. To do so, we will pay dearly in future years and we will decimate the network of traditional goodwill that we enjoy today. We shall be penny wise today and pound foolish tomorrow. The underpinnings of Hong Kong's achievement today will then be corroded for as long as we are seen to adopt either a patronizing attitude or protectionistic manner towards what should really be a question of pursuit of technical knowledge. Without knowledge, our rice bowls will be broken. We who are legislators today should not be asleep at our wheel but must keep a vigilant watch that the process of registration under the Bill, which will be an Ordinance, will be kept to be as fair and transparent as possible.
As regards the second point on membership, I have received representation from many sources and the representations have made it clear that lay membership will be very relevant to the application of medical skill. The application of medical skill must necessarily involved patients and consumers. The rights of patients are best protected by the presence of some lay members on the Council itself and on its subcommittees or committees without arbitrary or artificial distinction between different committees. This is a necessary presence and does not, in my opinion, either undermine the dignity or the authority of the excellent professionals involved in the Medical Council.
Thank you, Mr President.
霉璓某璓勉畊ネチ囊俱砰琌や1995洛ネ爹璹材2腹兵ㄒぃ筁埃и祔矗璹ぇ兵ㄒずごΤㄇいぃìよ辨らΤ诀穦璹σ納硂ㄤい珹ㄢ翴材翴琌瞷猭ㄒい洛叭〆穦Θ舱麓倒贺眏疨"だ绘"稰谋ㄒいゅ厩翠厩洛恨Ы翠洛厩盡厩皘だㄢ畊︗挡狦璹洛叭〆穦计糤螟┣Τ竤╬磅穨洛ネ粄-
ョㄣ┦璶ㄢ畊︗
и琌穨セㄓぃ莱赣弧и饼ōだず璓崩笆硂盡穨祇甶辨穨镑刮挡癬ぃ璶"沮繷"︑"繷"ゑ"繷"蔼и辨洛ネ狟ねョ镑碞拜肈刮挡癬ㄓ盡穨祇甶τぃ璶硂"繷""绘"兵ㄒ糵某〆穦戳獽笷醚碞琌洛叭〆穦ず莱赣Τ20%穨┮某盢穨计ヘパㄓ某ㄢ糤砞︓堡祇甶︓戳洛叭〆穦计糤程羆跑28挡狦穨ゑㄒ禴︓14%硂谋眔框狙讽礛и-
璶―盢穨计ヘ糤︓せ跑Θ场30いせ20%狦硂э杠洛ネ獽穦弧璶糤ㄢ狦硂妓獽穦礚ヰゎ糤洛叭〆穦Θ计ヘ碞琌┮弧"だ绘"薄鶪┮ま癬辨Ω浪癚硂拜肈穨ず碞硂拜肈秈︽癚阶の秸俱穨ゑㄒ璓笷и-
ヘ夹碞琌20%
谅谅畊ネ
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネチ羛琌膀蝴臔痜舦痲à粄糤洛叭〆穦穨Θゑㄒ镑絋玂タΑ穦某珹洛叭〆穦のㄤ舱〆穦ゲ斗Τ穨畊ョ眏洛叭〆穦そ獺镑そタ㎝そキ矪瞶щ禗チ羛ョ膀玂毁獶璣羛ü洛ネ痲à粄瞷い洛穨舦痲ぃ莉跌㎝続讽は琈珿讽Ы莱讽縩伐σ納獶璣羛üのず拨穨洛ネ洛叭〆穦ずョ莱еΘミい洛穨祇甶〆穦秈程沧琌Θミい洛穨洛叭〆穦临璶タ跌﹁洛臦舦秈˙┑甶拜肈絋玂痜舦痲莉眔だ玂毁
畊ネチ羛琌穦や硂兜兵ㄒタ
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: May I begin by putting it on record the appreciation of the medical profession to the chairman and members of the Bills Committee who have worked so hard to understand the intricacy of this Bill in relation to the registration of the medical profession. I must place on record too our appreciation of the Government in finally presenting this second half of the Bill and for agreeing to move certain amendments. Yes, the Government has procrastinated for quite a few years. Yes, there were times when I almost had to resort to moving a Member's Bill. But I presume it is better late than never.
Mr President, with the passage of this Bill, hopefully today, and together with the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 1995 passed last July, though never perfect, the following areas will be achieved both for the benefit of the public and the medical profession which I represent.
Strengthening professional autonomy
As a start, Mr President, the Bill calls for professional autonomy. Autonomy for the profession to determine standards on which registration to practise will depend, not by the Government nor by the state. This is fundamental to all professions and this is why the nine professional groups fought so hard to have this enshrined in the Basic Law during the days of the drafting exercise.
Mr President, the registration and controlling body for the medical profession lies in the Medical Council. Hitherto, even up to today, this Council is completely appointed by the Governor. In short, the current Council is answerable only to the Government, not to the profession. This defies the core of professional autonomy. Ironically, if you look at the other professions, other than the Councils of the four health-related professions, they are all elected by the respective professions and accountable to the professions.
The Medical Registration (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill seeks to alter the size and the composition of the Medical Council and with its passage, 50% of its members will be elected by the profession and answerable to the profession. This though inadequate must be said to be a big step forward. But I still fail to understand why the Government refuses to grant full membership of the Medical Council to the profession whilst there is already precedence for the lawyers, the barristers, the accountants, the architects, and the engineers, and so on. With the passage of this Bill, I hope the other health care professions will look at their Councils, "Nursing Board" for example, and move towards achieving some degree, if not all, of professional control.
Mr President, the Honourable LAW Chi-kwong has queried why would the increase in lay members of two should be met with a similar increase in two elected members from the medical profession. The reason, Mr President, is basically very simple. The list of doctors from the two universities, for example, the Hospital Authority, the Department of Health and, obviously, the two lay members, are appointees of the Government. In short, they still represent the Government although they may well be doctors. On the other hand, those elected by the profession will be representing the profession, accountable to the profession. In short, to maintain the same degree or at least some degree of professional autonomy, a similar increase in elected number is necessary to allow at least a 50% of their members to be accountable to the profession. In this stage, Mr President, if all of us are concerned and looking forward for democratic process to represent the people, I hope that the Democratic Party would understand that with at least 50% elected, we would be able to represent the people, not the Government.
Mr President, Members of this Council may have received recommendations from different medical bodies to have these 50% elected seats designated by law to certain sectors of the medical profession. This will not do and this I will not condone. For such move not only will sectorize the profession, instead of unifying them, but by allotting the seats to different bodies by law, it goes against the basic concept of professional autonomy which must be our fundamental core value.
More lay members for professional bodies
With the change in size and composition of the Medical Council comes also the increase in participation of lay members. The current quota of one lay member will be increased to four. The profession welcomes the participation of lay members in the Council especially during the different stages of disciplinary inquiries. For we believe that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. Furthermore, any disciplinary activities of the profession should not be done within a black box constituted by the professionals alone.
Incidentally, I would like to remind the Honourable Mrs Elizabeth WONG that the original Bill introduced by the Government consists only of two members and this Bill was devised many years ago when she herself was Secretary for Health and Welfare.
Ironically, whilst members of the public are all out to push for lay representatives in the Medical Council, none have today been forthcoming to demand lay representatives in other non-health care related professional councils which in most cases are entirely constituted by professional people. I always fail to understand these double standards and wonder how the public acquired these double standards.
Role of the academy in specialist register
The Bill before us, Mr President, calls for the setting up of a Specialist Register. This is long overdue. Without being boastful, Hong Kong's medical standards are in the world's forefront. Furthermore, our population demand not just medical care but quality care and specialist care. A Specialist Register is therefore needed so that the public would know who to go to in case of special needs. Yet this must be backed up with ways and means of training doctors to this level, with ways and means to vet their standards, and with ways and means to ensure that they catch up with the improvement of standards on a day-to-day basis. It was with this in mind that an Academy of Medicine was set up three years ago by law. The timing is therefore right now that the Academy is running at full scale, and we should be moving into specialist registration and recognition.
It therefore comes as a surprise that the Administration in its first draft of the Bill indicated that a doctor could register as a specialist even though he/she has no relationship whatsoever with the Academy. Hiding behind the Bill of Rights arguing that you cannot force any person to join any organization, the value and the role of the Academy is gently tuck out of the way. Fortunately, at the end of the day, the Administration is willing to concede that every applicant for Specialist Register must have their standards and training judged and certified by the Academy. The Medical Council would also act as an appeal body should the applicant fail to pass the assessment of the Academy. This, though inadequate, is a big step forward. However, I would still like to place on record my personal reservation and that of the profession.
There are of course those within my own profession, who have received training in systems different from those determined by the Academy, had raised objection and have even brought in the pressure of politics to bear on the Bills Committee. I condemn all these of course. For whilst we should be as flexible as possible in determining our training criteria, we are here to establish a system for Hong Kong. It is a Hong Kong system we are after, not an American, not a Japanese, not a United Kingdom system. Furthermore, political pressure should never be allowed to override professional autonomy. This is against all democratic principles and that any democratic institution should condemn.
Fitness to practise
Finally, Mr President, the Bill calls for further enlargement of functions of the Medical Council, in particular, the setting up of a Health Committee. A doctor if determined by his peers to be suffering, or otherwise, from certain health (mental or physical) problems that would interfere with his practice, this Committee will be charged with the task to analyse the situation and to recommend and advise changes in his/her practice even up to termination of his/her practice on health reason.
It may be timely for me to stress that this Health Committee is not a disciplinary body. It does not act when a doctor has committed a misconduct in his/her own practice.
Mr President, as I mentioned at the very beginning, this amendment Bill, hopefully with the amended provisions passed last July, are still far from perfect. The medical profession will be looking at areas which perhaps will need further improvement to better the profession and to protect the public, and suggest amendment in the course of time.
With those remarks, Mr President, I support the Bill, the amendments to be moved by the Government, but would reject the amendment by the Honourable LAW Chi-kwong. Thank you.
馋莱某璓勉畊ネи琌チ禣àㄓ祇ēи-
Τ︗ㄆョ弧筁種ǎ┮иぃ稱狡и種ǎ璶琌闽洛叭〆穦Θ舱麓琌穨ゑㄒの˙盎癟舱㎝蝶糵舱よΘゑㄒи-
い瓣Τ钩て弧猭"痷ぃ┤疢膌"и粄盡穨洛ネ辨镑倒ぉそ渤そキそタ㎝ㄣそ獺钩杠碞ゲ斗琵洛叭〆穦Τ続ゑㄒ穨Θㄤい瞷28Θ眔穨璝琌ㄢ穨琌痷穦紇臫洛叭〆穦∕郸㎡
ㄆ龟琌ぃ穦τ硂ゑㄒョ籔璣瓣ゑㄒ环產笵猭畑抄糵刮ぃ琌计パ盡穨畍┪猭舱Θτ硂ョΤ菌瞷洛叭〆穦琌今材˙玱ご礛ê或玂и粄琌籔瞷さ穦チ禗―のカチユ单よ璶―禯び环チ癸1995洛ネ爹璹材2腹兵ㄒずΤ闽穨Θよゑㄒボぃ钡のΤ┮玂痙讽礛Τひ羆ゑ或常ぃ暗翴瞷Τ薄鶪и-
玧眏钡硂兜兵ㄒぃ筁и-
穦や霉璓某矗Τ闽胺眃鶪舱穨Θゑㄒ璹
谅谅畊ネ
︙庇古某璓勉畊ネи舧1995洛ネ爹璹材2腹兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁иョ蔼砍セ兵ㄒ洛叭〆穦ま钡匡羭50%Θ诀耎〆穦穨ゑㄒの糤砞盡洛ネиョ蔼砍祔霉璓某┮笆某タず矗胺眃鶪舱穨Θ羆珹ㄓ弧硂琌兜秈˙琌硂兜秈˙盢ㄓご礛璶阁玡˙и辨硂Τ50%Θ琌竒パ匡羭匡洛叭〆穦縒ミぃ現┎紇臫讽礛иョ辨е碞Τ闽臔恨瞶〆穦兵ㄒョセЫ矗ユΤ妓タま秈匡
癸穨洛叭〆穦计ヘさぱタぇ临琌眔某畊иご礛琌稰ぃ骸種и種翠痜舦痲〆穦種ǎ碞琌ㄏ洛叭〆穦Θ穦Τだぇ琌穨ㄤ龟琌秈˙眏〆穦そ獺兵ㄒ糵某〆穦ずΤぃ種ǎτи-
ョ谋眔ぃ眔糵某〆穦ず阶璶ΤぶΘぃ筁и辨硂︗穨Θ硂穝洛叭〆穦Τ柜穝华ㄏ洛叭〆穦穨ずΘ钡-
ョ琵カチ穨Θ镑妓腊穝洛叭〆穦笲眔
莱辩醇翬某矗のи-
璶―洛叭〆穦糤ê或穨Θ琌Τ蛮夹非㎡ㄤ龟畊ネ硂摸Τ闽盡穨〆穦兵ㄒ筁┕计セЫ矗ユぃи獺狦徖ネ褐痷セЫ矗ユΤ闽臔爹兵ㄒタ杠赣兵ㄒ莱赣穦妓癸иぃ粄ЫずㄆΤヴ︙蛮夹非
︓胺眃鶪舱よиや霉璓某タи粄硂舱狦镑穨Θ琌ㄏ硂舱そ笵ョ琵稰ウ琌そ笵畊ネи祔〆穦糵某顶琿盢穦Ω祇ē疭琌碞Τ闽硂よタ兵ゅ祇ē
谅谅畊ネ
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I should like to thank the chairman and members of the Bills Committee for their careful scrutiny of the provisions in the Bill. The Bill, if passed by this Council, will lead to four major changes.
First, the Medical Council will have an expanded membership to broaden its representation and to help the sharing out of the increasing workload. The addition of 14 members to the Council will bring the total number of members to 28. Of the 28, 14 will be elected, seven to be elected from all registered medical practitioners on the General Register, and the remaining seven to be elected by the Council members of the Hong Kong Medical Association. The introduction of elected members into the Medical Council will encourage greater involvement of the profession in its own affairs.
Secondly, the provisions regarding the introduction of a Specialist Register pave the way for the formal registration and control of medical specialists.
Thirdly, apart from the existing Licentiate Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee, three more statutory committees, namely, the Health Committee, the Education and Accreditation Committee and the Ethics Committee will be established to look after other important aspects of the Council's work.
Lastly, the Medical Council and its Health Committee will be able to prohibit the disclosure of information relating to an inquiry by the Council or a hearing by the Health Committee if it is in the interests of the complainant, defendant or witness. In addition, for the protection of the public, the Medical Council's Disciplinary Order will take effect on publication in the Gazette.
With these remarks, Mr President, I commend the Bill to Members.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
LEVERAGED FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRADING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 13 March 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 13 March 1996
糕蚌┚某璓勉畊ネ靡ㄩの戳砯ㄆ叭菏诡〆穦"靡菏穦"︑玡ま秈恨篵膘Α蹲禦芥兵ㄒ戈┮陪ボ翠セㄓ琌︑パ穦疭琌現┎弧璶玂翠磕いみτ猤猤︑尺и-
ゲ斗秆ンㄆ眖礚┹甶Τパ暗琌穦秈˙瞷禜狦"菏恨"ㄢτ盢ンㄆ眖罽眖罽⊿Τ硂兜現郸セ笻璉翠現┎程膀セ現郸縩伐ぃ箇現郸琌縩伐с炳琘ㄇ︽穨
セ荡癸や現┎碞Τ闽菏恨続讽˙艼и辨矗硂笲琌タ盽┪そキ眖戈陪ボ筁莉眔靡菏穦у篵膘Α蹲坝Τ37丁τㄤい竒Τ禬筁き丁竒︑笆氨穨┪盢礟酚ユ靡菏穦硂薄ì靡靡菏穦ゲ斗浪癚硂妓暗猭琌才翠程膀セ痲
よ靡菏穦戳砯ユ┮ま贺穝珇贺ら锣戳蹲琵戳砯ユ┮恏ず崩約硂摸玻珇и稱叫癩竒ㄆ叭絋翠カチ硂琌猭珇贺現┎琌種瓜с炳篵膘Α蹲禦芥τ珇贺蠢硂珇贺猭┦︙玂毁︙畊ネи絋弧и⊿Τ眖ㄆヴ︙Τ闽硂よ穨叭┪Τヴ︙钡牟現┎荡癸Τ惠璶絋琵щ戈秆硂ンㄆ
材畊ネΤ闽兵ㄒず矗"続讽匡"иぃ穦は癸現┎诀篶靡菏穦琌Τ舦ヴノ続讽匡蝶︳ヴ︙ビ叫礟酚┪赋ㄆ︓琌狥戈硂琌Τゲ璶ぃ筁и辨镑Τ眎睲捶或琌続讽匡靡菏穦︓砏﹚ゲ﹚璶厩拨穨┪妓华璣玊单礚阶︙荡癸ゲ斗Τ睲捶戈﹚τぃ盢硂兜秆睦舦甭ぉ讽舦硂ㄇ讽舦Τ穦蛤俱翠竒蕾┪磕闽琌靡菏穦ず临Τ膟иぃ琌猍跌-
┪癸膟Τ熬ǎス-
┮瓣產蛤翠Τ膙-
︽瞷螟穦ま癬借好
и辨癩竒ㄆ叭镑睲贰秆睦︙孔"続讽匡"狦ぃ秆睦и辨穦笲ノ舦璶―靡菏穦﹚眎Τ闽睲贰笵︑琌才êㄇ砏﹚┪穦牟赣兵ㄒτ眔Τ┮宽眖┪弧眔彩玌ㄇ"眔泊超"玥ㄇビ叫綝┶荡砆籜躬и粄癩竒ㄆ叭琌癩現の羆服靡菏穦︽ㄏ舦┕┕弧ぃ琌びì镑и辨硂ㄆ薄弧琌Τ舦硂妓暗狦崩積獽琌ぃ璽砫ヴ
畊ネ材硂Ω璶э琌狦ㄇぃ莉у篵膘Α蹲禦芥そ┪狥琌ぃ続讽匡τ-
ノ戮舦Μ潦ㄤ莉у篵膘Α蹲禦芥そ璶祇秖┮Τぉぃ続讽匡и辨癩竒ㄆ叭镑冈灿秆睦︙孔"秖"禬筁50%琌秖ы┪10%琌秖ы┪90%琌秖и谋眔或ゑ瞯⊿Τ拜肈程璶琌ゲ斗糶琌κだぇ碭硂妓獽穦耕絋瘤礛硂秆睦舦菏恨讽Ыи辨ヴ︙猭ㄒ常ぃ璶家俦ㄢ硑Θぃ瞶薄鶪κだゑㄓ笷"秖"迭и绊獺琌拜肈ぃ
畊ネ笵竡и荡癸や硂兵兵ㄒ產常笵︑眖Τ篵膘Α蹲禦芥祇ネン磅ㄆン︓蛮よ斗讽胑畍禣祇瞷Τぃìぇ矪τ岿эタ琌荡癸続莱瞷穦琌カチ璽砫и辨ヴ︙現┎场┪菏恨场ぃ璶茎Θ砏狦Τ岿碞莱赣癸瞷龟钡穦瞷龟硂琌瞷現獀ゅて琌菏恨ゅて
畊ネ瘤礛иや硂兵兵ㄒи辨癩竒ㄆ叭祔碞и矗拜肈絋羘и穨㎝穦闽猔硂拜肈Τ闽ボや堡セЫㄆ常ぃ剪眡硂兵ㄒ┮癚阶耕ぶぃ筁ㄆ龟┦常琌借好
畊ネи略朝勉
癩竒ㄆ叭璓勉畊ネи略碞糕蚌┚某祇ē虏菠莱
材Τ闽篵膘Α蹲禦芥菏恨и-
琌碞讽龟悔薄鶪﹚硂現郸よ璶琌щ戈常稰玂毁ぃìΤщ戈щ禗砞ミ菏恨诀璶ヘ讽礛ぃ琌稱盢硂︽穨瞊∣τ琌辨硂︽穨砞ミ耕Ч到菏恨琜篶ㄏщ戈眔だ獺み硂妓赣︽穨眔膥尿祇甶
靡菏穦程纯穨ず秈︽吭高癚阶︙膥尿祇甶赣︽穨穨叭祇吭高ゅン㎝拜靡菏穦Μ種ǎ穦浪癚薄鶪Τㄤよ猭腊赣︽穨タ盽祇甶穨叭
糕某材㎝材翴琌Τ闽続讽匡㎝北舦﹚拜肈続讽匡よ靡菏穦癸靡ㄩ㎝戳砯笲璹Τ甅まτ硂甅ま続ノヘ玡硂薄鶪┮礚斗盢戈场Ω硂よミ猭Ы矪Τ硂ゅン秆睦︙孔"続讽匡"
︓北舦﹚и-
穦絋矗眶靡菏穦ら磅︽猭ㄒ莱赣ㄆ玡璹ミ絋まㄏ癸赣︽穨Τ砍届笵或琌钡或琌ぃ钡
︓糕某矗戳砯ユ┮ら锣戳蹲玻珇よ現┎ミ初ㄓㄢ贺玻珇琌徊Θウ-
Τぃノぃヘ夹のぃщ戈崩約ら锣戳蹲禦芥琌戳砯ユ┮ず硂籔篵膘Α蹲禦芥そ穨叭⊿Τ或侥礚粄筁12るずㄇそ琌氨穨┪盢礟酚ユ靡菏穦硂璶琌籔カ初锣跑Τ闽τぃ琌菏恨よ拜肈硂ㄆи辨產ぃ璶┛菠カ初㎝щ戈種拜肈
碞琌и癸糕某種ǎ┮莱谅谅畊ネ
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 2 November 1995
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, a Bills Committee was formed to study the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill 1995. The Bills Committee, chaired by the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW, has held five meetings, including four with the Administration.
The Bills Committee is in support of the Bill. I would like to highlight the major issues considered by the Bills Committee.
Exclusion of vocational drivers from the "immediately spent conviction" scheme
The Bill provides that, in general, payments under the fixed penalty scheme and other road traffic convictions are to be spent immediately without the waiting period of three years. However, vocational drivers are excluded from the "immediately spent conviction" scheme, for the purpose of employment or continued employment in their profession, so that employers, in particular transport operators, or those making employment decisions on their behalf can take into consideration the traffic conviction records of applicants.
Members are concerned that the proposal may be prejudicial to vocational drivers. They note that this is not the proposal of the Fight Crime Committee, but that of the Transport Branch and Transport Department. The Administration explains that the main reason for the proposal is that some of the minor road traffic convictions are to be spent immediately, for example, driving in excess of speed limit by more than 45 km/h, failing to comply with traffic signals, and so on, may reflect on a person's driving behaviour which may jeopardize the safety of other road users. After detailed study of the offences in the fixed penalty scheme and the operation of the "immediately spent conviction" scheme, Members of the Bills Committee are convinced that exclusion of vocational drivers from the scheme is justified.
Views from the insurance industry
On consulting the insurance industry after the introduction of the Bill, the Administration proposes that:
(a) a person (including an employed or self-employed vocational driver) will have to disclose payment(s) under the fixed penalty scheme to insurers for the purpose of assessing and pricing a risk in respect of vehicle insurance unless the three-year waiting period had elapsed; and
(b) the rehabilitation scheme should not be applicable to insurance intermediaries registered under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41). This is in line with section 4(1)(e) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 297) which excludes authorized insurers from the rehabilitation scheme.
Members support the proposed amendment.
Prescribed offices
The Schedule to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance provides a list of Prescribed Offices which are excluded from the rehabilitation scheme. The Bill proposes to add to the Schedule "any office" of the following organizations:
- Independent Commission Against Corruption
- Hong Kong Monetary Authority
- Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
- Securities and Futures Commission
Members are dissatisfied with this provision because it is not within the spirit of the Bill which is to liberalize the rehabilitation system. In particular, the proposal to exclude "any office" in these organizations from the scheme is too stringent because it may include minor and clerical staff. Moreover, it does not tally with the existing items in the Schedule which only cover officers of a certain level in certain departments or disciplined services. The four organizations argue that their officers have regular access to confidential and sensitive information; therefore requiring a higher level of integrity. Members consider that the responsibility of the "offices", rather than regular access to sensitive documents, should be the criterion of inclusion in the Schedule.
In the light of Members' concern and after re-examination of their proposals, the four organizations agree to revise the proposals as follows:
For the Independent Commission Against Corruption
Any office of the Independent Commission Against Corruption grade staff or in the Operations Department.
For the Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Any office occupied by executive, professional, managerial, technical and secretarial staff.
For the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
Any office in the Insurance Officer (including Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners) and secretarial grade.
For the Securities and Futures Commission
Any office occupied by executive staff (including Executive Directors) and secretarial staff.
The revised proposals are acceptable to the Bills Committee.
Certificate of No Criminal Conviction (CNCC)
Members strongly feel that the refusal to issue a Certificate of No Criminal Conviction (CNCC) to an applicant with a spent conviction is entirely contrary to the spirit of rehabilitation of offenders. Convictions should be "once spent, always spent". Noting that this is an old issue, they wished to take the opportunity to amend the Bill requiring the issue of a CNCC to an applicant with a spent conviction. However, the Bills Committee was advised that such an amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
In view of the fact that the issue of a CNCC is not within the ambit of the Bill and in order not to defer the passage of the Bill, it is decided that this issue should be followed up by the relevant Legislative Council Panels; that is, the Administration of Justice and Legal Services Panel and the Security Panel.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
霉璓某璓勉畊ネセチ囊や硂兜兵ㄒ弘┮孔"岿э到馋瞛"癸э筁︑穝狟ね狦ご痙Τ┏獽Τ肂疧琌ぃ┵夹粁琌デ淮稬竜︽狟ね埃┏龟琌ンㄆぃ筁パи琌絫珿и羆琌谋眔さΩэ临Τよ秈˙э筁︑穝狟ね莉痲
セ硂兵ㄒ糵某〆穦ㄤい璶琌辨腊êㄇ埃┏㎝êㄇ玌嘿"瑍┏"狟ね琵-
ビ叫眔礚┏▆チ靡堡ミ猭Ы猭臮拜禗и-
硂よ拜肈禬禫硂兵ㄒ絛瞅チ囊ぃ骸種現┎氮滦さΩぃ镑秈︽璹瓃狟ねэ到硂иチ囊ビ辨現┎碞Τ闽▆チ靡逼э到êㄇэ筁︑穝の"瑍┏"狟ね莉祇礚┏▆チ靡
セチ囊やさぱ兵ㄒ矗┮Τタ
谅谅畊ネ
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I should like to thank the Chairman, the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW, and other Members of the Bills Committee for their thorough and careful study of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill 1995. I would also like to thank the Honourable Miss Margaret NG for her speech supporting the Bill. All the Committee stage amendments which I am going to move have been discussed and agreed by the Bills Committee.
This Bill, which was introduced into this Council in November last year, seeks to expand the scope of the rehabilitation scheme under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, so that more people who have committed minor offences can benefit. The current scheme provides that where a person, on a first conviction, is not sentenced to imprisonment or a fine exceeding $5,000, the conviction can be "spent" after three years so long as the offender has no further conviction. The person concerned is permitted to say nothing about his spent conviction in his business and social dealings, such as in application for jobs, hire purchase and the like. Moreover, the person cannot lawfully be refused employment or admission to a profession on account of his spent conviction.
We propose in the Bill to expand the current rehabilitation scheme by raising the sentence limit, so as to cover any first-time offender who is sentenced to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three months. We also propose that persons who have been convicted of minor triad-related offences, but have subsequently renounced their triad membership under the Triad Renunciation Scheme, should be covered by the rehabilitation scheme if they meet the requisite criteria.
In the course of examining the Bill, the Bills Committee has expressed concerned about the effect of a spent conviction on a prospective emigrant. I should in this context wish to point out that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance does not have extraterritorial effect, and cannot seek to override any law of a foreign country which requires applicants for emigration to disclose all criminal convictions. Within Hong Kong, an applicant's failure to disclose a spent conviction would be lawful, but whether or not he would be protected in the foreign country concerned would depend on the law of that country.
At present, prospective emigrants are required by the immigration authorities of the major emigration destinations to produce Certificates of No Criminal Conviction (CNCC) issued by the police. In making an application for a CNCC, the applicant is required to authorize the police to disclose any criminal conviction recorded against him to the relevant consulate and immigration authority. If the applicant has a spent conviction, the police will issue him with a refusal letter, which contains details of the conviction, and is stamped with a chop stating clearly that the conviction is considered to be spent in Hong Kong by virtue of section 2(1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance. It is then up to the applicant to decide whether he wants to present it to the consulate. The issue by the police of refusal letters to applicants with spent convictions has been held by the courts to be consistent with the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance.
We have been advised by the consulates of major emigration destinations that a spent conviction is not necessarily a bar to emigration. Convictions of minor offences alone will not normally render a person ineligible for a visa, and convictions currently regarded in Hong Kong as spent are rarely considered sufficiently serious to cause rejection of an emigration application. However, if an emigration applicant fails to declare a spent conviction, and this fact comes to the consulate's attention, his application may be rejected. If the person concerned has already emigrated, it could result in his eventual deportation back to his original place of residence. Depending on the nature of the undeclared conviction, such refusal or deportation could have been avoided had the conviction been declared at the time of application. Seen in this light, the current police practice actually helps to protect the interests of emigration applicants. In response to the Bills Committee's request, we explained our position on the issue of CNCCs to the Administration of Justice and Legal Service Panel and the Security Panel at their joint-Panel meeting held this Monday.
I would now like to turn to the major amendments which I will move at the Committee stage. Clause 5 of the Bill proposes, among other things, the exclusion of certain proceedings under the Banking Ordinance and the Insurance Companies Ordinance from the rehabilitation scheme. Having consulted the insurance industry, we propose to move amendments to this clause, so as to expand the exclusion to cover proceedings under the Insurance Companies Ordinance in assessing a person's suitability to become, or continue to be, an appointed insurance agent or an authorized insurance broker, or continue to be, an appointed insurance agent or an authorized insurance broker. This proposal is made in the interests of the insuring public. Owing to the complicated nature of the insurance business, a potential policy holder relies heavily on the professional advice of the agent or broker, who may be handling substantial sums of clients' monies. To avoid any fraud or misappropriation of funds, it is necessary to ensure that an agent or a broker is a fit and proper person.
The proposed section 2(1B) under clause 3 of the Bill allows payments under the fixed penalty scheme to be spent immediately without the three-year waiting period. In the case of vocational drivers, we propose that, for the better protection of public safety, their payments under the fixed penalty scheme should only be spent after a period of three years, so as to enable transport operators to take into account such payments in determining applications for employment. However, professions currently excluded from the rehabilitation scheme under section 4 of the Ordinance, and those proposed to be excluded under clause 5 of the Bill, cannot benefit from this "immediately spent" arrangement. We consider this arrangement unreasonable. While the public has the right to expect the highest standard of probity from these professions (such as barristers, solicitors and accountants), we do not necessarily think that the public would expect them to drive better. I therefore propose to move amendments to clause 5, so that except for vocational drivers who have to wait three years, other professions excluded from the rehabilitation scheme can have their payments under the fixed penalty scheme spent immediately.
In the course of its deliberation, the Bills Committee recognized that traffic conviction records were not only important for assessing a person's suitability for employment as a vocational driver, they were also important factors in assessing and pricing a risk in respect of vehicle insurance policies. I will, therefore, move an amendment to clause 5(e) by adding a new subsection (6), so that an insurer, or a person acting on his behalf, can take into account fixed penalty payment in the previous three years when assessing and pricing a risk in respect of vehicle insurance. The amendments proposed would mean that while payments or orders to pay in respect of minor traffic offences are regarded as spent immediately for most purposes, they are not considered spent in the assessment of a risk in respect of vehicle insurance or a person's suitability as a vocational driver, unless a period of three years has elapsed.
Another area on which the Bills Committee expressed concern was the list of prescribed offences under clause 8(c), which are excluded from the rehabilitation scheme. As drafted, these include any posts in the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and the Securities and Futures Commission. The Bills Committee considered that minor staff, such as cleaners and office assistants in these four organizations should not be excluded from the rehabilitation scheme. We agree with the Bills Committee' view, and I will move an amendment to clause 8(c) so that minor staff, and staff who do not have frequent access to sensitive information in these four organizations, are not excluded from the rehabilitation scheme. This is in line with the objective of the Bill to enable more people to benefit from the rehabilitation scheme, while at the same time ensures that public expectation of high probity in certain positions of trust will not be put at risk.
Mr President, with these remarks, I recommend the Bill to Honourable Members.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENTS) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 18 October 1995
MR AMBROSE LAU: Mr President, a Bills Committee, chaired by me, was formed to study the Intellectual Property (World Trade Organization Amendments) Bill 1995. The Bills Committee and its technical subcommittee have held eight meetings with the Administration. Views from six deputations and 17 written submissions have been considered.
The Bills Committee is in support of the Bill, subject to the proposed Committee stage amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Trade and Industry. I would like to highlight the major issues considered by the Bills Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill.
The minimalist approach
Members of the Bills Committee note that the Bill is intended to serve as an interim measure to enable Hong Kong to fulfil its obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. Separate comprehensive bills on trade marks, patents, copyright and registered designs for modernization or localization purposes will be introduced later in the current 1995-96 Session.
Having regard to TRIPS Article 1 which provides that World Trade Organization (WTO) members are free to determine the appropriate method of implementation within their own legal system and practice, the existing intellectual property regime in Hong Kong, the interim nature of the present legislative exercise and the urgency in compliance with the TRIPS requirement, the Administration has taken a minimalist approach in drafting the Bill. The Bills Committee supports this approach.
Public consultation
Given the wide implications of the Bill on the industry and the general public, Members were concerned that no public consultation had been conducted on the Bill before its introduction.
To address Members' concern on public consultation, the Administration held a seminar in November 1995 for interested organizations; and the views collected together with the Administration's responses were forwarded to the Bills Committee for consideration. All participants (41 representatives from 20 organizations) at the seminar expressed support in principle for the Bill to implement TRIPS.
Major issues
In addition to the above general issues, there are five major issues of the Bill considered by the Bills Committee. They are: new copyright piracy offence, parallel import, rental right for film, definition of a trade mark and expanded right of trademark owners to sue for infringement.
New copyright piracy offence
There is general support to the policy intention to provide additional legislative tools to combat copyright piracy more effectively, particularly in tackling organized syndicates masterminding copyright piracy activities. This will enable Hong Kong to fulfill its obligations under TRIPS Articles 61 to "tackle wilful piracy on a commercial scale".
Reservations have been expressed by the Bills Committee and some organizations, especially the legal profession, on the wide scope of application of this new offence and that the proposed offence cannot cater for the territorial nature of copyright. The Administration agrees to amend the proposed section 5A of the Copyright Ordinance in a manner that would limit the scope of the section to illegal manufacture and importation, which are offences under section 21 of the United Kingdom Copyright Act 1956 and are the primary acts involved in copyright piracy. The legislative objective of the proposed amendment is to make a specific offence to target those who make preparations for or who aid, abet, procure or counsel the importation into Hong Kong of infringing copies. The proposal is able to achieve the policy objective to combat cross-border copyright infringement more effectively whilst at the same time addressing the concerns raised by various parties.
Treatment of parallel imports under customs border measures
Clause 9 of the Bill provides for a set of customs border measures to enable copyright owners, as well as their exclusive licensees, to apply for court order to detain suspected imports of infringing copyright products, including pirated products and parallel imports. The customs border measures are additional channels to facilitate trade mark and copyright owners in taking civil actions.
The Bills Committee and the legal profession have expressed concern that such border measure provisions can be abused without adequate safeguards. Given the various views expressed on this issue, including the view that it may not be a strict requirement for WTO members under the TRIPS Agreement to provide customs border measures to cover infringing parallel imports, and in order not to delay the enactment of the Bill, the Administration proposes to defer the issue of the treatment of parallel imports under customs border measures for further consideration until the proposed new Copyright Bill is introduced. It is therefore proposed to amend clause 9 to exclude parallel imports from the customs border measure provisions in this interim exercise.
In view of some Members' concern to ensure that all parallel imports from both contracting parties to copyright conventions and the dependent territories of the United Kingdom would be excluded from the customs border measures, the proposed amendment makes it clear that the definition of "infringing copy" excludes parallel imports from countries, territories or areas to which the 1956 Copyright Act extends or applies.
Rental right
Given the various views expressed on the issue of rental right for films, including the question of whether WTO members are required under Article 11 of the TRIPS Agreement to provide for rental right for films, and in order not to delay the enactment of the Bill, the Administration proposes to defer the issue of rental right for films for further consideration until the proposed new Copyright Bill is introduced. Clause 10 is to be amended to this effect in this interim exercise. The Bills Committee accepts this proposal.
There were suggestions to add certain conditions to clause 10 for the rental right provisions for computer programs and sound recording to bring the provisions more in line with the TRIPS requirement and prevent computer software piracy under the disguise of rental.
The Administration has accordingly proposed to redraft the definition of rental in relation to computer programmes and sound recordings to the effect that rental right will not apply if the computer programme or the sound recording is not the essential object of the rental. In the light of the comments received, provisions are also proposed to clarify the meaning of "essential object of rental".
Definition of trade mark
There are divergent views as to whether Article 15(1) of the TRIPS Agreement requires WTO members to provide for the registration of signs which are not visually perceptible, such as sounds and smells in their trade marks legislation. Concern has been expressed that the definition in the Bill is based on the European Community Directive and is too wide and goes beyond the strict requirement of Article 15(1) of TRIPS.
After careful examination of the public responses on this issue, the Administration put forward two options for Members' consideration. The first option, which is the option preferred by the Administration, is to retain clause 18 as drafted. It is based on a liberal interpretation of Article 15(1) which the Administration considers is necessary to ensure that Hong Kong is in compliance with the minimum TRIPS requirements. The alternative option is to closely adopt the wording contained in Article 15 of the TRIPS Agreement. Members generally accept the alternative option which is in line with the minimalist approach.
Expanded infringement rights for trade mark owners
To address the concerns of the Law Society, the Administration proposes to add to clause 21 the words "or services associated with such goods" after the words "goods of the same description". These additional words, and the similar addition to clause 22, derived from section 20 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, would make clear that a proprietor of a trade mark would have the right to prevent a person from using similar marks for associated goods/services in cases where the use would result in the likelihood of confusion. However, the Bar Association disagrees with the Administration's revised clauses 21 and 22 which are considered to extend the rights given by registration in a manner not required by Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement and change the law fundamentally by allowing infringement of a trade mark for goods by services mark use.
Member consider that the crux of the issue is whether a wider approach proposed by the Law Society or a narrower approach proposed by the Bar Association meets the minimum requirement of Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement. In this connection, a narrower interpretation of Article 16 is considered consistent with the minimalist approach. No amendments are therefore proposed to these clauses.
Closing remarks
In closing, I would like to thank Members of the Bills Committee for their contribution and representatives of the Administration for their co-operation in the study of the Bill. Without their strenuous efforts, the scrutiny of this technical and controversial Bill would have taken a longer time to complete.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to make the laws in relation to intellectual property rights in Hong Kong to meet the requirement of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement as soon as possible. For Hong Kong, being categorized as a developing country member, although in theory only needs to comply the obligations by 1 January 2000, an early commencement of legislation procedure is desirable to show our endeavour to implement the TRIPS agreement. This Bill is only an interim measure. What the Administration needs to do is to inspect each of the legislation related to intellectual property rights, and make necessary amendment to bring them in line with what TRIPS required.
We have to differentiate two kinds of changes here, the first one being mandatory, and the second optional. Given our short-term objective in this stage is to bring our laws in line with what TRIPS required in this exercise, we should not commit ourselves to any amendment which goes beyond TRIPS requirement. In this connection, the business community and the Liberal Party agreed in the Bills Committee to adopt the minimalist approach in scrutinizing the Bill. We should, therefore, pick out the optional changes and leave other issues to the relevant Bills, such as the Copyright Bill, which is to be introduced to this Council later. In the absence of a deadline, we hope that we can spend enough time to consult the public and debate these controversial issues in future Bills Committee meetings.
Mr President, five major issues were identified and considered in the Bills Committee, namely, new copyright piracy offence, parallel imports, rental right for films, definition of a trade mark and expanded infringement rights for trade mark owners.
First of all, we support the effort made by the Administration to provide additional legislative tools to combat copyright piracy more effectively. As a measure to strength protection of copyright licensees against piracy, we can hardly give a single reason not to support the Administration. We have received a number of complaints from copyright licensees of computer software, as well as audio and video software in the past who advocated their concerns on increasing the punishment of copyright pirates and strengthening enforcement by the Customs and Excise Department. Together with the increase of the establishment of the Customs and Excise Department, we hope the new amendments will facilitate the prosecution by the Legal Department and effectively discourage copyright piracy.
In view of the comments received by various organizations concerned, and given the time constraint of enacting the Bill as soon as possible, we support the suggestion to defer the more controversial issues, namely, the parallel imports and rental right of films, to the coming Copyright Bill to be submitted to this Council later.
Concerning the definition of trade mark, we support a liberal interpretation of Article 15(1) of TRIPS as proposed by the Administration.
As for the infringement rights for trade mark owners, we support the narrower interpretation of Article 16 of TRIPS as suggested by the Bar Association.
Mr President, as a conclusion, we support the adoption of the minimalist approach to this Bill of not going beyond what WTO required, and leave other issues to later legislation concerned.
Thank you.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, I am most grateful to the Bills Committee for its careful and efficient examination of the Intellectual Property (World Trade Organization Amendments) Bill 1995 under the chairmanship of the Honourable Ambrose LAU.
The objective of the Bill is to render the intellectual property regime in Hong Kong compatible with the standards and requirements in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or the TRIPS Agreement in short. This Agreement is one of the multilateral agreements under the World Trade Organization(WTO). Hong Kong, as a full member of the WTO, is obliged to comply with the Agreement.
I am gratified that members of the Bills Committee have fully supported the Administration's initiative to implement Hong Kong's obligations under the multilateral TRIPS Agreement as soon as possible. The pragmatic and co-operative approach adopted by Members in examining the Bill has made it possible for the passage of the Bill today, some three and a half years ahead of the deadline for Hong Kong to implement its TRIPS obligations. The enactment of the Bill will help Hong Kong to demonstrate to other WTO members our firm commitment to a high level of intellectual property protection. It will also enhance Hong Kong's image as a responsible trading partner in the multilateral trading system, and as an international trading and services centre in the world.
During the Bills Committee's deliberations, interested parties and the legal profession have commented on various technical aspects of the Bill as well as expressed concerns on a number of issues. These issues primarily stem from the divergent interpretations of certain articles in the TRIPS Agreement and the different views over the consistency of certain clauses in the Bill with the existing legal framework in Hong Kong. After careful consideration of all the views expressed and the written submissions received, the Administration has agreed to modify a number of proposals in the Bill. The Administration has also agreed that some issues would need to be reconsidered in the context of the ongoing comprehensive law reforms on copyright and trade marks. I hope to be in a position to introduce a Bill on copyright and one on trade marks later this year upon the completion of the law reform exercises and taking into account views expressed by the public, professional and interest groups.
At the Committee stage later in this sitting, I will move a number of amendments to the Bill to reflect the agreements reached in the Bills Committee. I will also move other technical and minor amendments. All these amendments have been set out in the paper circulated in my name to Members earlier. There are just four major amendments that I wish to highlight.
The first one is concerned with the scope of the new copyright piracy offence. In clause 5 of the Bill, we originally proposed a new offence to fulfill the TRIPS obligation of combating wilful copyright piracy on a commercial scale more effectively. We received general support of this policy objective, but the legal profession expressed concerns over the scope and the application of the new offence as originally drafted.
To address these concerns, the Committee stage amendment to clause 5 seeks to replace the original offence provision with a new clause. The new clause adequately addresses the concerns of the legal profession while achieving the policy objective of tackling wilful piracy on a commercial scale more effectively. It makes clear the criminal acts, done outside Hong Kong, which are actionable. Such acts relate primarily to the manufacture of pirated copyright products outside Hong Kong for export to Hong Kong. The new clause also makes aiding, abetting, procuring or counselling of such acts an offence. I believe this new legislative tool will greatly enhance the Customs' capability in tackling cross-border piracy activities and the masterminds of copyright piracy syndicates, thereby protecting the legitimate interests of copyright owners and overseas investors in Hong Kong.
The second major amendment relates to the treatment of parallel imports under customs border measures. The Administration originally proposed to provide new customs border measures to strengthen border controls in order to help prevent the importation of infringing copyright products into Hong Kong, and to facilitate copyright holders including exclusive licensees to initiate civil actions against pirated copyright products and parallel imports.
The distinction between pirated copyright products and parallel imports is that the former generally refers to those copyright products manufactured without the copyright owners' authorization, while the latter generally refers to those goods which are lawfully manufactured outside Hong Kong with the authorization of the copyright owners there, but their importation into Hong Kong is illegal under the existing copyright regime. The motion picture industry and the video rental business have expressed differing views on whether the new customs border measures should be applicable to parallel imports. They have also raised the broader issue of whether the existing criminal restriction against parallel imports should be maintained.
Having considered the various views on the interpretation of the requirement in the TRIPS Agreement and having assessed the importance of early enactment of the customs border measure provisions to enhance border control against pirated goods, the Administration has agreed to exclude parallel imports from the ambit of the new customs border measure provisions. The corresponding Committee stage amendment will achieve this by amending the definition of "infringing copy" in clause 9 of the Bill.
Members may wish to note that the Administration has advised the Bills Committee that it is not our intention to change the existing law relating to parallel imports in the present exercise. The Administration has undertaken to consider the broader issue of whether to maintain any restriction against parallel imports in the context of the comprehensive law reform on copyright. I can assure Members that before putting forward any legislative proposals relating to parallel imports, the Administration will examine carefully the views of interested parties and the public. We will seek to strike a fair balance between the various interests, including intellectual property protection, consumer welfare, free trade and competition.
Mr President, I would now like to turn to the third major amendment which is related to rental right for films. The Administration originally proposed in clause 10 of the Bill new rental right for computer programmes, sound recordings and films. During the Bills Committee's deliberations, divergent views have been expressed by the motion picture industry and the video rental business as to whether the new rental right is a requirement under the TRIPS Agreement and whether it would be in the consumers' interests to provide for rental right for films. Having considered the views expressed, the Administration has agreed to exclude films from the rental right provisions in the present exercise and clarify the meaning of "rental" for sound recordings and computer programmes so as to tie in with the language used in the TRIPS Agreement. The issue of rental right for films will be reconsidered in the context of the comprehensive law reform on copyright.
The last major amendment is concerned with the definition of trade mark for the purpose of registration. The proposed new definition of trade mark in clause 18 of the Bill has been criticized as being too wide because the word "sign" used in the definition of "trade mark" could be widely interpreted to include any sound and smell. There have been concerns that such a piecemeal revision of the definition of trade mark might have undesirable implications on other areas of the existing trade marks law.
The Administration has explained to the Bills Committee the rationale for the proposal in clause 18 of the Bill, that is, to place it beyond any doubt that the new definition of "trade marks" would be fully compatible with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. Indeed, there have been similar legislative amendments in other common law jurisdictions to allow sounds and smells to be registerable as trade marks. Nevertheless, in view of the need for an early enactment of the Bill and the opportunity to reconsider the drafting of the definition of "trade mark" in the ongoing comprehensive "trade marks" law reform, we have agreed to revise the proposed definition of trade mark as set out in the Committee stage amendment to clause 18 to follow more closely the language used in the TRIPS Agreement.
Under the revised definition, any sign that is visually perceptible and capable of being represented graphically may be registerable as a "trade mark". The question of whether a sound or smell might still be registerable as a "trade mark" would be something to be decided by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Registrar's decision is subject to appeal in court. The definition of "trade mark" would be considered again as part of the comprehensive review of the Trade Marks Ordinance.
Mr President, with these remarks and subject to the amendments I intend to propose at the Committee stage, I commend the Bill to Members. Thank you.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
NOISE CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 6 December 1995
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr President, as this Bill is closely related to the Road Traffic Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1995, the House Committee sets up one Bills Committee to study both Bills. I therefore seek your indulgence, Mr President, to speak on both Bills at the same time.
As Chairman of the Bills Committee which studies these two Bills, I would like to report briefly on our deliberations to facilitate the Council's decision.
The two Bills have been introduced to impose stringent noise emission standards on vehicles when they apply for first registration so as to help reduce noise pollution in Hong Kong. When the Bills Committee studied the Bills, we also considered the environmental and economic implications of the proposed legislative amendments. We note that the noise emission standards adopted in the proposal are those standards currently adopted in Europe and in Japan, which have been regarded as the most stringent standards in the world. The Bills Committee is therefore satisfied that the proposed legislation would bring about some reduction in the overall traffic noise in a few years' time when the existing fleet is gradually replaced by vehicles which are able to meet the proposed legislation's stringent noise emission standards. As the proposal only targets at vehicles upon their first registration, it will not affect the existing vehicle fleet in Hong Kong.
However, while supporting the objectives of the Bills, the Bills Committee is concerned about the absence of an effective mechanism to monitor the noise performance of vehicles after registration as well, since vehicles can be modified after first registration. In this regard, the Bills Committee was informed that modifications to vehicles require the approval of the Commissioner for Transport and modified vehicles should undergo noise tests to ensure that they meet the required standards. Modifications made without approval are criminal offences and road blocks are set up from time to time to check illegal modification of vehicles. Vehicles are also required to go through performance tests upon reaching six years after manufacture. The Administration has also agreed to convey the Bills Committee's concern to relevant government departments and to provide the Bills Committee with statistics on enforcement actions against illegal vehicle modifications. The Bills Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the Second Reading debate of both Bills be resumed at this sitting.
To tie in with the legislative timetable, the Administration has proposed two Committee stage amendments to postpone the effective date of the Bills from the original date of 31 March 1996 to a day appointed by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands by notice in the Gazette. The Noise Control (Motor Vehicles) Regulation to effect the proposed control scheme is expected to take effect two months thereafter so as to allow importers sufficient preparation time for compliance with the Regulation. The Bills Committee agrees to support these amendments.
With these remarks, Mr President, and subject to the Committee stage amendments to be moved by the Administration, the Bills Committee recommends to this Council that both the Noise Control (Amendment) Bill 1995 and the Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995 be supported.
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
谅ッ闹某璓勉瞶畊ネ癸現┎矗眏恨ó进靖チ囊ボや
チ囊觅Θ現┎硓筁Ω祅癘恨═ó靖磷癩現のも碩糤チ囊ご礛Τ某
兵ㄒ癸穝ó进靖瞷恨讽硂ㄇó进の竒︽緋琿丁パ诀ン穕硂ㄇρてó进┮祇靖盢穦糤瘤礛Τ闽よボ砏﹚籹硑戳骸せó进斗硄筁┦浪喷チ囊借好現┎琌Τì镑も絋龟磅︽硂ㄇΤ闽靖恨
兵ㄒ瘤礛癸俱砰═ó靖恨癸琘场だ玂毁ごΤぃì碞ぺ诀ㄒ-
┮┯═ó靖––禬筁兵ㄒ┮砏﹚夹非眔闽猔琌パ惠璶硂ㄇ诀惠璶丁гぺま篮靖τ紇臫钮谋チ囊玃叫現┎荷е﹚Τ闽猭ㄒ玂毁硂ㄇ
瞶畊ネи略朝勉や兵ㄒ
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy, I am grateful to Mrs Miriam LAU, the chairman of the Bills Committee to study the Noise Control (Amendment) Bill 1995 and the Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995, and other members of the Committee for supporting the Bills.
The Noise Control (Amendment) Bill is part of a legislative package which aims to control vehicle engine noise by requiring newly registered vehicles to meet specified noise emission standards. Adoption of noise standard will prevent vehicles with inferior noise performance from being imported into Hong Kong. The gradual phasing out of vehicles not meeting the standards will help keep noise levels down despite future increases in traffic volume.
When the Bills Committee considered the proposed controls, Members raised some concerns about the noise standards to be adopted and their enforcement.
Members have rightly suggested that we need very stringent noise emission standards to alleviate the problem of traffic noise, given that road traffic in Hong Kong is among the busiest in the world and that a lot of our major roads are very close to noise sensitive residential developments. We share this view wholeheartedly. Hence, we propose to adopt the European and Japanese standards, which are the most stringent standards in the world. It is also our intention to upgrade them in line with future international trend and technological advancement.
We expect that the implementation of the noise emission standards will bring about a reduction in the overall traffic noise in a few years' time when the existing fleet is gradually replaced by vehicles which are able to meet the stringent noise emission standards. Meanwhile, we would continue to address the problem of traffic noise through careful planning of roads and noise sensitive developments, and implementation of noise mitigation measures such as noise enclosures, noise barriers and quiet road resurfacing programmes.
On enforcement, the proposed standards will be integrated into the "Motor Vehicle Type Approval" process which currently covers roadworthiness and exhaust emission requirements for new vehicles. Only those which meet the specified noise standards or other standards which are at least as stringent as the specified standards will be approved for first registration. Imported used vehicles not covered by the Type Approval process will be required to be individually tested at competent testing centres to ascertain that they meet the specified standards. Vehicles which are designed to the required standards should be able to sustain its noise performance throughout its useful life.
In closing, Mr Deputy, I would like to draw Members' attention to the implementation timetable of the proposed controls. The Bill is originally scheduled to commence on 31 March 1996. However, because of the need to give time to the Bills Committee to be formed to consider the Bill, we now have to defer its effective date and I shall move the necessary amendments at the Committee stage.
After enactment of the Bill, we shall table the Noise Control (Motor Vehicles) Regulation before this Council. In order to give sufficient time for vehicle suppliers to comply with the new standards and for the public to understand the new requirements, we intend to implement the standards two months after the Regulation is approved by this Council, which will be around August this year.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 6 December 1995
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy, I have explained, in the course of the resumption of the Second Reading debate of the Noise Control (Amendment) Bill 1995, our proposal to alleviate traffic noise by imposing the most stringent international noise emission standards on vehicles at the first registration stage. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill enables the Commissioner for Transport to refuse first registration of vehicles which do not meet the specified noise emission standards. I urge Members to support this Bill, which provides the enforcement mechanism for the proposed controls.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
TOWN PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 15 November 1995
朝岸穨某璓勉瞶畊ネ1995蒥砏购璹兵ㄒきるきら矗ユミ猭Ы赣兵ㄒΞ
(a) 结舦カ砏购〆穦"砏穦"〆ヴㄤΘ舱Θ舱〆穦测癟沮赣兵ㄒ材6兵矗は癸種ǎ
(b) 睲贰璹"そ戮"ぃ珹猭﹛ず羆服〆ヴ猭﹛禗〆穦舱Θ
(c) 璹〆ヴ舱捌畊獽禗〆穦秈︽测癟搭ぶ縩溃砏购禗计ヘ
(d) ㄏΘい珹猭﹛禗〆穦┮掉∕眔粄の
(e) 坚睲赣兵ㄒ材23(6)兵┮尿笻ㄒ︽┦借
セ畊兵ㄒ糵某〆穦きるらΘミ╯1995蒥砏购璹兵ㄒ兵ㄒ糵某〆穦钡莉闽猔兵ㄒ刮砰の┮患ユ種ǎ纯籔刮砰穦编
兵ㄒ糵某〆穦纯籔現┎讽Ы羭︽筁せΩ穦某冈灿╯筁璶ㄆ兜坝﹚癸兵ㄒ矗兜タ
材兜タ闽材2兵ㄏ砏穦硉测癟は癸種ǎ睲瞶瞷縩溃硂兜兵ゅ某结舦砏穦〆ヴㄤΘ舱Θ舱〆穦测癟沮赣兵ㄒ材6兵矗は癸種ǎの掉﹚Τ闽瓜斗莱は癸種ǎэ硂ㄇ舱〆穦斗パ程ぶきΘ舱Θㄤい程ぶ琌獶そ戮τ舱〆穦秨穦猭﹚计琌Θ畊┪捌畊ㄢΘ
某眖兵ㄒ糵某〆穦钡莉種ǎい眔癸硂ㄇ舱〆穦Θ舱の笲祘稰闽猔
某猔種矗は癸種ǎの测癟は癸瞷︽祘砆у蝶Τろそす琌は癸瓜澈パ籹称瓜舱麓砏穦秈︽测癟и-
粄ヴ㏑砏穦Θ舱Θ舱〆穦测癟は癸種ǎ┪砛Τ矗蔼测癟瞯玱ぃ秆∕Τろそす拜肈某粄璝Τ讽Ы莱某タ秆∕砏穦︑掉拜肈
ぃ筁讽Ы玱粄硂兜某斗秈˙瞏╯莱讽Ы瞷タ浪癚赣兵ㄒ筁祘いぉσ納
鲸恨场だ某ボや赣单某羬惫琁睲瞶縩溃暴讽Ы斗┯空せる玡矗ユ璶蒥砏购璹兵ㄒ赣兵ㄒ斗瞇籠闽猔璶ㄆ兜ㄒ测癟は癸種ǎ舱〆穦舱Θの笲祘单讽Ы⊿Τ赣兜┯空ョぃす空璝兵ㄒ礚瞇籠测癟は癸種ǎ逼玥讽Ыぃ穦某┮矗某ぃ兵ㄒ絛瞅ず瞶パは癸某ら碞タΤ闽兵ゅ矗某
パ讽ЫゼΤ┮惠┯空糵某〆穦ぃや材2兵兵ゅ某粄狦玂痙瞷讽Ы盢ち斗璶兵ㄒい浪癚测癟は癸種ǎ逼の矗続讽璹タ瞷︽い翴
セ盢〆穦糵某顶琿矗タ某埃兵ㄒ材2兵
材兜タ闽兵ㄒ材3兵埃猭﹛踞ヴ禗〆穦畊ヴ㏑琌Τ好拜兵ㄒ材3(a)兵某睲贰璹"そ戮"ぃ珹猭﹛ず硂兜某籔蔼单猭皘きるら兜掉∕澸
场だ某粄ぃ﹜〆ヴ禗猭皘猭﹛禗〆穦タ〓捌畊瞶パ琌ヴ禗〆穦タ〓捌畊禗猭皘猭﹛┮掉∕璝斗パ程蔼猭皘猭﹛崩陆盢穦ま癬廓Ъㄇ某ョぃ眎ヴ㏑猭﹛禗〆穦Θ蒥砏购闽︽現拜肈τ獶猭ㄆ﹜
竒坝某兵ㄒ糵某〆穦璓粄ら莉〆ヴ猭﹛莱ㄓ︑蔼单猭皘┪猭皘莱矗〆穦糵某顶琿タ讽Ы竒浪癚钡硂兜パ糵某〆穦矗某穦〆穦糵某顶琿矗タ獽瓃э
材兜タ闽兵ㄒ材5兵硂兜兵ゅ某糤璹兵蹿ㄏΤ猭﹛Θ禗〆穦┮掉∕眔粄埃獶禗癸〆ヴ猭﹛禗〆穦矗好拜τきるら┪玡ビ叫猭糵崩陆掉∕某眏疨ボ癸硂妓砏﹚Τ┮玂痙-
粄某糤璹兵ゅ管蒥チ璶―猭糵舦珿ぃ薄瞶
癸埃ㄏ掉∕眔粄兵ゅ穦Τ︙紇臫現竝ボ赣兵ゅずノ種琌猭﹛ヴ禗〆穦畊┪Θ拜肈赣单〆穦筁┮掉∕矗ㄑ﹚絋┦兵ㄒ材3兵坚睲"そ戮"迭ぃ珹猭﹛ずτ材5兵玥籔材3兵が㊣莱ㄤノ琌磷禗〆穦筁┮掉∕Θōだ拜肈τ借好璝р硂兜兵ゅ埃禗〆穦筁┕┮掉∕借好盢ぃ莉玂毁
某眔眡沮程蔼猭皘砏玥ビ叫猭滦琌ビ叫瞶パΘミ讽ぱ癬璸る某ョ眡沮"ㄆ龟"玥ㄏヴ㏑礚猭ご跌Τ礛τ瓃玥ぃ続ノ赣ㄤヴ㏑砆借好┮掉∕
ヘ玡薄鶪琌禗〆穦畊ヴ㏑ききる借好瞶パ琌赣畊琌禗猭皘猭﹛沮赣兵ㄒ材17A(2)兵妮そ戮ōだ膀瓃玥獺猭皘ぃ穦赣兜瞶パτ钡ヴ︙癸禗〆穦ききる玡┮掉∕矗借好
某σ納ㄆ猭種ǎ璓粄ㄏ掉∕眔粄兵ゅ莱ぉ埃讽Ы竒σ納某種ǎ浪癚瞷薄鶪種矗〆穦糵某顶琿タр赣兵ゅ埃
瞶畊ネи略朝勉㊣苸︗某や1995蒥砏购璹兵ㄒの兵ㄒ〆穦種兜タ
谅谅瞶畊ネ
︙玊く某璓勉瞶畊ネセチ囊や1995カ砏购璹兵ㄒ竒筁〆穦糵某顶琿タ莉眔セЫ硄筁и-
や硂兵ㄒ璶瞶パ珹兵ㄒ糵某〆穦畊朝岸穨某簍勉ずиぃ狡и稱虑诀穦笷チ囊癸さΩ現┎矪瞶硂兜兵ㄒ珹矗硂兵ㄒの糵某顶琿い┮蹦ㄇ篈ぃ骸
材硂兵ㄒ璶ヘ琌璶﹚"そ戮"兵ㄒず睦竡ぃ珹猭﹛狦莉眔硄筁杠瞷禗〆穦︗禗畑猭﹛ōだ盢ぃ珼驹硂兵ㄒ琌きるら舅厨祅讽Τㄢ﹙禗砠タ秈︽τウ-
常琌疉のカ砏购兵ㄒ"そ戮"睦竡拜肈ㄤい﹙ン糵挡Ч拨猭﹛﹟ゼ∕硂矗硂兜タ陪琌璶秆∕ら禗砠拜肈ぃ筁矗硂兵ㄒ丁琌続讽
瞶畊ネи癘眔┕碞"そ戮"猭睦竡拜肈秈︽计Ω禗砠ㄤい程ぶΤ﹙疉のミ猭Ы匡羭現┎眖ゼ矗兵ㄒㄓ秆睦"そ戮"ぃ猭ㄒず┮種Τ闽カ砏购兵ㄒㄆンい玱禗砠﹟ゼЧ挡玡矗兵ㄒ絋穦ま癬ぃ骸材狦瞷矗硂兜猭ㄒ璹莉眔硄筁杠穦ㄇ把籔禗砠禗砠赤ア-
舦タㄇ纯兵ㄒ糵某〆穦笷種ǎ┮弧現┎琌稱ノミ猭も琿ㄓ紇臫┪箇猭祘狦禗砠秈︽戳丁硂妓暗碞タ︗把籔禗砠┮弧琌钩初ì瞴ゑ辽い讽琘瞴羬癬竲甮瞴礛Τр纒穐ǐ妓и谋眔現┎硂矗硂兜璹兵ㄒ琌だ眔借好
兵ㄒ糵某〆穦畊纯矗璹兵ㄒい穦Τㄇ玂痙兵ゅ硂ㄇ兵ゅ琌辨玂毁ㄇ琂眔舦舦ぃ穦紇臫讽礛珹êㄇタ秈︽禗砠ぃ筁硂ㄇ玂痙兵ゅず玱Τ兜∕兵ンи-
糵某兵ㄒぃ┋祇瞷タ秈︽禗砠ぃ骸ì硂兜兵ン璓硂ㄇ┮孔玂痙兵ゅぃ玂毁-
痲瞶畊ネ狦癬禗舦穦甧硂兜璹兵ㄒ┮管杠硂ㄇ玂痙兵ゅ礚好琌店砞琌伐ぇぃ瞶
瞶畊ネ琌硂璹兵ㄒずΤ兵絋粄兵ゅ﹚禗〆穦┮∕﹚礚阶"そ戮"﹚㎝睦竡琌妓常ぃ莱猭滦紇臫硂絋粄兵ゅ琌ㄣΤ發饭ㄏらゴ衡ビ叫猭滦赤ア舦瞶畊ネ現┎狦镑管硂ㄇ禗砠猭滦舦и-
ミ猭よ琌硑Θぃ碝盽ㄒ現┎讽┯粄狦ぃ硄筁璹兵ㄒτㄏらΤ猭滦膥尿秈︽︓崩陆禗〆穦篶Θ猭┦紇臫ンぃ穦硂薄鶪︙現┎硂妓淮碞崩ㄇㄣΤ發饭τ穦管カチ猭ビ禗舦兵ㄒ
瞶畊ネ┋兵ㄒ糵某〆穦糵某戳丁現┎钮種ǎ眖到瑈钡種ǎ矗タぃ筁チ囊辨現┎ら矗兵ㄒゲ斗だσ納硂ㄢ兜璶玥材竒莉眔舦莱碙ぃ璶淮管材埃獶だㄒ薄鶪玥ぃ莱璊睹矗ㄇㄣΤ發饭兵ゅτ硂ㄇ兵ゅ穦紇臫カチ猭禗砠舦
瞶畊ネи-
ぃ骸翴琌闽测癟は癸種ǎ舱〆穦逼朝岸穨某竒矗讽兵ㄒ糵某〆穦Θ種兜羬惫琁硄筁兵ㄒ硂场だи-
璶―現┎┯空らゲ斗秈︽浪癚и-
钮穨ず種ǎ粄ヘ玡逼琌Τ拜肈Τ笻︑礛そ竡玥現┎癸и-
弧惠璶丁σ納弧筐ㄇ穦碞カ砏购兵ㄒ秈︽浪癚セЫ矗ユ璹兵ㄒ穦酚璸购セミ猭ず矗ユ讽и-
琌矗瞶璶―碞琌現┎玂靡浪癚絛瞅ゲ斗珹测癟は癸種ǎ舱〆穦笲и-
ぃ琌璶―現┎玂靡浪癚盢穦Τ或挡狦琌璶―現┎氮莱浪癚狦現┎浪癚挡狦琌∕﹚ぃэ杠叫琵и-
矗и-
種ǎ琵и-
矗璹現┎ぃ璶は癸弧硂琌禬禫猭ㄒ絛瞅┮ぃ矗ㄓ癚阶и-
琌璶―硂妓虏虫玂靡玱硂ㄆτ澈礛鸟ㄢΩ穦某程現┎弧ぃ腀種ヴ︙玂靡辨и-
硄筁硂羬┦逼惫琁讽兵ㄒ糵某〆穦Θ常谋眔硂兜┮孔羬┦逼惫琁狦硂贺薄鶪莉眔硄筁杠盢穦跑Θ兜ッ┦惫琁らи-
⊿Τ快猭現┎秈︽浪癚︓⊿Τ快猭続讽タ硂贺吏挂框狙и-
镑や朝岸穨某┮矗タ埃硂よэ甭舦砏穦-
Θぇい〆ヴ舱ㄓ测癟は癸種ǎ
瞶畊ネ瞷絋Τ縩溃は癸τ砏穦畉ぃㄢずぃ场秈︽测癟и癘眔и纯竒ㄇ紇臫-
加現┎磅︽Τ闽瓜τ紇臫-
加綝睲╊临ゼΤ诀穦秈︽测癟и-
畊测癟竒⊿Τ種-
⊿Τ砍届ㄓ硂琌伐ぃそキ穦ま癬ㄤ瞷猭滦祘㎝ビ禗硂薄鶪и谋眔現┎痷璶秆睦︙硂或虏虫玂靡ぃ材現┎ㄆ龟琌Ч礚み浪癚测癟は癸種ǎ舱〆穦笲и辨現┎祔氮睲贰秆睦ㄤミ初
иビи-
やさぱ┮矗碭兜タの竒タ兵ㄒ
谅谅瞶畊ネ
肅繟某璓勉瞶畊ネチ羛膀セや硂兵兵ㄒ琌ぃ眔ぃ碞筁祘いㄇぃ骸笷種ǎよ癸現┎筁祘いㄇэボ苂洁
Τ闽拜肈闽龄よ材兵ㄒ矗莱睲贰璹"そ戮"ぃ珹猭﹛ず传ēぇパ禗猭皘猭﹛踞ヴ禗〆穦タ捌畊┪Θ琌璝ヴ︙璶―碞禗〆穦掉∕秈︽猭滦伐Τ瞷耕猭﹛滦蔼猭﹛禗猭皘猭﹛∕﹚薄鶪パ猭﹛糵瞶禗〆穦∕﹚暗猭ョΤ笻そタぇ尔チ羛ぃは癸ヴ㏑猭﹛禗〆穦Θは癸〆ヴ禗猭皘猭﹛舱タ捌畊┪Θ沮眡現┎钡よ某種ǎ㎝猭種糵某顶琿矗タ
材兵ㄒ矗结舦ぉカ砏购〆穦"砏穦"〆ヴㄤΘ舱Θ"は癸舱〆穦"秈︽测癟は癸種ǎチ羛粄讽Ые瞯瞶パΘミ舱〆穦ゼタ跌砏穦いミ┦拜肈ヘ玡ろТ薄鶪琌砏穦猭ㄒ砏﹚璽砫籹称瓜㎝糵某砏购砛ビ叫璶璽砫矪瞶碞ㄤ∕﹚矗は癸種ǎ硂"蛮ōだ"拜肈カ砏购兵ㄒ浪癚い纯Τ冈灿癚阶硂兵ㄒ玱ゼぉタ矪瞶
材兵ㄒ糤材17D兵ㄏΤ猭﹛Θ禗〆穦┮掉∕眔ネ璹埃獶禗癸〆ヴ猭﹛禗〆穦矗好拜τきるら┪玡ビ叫猭糵崩陆掉∕碞猭ㄒネら戳よΤぃぶ種ǎ珹砏购畍厩穦は癸戳粄Τ猭ㄒゼタΑ璹ミ玡碞箇砞耕璹ミら戳Ν磅︽ら戳耕瞶暗猭琌タΑ硄筁ミ猭猭ㄒネら戳
材ヘ玡兵ㄒ陪琌琘粄ㄤヴ禗〆穦畊戳丁掉∕ン棒峨猭ㄒ簗瑌陪硂贺"ǎ┷╊┷"暗猭ゼ秆∕ヘ玡カ砏购兵ㄒぃìぇ矪讽Ы纯種辅龟カ砏购兵ㄒ浪癚某よ玱蹦"辟ンよΑ"硋翴秆∕ㄤい拜肈碞结ぉ砏穦〆ヴㄤΘ舱Θ┮孔は癸〆穦讽Ы砆笆篈
羆珹τēチ羛ビ癸現郸某
и-
钡兵ㄒず甧材翴ぃは癸ヴ㏑猭﹛禗〆穦Θは癸〆ヴ禗猭皘猭﹛舱タ捌畊┪Θ
材沮材の材き翴は癸きるらΤ闽璹猭ㄒ箇砞ネら戳タΑネら戳莱硄筁ミ猭ら戳非
材Τ兵ンや材兜甭舦Θミ"は癸舱〆穦"讽Ы璶矗ㄣ砰惫琁э到ヘ玡砏穦ㄣ"蛮ōだ"拜肈種荷еカ砏购兵ㄒ璹ヘ玡"еゴ篊"瞶パ甭舦よΑ磷酵玥┦拜肈チ羛琌ぃ钡
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy, I am grateful to members of the Bills Committee and in particular, the Honourable Albert CHAN, for their effort in studying the Town Planning (Amendment) Bill 1995. The Bills Committee has nevertheless raised a number of concerns on the Bill and I would like to take this opportunity to respond to them.
Clause 2
The comments made by some Members of the Bills Committee regarding the hearing of objections to draft amended town plans may, I am afraid, reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the town planning procedure. Under the Town Planning Ordinance, the plan-making function of the Town Planning Board is to prepare and publish draft town plans or draft amended town plans for public inspection and comments. The Town Planning Board is not, I repeat not, the plan approval authority. The power to approve town plans rests with the Governor in Council. The publication of draft town plans or draft amended town plans by the Town Planning Board functions very much like a public consultation exercise in this regard. Similar to other public consultation exercise, it is thus fair and reasonable that the body consulting the public should consider objections or comments to its proposals. This is indeed the spirit behind the existing Town Planning Ordinance which requires the Town Planning Board to consider objections to draft town plans. The Ordinance also goes one step further to enable the public to appear before the Town Planning Board to discuss their objections to draft town plans with the Board, thus providing more transparency and public access to the town planning system. When all the hearings are completed, the Town Planning Board is required to submit the draft town plans together with any unresolved objections and a schedule of the amendments proposed by the Board to meet the objections, to the Governor in Council for a decision. The Governor in Council may then approve the draft town plan, refuse to approve it or refer it back to the Town Planning Board for further consideration and amendments.
The Town Planning Ordinance however requires the Board itself to hear the objections, and there is no provision for delegation of this duty. The large number of objections in recent years has created a considerable backlog of cases to be heard. In order to complete the hearings expeditiously, the intention of the Bill is therefore to enable the Board to set up committees from its members and delegate the hearings of objections to them. When necessary, several hearings can be carried out concurrently to further expedite the procedure. Any unwithdrawn objections will still have to be presented to the Governor in Council for a decision. The intention is similar to a body which is consulting the public in setting up working groups to consider public comments. There is no question of the Town Planning Board judging its own cause.
The suggestion by some members of the Bills Committee that the objection hearing committee should be an independent body from the Town Planning Board goes against the intention of the Bill. The Administration's views to such a proposal, which is shared by the Town Planning Board, is that it will not assist the Board in hearing the outstanding objections quickly. Moreover, as I explained earlier, the Governor in Council is the plan approval authority. The consequences of having a body outside the Board to hear objections, its relationship with the Board and the Governor in Council and its operation in the context of the Town Planning Ordinance, let alone the likely financial implications, do not appear to have been thought through. The spirit of the extant legislation is to allow the Board to complete its "consultation" process through the consideration and hearing of objections, which are views of the public on its plans, before submitting the plans to the approving authority. The Bills Committee has been advised that these important issues require detailed and careful consideration, and should not be rushed through in the form of a Committee stage amendment to the Bill.
In the event, the Bills Committee decided to move a Committee stage amendment to delete clause 2. The consequence of the deletion is that the proposed means to quicken up hearing the backlog of objections cannot be implemented and, hence, draft town plans cannot be submitted to the Governor in Council expeditiously for decisions, resulting in possible delays to development or redevelopment. We are disappointed at this outcome but would respect the decision of the Bills Committee.
Clause 3(a)
The Bills Committee supports it which clarifies that a judge may be appointed to the Town Planning Appeal Board. The Bills Committee also unanimously agrees that if in future a judge is appointed to chair the Appeal Board, he or she should come from the High Court or below. The Bills Committee considers that if the Appeal Board is chaired by a senior judge such as a Justice of Appeal, it would create difficulties for the Judiciary if Appeal Board decisions are challenged in the courts, because the senior judge's decision, albeit in a non-judicial capacity, would be seen to be reviewed by a junior judge acting judicially. This situation could give rise to criticism that justice may not be done. We accept the Bills Committee's view and I will move an amendment to clause 3(a) at the Committee stage to reflect the Bills Committee's proposal.
Clause 5
Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to validate the decisions made by the Town Planning Appeal Board when a member was a judge, except when the appellant has questioned the validity of the judge's appointment to the Appeal Board and applied for judicial review to quash the decision on or before 31 October 1995 which was the date of the Executive Council meeting before publication of the Bill. This ensures that proceedings currently before the court will not be interfered with while providing a measure of certainty to the status of past decisions of the Appeal Board.
The Bills Committee however maintains that it is not fair to impose a time limit on the right of interested parties to seek a judicial remedy against a Town Planning Appeal Board decision and has decided not to support the clause.
The Administration has reviewed the need for the clause in the light of the Bills Committee's decision, and the consequences if the clause is deleted. Since the validity of the appointment of the Chairman of the Town Planning Appeal Board was first called into question in May 1995, it is unlikely that a court would uphold a challenge to decisions taken by the Appeal Board before that time because the "de facto" doctrine would apply to such decisions. Under the doctrine, the acts of an official may be held to be valid even though his appointment is invalid. Once the flaw in the appointment became known the official would cease to have the benefit of the doctrine. The May 1995 challenge was dismissed by the High Court in November 1995. An appeal was lodged by the applicant but was abandoned a few days before the hearing date. While two other similar challenges were filed in December 1995 and January 1996, the Administration has concluded that we could live without clause 5 for the time being and has agreed to move a Committee stage amendment to delete it.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
BETTING DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 29 November 1995
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr President, a Bills Committee, chaired by me, was formed on 15 December 1995 to study the Betting Duty (Amendment) Bill 1995. The Bills Committee has held three meetings, including two with the Administration.
During the scrutiny of the Bill, Members have expressed concern on three main areas.
The first concern is about the social impact of the introduction of the Quinella Place Bet (QPB).
The Administration maintains the view that the social impact of the introduction of the QPB will be insignificant. Its analysis is that the estimated betting turnover ($6,660 million per season) amounts to about 9% of the total betting turnover ($72,277 million) for the 1994-95 racing season. The introduction of the QPB will sustain punters' interest in local horse racing. It is unlikely to induce non-punters to start betting. According to the statistics from the police, there have been increases in illegal bookmaking over the past years.
Mr President, members of the Bills Committee have divided views on this issue. Some members are concerned about the social impact of the introduction of another new form of bet. The QPB, being theoretically easier to win, will attract more gamblers and/or heavier bets; thus encourage gambling. Other members opine that this is merely an enhancement of the existing product. The majority of members support the introduction of QPB.
Another area of concern of the Bills Committee is on the authorization for "overseas bet".
"Overseas bet" is defined to mean "a bet of any form accepted at a venue outside Hong Kong authorized by the Club on any totalizator or pari-mutuel authorized by this Ordinance". The policy intention is, according to the Administration, to recognize the fact that the Club is an independent organization which should be given authority to authorize the acceptance of bets at venues outside Hong Kong.
Members suggest that the Bill should be amended to provide that an agreement between the Club and its overseas partner for setting up an overseas betting venue should be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Home Affairs. The Administration has advised that it has no policy objection to this suggestion. On behalf of the Bills Committee, I shall be moving an amendment to the Bill to this effect.
The third concern is about the possibility of money laundering.
Some members opine that overseas bets may provide an avenue for international movement of money; hence opportunities for money laundering. The Administration's considered view is that the inherent risk of losing the bet may be a disincentive to the launderer. The proposals in the Bill will have marginal significance as far as money laundering is concerned.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
独岸藉某璓勉谅谅畊ネиチ囊碞硂兜1995痴眒祙璹兵ㄒи-
ミ初硂兜兵ㄒ璶ヘ材碞琌秨砞︗竚硈墓щ猔よΑ現┎眏秸糤砞硂︗竚硈墓щ猔よΑぃ穦セ戒琌現┎ゅン┪琌現┎籔兵ㄒ糵某〆穦秨穦常疭眏秸辨硓筁硂兜穝щ猔ㄓ蝴痴眒癸セ辽皑砍届
и璶眏秸チ囊ミ初癸現┎崩笆ヴ︙戒現郸и-
常琌ぃ穦やタ現┎眏秸硂兜穝щ猔よΑ琌辨蝴痴眒砍届и-
ぃ窽璶拜︙現┎璶当荷福ツ糤ぃ眒蝴翠痴眒癸セ辽皑砍届㎡ㄆ龟и-
眖皑穦厨⊿Τǎカチ癸セ辽皑荐港Τ癶搭格禜–щ猔羆肂常Τ禬筁10%糤щ猔羆肂Τ472.64货じщ猔羆肂Τ556.2货じΤ601.43货じΤ663.88货じき玥Τ722.77货じи-
щ猔羆肂琌ぃ耞ど陪セ痴眒癸セ辽皑蝴獶盽緻玴砍届︙現┎临璶ぃ耞篶ㄇ穝痴眒Α眏-
痴眒み篈
タ糵某〆穦畊弧硂穝︗竚硈墓щ猔琌穦"い"ぃ来辽皑来眔щ猔τ"い"獺まㄇ炊霉カチ沽刚礚い獽セ戒タ現┎纯弧筁狦砞ミ硂穝︗竚硈墓щ猔よΑ–皑﹗щ猔羆肂盢穦糤66.6货じτ硂ぃ琌计ヘи-
臮┕現┎砞ミㄇ穝眒薄鶪ㄒ讽侣Τ眒 眒 щ猔肂ぃ耞現┎讽獽粄硂兜眒⊿Τま琌獶猭戒痴初┮矗ㄑㄇ穝痴眒Αま痴眒把籔獶猭瞅щ猔琌現┎眒崩捎Tщ猔眒肂Τ1,600窾じΤ穝捎T虫琌捎Tщ猔肂獽Τ18.38货じǎ現┎ゴ阑獶猭痴眒よ猭琌蹦ノㄇ穝眒ㄇ侣τま眒琌и-
瞷Τせ贺疭眒㎝贺炊硄眒щ猔肂琌どτせ摸疭眒ぃǎ眔Τ陪格禜и-
ぃ現┎矗某Θミ︗竚硈墓щ猔ノ種琌ゴ阑獶猭瞅現┎弧ぃ瞷︙贺疭眒ま惠璶т贺穝よΑㄓチ囊粄現┎矗穝︗竚硈墓щ猔よΑ瞶沮琌ぃì镑チ囊琌ぃ穦や砞ミ穝痴眒Α
畊ネ兵ㄒ材兜璶タ碞琌某セ辽ㄆ钡щ猔Τ闽ゅンの現┎㎝и-
秨穦常眏秸砞ミщ猔琌ぃ穦セ戒〆穦糵某顶琿チ囊某癸硂翴⊿Τ眏疨は癸種ǎ琌讽и-
盢硂拜肈盿チ囊癚阶チ囊ずㄤ某琌Τ眏疨種ǎ-
粄瘤礛钡щ猔ぃ穦セ戒琌琘贺祘琌戒タ┮孔"┮ぃ饼づ琁"チ囊琂礛ぃ辨翠戒ぃ莱躬纘眏痴眒囊刮竒筁冈灿㎝瞏癚阶∕﹚ぃや钡щ猔某
畊ネ礚阶琌糤砞︗竚硈墓щ猔┪琌某セ辽ㄆ钡щ猔現┎常穦眏秸硂妓э笆㎝璹穦翠盿ㄓ痴眒祙Μ糤癸セ稯到诀篶挤蹿ㄏセ稯到ㄆ穨┪褐ㄆ穨镑酱玨琌硂妓暗猭癸翠カチぷㄤ琌獵穦旧璓岿粇芠├粄痴眒琌暗到ㄆщ猔獽琌把籔褐ㄆ穨и粄ぃ莱赣ㄏ獵Τ硂贺岿粇芠├ㄆ龟и-
眖厨彻┪肚碈厨笵ぃΤぃぶ磀粿琌↖癵痴眒τま璓и-
ぃ辨翠Τ硂或磀粿祇ネ┮チ囊ぃ穦や硂兜兵ㄒ
畊ネ程и稱弧チ囊ミ初и-
弄盢ぃ穦や硂兜兵ㄒи-
盢穦щは癸布琌璝弄莉眔硄筁杠チ囊琌穦や法У地某〆穦糵某顶琿矗タ辨砞ミщ猔菏诡诀皑穦ゲ斗莉現叭у砞ミщ猔и-
や硂兜タヘ琌辨狦程チ囊ぃ∕硂兜兵ㄒи-
辨硂兜兵ㄒЧ到ㄏセ痴眒莉玂毁安琵皑穦Τ舦砞ミщ猔杠и-
ぃ笵ウ穦匡拒或よ┪穦ㄇ竒盽"Μ堵窥"瓣產砞ミщ猔τΤ闽∕﹚穦紇臫セ眒㎝セ痴眒琂礛硂穦癸セ翠カチ硑Θ紇臫現┎獽ぃ莱赣竚ōㄆチ囊盢穦やΤ闽タ琌やタぇチ囊弄ご穦ビ绊∕は癸躬纘戒┮チ囊盢ご礛穦は癸硂兜兵ㄒ
谅谅畊ネ
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, firstly I would like to remind colleagues of my position as a Steward of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club, and secondly, I would like to say a few words in support of the two amendments covered by the Bill.
As regards the proposal to introduce a new bet called the Quinella Place, this is not the first time, as Members have heard, that a new bet is proposed. Indeed, this has happened in the past. Apart from this, I am sure that the Jockey Club appreciates the responsibility it carries as the sole operator of horse racing in Hong Kong. This responsibility includes the eradication of illegal gambling on horses here, and that would entail the introduction of new product, if I could put it that way, from time to time so as to maintain punters' interest in horse racing in Hong Kong.
Mr President, we know that many overseas gambling establishments go through a lot of trouble and a lot of expenses to actually attract the gambling dollar from Hong Kong. You get free trips offered to overseas destinations, all expenses paid, first-class travel, and so on, and all that. So, I think to maintain punters' interest in horse racing in Hong Kong is not, in fact, in my respectful view, asking too much.
The other proposal is to allow the Jockey Club to enter into arrangements, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Home Affairs, with horse racing clubs or authorities overseas to enable them to accept bets on horse racing here. This has happened from time to time in respect of specific races. That has happened in the past. However, the proposal is in fact for the Club, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Home Affairs, to enter into arrangements. And in my view, if accepted by this Council and if it is done by the Club, this will go some ways towards enhancing the high standard of horse racing in Hong Kong, which high standard is held in quite high regard overseas.
Mr President, I hope that colleagues will bear in mind the numerous benefits and enormous good that horse racing in Hong Kong has brought to the community as a whole, and I would ask them to support the Bill for that reason.
Mr WONG Wai-yin for the Democratic Party has indicated that the Democratic Party will not support either of these proposals. I am not surprised, but disappointed, particularly when the matter was first brought up at the Bills Committee level, the introduction of the approval by the Secretary for Home Affairs was done as a result of an agreement between myself and the Honourable James TO on the clear understanding that the Democratic Party would support that particular aspect of the Bill. But, as I say, they are entitled to their views and I think Mr WONG has given the reasons for not supporting it, although with respect I do not agree that allowing that to happen will create either double standards or would encourage our young ones to in fact gamble on horses in Hong Kong.
In many racing jurisdictions in the world, Mr President, babies, young people, are allowed onto race courses. We in Hong Kong respect the wish of the community and the concerns of the community, and we therefore have an age limit from which you cannot, in fact, enter the race courses or indeed any of the off-course betting centres run by the Jockey Club. So I believe, Mr President, that the activities of the Club and the responsibility carried by the Club in terms of ensuring that horse racing is carried out at a high standard, that the undesirable elements are kept out, that the undesirable features of horse racing is kept out, of racing in Hong Kong, enables the community as a whole to actually enjoy the occasional punt, if I could put it that way, at the two facilities provided by the Club.
Mr President, with those words, I urge Members to support the Bill and indeed the amendments.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I am grateful to the Honourable Howard YOUNG and his colleagues on the Bills Committee to Study the Betting Duty (Amendment) Bill for their wise counsel and the time they have spent in examining the Bill.
The Bill has two main objectives. First, it introduces a QPB and defines the rate of betting duty on that bet. The QPB requires a punter to select two horses to finish in any order in the first three places to be eligible for a dividend.
During the deliberations of the Bills Committee, some members expressed concern that the introduction of this bet might encourage gambling and therefore would have social impact on our community. I would like to take this opportunity to explain that the QPB bet is essentially an extension of the existing Quinella and Place bets and it serves to sustain punters' interest in horse racing. It should not have the effect of inducing non-punters to start betting and that its social impact would be minimal.
The following figure will support this observation. The estimated annual betting turnover of this bet only amounts to about 9% of the total betting turnover of the 1994-95 racing season. The introduction of this bet will not have any significant impact.
The other main objective of the Bill is to impose betting duty on overseas bets on Hong Kong races into the Hong Kong pools at half of the prevailing rates. The other half would be allocated to the respective overseas governments, subject to the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club's negotiations and finalization of the details with them. This proposal will not affect Hong Kong, apart from the fact that Hong Kong will benefit from an increase in betting duty and an increase in the funds available for allocation from the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club to local charities.
I understand that the Honourable Howard YOUNG will move a Committee stage amendment to the effect that agreements between the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club and its overseas partners on setting up overseas betting venues should be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Home Affairs. I confirm that the Government has no policy objection to this Committee stage amendment. I take the opportunity to inform this Council that the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club has also confirmed its agreement to it.
Once again, I thank members of the Bills Committee for their dedicated efforts in scrutinizing the Bill. I also thank the Law Draftsman's valuable assistance and advice.
Mr President, I recommend the Betting Duty (Amendment) Bill to Honourable Members.
Question on Second Reading of the Bill put.
Voice votes taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr Howard YOUNG and Mr TSANG Kin-shing claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are called upon to vote on the question that the Betting Duty (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read the Second time.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted against the motion.
Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 33 votes in favour of the motion and 16 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
LAW AMENDMENT AND REFORM (CONSOLIDATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 10 January 1996
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr President, the object of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) (Amendment) Bill 1995 is to relax the rule of public policy known as "the forfeiture rule" under which a person who unlawfully kills another is precluded from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing. The Bill seeks to empower the court to modify the effect of the forfeiture rule where the justice of the case requires it. This discretion will not apply to cases of murder.
The Bills Committee formed to study the Bill met the Administration on 12 March 1996. During the meeting, Members of the Bills Committee deliberated the policy aspects, scrutinized the clauses and sought clarification from the Administration on the Bill.
The Bills Committee noted that the Bill was modelled on the United Kingdom Forfeiture Act 1982 with adaptations to Hong Kong's circumstances and that it was to implement the Law Reform Commission's recommendation that Hong Kong should enact legislation similar to that of the United Kingdom. The Bills Committee realized that Hong Kong would differ from other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States.
The Bills Committee also noted that the new section 25B(7) of the Bill would cover transitional arrangements and application of the Bill and the proposed relief from the forfeiture rule would apply to any interest in property which had not been distributed prior to the enforcement date of the Bill. The new section 25B(3) stipulated the time limit of 90 days for seeking the order from the court and expressly stated that, in case of appeal, the time limit of 90 days began on the day on which the appeal was determined or withdrawn, or in any other case, the period for an appeal expired.
During the course of deliberation, it came to the attention of the Bills Committee that beneficial interests in property under joint tenancy seemed to have been omitted, under the types of interests in property mentioned in the new section 25B(4). The Administration confirmed that the United Kingdom Forfeiture Act actually makes specific reference to such types of property. The Bills Committee therefore agreed with the Administration that a Committee stage amendment should be made to insert a subclause to the new section 25B(4) in order to make it consistent with the provisions of the United Kingdom Act.
Mr President, with these remarks and subject to the Committee stage amendments, I recommend the Bill to Members.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I would like to thank the Bills Committee chaired by the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU which studied the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) (Amendment) Bill 1995 for its work in scrutinizing the Bill.
The Bill is the last substantive change to Hong Kong's law of inheritance in the package of reforms proposed by the Law Reform Commission. It relates to the so-called "forfeiture rule". This is a legal rule of public policy that prohibits a person who has unlawfully killed another from gaining any beneficial interest as a result. The problem with the forfeiture rule is that it applies strictly even where a person who has unlawfully killed another is not morally blameworthy or there are mitigating circumstances that justify its relaxation.
The Bill addresses this deficiency by empowering the court to relax, or waive, the forfeiture rule in cases other than murder where justice demands this. Giving the court this discretionary power to modify the effect of the forfeiture rule will bring Hong Kong into line with other common law jurisdictions.
At the Committee stage, I will move one amendment, as agreed to by the Bills Committee, to extend the scope of beneficial interests covered by the Bill to include nominations, such as those of beneficiaries under insurance policies.
With these remarks, Mr President, I commend the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) (Amendment) Bill 1995 to the Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee Stage of Bills
Council went into Committee.
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
Clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 to 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28 to 35, 37, 39 and 42 to 47 were agreed to.
Clauses 3, 6, 9, 18, 21, 26, 27, 36, 38, 40 and 41
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Clause 3(1), 3(3) and 3(6)
The purpose of amending clauses 3(1), 3(3) and 3(6) is to provide for the introduction of 14 elected members and the addition of three lay members (making a total of four lay members) to the Medical Council.
Clause 3(7) and 3(8)
The amended clauses 3(7) and 3(8) provide that the member's office of membership of the Medical Council would be declared vacant if he is the subject of any order made by the Council.
Clauses 6(1), 6 and 6(2)
It is necessary to amend clause 6(1), 6 and 6(2) to provide for the quorum of meetings and the transaction of business of the Medical Council and its Committees.
Clause 9
The amended clause 9 provides that an applicant's name would not be included into the General Register if he is not of good character.
Clause 18
By amending clause 18, committees and subcommittees of the Medical Council would be subject to provisions in Schedule 2 of the Bill.
Clause 21(2)(b)
The amendment to clause 21(2)(b) is necessary to maintain the impartiality of the chairman of the review subcommittee.
Clause 26(1)(a)
The amendment to clause 26(1)(a) is necessary as the Health Committee may conduct a hearing into any case or matter concerning the health or physical or mental fitness to practise of a registered medical practitioner.
Clause 27 - section 21A(1)
The proposed addition to section 21A(1) under clause 27 provides a clearer explanation on the meaning of "fitness to practise."
Clause 27 - section 21B
By amending section 21B under clause 27, the quorum of any disciplinary inquiry of the Medical Council should include at least one lay member, subject to the majority being registered medical practitioners. Also, the number of lay persons in the panel of assessors would be increased from two to four.
Clause 36(1) and 36(2)
The purpose of amending clause 36(1) and 36(2) is to transfer certain powers to make regulations concerning registration and disciplinary/election matters to the Secretary for Health and Welfare and the Medical Council respectively.
Clause 38
The amended clause 38 provides for the arrangements for the appointment of members to the committees and subcommittees of the Medical Council.
Clause 40
The amendment to clause 40 is a consequential amendment to our proposed amendment to clause 9.
Clause 41
The amended clause 41 empowers the Medical Council to determine the format of the certificate of experience for the purpose of registration.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 3
That clause 3(1) be amended
(a) in paragraph (e), by deleting "2" and substituting "4".
(b) in paragraph (f), by deleting the proposed paragraphs (i) and (j) and substituting -
"(i) 7 registered medical practitioners who are members of the Hong Kong Medical Association and nominated in accordance with the regulations or procedures of the Association relating to the filling of offices under this paragraph and elected by the Council members of the Association in accordance with those regulations or procedures;
(j) 7 registered medical practitioners registered in Part I of the General Register and ordinarily resident in Hong Kong elected by all registered medical practitioners registered in Parts I and III of the General Register pursuant to an election held under the Election Regulation.".
That clause 3(3) be amended, in the proposed subsection (3A), by deleting "12" and substituting "14".
That clause 3(6) be amended
(a) by deleting the proposed subsection (5A) and substituting -
"(5A) Where, before the expiry of the office of a member holding office under subsection (2)(i), the member resigns or his office becomes vacant, the Hong Kong Medical Association shall, as soon as possible, conduct an election to elect a person qualified under subsection (2)(i) to fill that vacancy, and the member elected to fill the vacancy shall hold office from the date of election until the expiry of the original term of office of the person whom he succeeds.".
(b) in the proposed subsection (5C) -
(i) by deleting "6" and substituting "7";
(ii) in paragraph (a), by deleting "2" and substituting "3".
(c) in the proposed subsection (5D) -
(i) by deleting "6" and substituting "7";
(ii) in paragraph (a), by deleting "2" and substituting "3".
That clause 3(7) be amended, by adding
"(aa) in paragraph (b), by adding "or 21A" after "21";".
That clause 3(8) be amended, in the proposed subsection (6A)(b), by adding "or 21A" after "21".
Clause 6
That clause 6(1) be amended, by adding after "under section 21,"
"in an appeal hearing under section 20F, 200 or 20W, or in an election petition under the Election Regulation as defined in section 3,".
That clause 6 be amended, by adding
"(1A) The following is added -
"(2A) In a meeting of the Council to hear an appeal under section 20F, 200 or 20W or an election petition under the Election Regulation as defined in section 3, 5 members shall be a quorum.".".
That clause 6(2) be amended, by deleting "The Council" and substituting
"Except for an inquiry under section 21, for an appeal hearing under section 20F, 200 or 20W and for an election petition under the Election Regulation as defined in section 3, the Council".
Clause 9
That clause 9 be amended
(a) by renumbering it as clause 9(1).
(b) by adding -
"(2) Section 14(4) is amended -
(a) in paragraph (b), by repealing the comma at the end and substituting "; or";
(b) by adding -
"(c) is not of good character,".".
Clause 18
That clause 18 be amended, in the proposed section 20BA
(a) by deleting subsection (3);
(b) in subsections (5) and (11), by adding "or 21A" after "21";
(c) by adding -
"(9A) The relevant provisions of Schedule 2 have effect with respect to a committee or a sub-committee established under this section.".
Clause 21
That clause 21(2)(b) be amended, in the proposed paragraph (a), by deleting "who is a registered medical practitioner but".
Clause 26
That clause 26(1)(a) be amended, by adding ", the Health Committee" before "or the".
Clause 27
That clause 27 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 21A(1), by adding "physically or mentally" after "health,".
(b) in the proposed section 21B -
(i) in subsection (1), by adding before "shall be a quorum" -
"at least one of whom shall be a lay member but subject to the majority being registered medical practitioners,";
(ii) in subsection (2)(f), by deleting "2" and substituting "4".
Clause 36
That clause 36(1) be amended, by deleting "(fa)" and substituting "(f) (fa), (fb)".
That clause 36(2) be amended
(a) by deleting the proposed subsection (3)(c) and (d) and substituting -
"(c) the minimum periods of employment mentioned in section 9;
(d) the period of assessment for the purposes of section 10A;".
(b) by deleting the proposed subsection (3)(g).
(c) in the proposed subsection (4)(a) -
(i) in subparagraph (i), by deleting "section 20F" and substituting "this Ordinance";
(ii) in subparagraph (ii), by deleting "section 20G" and substituting "this Ordinance";
(iii) by adding -
"(iia) the receipt of complaints or information touching any matter that may be inquired into by the Council;";
(iv) by adding -
"(via) the procedure to be followed in relation to inquiries held by the Council;";
(v) in subparagraph (vii), by adding after "Health Committee" -
"and references of cases to and by the Health Committee".
(d) by deleting the proposed subsection (4)(b) and substituting -
"(b) procedure and other matters in relation to an election or appointment to an office of the Council under section 3(2)(j) including the qualifications of candidates, electors and subscribers for a nomination paper, the particulars of any system of voting and counting, the determination of election results and questioning of the results;
(c) certificates, forms or other documents required for the purposes of this Ordinance, including the payment of a fee for their issue.".
(e) in the proposed subsection (6) -
(i) by deleting "(2),";
(ii) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting -
"(a) require documents for the purposes of this Ordinance to be submitted and to be in such form as may be prescribed and require matters or documents for those purposes to be supported by statutory declarations or such other declarations as specified or approved by the Council;".
Clause 38
That clause 38 be amended, in the proposed Schedule 2
(a) in the proposed section 2(1),
(i) by adding ", 20S(1)(g)" after "20P";
(ii) by deleting everything after "shall hold office for" and substituting -
"12 months. A member of a committee established under this Ordinance is eligible for re-election or reappointment, depending on the nature of his membership of the committee.";
(b) in the proposed section 2, by adding -
"(3) Notwithstanding his term of appointment, a member of a committee or sub-committee may at any time resign by giving notice in writing to the Chairman or, as the case may be, the chairman of the committee which appointed the sub-committee.
(4) If during the period of his office a member of a committee who is not a member of the Council becomes a member of the Council, he ceases to be a member of the committee.";
(c) by adding -
"2A. Temporary members
Where for any reason a person elected or appointed to a committee or appointed to a sub-committee is or will be unable temporarily to perform his functions as such member, another person qualifying for election or appointment to that committee or sub-committee (depending on the nature of the membership of the person who is or will be temporarily unable to perform his functions) may be appointed by the Chairman or by the chairman of the committee, as may be appropriate, to be temporarily a member of the committee or sub-committee.
2B. Outgoing member to continue
transacting business
If -
(a) at the time the notice of resignation under section 2(3) is given; or
(b) at the time the membership or temporary membership of a committee or sub-committee of a person terminates otherwise than by resignation,
the committee or sub-committee, as may be appropriate, is considering any complaint or information, conducting any hearing or conducting any review, as may be applicable, the person so resigning or the person whose membership is so terminating (unless he is re-elected or reappointed) shall, if so requested by the Council or the committee which appointed the sub-committee, continue to be a member of the committee or sub-committee for the purpose of completing the performance of that function in respect of that complaint, information, hearing or review, as the case may be, and for no other purpose.".
Clause 40
That clause 40 be amended, by deleting paragraph (a).
Clause 41
That clause 41 be amended
(a) by renumbering it as clause 41(1).
(b) by adding -
"(2) Section 7(2) is amended by adding -
"(c) by repealing "as may be prescribed" where it last appears and substituting "as may be specified by the Council".".".
Question on the amendments proposed.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Dr LEONG Che-hung's remarks earlier on. Dr LEONG Che-hung earlier mentioned my name in his speech. I am enormously flattered by his reference to me when I was the Secretary for Health and Welfare. He reminded me that some years ago, I supported two laymen on the Council. Today, if I were the Secretary for Health and Welfare, I would have supported seven and would have indeed recommended seven, but I will reluctantly accept four as on the Order Paper.
The reason for my doing so is not because I have changed my mind, but because I have been properly educated since I have left the Government. As we grow older, we are also wiser, and as a representative of the people, I am educated better now than before by my constituents.
Having said that, I support the amendments proposed by the Secretary rather reluctantly. Thank you.
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 3, 6, 9, 18, 21, 26, 27, 36, 38, 40 and 41, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause 24
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 24 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 24 - section 20K
The amended section 20K under clause 24 provides for an appeal channel for an applicant whose application for inclusion into the Specialist Register has been rejected by the Registrar.
Clause 24 - section 20M(b)
The proposed addition of the word "to" before "such" in section 20M(b) under clause 24 is a technical amendment.
Clause 24 - section 20S
By amending section 20S under clause 24, one of the four lay members of the Council would take turns to attend the meetings of the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
Clause 24 - section 20T
It is necessary to amend section 20T under clause 24 as the chairman and deputy chairman of the Preliminary Investigation Committee should act in accordance with procedures as stipulated in the regulations.
Clause 24 - section 20V
Amendments to section 20V under clause 24 provide a clearer description of the functions of the Health Committee.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
Clause 24
That clause 24 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 20K -
(i) in subsection (1), by deleting "to be";
(ii) by deleting subsections (2) to (5) and substituting -
"(2) Where the Registrar is satisfied that an applicant -
(a) has been -
(i) awarded a Fellowship of the Academy of Medicine; and
(ii) certified by the Academy of Medicine that he has completed the post-graduate medical training and has satisfied the continuing medical education requirements for the relevant specialty; or
(b) has been certified by the Academy of Medicine that he has achieved a professional standard comparable to that recognized by the Academy for the award of its fellowship and has completed the postgraduate medical training and satisfied continuing medical education requirements comparable to those recommended by the Academy of Medicine, for the relevant specialty,
the Registrar shall refer the application to the Education and Accreditation Committee for its consideration.
(3) Where an applicant does not satisfy the requirements in subsection (2), the Registrar shall refer the matter to the Academy of Medicine for its certification as to whether the applicant has achieved a professional standard comparable to that recognized by the Academy for the award of its fellowship and has completed postgraduate medical training and has satisfied continuing medical education requirements comparable to those recommended by the Academy of Medicine, for the relevant specialty.
(4) If on a referral by the Registrar under subsection (3), the Academy of Medicine certifies that the applicant has not achieved that standard or has not completed that training and satisfied those requirements, the Registrar shall reject the applicant's application, stating the reason for rejection.
(5) If an application is rejected by the Registrar, the applicant may appeal to the Education and Accreditation Committee for its consideration of the appeal.
(5A) On a referral by the Registrar under subsection (2), the Education and Accreditation Committee shall, if it is also satisfied that the applicant is of good character, recommend to the Council that his name be included in the Specialist Register.
(5B) On an appeal under subsection (5), the Education and Accreditation Committee shall, if it is satisfied that the applicant -
(a) has achieved a professional standard comparable to that recognized by the Academy for the award of its fellowship and has completed postgraduate medical training and satisfied continuing medical education requirements comparable to those recommended by the Academy of Medicine, for the relevant specialty; and
(b) is of good character, recommend to the Council that his name be included in the Specialist Register, otherwise the Committee shall recommend to the Council that his application for inclusion of name in the Specialist Register be rejected.";
(iii) in subsection (6), by deleting "(3), (4) or (5)" and substituting "(5A) or (5B)".
(b) in the proposed section 20M(b), by adding "to" before "such".
(c) in the proposed section 20S -
(i) by deleting subsection (1)(g) and substituting
"(g) 1 of the 4 lay members of the Council.
(ii) in subsection (2), by adding after "3," -
"at least one of whom shall be a lay member, subject to the majority being registered medical practitioners,";
(iii) by adding -
"(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), if both the chairman and the deputy chairman declare their interest in respect of a particular case which is to be decided at a meeting, neither of them may preside at the meeting and the members present (including the chairman and deputy chairman) shall elect another member to preside at the meeting.
(5) A member of the Preliminary Investigation Committee appointed under subsection (1)(g) shall hold office for such period not exceeding 3 months as the Council may specify in his letter of appointment. Other members of the Preliminary Investigation Committee shall hold office for 12 months.".
(d) in the proposed section 20T -
(i) in subsection (1)(c), by deleting "subject to subsection (3),";
(ii) by deleting subsection (3).
(e) in the proposed section 20V -
(i) in subsection (1)(a), by adding "physical or mental" after "health or";
(ii) in subsection (1)(c), by adding after "12 months" -
", and that such an order for removal be suspended subject to such conditions as recommended by the Health Committee, where appropriate".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
〆霉璓某璓勉畊ネи笆某秈˙タ材24兵タず甧矗ユ︗某肚綷ゅンずи┮更畊ネи矗硂兜タ辨セЫㄆ灿钮セ朝瓃やセタ
セチ囊矗タㄏ胺眃鶪舱猭ㄒ砏﹚穨Θи-
笵洛叭〆穦眏疨は癸胺眃鶪舱タΑ穨Θ赣〆穦粄胺眃鶪舱ゑ洛励ず场浪癚〆穦ヘ琌絋﹚Τ闽洛ネ胺眃鶪琌続﹜膥尿磅穨
ぃ筁и癑み辨洛叭〆穦镑浪癚瓃猭膀洛叭〆穦ョ跌笻は盡穨巨拜肈ず场浪癚ョ跌俱筁爹琌ず场拜肈τ┶荡ヴ︙穨Θ把籔俱兜盡穨ㄆ叭硂贺猭ぃ才盡穨ョ璶そ渤ユ㎝钡そ渤菏诡玥璶そ渤ユ㎝钡そ渤菏诡ョ琌洛叭〆穦磅酚舱㎝盡穨巨舱穨硂ㄇ穨瘤礛ぃ琌洛ネ玱ш簍菏诡à︹
и辨洛叭〆穦狟ねぃ璶粄チ囊硂兜璹琌癸洛叭盡穨珼驹и-
ぃ琌璶穕甡洛ネ碙腨はи-
獶盽碙洛叭盡穨ョ辨硓筁さΩ猭ㄒ璹眏洛叭〆穦そ獺のㄤ硓チ囊獺盡穨︑琌倒ぉカチ渤狝叭借┯空τ琵穨把籔碞琌カチ渤睲贰ユㄤ︑磅︽薄鶪璽砫ヴ盡穨〆穦琌瞶莱舧穨把籔菏诡㎝Τ闽┮チ囊辨硂弘砮过俱兜兵ㄒ胺眃鶪舱ず穨Θ硂妓盢穦カチ碙洛ネ盡穨弘
и辨ミ猭Ыㄆщ布やタ谅谅畊ネ
Proposed amendment
Clause 24
That clause 24 be amended, in the proposed section 20U
(i) in subsection (1), by adding -
"(g) 1 of the 4 lay members of the Council.";
(ii) in subsection (3), by adding after "chairman" -
", at least one of whom shall be a lay member, subject to the majority being registered medical practitioners".
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Chairman, extensive discussions took place during the Bills Committee stage amongst Members as to whether it should be made mandatory that a lay member or members should be included in the Health Committee of the Medical Council.
I think it should be made clear that we are now not talking about the accountability or transparency of the Council itself. I think Members have been satisfied when lay members have now been added to the Council. But I think it should be clear that the function of the Health Committee is to enable a medical practitioner to be examined as to whether he or she is medically fit to continue his or her practice as a medical practitioner.
I understand Mr LAW's amendment seeks to make it mandatory for a lay member or lay members to be appointed to the Health Committee and I understand its purpose is to increase the transparency and accountability of the Health Committee.
First of all, there is nothing in the Bill that would exclude lay members being included in the Health Committee, but I fail to see how a lay person in the Health Committee can contribute to judging whether an applicant or a practitioner is medically fit. That judgement must be made, and can only be made by qualified medical practitioners.
In practice, the proposed amendment would merely be window dressing and lack real meaning, and for that reason the Liberal Party would not support Mr LAW's amendment. We think that the medical profession is fully capable of regulating itself in this matter.
〆︙庇古某璓勉畊ネи琌莱ㄢ翴琌Τ闽瞷︽猭ㄒ逼ぃ岿瞷︽猭ㄒ逼琌眖竤い匡拒ㄇ秈胺眃鶪舱τㄤい瞷ぃ舱琌Τ穨Θ⊿Τ穨Θ硂ㄢ贺薄鶪常琌瞷и稱矗眶產るせら兵ㄒ糵某〆穦穦某い洛叭〆穦矗眏疨は癸眏秸硂兜璹盢穦紇臫洛ネ碙腨и⊿猭種硂兜芠翴硂兜璹ㄤ龟琌籔洛ネ碙腨⊿Τ闽玒τ硂ョぃそ渤癸洛叭︽穨磅穨Τヴ︙ぃ穛琂礛Τ硂妓稱猭讽-
匡拒舱Θ琌瞷Τ穨胺眃鶪舱薄鶪㎡讽礛ぃ穦瞷洛叭〆穦セぃ钡Τ穨胺眃鶪舱
︙┯ぱ某矗の╯澈硂ㄇ穨赣舱ず妓癪膍㎡讽礛狦∕﹚洛ネ琌続膥尿磅穨ゲ斗パ盡產浪喷Τ闽洛ネō砰礛矗ㄇ靡ㄑ胺眃鶪舱Θ礚阶琌洛ネ┪穨-
常琌璶沮盡產倒ぉ靡ㄑ∕﹚Τ闽洛ネ琌膥尿磅穨硂薄鶪ㄤ龟ぃ莱琌﹁洛ず瞷畍臔のㄤヴ︙盡穨刮砰狦璶∕﹚ㄤい磅穨胺眃瞶パτ琌続膥尿磅穨常惠璶竨叫洛励盡產ㄇ浪喷礛矗靡ㄑ狦Τ闽〆穦琌畍┪臔恨瞶〆穦璽砫∕﹚〆穦Θㄤ龟常ぃ琌洛ネ-
常琌钮盡產種ǎ礛∕﹚┮洛叭〆穦胺眃鶪舱穨Θㄤ龟ぃ琌璶笆も浪琩洛ネō砰τ琌钮盡產種ǎ
и临稱矗の兜ㄆ﹜碞琌Τ踞み╬留拜肈ㄤ龟胺眃鶪舱琌Τ穨Θ癸╬留拜肈ㄓ弧常ぃ穦Τヴ︙だи-
璶笵璝Τ洛ネ惠璶穦ǎ胺眃鶪舱-
┮穦ǎ琌俱舱τぃ琌琘ㄇΘ礚阶畊琌êㄇΘΤ闽洛ネ┮穦ǎ常琌赣舱Θτ硂舱Θぃ阶琌洛ネ┪穨常琌惠璶玂盞┮и眏秸狦胺眃鶪舱い穨Θ琌ぃ穦瞷ぃ镑癪膍┪琌紇臫╬留┪紇臫碙腨单薄鶪谅谅畊ネ
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. First of all, may I thank the Honourable Edward HO for making those remarks, which I entirely endorse. There are four points, or rather five points, which I would like to make before I give, perhaps, Members some views on the whole issue.
Firstly, we are talking about membership of a Health Committee, not membership of the Medical Council. The Health Committee is a subcommittee of the Medical Council which this Legislative Council has already decided that it has responsibility and it is a recognizable institution.
Secondly, this Health Committee is not, and I stress not, a disciplinary body. In other words, the person, the doctor appearing before this Health Committee is not somebody who has already committed a possible professional misconduct. It is entirely a person who, for whatever reasons being viewed by his peers or otherwise, that he might have a health problem which may interfere with his practice. So I could just stress again this is not a disciplinary body.
Thirdly, to the current Bill, the Medical Council is already entrusted with a power to choose members. Amongst them could be lay members or professional members, and lay members could come from the Medical Council itself or from outside the Medical Council. There is this degree of flexibility. Now, what my friend, the Honourable Law Chi-kwong wants is to ensure that there are lay members in the Health Committee specified by law. In other words, to remove the flexibility that this body, the Medical Council, considered by law has its power.
In response to what Mr Michael HO said in relation to, for example, a lawyer who could well be sick and whether he should be allowed to practise or not, yes, a doctor will especially be called to analyse him or her. But the doctor can only go all the way to say what is wrong physically or mentally with that particular lawyer, engineer, architect or otherwise. But there is no way that a doctor can say he is not suitable to practice law, engineering or otherwise. It is up to that professional body, and that professional body alone, to say whether that particular person is, in that physical state, mental state, proper to practise that particular profession.
Mr Chairman, with your permission, let me bring Members through two scenarios. Firstly is something that I have frequently encountered and hope Members will not have to encounter, and that is, as a doctor we are often asked and needed by our duty to explain to patients their problems. And usually in that sort of situation, their relatives are around and other health care professionals are around. Now, this is acceptable. This is perfectly acceptable to the patient and to the relatives. But should there be an outsider, say the patient fro the next bed or relatives of patient from next bed were to eavesdrop, now, this is not acceptable and a lot of hell would be raised by the patients or his relatives on that basis. The reason is very simple. It is on the ground of integrity and confidentiality.
Let me take Members through another scenario, and this time it is a doctor who is noticed by his peers to be unhealthy, either physically or mentally. He has committed no misconduct, and I stress that, and he is asked to face the Health Committee. He has now to face the embarrassment of interrogation not only by his own peers but, if Mr LAW's amendment is through, then he also has to face the embarrassment of a lay person who has no knowledge whatsoever of health problems. How would he feel? To the medical profession, this is obviously unacceptable as it really erodes into the dignity of that particular person who has not at that point in time committed any offence whatsoever.
Mr Chairman, in these days when we all value human rights, value the power, value privacy and confidentiality, why should we apply double standards? A standard for doctors and a standard for everybody else? Now, I fail to understand this. Further, Mr Chairman, and I must reiterate, that section 20U already gives the flexibility to the Medical Council to appoint other members who are not within the medical profession, are from the four lay members of the Medical Council, and secondly, from other members who are not even members of the Medical Council. And I would like to read to Members section 20U which actually said: "1 to 3 persons not being members of the Council when the Council considers appropriate can be appointed to this Health Committee."
When we have already recognized, Mr Chairman, the establishment of the Council, and we have already given this Council the trust, should we not leave the details to this Council in making its appointment to the Health Committee, which is a subcommittee of this Council, or should we really move a law to control a professional body?
Mr Chairman, I would strongly go against this amendment as moved by the Honourable LAW Chi-kwong, and I represent my profession's views and my constituents' view and hope Members will vote against it too.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the Honourable LAW Chi-kwong's proposed amendments to section 20U under clause 24 have in fact been thoroughly considered by the Bills Committee.
Unfortunately, the Bills Committee did not reach a consensus on this issue. The Health Committee is tasked to conduct a hearing into matters concerning the health or physical or mental fitness to practise of any registered medical practitioner. It serves as an internal review committee to ascertain whether a medical practitioner is medically fit to continue his practice, but it does not investigate whether he has committed any malpractice or misconduct. Medical practitioners are in the best position to determine one's health condition, especially whether he is physically or mentally fit to practise.
I wish to stress that the Bill already provides for the presence of lay members in the Health Committee. Under section 20U(1)(a) and (b), a chairman and two other members of the Health Committee shall be elected by the Council from among its members. Four out of 28 members of the Council are proposed to be lay members. In addition, under section 20U(1)(f), the Council can appoint to the Health Committee one to three persons who are not members of the Council.
With these remarks, Mr Chairman, I object to the proposed amendment.
霉璓某璓勉谅谅畊ネи琌稱虏虫莱ㄇ種ǎи辨產ぃ璶跌胺眃鶪舱穨-
ョ琌把籔洛叭盡穨眏ㄤ癸そ渤ユ辩醇翬某眏秸紆┦〆ヴ穨紆┦ㄆ龟倒иベ稰谋よ眏疨﹚璶〆ヴ穨よ弧Τ紆┦琌穦〆ヴ穨и粄硂琌獶盽ベ倒贺腇稰谋и辨產σ納硂拜肈璶σ納の硂翴碞琌狦︗粄洛ネセ琌ぃ辨Τ穨τи-
玱粄莱赣Τ杠獽ぃ莱赣甧砛硂紆┦-
睲贰ボぃ穦〆ヴ穨︓穨琌痷Τ┮癪膍拜肈и羭虏虫ㄒ碞琌и-
纯矗の┮孔盡穨波┛拜肈硂拜肈ぃ洪パㄇ穨糵某ゲ斗綼赣兜盡穨盡產種ǎ甧耞琌瞷盡穨波┛传杠弧よ琂惠璶穨種ǎよョ琌惠璶盡產種ǎ胺眃鶪舱ョ妓胺眃拜肈讽礛惠璶洛ネの盡產種ǎ琌琵赣Τ闽洛ネ膥尿磅穨琌才そ渤痲拜肈獽惠璶穨把籔∕﹚
畊ネи辨產や硂兜タ谅谅︗
Question on the amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr LAW Chi-kwong and Mr Michael HO claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: The Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that they are called upon to vote on the question that the amendment moved by Mr LAW Chi-kwong be made to clause 24 of the Medical Registration (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill.
CHAIRMAN: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN and Miss Margaret NG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 34 votes in favour of the amendment and 12 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
New clause 39A Section added
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause 39A as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
Clause 39A arises from section 5 of the Medical Registration (Amendment) Ordinance 1995, which provides that an applicant is eligible to take the Licensing Examination if he has satisfactorily completed not less than five years' full time medical training. As internship forms one part of the medical training, we therefore propose the addition of a new clause to clarify the position.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause read the Second time.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 39A be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 39A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"39A. Section added
Section 5 is amended -
(a) by renumbering the proposed section 7A as section 7A(1);
(b) by adding -
"(2) For the purpose of subsection (1)(b)(i), the 5 years full time medical training shall include a period of internship as approved by the Council.".
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
LEVERAGED FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRADING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 to 7 were agreed to.
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 were agreed to.
Clause 2
癩竒ㄆ叭璓勉畊ネи略笆某ㄌ酚癳ユ︗某肚綷ゅン┮更矗某タ兵ㄒ材22兵
琌兜淮稬璹琌沮ミ猭Ы矪猭ㄆ叭场某Τ闽"agency of the Government"迭い亩セパ"現┎瞶"タ"現┎瞶诀篶"獽ち璣ゅセ竡
畊ネи略笆某某
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2(2) be amended, in the definition of "猭刮", in paragraph (a), by deleting "瞶" and substituting "瞶诀篶".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 2, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Clauses 1, 2, 6 and 7 were agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 8
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Honourable Members.
The reasons for the main amendments have been explained in my earlier speech on resumption of the Second Reading debate. Other amendments are textual and technical in nature. All of them are supported by the Bills Committee.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 3
That clause 3(b) be amended, in the proposed subsection (1A)
(a) in paragraph (c) by deleting "and" at the end;
(b) in paragraph (d) -
(i) by deleting "a triad society" and substituting "the triad society concerned";
(ii) by deleting the comma at the end and substituting "; and";
(c) by adding -
"(e) he was provided such information, including his fingerprints, as may be required by the Commissioner of Police to enable his conviction record to be verified and for this purpose, a police officer may take or record the individual's fingerprints and the fingerprints so taken or recorded shall be destroyed or delivered to the individual as soon as reasonably practicable after his conviction record has been verified.".
That clause 3(j) be amended, by deleting the proposed subsection (6A) and substituting
"(7) For the purpose of subsection (1B)(a), (b) and (c) and section 3, a payment or an order to pay shall include -
(a) the offence or contravention which was the subject of that payment or order to pay;
(b) the conduct or circumstances constituting that offence or contravention; and
(c) anything relating to that payment or order to pay which, if disclosed, would tend to show that the individual committed, was charged with, was prosecuted for, was convicted of or was sentenced for the offence or contravention which was the subject of the payment or order to pay.".
Clause 4
That clause 4(b) be amended, in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "a criminal" and substituting "any criminal".
Clause 5
That clause 5(a) be amended, by deleting subparagraph (ii) and substituting
"(ii) in paragraph (e) -
(A) it subparagraph (i), by repealing "or" at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (ii) by adding ", 66, 67, 69, 70, 75 and 76" after "35";
(C) by adding -
"(iii) relating to a person's suitability to become or continue to be a director or controllor of an authorized insurer;
(iv) relating to a person's suitability to become or continue to be an insurance broker authorized by the Insurance Authority under section 69 of that Ordinance, or to be a member of a body of insurance brokers approved by the Insurance Authority under section 70 of that Ordinance;
(v) relating to the approval of a body of insurance brokers, including the assessment of whether the persons who manage or supervise the body of insurance brokers are fit and proper persons to do so, by the Insurance Authority under section 70 of that Ordinance; or
(vi) relating to the appointment, registration and de-registration of an insurance agent for the purposes of Part X of that Ordinance;";".
That clause 5 be amended, by adding
"(aa) in subsections (1) and (2) by repealing "Section 2" and substituting "Section 2(1) and (1A)";".
That clause 5(c) be amended, by deleting "subsections (2)(c) and (3)(a)" and substituting "subsection (2)(c)".
That clause 5 be amended, by adding
"(ca) in subsection (2)(d) by adding after "(Cap. 41)" -
", or to be an authorized insurance broker, or a person who manages or supervises an approved body of insurance brokers or an appointed insurance agent for the purposes of section 2(1) and Part X of that Ordinance";".
That clause 5(d) be amended
(a) in the proposed paragraph (g) by deleting the full stop and substituting "; or".
(b) by adding -
"(h) to become or continue to be a director or controller of an authorized insurer under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41).".
That clause 5 be amended, by adding
"(da) by repealing subsection (3) and substituting -
"(3) Section 2(1) and (1A) shall not apply to any dismissal or exclusion of an individual from practising as a barrister, solicitor or accountant or from any prescribed office.";".
That clause 5(e) be amended
(a) be deleting the proposed subsection (4) and substituting -
"(4) Section 2(1B) shall not apply to any question asked by or on behalf of any employer or any individual who intends to employ a vocational driver, or any obligation to disclose information, regarding the suitability of another person for employment or continued employment as a vocational driver, unless a period of 3 years has elapsed from the date of payment or order to pay (whichever is the earlier) which is referred to in section 2(1B).".
(b) in the proposed subsection (5) -
(i) by deleting "秆埃" and substituting "逼埃";
(ii) by adding "or order to pay (whichever is the earlier)" after "payment".
(c) By adding -
"(6) Section 2(1B) shall not apply to any question asked by or on behalf of an insurer for the purpose of assessing and pricing a risk in respect of vehicle insurance, unless a period of 3 years has elapsed from the date of payment or order to pay (whichever is the earlier) which is referred to in section 2(1B).
(7) Section 2 shall not apply to any action taken for the purposes of safeguarding the security of Hong Kong.".
Clause 8
That clause 8 be amended, by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting
"(c) by adding -
"10. Any office of the Directorate staff, the Commission Against Corruption Officer grade staff or in the Operations Department of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
11. Any office occupied by the executive, professional, managerial, technical or secretarial staff of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
12. Any office of the insurance officer grade staff (including the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner) or the secretarial staff of the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance.
PART 2
OTHER OFFICES
1. Any office occupied by the executive staff (including the Executive Directors) or the secretarial staff of the Securities and Futures Commission.".".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 3, 4, 5 and 8, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Heading before Consequential Amendments
New clause 9 Road Traffic Ordinance
New clause 9 Proof of matters relating to
previous convictions
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that the Heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 as set out in the paper circularized to Honourable Members be read the Second time.
In my speech at the resumption of the Second Reading debate, I have explained the reasons for the proposed amendments in relation to the fixed penalty scheme. The effect of those amendments is that, while payments or orders to pay under the fixed penalty scheme are regarded as spent immediately for most purposes, they are not considered spent in the assessment of a vehicle insurance or of a person's suitability as a vocational driver, unless a period of three years has elapsed.
Under section 75 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, an individual can obtain a record of all his previous traffic convictions from the police upon payment of the prescribed fee. With the amendments proposed earlier, a payment under the fixed penalty scheme may or may not be considered spent depending on the circumstances. For instance, for general purposes such a payment is spent immediately and will not be specified in the record. However, for the purpose of an application for a job as a vocational driver, or buying a vehicle insurance, such a payment will be specified in the record unless a period of three years has elapsed. To enable the police to give an accurate record of previous traffic convictions for different purposes, I propose to add a new clause 9 to the Bill to make a consequential amendment to section 75 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, so that applicants for traffic conviction records have to pay the prescribed fee, and complete an application form to specify the purposes for which the records are to be used. It also makes it clear that the Commissioner of Police may reveal, at the request of an applicant, in a record issued under section 75 of the Road Traffic Ordinance all "spent" convictions, "spent" payments and "spent" orders to pay in respect of the applicant, notwithstanding the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause read the Second time.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that the Heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 9
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"Consequential Amendments
Road Traffic Ordinance
9. Proof of matters relating to previous
convictions
Section 75 of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) is amended -
(a) in subsection (5) -
(i) by repealing "on payment of the prescribed fee" and substituting ", on payment of the prescribed fee and receipt of the completed application form for a record or certificate under this section,";
(ii) by adding "or payments or orders to pay under the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240)" after "Ordinance" where it first appears;
(b) by adding -
"(5B) For the avoidance of doubt, a record issued under subsection (5) may, at the written request of the applicant, reveal all convictions under this Ordinance or payments or orders to pay under the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240), notwithstanding the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 297).".".
Question on the addition of the Heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 proposed, put and agreed to.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENTS) BILL 1995
Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 to 16 and 19 to 26 were agreed to.
Clauses 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 18
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members. The reasons for the amendments have already been explained during the resumption of the Second Reading debate. All the amendments have been agreed to by the Bills Committee.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended, by deleting the proposed section 5A and substituting
"5A. Making infringing copies
outside Hong Kong, etc.
(1) Any person who makes outside Hong Kong, for export to Hong Kong otherwise than for his private and domestic use, any article that he knows would, if it were made in Hong Kong, constitute an infringing copy of a work or other subject matter in which copyright subsists under the Act or this Ordinance shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who makes outside Hong Kong a plate, knowing that it is to be used or is intended to be used in Hong Kong for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject matter in which copyright subsists under the Act or this Ordinance shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Any person who makes outside Hong Kong or exports from Hong Kong a plate, knowing that -
(a) the plate is to be used or is intended to be used outside Hong Kong for making an article for export to Hong Kong; and
(b) the article mentioned in paragraph (a) would, if it were made in Hong Kong, constitute an infringing copy of a work or other subject matter in which copyright subsists under the Act or this Ordinance,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person who, in Hong Kong or elsewhere, aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3) commits that offence as a principal.
(5) The offences under subsections (1), (2) and (3) are without prejudice to the offences under section 21 of the Act.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3) shall be liable on conviction on indictment -
(a) in the case of a first conviction for that offence, to a fine of $250,000 and to imprisonment for 4 years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction for that offence, to a fine of $500,000 and to imprisonment for 8 years.
(7) For the purposes of this section, "infringing copy" does not include a copy of a work or other subject matter in which copyright subsists under the Act or this Ordinance that is made in the United Kingdom or a country, territory or area to which section 5 or 16 of the Act extends or applies, by or with the consent of the person who, at the time and in the place where it was made, owned the copyright in that work or subject matter.".
Clause 6
That clause 6 be amended, in the proposed section 7B
(a) by deleting "in respect of which" and substituting "to which";
(b) by adding "extend or" before "apply".
Clause 9
That clause 9 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 12 -
(i) by deleting the definition of "copyright owner";
(ii) in the definition of "detention order", by deleting "issued under section 14" and substituting "made under section 14(1)";
(iii) by deleting the definition of "infringing copy" and substituting -
""infringing copy" does not include a copy of a work or other subject matter in which copyright subsists under the Act or this Ordinance that is made in the United Kingdom or a country, territory or area to which section 5 or 16 of the Act extends or applies, by or with the consent of the person who, at the time and in the place where it was made, owned the copyright in that work or subject matter;";
(iv) by adding -
""right holder" means the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright that subsists in a work or other subject matter under the Act or this Ordinance.".
(b) by deleting the proposed section 13(1) and substituting -
"(1) A right holder may apply to the High Court for an order under section 14(1) where he has reasonable ground for suspecting that the importation of an article that constitutes an infringing copy of the work or other subject matter in respect of which he is a right holder may take place.".
(c) in the proposed section 13(3) -
(i) by deleting "copyright owner" and substituting "right holder";
(ii) by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting -
"(b) states whether the deponent is the owner or the exclusive licensee of the copyright;
(ba) where the deponent purports to be the exclusive licensee, states the facts and exhibits such documents relied upon by the deponent to establish that he is the exclusive licensee;";
(iii) by deleting paragraph (d) and substituting -
"(d) states the grounds for the application, including the facts relied upon by the deponent as showing that the article in question is prima facie an infringing copy;".
(d) in the proposed section 14(1), by deleting "on an application made under section 13, the High Court is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence that adequately demonstrates that the article in question is an infringing copy," and substituting "on the hearing of an application made under section 13, the right holder presents adequate evidence to satisfy the High Court that the article in question is prima facie an infringing copy,".
(e) in the proposed section 14(2) -
(i) by deleting "copyright owner" and substituting "right holder";
(ii) by deleting "consignor and consignee" and substituting "consignee and the owner of the article".
(f) in the proposed sections 14(6) and 15(2), by deleting "copyright owner" and substituting "right holder".
(g) in the proposed section 15(3), by deleting "applicant" and substituting "right holder".
(h) in the proposed section 15(4) -
(i) by deleting "copyright owner" where it twice appears and substituting "right holder";
(ii) by deleting "or to vary the order" and "or vary the order in such manner".
(i) in the proposed section 15(5), by deleting everything after "the seizure or detention" and substituting -
"to -
(a) the right holder;
(b) the importer; and
(c) any other person to whom notice is required to be given by the terms of the order.".
(j) in the proposed section 15(6), by deleting "copyright owner" where it twice appears and substituting "right holder".
(k) in the proposed section 15(7), by deleting "copyright owner" and substituting "right holder, after giving the Commissioner and each person to whom notice is required to be given under subsection (5) an opportunity to be heard".
(l) in the proposed section 15(8) and (9), by deleting "copyright owner" and substituting "right holder".
(m) by adding -
"15A. Variation or setting aside of
detention order
(1) The Commissioner or the right holder may at any time apply to the High Court to vary the detention order.
(2) The importer or any other person affected by the detention order may at any time apply to the High Court to vary or set aside the order.
(3) A person who makes an application under subsection (1) and (2) shall give to the other parties such notice of the day fixed for the hearing of the application as a judge of the High Court may order.
(4) On the hearing of an application under subsection (1) or (2) to vary the detention order, the High Court may vary the order in such manner as it thinks fit.
(5) On the hearing of an application under subsection (2) to set aside the detention order, the High Court may set aside the order on such terms and conditions as it thinks just.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) -
(a) the parties to an application under subsection (1) are the Commissioner, the right holder and, if the article in question has been seized or detained pursuant to the detention order, the importer and any other person to whom notice is required to be given under section 15(5); and
(b) the parties to an application under subsection (2) are the Commissioner, the right holder, the applicant and the importer, if the importer is not the applicant.".
(n) in the proposed section 16(1) and (2), by deleting "copyright owner" and substituting "right holder".
(o) in the proposed section 17(1) -
(i) in paragraph (a), by deleting "copyright owner" and substituting "right holder";
(ii) in paragraph (b), by deleting "copyright owner's" and substituting "right holder's".
(p) in the proposed section 17(2) -
(i) by deleting "copyright owner" where it twice appears and substituting "right holder";
(ii) by deleting "undertaking" and substituting "undertakings".
(q) in the proposed sections 17(4) and 18(1) and (2), by deleting "copyright owner" wherever it appears and substituting "right holder".
(r) by deleting the proposed section 20 and substituting -
"20. Compensation payable
to importer, etc.
(1) Where an article is seized or detained pursuant to a detention order and the article is released pursuant to section 15(6), the importer, the consignee or the owner of the article may, within 6 months after the date on which the order is made, apply to the High Court for compensation for any loss or damage suffered by him by reason of the seizure or detention.
(2) Where -
(a) an article is seized or detained pursuant to a detention order;
(b) an action for infringement is brought under the Act in respect of the article within the period referred to in section 15(6), as may be extended under section 15(7); and
(c) the action is discontinued, the claim of infringement is withdrawn or the court in the infringement proceedings determines that the infringement is not proved,
the importer, the consignee or the owner of the article may, within 6 months after the date on which the action is discontinued, the claim is withdrawn or the court renders its determination, as the case may be, apply to the High Court for compensation for any loss or damage suffered by him by reason of the seizure or detention.
(3) On an application under subsection (1) or (2), the High Court may make such order for compensation as it deems fit.".
(s) in the proposed section 29(7)(a), by deleting "judicial proceedings," and substituting "judicial proceedings or".
(t) in the proposed section 30, by deleting "in respect of infringement" and substituting "in respect of infringements".
Clause 10
That clause 10(b) be amended, by deleting the proposed items 2A and 2B and substituting
"2A. In section 2(5) there shall be added -
"(ee) in relation to a literary work being a computer program, renting the work;".
2B. In section 2(5)(g) for the words "paragraphs (a) to (e)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraphs (a) to (ee)".
2C. After section 2(6) there shall be inserted the following subsections -
"(7) For the purposes of paragraph (ee) of subsection (5) of this section, an arrangement, whatever its form, constitutes a rental of a literary work being a computer program if -
(a) it is in substance an arrangement under which a copy of the work is made available on terms that it will be or may be returned; and
(b) the arrangement provides for the copy to be made available -
(i) for payment in money or money's worth; or
(ii) in the course of a business, as part of services or amenities for which payment in money or money's worth is to be made.
(8) Paragraph (ee) of subsection (5) of this section does not extend to -
(a) the rental of a machine or device in which a computer program is embodied if the computer program is not able to be copied in the course of the ordinary use of the machine or device; or
(b) the rental of any other thing that embodies or includes a computer program if the computer program is not the essential object of the rental.
(9) The reference in subsection (8) of this section to a device does not include a device of a kind ordinarily used to store computer programs.".".
That clause 10(c) be amended, by deleting the proposed item 7A and substituting
"7A. In section 12(5) there shall be added -
"(d) renting the recording.".
7B. After section 12(9) there shall be inserted the following subsections -
"(10) For the purposes of paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of this section, an arrangement, whatever its form, constitutes a rental of a sound recording if -
(a) it is in substance an arrangement under which a copy of the recording is made available on terms that it will be or may be returned; and
(b) the arrangement provides for the copy to be made available -
(i) for payment in money or money's worth; or
(ii) in the course of a business, as part of services or amenities for which payment in money or money's worth is to be made.
(11) Paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of this section does not extend to the rental of anything that embodies or includes a sound recording if the sound recording is not the essential object of the rental.".".
That clause 10 be amended, by deleting paragraph (d).
That clause 10(f) be amended
(a) by deleting the heading to the proposed section 30A and substituting -
"Special provisions as to
jurisdiction of tribunal in
relation to rental of computer
programs and sound recordings".
(b) in the proposed section 30B -
(i) in the heading, by deleting "point" and substituting "question";
(ii) in subsection (1), by deleting "point" and substituting "question".
That clause 10(g) be amended
(a) in the proposed section 41A, by deleting the heading and substituting -
"Special provisions as to
rental of computer programs
and sound recordings".
(b) in the proposed section 41A(1), by deleting ", sound recordings or cinematograph films" and substituting "or sound recordings".
(c) in the proposed section 41A(4), by deleting ", sound recordings or cinematograph films" and substituting "or sound recordings".
(d) in the proposed section 41B, by deleting the heading and substituting -
"Application to settle royalty
or other sum payable for rental
of computer programs or sound
recordings".
That clause 10 be amended, by deleting paragraph (h).
That clause 10(k) be amended
(a) in the proposed item 28, by deleting "2A, 2B, 7A, 8A, 16A, 17A, 22A and 24A" and substituting "2A and 7A".
(b) in the proposed item 29 -
(i) by deleting "7A, 8A," and substituting "2C, 7A, 7B,";
(ii) by adding "or subject matter" after "work".
Clause 11
That clause 11 be amended
(a) by deleting the proposed section 7D(1)(b) and substituting -
"(b) anything done for Government use to the order of a public officer by the person entitled under the certificate of registration to the privileges and rights conferred by the certificate,
so far as those provisions -
(i) restrict or regulate the working of the invention or the use of any model, document or information relating to it; or
(ii) provide for the making of payments in respect of, or calculated by reference to, such working or use.".
(b) by deleting the proposed section 7E(1)(b) and substituting -
"(b) if there is an exclusive licence in force in Hong Kong in respect of the patented invention, to the exclusive licensee,
compensation for any loss resulting from his not being awarded a contract to supply the patented invention or a thing made by means of the patented invention or otherwise providing for the use of the patented invention.".
Clause 17
That clause 17 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 30A, in the definition of "detention order" by deleting "issued under section 30C" and substituting "made under section 30C(1)".
(b) by deleting the proposed section 30B(1) and substituting -
"(1) The proprietor of a trade mark may apply to the High Court for an order under section 30C(1) where he has reasonable ground for suspecting that the importation of goods that constitute infringing goods may take place.".
(c) in the proposed section 30B(3) -
(i) in paragraph (a) by deleting "the person named therein" and substituting "the deponent";
(ii) by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting -
"(c) states the grounds for the application, including the facts relied upon by the deponent as showing that the goods in question are prima facie infringing goods;".
(d) in the proposed section 30B, by adding -
"(3A) Where the trade mark in question is registered, the affidavit of the proprietor shall exhibit a certified copy of each entry in the register that relates to the trade mark or, where it is not practicable for the deponent to obtain such a certified copy, shall state the reasons why it is not practicable to do so.".
(e) in the proposed section 30C(1), by deleting "on an application made under section 30B, the High Court is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence that adequately demonstrates that the goods in question are infringing goods" and substituting "on the hearing of an application made under section 30B, the proprietor presents adequate evidence to satisfy the High Court that the goods in question are prima facie infringing goods".
(f) in the proposed section 30D(3), by deleting "applicant" and substituting "proprietor of the trade mark".
(g) in the proposed section 30D(4), by deleting "or to vary the order" and "or vary the order in such manner".
(h) in the proposed section 30D(5), by deleting everything after "the seizure or detention" and substituting -
"to -
(a) the proprietor of the trade mark;
(b) the importer; and
(c) any other person to whom notice is required to be given by the terms of the order.".
(i) in the proposed section 30D(7), by adding "after giving the Commissioner and each person to whom notice is required to be given under subsection (5) an opportunity to be heard," after "trade mark,".
(j) by adding -
"30DA. Variation or setting aside of
detention order
(1) The Commissioner or the proprietor of the trade mark may at any time apply to the High Court to vary the detention order.
(2) The importer or any other person affected by the detention order may at any time apply to the High Court to vary or set aside the order.
(3) A person who makes an application under subsection (1) or (2) shall give to the other parties such notice of the day fixed for the hearing of the application as a judge of the High Court may order.
(4) On the hearing of an application under subsection (1) or (2) to vary a detention order, the High Court may vary the order in such manner as it thinks just.
(5) On the hearing of an application under subsection (2) to set aside a detention order, the High Court may set aside the order on such terms and conditions as it thinks just.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) -
(a) the parties to an application under subsection (1) are the Commissioner, the proprietor of the trade mark and, if the goods in question have been seized or detained pursuant to the detention order, the importer and any other person to whom notice is required to be given under section 30D(5); and
(b) the parties to an application under subsection (2) are the Commissioner, the proprietor of the trade mark, the applicant and the importer, if the importer is not the applicant.".
(k) by deleting the proposed section 30I and substituting -
"30I. Compensation payable
to importer, etc.
(1) Where goods are seized or detained pursuant to a detention order and the goods are released pursuant to sections 30D(6), the importer, the consignee or the owner of the goods may, within 6 months after the date on which the order is made, apply to the High Court for compensation for any loss or damage suffered by him by reason of the seizure or detention.
(2) Where -
(a) goods are seized or detained pursuant to a detention order;
(b) an action for infringement is brought under the Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 43) in respect of the goods within the period referred to in section 30D(6), as may be extended under section 30D(7); and
(c) the action is discontinued, the claim of infringement is withdrawn or the High Court in the infringement proceedings determines that the infringement is not proved,
the importer, the consignee or the owner of the goods may, within 6 months after the date on which the action is discontinued, the claim is withdrawn or the High Court renders its determination, as the case may be, apply to the High Court for compensation for any loss or damage suffered by him by reason of the seizure or detention.
(3) On an application under subsection (1) or (2), the High Court may make such order for compensation as it deems fit.".
Clause 18
That clause 18 be amended, by deleting the clause and substituting
"18. Interpretation
Section 2(1) of the Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 43) is amended by repealing the definition of "mark" and substituting -
""mark" means any sign that is visually perceptible and capable of being represented graphically and may, in particular, consist of words, personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements or combination of colours, and includes any combination of such signs;".".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 18, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
NOISE CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Clause 1
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 1 of the Bill prescribes the short title and commencement of the Bill, originally scheduled for 31 March 1996. To tie in with the legislative timetable, we propose that clause 1(2) should be deleted so that the Bill will come into operation upon publication in the Gazette. This will enable the Noise Control (Motor Vehicles) Regulation to be made immediately after enactment of the Bill.
The amendment has been discussed and agreed by the Bills Committee to study the Noise Control (Amendment) Bill 1995 and the Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 1
That clause 1 be amended
(a) in the heading by deleting "and commencement".
(b) by deleting subclause (2).
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 1, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause 2 was agreed to.
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
Clause 1
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 1 of the Bill prescribes the short title and commencement of the Bill, originally scheduled for 31 March 1996. To tie in with the legislative timetable, we propose to amend clause 1(2) to the effect that the Bill will come into operation on a day to be appointed by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands by notice in the Gazette. We intend to bring the Bill into effect two months after approval of the Noise Control (Motor Vehicles) Regulation by this Council, which will be around August 1996.
The amendment has been discussed and agreed by the Bills Committee to study the Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995 and the Noise Control (Amendment) Bill 1995.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 1
That clause 1 be amended, by deleting subclause (2) and substituting
"(2) This Ordinance shall come into operation on a day to be appointed by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands by notice in the Gazette.".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 1, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 were agreed to.
TOWN PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Clauses 1, 4 and 6 were agreed to.
Clause 2
CHAIRMAN: There are two proposed amendments to clause 2 of this Bill; one to be moved by the Honourable Albert CHAN and the other by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands. However, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands has just given instructions to the Clerk that he would withdraw his amendment to clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore the Committee needs to deal only with the Honourable Albert CHAN's amendment. I now call upon the Honourable Albert CHAN to move his amendment to clause 2.
〆朝岸穨某畊ネи璶―祘坚睲翴セЫ砏购吏挂現竒矗篗材2兵τи笆某タ兵ㄒ材2兵膀セヘ琌籔砏购吏挂現篗材2兵摸и辨坚睲и琌ご礛惠璶矗и硂兜タ
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has a right to withdraw his proposed amendment prior to moving it. This is in accordance with Standing Order 26.
〆朝岸穨某叫拜砏购吏挂現琌篗セ矗タ临琌篗兵ㄒ材2兵и稰Τㄇ睼睹
7.59 pm
CHAIRMAN: Since the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands has given instructions to the Clerk, I have to suspend the sitting for a brief period a very brief period, to check precisely what those instructions are.
8.05 pm
Committee then resumed.
CHAIRMAN: As I said earlier, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands has withdrawn his amendment to clause 2, the effect of which would be that there is only one amendment to be moved by Mr Albert CHAN. I am not here to advise as to how best to vote, whether in support or against Mr Albert CHAN's proposed amendment, but the effect is, if Mr Albert CHAN's amendment is negatived, then the original clause will stand intact.
〆朝岸穨某璓勉畊ネ癸睼睹薄鶪и略︗某笵簆и笵砏购吏挂現篗碞材2兵┮矗タ
畊ネи笆某タ材2兵タず甧更祇倒某把綷ゅンぇずиセ兵ㄒ確弄臛阶祇ē量瓃硂兜タиぃゴ衡狡Τ闽瞶パи略苸叫某や硂兜览某タ窗玃讽Ы眖硉浪癚测癟は癸種ǎ逼の矗続讽タ荷еタ瞷Τ翴
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, by deleting the clause.
Queston on the amendment proposed.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: I would only like to say that in the resumption of the Second Reading debate, I have already given indication that the Administration will respect the decision of the Bills Committee and that is the reason why I have withdrawn my amendment.
Queston on the amendment put and agreed to.
Question on clause 2, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause 3
〆朝岸穨某璓勉畊ネセ笆某タ材3兵タず甧更祇倒某把綷ゅンぇず兜タ琌沮︗耕Ν種埃材2兵τ斗莱м砃┦タ
Proposed amendment
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended, by adding "of the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131)" after "Section 17A".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 3 be further amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment is to specify that the appointment of a judge to chair the Appeal Board should come from the High Court or below.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended, by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting
"(a) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting -
"(2) The Governor shall not appoint -
(a) a member of the Board;
(b) a public officer;
(c) a Justice of Appeal,
to the Appeal Board panel.
(2A) For the avoidance of doubt, in subsection (2), "public officer" does not include a judge of the High Court of Justice, a recorder of the High Court of Justice, a deputy judge of the High Court of Justice or a District Judge.";".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 3, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause 5
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 5 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members. The Administration agrees to delete clause 5 to allay the concern expressed by the Bills Committee on the fairness of imposing a time limit on the right of interested parties to seek a judicial remedy against the Town Planning Appeal Board decision. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended, by deleting the clause.
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 5, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
BETTING DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Clauses 1 and 3 were agreed to.
Clause 2
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr Chairman, I move that subclause (3) of clause 2 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
As I have explained earlier, Members are of the opinion that an agreement between the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club and its overseas partner for setting up an overseas betting venue should be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Home Affairs and propose to amend clause 2(3) of the Bill to this effect. The Administration has advised that it has no policy objection to this proposal.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2(3) be amended, in the proposed definition of "overseas bet" by adding "and approved by the Secretary for Home Affairs" after "authorized by the Club".
Question on the amendment proposed.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, as stated in my speech during the Second Reading debate, I would just like to reiterate that the Government has no policy objection to this Committee stage amendment and that the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club has also confirmed its agreement too.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr Howard YOUNG claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: The Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that they are called upon to vote on Mr Howard YOUNG's amendment to clause 2 of the Betting Duty (Amendment) Bill.
CHAIRMAN: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 39 votes in favour of the amendment and none against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
Queston on clause 2, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
LAW AMENDMENT AND REFORM (CONSOLIDATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Clause 1 was agreed to.
Clause 2
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 2 of the Bill be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendment makes express provision for nominations to be included among the interests in property in respect of which the court may relax the legal rule of public policy known as the forfeiture rule. Nominations commonly arise in the context of insurance policies. Currently, where someone unlawfully kills another and is the nominated beneficiary of the deceased's life insurance policy, he or she cannot benefit from the insurance policy even if justice demands otherwise. The effect of the amendment is to give the Court the power to modify the application of the forfeiture rule where it is just to do so in order to allow the nominated beneficiary in such a case to take the benefit of the policy concerned. The amendment was agreed to by the relevant Bills Committee.
With these remarks, Mr Chairman, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, in the proposed section 25B(4)(a), by adding
"(ia) on the nomination of that deceased or on the failure of that deceased to make a nomination;".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 2, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE reported that the
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendments. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES reported that the
LEVERAGED FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRADING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee without amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES reported that the
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY reported that the
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENTS) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendments. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS reported that the
NOISE CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS reported that the
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS reported that the
TOWN PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS reported that the
BETTING DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendment. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on Third Reading of the Bill proposed and put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr Howard YOUNG claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are called upon to vote on the motion that the Betting Duty (Amendment) Bill be read the Third time.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the motion and 14 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS reported that the
LAW AMENDMENT AND REFORM (CONSOLIDATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendment. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
MEMBER'S MOTIONS
PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on the speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 22 April. The movers of the motions will each have 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies, and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendments, if any. Other Members, including the movers of the amendments, will each have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech.
ACCESS TO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL PAPERS BY THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
MR ERIC LI to move the following motion:
"That having regard to -
1) Government's acceptance of a paper presented by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on 19 November 1986 in this Council that the Committee should make further inquiry in cases where it appears from the Director of Audit's report that in the setting of policy objectives there may have been a lack of sufficient relevant and reliable financial and other data available and that critical underlying assumptions may not have been made explicit;
2) the need in such cases for the Public Accounts Committee to have sight of documents evidencing what data were made available to Executive Council in its setting of the policy objectives in question and whether critical underlying assumptions had been made explicit in such documents; and
3) the fact that in attempting to make further inquiry into such a case arising out of the Director of Audit's Report No. 25 the Committee was refused sight of such documents by Government on the ground that they belonged to a class which Government wished to keep confidential;
this Council condemns the Administration for refusing to cooperate with the Committee in the performance of its duties by resorting to claims of class confidentiality for Executive Council documents, rather than considering the actual contents of such documents, in cases where the Public Accounts Committee is seeking to carry out its duty of further inquiry on the Director of Audit's reports."
產不某璓勉畊ネ獺セЫ某砰常剪眡㎝秆さぱパи矗某璉春ぃ狡癬ǎи穦с璶狡瓃ㄆ翴
ォ碞さぱ材26腹厨妓计竝竝きるらセЫ矗ユ材25腹厨ミ猭Ы現┎眀ヘ〆穦虏嘿"眀〆穦"繦甶秨羉糵某筁祘い眔現┎㎝Τ闽だ︓矪瞶"洛皘恨瞶Ыㄤ沟矗ㄑ┬褐浪癚"拜肈眀〆穦诡谋瞷ヴ㎝玡ヴ現┎﹛そ秨测癟┮矗ㄑ靡ㄑ陪㎝计竝竝種ǎ瞷畉钵ㄒ
拜肈(1) 蛮よ癸︽現Ы硄筁┮孔"Θセ璝"現郸玥﹚竡㎝磅︽瞶秆陪ぃ
拜肈(2) 現┎┯粄癸硂兜現郸环Θセ螟非絋︳璸ョぃ粄龟琁琿丁Τ瞷禬や薄鶪︽現Ы赣兜∕郸ぇ玡琌だ磝搐┮Τ癩叭だ猂戈現┎╯澈Τ⊿Τ︽現Ыユ蛮よョΤぃ弧猭
畊そ秨测癟﹛ㄤ龟ㄆ玡常Τ陆琩︽現Ы魁︓测癟戳丁ョぃΤ匡拒┦ま瓃赣单ゅン计竝竝ョ纯糵綷筁┮ΤΤ闽︽現Ы穦某厚Τ璶癸贺ぃ靡ㄑ眀〆穦瘤礛戮砫璶縒ミ耞玱虫虫硂ㄇΤ闽璶戈眀〆穦ョ璶―计竝竝矗ユ糵綷筁ゅン癸靡ㄤ弧猭竝玱礚舦眀〆穦そ秨︽現Ыゅン瞶パτ┶荡眀〆穦セキ盽み钮猭臮拜種ǎぇ璓粄タ讽硚畖琌莱ガ現矗璶―窗玃現┎讽Ы眀〆穦矗ユΤ闽∕某ゅンㄏ眀〆穦縒ミτ痷龟そキ耞
セ眀〆穦畊竡きるら祇獺倒ガ現矗璶―玱綝胞ē┶荡ガ現┮阶沮琌"︽現Ы某ㄆ筁祘莱玂盞......眀〆穦礚ヴ︙だ瞶パì讽Ыㄆ瘆ㄒ"眀〆穦竒筁冈灿坝某∕﹚せるらΩ獺ガ現眏秸眀〆穦ミ初珹
1.眀〆穦膀セ舅戮ぇ琌癸计竝竝厨秈︽縒ミ蝶︳τ現┎蠢眀〆穦∕﹚琌Τ惠璶把綷Τ闽ゅン暗猭玥琌ぃタ絋
2.ㄤ某穦眀〆穦ゲ礛σ納钡現┎疭玂┪ユ瞶パ琌"ず甧"だ摸種ぃぉそ秨︽現Ыゅン玱ぃ钡現┎ゅン┮妮"摸"玂盞瞶パ┶荡籔眀〆穦
3.ま瓃せるら某ゅ材琿讽眀〆穦畊現┎㎝计竝竝竒よ種ミ猭Ы矗ユまま辅龟磅︽ヴ叭眀〆穦粄莱碞洛恨Ы甶秨秈˙秸琩
4.眀〆穦獶璶―︽現Ы癸そ秨ゅン琌Τ瞶沮㎝玂盞薄鶪璶―﹛眀〆穦Τ﹚絛瞅┸臩τ眀〆穦ョ獺┮璶―糵綷ゅン妮筁∕郸戈礚現獀庇稰┦
眀〆穦材獺妓ぃ眔璶烩ガ現獺いビ"璶絋玂︽現Ыず︑パユ传㎝笷種ǎ肚参.....粄计竝竝莉綷︽現Ыゅンだ玂毁そ渤痲"Τ闽ㄧンゅ常更セせるらセЫ矗ユ厨魁ぇい
現┎讽Ы∕﹚ㄤ龟琌盢眀〆穦竚螟挂眀〆穦璶Τ︓琌ぶ現┎㎝计竝竝┮磝搐戈薄鶪碞蛮よ癸ミ種ǎ耞﹉づ阶︙螟厨羆衡琌ЧΘ挡狦ョ矗ユセЫ厨そガぇぃ﹚琌┮Τ拜肈碞Τ氮現┎矪瞶ㄆン篈まビ腶好ゼ∕τㄣ瞏环紇臫拜肈иō眀〆穦畊谋砫礚禪ぃぃ秈˙贝癚
(1)現┎笻はせセЫ籔眀〆穦㎝计竝竝笷Θ某宽ま弘現┎碞さΩㄆン篈莱癸セЫ冈荷秆睦玥某碞店砞
(2)眀〆穦ミ猭Ы畊糹︽縒ミ菏诡そ眀ヘ舦ぷㄤ琌糵綷ゅン舦ぇ稬虏琌硈そ叭だ计竝竝常ぃ現┎虫よ∕﹚癸眀〆穦瞶璶―砞琌Ч笻璉セЫ眀〆穦┮璶の蝴臔そ渤痲
(3)眖ガ現眀〆穦せるら獺计材琿眔眡讽Ы"ゅン摸"は癸ぉそ秨瞶パよ瘆ㄒ現┎ぃр瞷薄鶪跌ㄒ薄鶪矪瞶叫拜︙贺薄鶪妮ㄒ
(4)Τ场だそ秨蝶阶現┎琌ㄨ種留縡ㄤ∕郸筁祘癸硂ㄇ粄玡ヴ﹛聀戮腨北現┎ゲ斗Ч骸莱
ガ現∕﹚沮瞶秆莱琌︽現Ы栋砰∕﹚︽現Ы琌︽現琜篶い程蔼诀闽┮礚禗措笵セ翠︽現ミ猭㎝猭舦だミ墩眀〆穦ョ刚瓜σ納眖猭硚畖┪竒セЫ"绢"碝т隔
猭硚畖碞琌まノミ猭Ы舦の疭舦兵ㄒㄤ龟赣兵ㄒ獶盡癸現┎τ砞┮瘤礛眀〆穦Τ舦肚﹛盿﹚ゅン畊觝癟琂礛︽現Ыぃ矗ユゅン∕﹚Τ闽﹛ゲ﹚琌もτㄓ眀〆穦ㄏご礛Τ舦皐癸赣﹛蹦胓籃┦︽笆ㄤ狦ゲ礛琌盢ㄆン現獀┦どτご礛ぃ腊眀〆穦秆∕郸筁祘痷ЧΘ舅璶糹︽縒ミ"癩叭菏诡"戮砫
硂ㄆンㄒ眀〆穦Θ常粄盢菏诡眀ヘ戮砫︽ЧΘパセ竡矗兜某そ秨臛阶籔セЫㄆ贝癚︽よ猭ョ甧砛現┎Τそキビ臛诀穦
セ┮矗某ノ迭琌眔セЫ矪ョ㎝眀〆穦ㄆ㎝猭臮拜ユ传筁種ǎ叭―㎝眀〆穦碞赣ㄆン笷Θ璓挡阶礚ㄨ種┪搭淮厨い種ǎ秖種玂痙"キそタ癸ㄆぃ癸"弘
︓さぱゎ埃眀〆穦厨セ琌斑ㄆンいΤだ祇ē舦某某癸現┎┮矗宁砫妮ㄆン礚禨現┎碙腨┪琌玠畓笆穘︽現旧ぇ種現┎"舦搐"癸セЫ"ē砫"莱拒到τ眖セ戳辨臛阶癸眀〆穦︙糹︽戮砫矗ㄑ睲贰癟現┎ョ莱赣癸и矗腶τゼ∕拜肈そ渤ユ琵俱ンㄆンΤЧ骸羆挡のそ秨程掉∕
ㄤ龟ガ現朝よネぱ獽璶翠ㄆ叭砐ㄊ︽琌窾渤戳ョ琌ㄆ闽иぃ辨さぱ臛阶紇臫み薄τㄓ弧иョ港み禤朝よネΤ磖е㎝Θ祘
略舦""矗朝勉赖叫セЫくや某
Question on the motion proposed.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I rise to support the motion. I am well aware that this motion moved by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is on a general displeasure of the Administration in refusing to release Executive Council documents by resolving to claims of class confidentiality, thereby hampering the work of the Committee.
We are all aware that the saga arose as a result of the PAC's scrutiny of the Director of Audit's report on the salary package of the Hospital Authority (HA). I will, therefore, Mr President, have to seek your permission from time to time to use specific illustration of the HA to exemplify and perhaps strengthen the argument why full Executive Council papers are needed by the PAC, and that the lack of them will not only result in a less creditable report, but will also produce confusion to the public and a disservice to the hard working staff of the HA who have determined to make the system work.
It may be timely to declare my interest, Mr President, not only as a member of the HA, but more importantly, as a member of the Provisional Hospital Authority responsible for drafting of the pay package.
The gist of the report brought forward by the Director of Audit concerns the pay package of the HA staff which may well be comparable to that of the Civil Service today, yet if projected to 20 years might mean an estimated overspending of some $6.7 billion by the Government. The implication therefore was that this projection was not made aware to the Executive Council. The conclusion drawn by the PAC on the Director of Audit's report therefore was that "there were gross inadequacies in the process of formulating the HA remuneration package by the Administration and the Executive Council as evidenced by the fact that there was lack of a clear definition of the principle of cost comparability between the civil service and the HA package ...... consideration had not been given to fully appraising the Executive Council of the long-term financial implications and the need for a review mechanism to ensure cost comparability in future ......"
Public being kept in the dark over "secret"
But is this the case? Was the Executive Council actually kept in the dark or did the Executive Council gave the green light with other reasons in mind? This will and could never come to light unless the original papers are revealed. Is it fair therefore to expect the PAC to come to any intelligent conclusion? Is it fair for the PAC to come to this allegation in the absence of a centerfold piece of the jigsaw? All these beg the question of "what was the policy decision made then which is so secretive that the public must be kept in the dark?"
Let us look at it from another angle. Let us assume that the HA did pull a fast one and have an one-up on the Administration and that the Administration was not aware, let alone alert the Executive Council, of the long-term effect that the package might bring. Surely the Administration should be wise after the event. Yet, two years down the line, through another government policy branch, the Executive Council is asked again to accept a same and similar package for clinical staff of the two medical schools. Did the Administration commit the same mistake twice, or were the Administration and the Executive Council fully aware of the situation and the decision was made with all these in mind on a long-term policy? Only a complete revelation of the Executive Council papers would show the true path. Looking at it from a sinister angle, was the Executive Council kept in the dark or did the Administration and the Executive Council act in collaboration?
The same could be said of the other storm in the teacup, viz the "double benefit" saga. Again what was in the Executive Council papers? How much did Executive Council know? How detailed was the Executive Council clearly explained to? Whilst I do not accept that there is a doubt benefit, it is even more difficult to accept that the Administration has not considered this point then or that the Executive Council was not briefed. We all remember what the then Secretary for the Civil Service said in this very Chamber in the eyes of the public to imply that the Administration went in with her eyes open knowing the problem. Yet the PAC was asked to come to a conclusion through a guessing game. Is it fair to the PAC? Is it fair to those who worked so hard to set up the HA? Is it fair to the staff who through no fault of theirs are now told that they are paid too much?
Need to dig out the real reason behind setting up HA
Mr President, in relation to the Executive Council papers relevant to HA, I would suggest that the PAC should go further and have a look at the Executive Council papers on why the idea of an independent HA was set in the first place. Why was a consultant from Australia secured to look at the issue? Is it really a management reform of the hospital services that the Government have in mind, or is it a means of hiving off hospital services to an independent body to take away an ever increasing public demand and to shed the responsibility of health care services by giving a fixed sum to the HA to do the job?
There are rumours that the Government having successfully turned the public to align hospital service with the HA, that is, it has successfully taken itself away from any disgruntle of hospital service, and that the maximum number of staff have been lured to move over to the HA and cannot turn back is moving into phase II the HA is using too much money. Since 80% of the HA budget is for staff salaries and on-cost, if there is any way to lead the public into believing that HA staff are overpaid, public pressure could be used to the advantage of the Government to curb salary increase, if not a significant cut.
Are all these facts or fantasies? Are they the truth or are they just cock and bull stories? The clue, the missing link, Mr President, must be buried in those files that are stamped "For the Executive Council's eyes only"!
Responsible government must be accountable to the public
Without exposing the detail papers, regrettably, those who worked so hard to established the HA are now facing the accusation of being irresponsible. Staff morale are put to a litmus test.
Mr President, it is not a story of executive-led versus legislature-led government; it is not a story of power struggle between the legislators and the Administration. It is about a responsible government being accountable to the public through this elected legislature.
朝岸穨某璓勉畊ネ翠琌伐疭よㄤ竒蕾Θ碞琌羭そ粄┣琌硂竒蕾Θ瓣悔常穦現獀砰╰玱钵盽㎝辅
场だや翠瞷︽現恨獀琜篶ㄤ硂琌︽現旧ㄤ龟硂ぃ筁琌⊿Τチ甭舦礚チ種膀娄縒掉現舦翠︽現诀篶∕郸㎝笲琌碻璣瓣癸崔チ恨獀家Ατ翠Τ緻玴崔チ︹眒俱砰笲︽現诀篶ミ猭Ы菏恨ㄤい耕璶琌癸現┎癩現菏服せるら現┎眀ヘ〆穦畊矗ユミ猭Ыゅン计竝竝琌Τ戮砫碞ヴ︙現┎∕郸現郸场盡砫诀篶ㄤそ诀篶┪眀ヘ惠糵诀篶糹︽戮叭┮笷竊祘瞯㎝痲秈︽颗秖计
沮ミ猭Ы穦某盽砏材60A兵ミ猭Ы砞Τ現┎眀ヘ〆穦盽叭〆穦璽砫糵綷计竝竝碞糵诀篶竊祘瞯㎝痲┮秈︽秸琩τ矗ユミ猭Ыヴ︙厨ミ猭Ы穦某盽砏材60A兵現┎眀ヘ〆穦肚ヴ︙そ叭矗ㄑ戈㎝秆睦┪ユ〆穦粄ㄤ磅︽戮叭莱Τ魁㎝ゅン
畊ネㄓи-
硓筁计竝硂縒ミ現┎诀篶癸現┎笲秈︽颗秖╯セЫ現┎眀ヘ〆穦碞厨ず甧ㄓ常羭︽そ秨测癟琵糵诀篶Τ诀穦そ秨氮臛笷︑種ǎ硂琌猭獀㎝ゅ穦伐ㄤ璶诀〆穦ぃ穦畊糵∕ヴ︙诀篶ぃ穦ㄇ縒掉伐舦瓣產堵絚穨畊ネи把籔現┎眀ヘ〆穦硂琿らいи﹚弧〆穦ㄓ常琌蹦そキ瞶㎝瞶┦篈矪瞶Τ闽拜肈現┎筁ョ蹦篈〆穦矗ㄑ┮惠戈瘤礛〆穦㎝現┎種ǎゼゲ〆穦┮矗某現┎ョゼゲ﹚穦钡ㄓ┘丁常蝴が碙闽玒
程计竝竝材25腹厨Τ闽洛恨Ыㄤ沟矗ㄑ┬褐浪癚ㄆ〆穦纯Ω璶―現┎矗ユ︽現Ы讽穦某ゅン砆現┎┶荡ㄆ龟現┎Νミ猭Ы┯空穦籔現┎眀ヘ〆穦碞Τ闽测癟矗ㄑ珹矗ユ闽戈㎝ゅン硂琌現┎讽┯空硂Ω現┎┶荡矗ユ︽現Ыゅン陪瘆胊〆穦㎝現┎ㄓ㎝坑闽玒瘤礛現┎Ω羘嘿︽現Ы癚阶ㄆ兜㎝笲ゲ斗璶玂盞セ粄狦Τ闽戈ぃ紇臫セ翠玂ョぃ疉のㄇ現獀庇稰┦拜肈莱ぃ穦癸現┎盿ㄓヴ︙綺历現┎礚ヴ︙瞶パ┶荡矗ㄑ︽現ЫΤ闽洛恨Ыゅン
畊ネセ粄パ︽現Ыせ玡癚阶洛恨Ы褐拜肈︓さΤ琿会丁瞷ぃぶ﹛癸讽∕﹚ゼゲΤ睲韩秆珿讽穦某ゅン癸〆穦秆俱ンㄆㄓ纒だ璶计竝竝竒筁硂ㄇゅン挡阶盢Τ闽挡狦そガゅン诀盞┦孔竒ぃセ龟ぃフ或現┎绊┶荡〆穦矗ユ硂ㄇゅン
︽現Ы瞷羘嘿Τㄢ兜笲玥栋砰璽砫㎝玂盞碞栋砰璽砫よセるらセЫ借高穦碸﹚眃羆服ボ穦甧г㎝糴弘ㄓ︽ㄏ琂礛羆服現獀痲ノ紆┦瞶パ㎝よ猭矪瞶栋砰璽砫或и-
ガ現玂盞瞶パ┶荡矗ユ硂ゅンガ現硂贺弘籔羆服癸栋砰璽砫弘簍亩璉笵τ梗"砛﹛ぃ砛κ﹎翴縊"硂琌ガ現蹦蛮夹非︑ベ程ㄎ糶酚
畊ネи龟ぃ镑瞶秆現┎或ぃ糴甧㎝糴弘ㄓ矪瞶玂盞玥畊ネセ粄現┎龟Τゲ璶穝浪癚矪瞶硂ンㄆンよ猭玂毁猭﹚诀篶︽ㄏ戮舦ぃ耑現┎ぃ莱垒ノ玂盞玥玠そ渤秆ㄆン痷瞶舦┪ゴ阑猭﹚诀篶︗
畊ネ產不某祇ēΩ矗и-
ガ現朝よネ嘿㊣и-
ガ現ぃ琌ぃ琌ガ現ぱ┕ㄊ砐拜ōだ拜肈иτēぱи-
ガ現ㄊ砐拜ご礛琌и-
"ガ現"ㄊτ獶度琌朝よネ瘤礛иу蝶и-
ガ現иご辨и-
ガ現ぱㄊ硚磖еち抖谅谅畊ネ
糂紌某璓勉畊ネи祇ēや產不某某宁砫現┎┶荡盢︽現Ыゅンユ倒現┎眀ヘ〆穦現┎羭讽礛и-
俱〆穦иョ琌〆穦Θ稰ア辨ョ現┎┶荡〆穦ぃだ祇揣菏诡現┎眀ヘ硂琌и︑稰獶盽框狙
瞷現┎ぃ盢硂ㄇゅンユㄓ︽現籔ミ猭闽玒瞷候眎畊ネ礚縒Τ案さぱ狦и-
Τ綷弄厨穦厨笵﹙猭畑ンョ琌Τ闽︽現讽Ыぃ盢ゅンユ倒猭畑ユ倒砆êンㄆ薄琌パ猭﹛∕程沧ガ現ぃユㄓ璶ユセЫ薄鶪籔ê﹙猭畑ン讽礛ぃΤびゑ耕硂ョは琈︽現籔猭诀篶︽現籔ミ猭诀篶讽產稱ゅン﹚穦瞷闽玒候眎
〆穦畊產不某ョ矗のи-
琌ぃ稱蹦硂猭硚畖まノミ猭Ы舦の疭舦兵ㄒ籔現┎Ω祇ネ侥硂琌〆穦竒筁冈灿癚阶ョ籔セЫ猭臮拜癚阶筁∕﹚ぃゴ衡蹦硂˙┮さぱョパ〆穦畊矗某臛阶宁砫現┎и-
辨現┎フミ猭ЫΤだ辨現┎矗ユ戈и-
ョ辨現┎钮Чさぱ某臛阶╆秨篈籔ミ猭Ы
畊ネ︽現讽Ы┶荡矗ユゅン倒и-
纯ボ︽現ЫゅンΤ現┎ず徽ゅン妓讽礛и-
纯竒眖璣瓣莉眔戈笵璣瓣ず徽ゅン⊿Τユ瓣穦現┎眀ヘ〆穦и獺現┎ョぃ穦膥尿弧孔狦单ず徽ゅン碞⊿Τ某穦琌ぃ翠︓さゼ纯Τ筁璣瓣⊿Τи獺現┎ョ穦┯粄ㄏ璣瓣Τㄒ琌カチゴ﹛猭畑ǎ筁ず徽ゅンず徽ゅン︽現Ыゅンぃ琌Чぃ琵現タ穘繷﹚и-
Τゅン硂┪祔иユ倒現獽笵琘ㄇ薄鶪琌Τ猭畑筁ず徽ゅン
畊ネ產不某籔朝岸穨某矗のせるら讽現┎眀ヘ〆穦畊ミ猭Ы矗ユêゅン冈薄иぃ仑瓃︙現┎眀ヘ〆穦硂妓磅êせゅン㎡琌讽弧現┎钡穦籔и-
ぷㄤ琌讽计竝竝厨琘ㄇ薄鶪﹚現郸ヘ夹Τろ睲捶の矗ㄑ戈ぃì镑τΤㄇ膀セ安砞⊿Τ絋陪ボ現┎眀ヘ〆穦莱赣秈˙秸琩現┎ョ莱ぉ┮〆穦谋眔さΩ洛恨Ыㄆン琌Чち硂兜砏﹚и-
谋眔硂薄鶪現┎ゅン琌讽暗猭堡セるらガ現倒и-
滦ㄧず甧阀弧硂ㄇ︽現Ыゅン┮妮摸琌ぃ祇讽и-
現┎眀ヘ〆穦⊿Τ矗だ瞶パì讽Ы瘆ㄒ讽倒и-
Τほ稱谋眔琌瘆ㄒ琌и-
獽膥尿糶獺倒ガ現るら獽滦и-
э畊ネ⊿Τ矗"瘆ㄒ"篒讽弧硂ㄇゅン琌ぃユㄓτ硂摸琌Чぃ祇┮畊ネи獺и-
〆穦Τ翴钩砆現┎盿"笴堕"稰谋и-
程琌瘆ㄒи獺朝岸穨某產不某ョ弧筁и-
ョ常粄莱赣瘆ㄒ硂ㄇゅン⊿Τ或庇稰戈ョ⊿Τ或坝穨盞拜肈琌ガ現┮弧Τ闽ゅン⊿ノ矪┮獽玃叫и-
獺礚斗Τ闽ゅン拜肈琌计竝竝筁赣单ゅン禗и-
闽洛恨Ы俱ンㄆ癚阶谋眔現┎⊿Τр戈倒︽現Ы琵︽現Ы笵Τ环癩現紇臫ガ現玱禗и-
琌Τи-
莱獺街㎡畊ネ琂礛⊿Τゅン螟笵璶某眔"獺"盾и獺硂琌螟暗
畊ネи辨ガ現钮Ч某祇ēフи-
踞みê礛σ納み锣種癑港籔ミ猭Ыи-
ぃ辨產Τ┮侥и辨ガ現フ硂翴и︑︑癬踞ヴ現┎眀ヘ〆穦︓さи-
常琌籔現┎癬さΩ祇甶︓硂妓琌產ぃ稱┮и辨ガ現み锣種琵и-
Τ诀穦硂ㄇゅン
畊ネガ現るら倒и-
滦ㄧ程琿иぃ秨み矗眶某程玡┕ㄆぃ璶瞶穦現┎眀ヘ〆穦碞琌璶暗"衡眀"るせら秨测癟ッ环常琌┕ㄆ讽礛眖┕ㄆ╒或毙癡盢ㄓ磷璶и-
ぃぃи-
闽и辨ガ現稱稱倒и-
縩伐莱
и略朝勉や產不某某
MR DAVID CHU: Mr President, ordinarily I support any call for more open government. I cannot in this instance because the motion is inviting us to condemn when it should be requesting the Government for more information to help us become better policy monitors.
Nearly 10 years ago, the Government assured legislators that it would yield all reliable information to let them reach a sound decision on any given issue. So far the Administration has done that, though not to everyone's satisfaction. The Government, being a human institution, cannot resist presenting to us scenarios which fit its assumptions on what is good for the community. Everyone here does that the selling of an idea through innocent buyers to a certain degree.
The focus of the debate today is really not about some documents, but about the co-operation and co-ordination between the executive branch and the legislature. Here our executive enjoys the right and the privilege to control access to classified information, a basic rule to which we must adhere. If confidentiality on classified information is violated on demand, it would surely hinder our executive-led Government without serving the public good.
The negative repercussions will come in four forms at least: Policy makers (1) would be constantly second-guessed; (2) would be intimidated by others looking over their shoulders; (3) would not give their frank opinions for fear of hurting their public image, and (4) sensitive information would be taken out of context and misused.
This is not to say that executive government is almighty. This Council has the inalienable right and duty to check, vet and deliberate on government work, but not to the extent that it becomes a ministerial set-up for the roles of the executive and the legislative cannot be blurred. If we delve too deeply without any hint of trust into each other's responsibility, we might disrupt the checks and balances we have put in place.
I empathize with Mr LI and share his sense of frustration with the Government's lack of total candour about extra fringe benefits for Hospital Authority staff. I cannot agree, however, with any attempt to force the Government to do anything that might compromise its executive authority. We have here an executive and a legislative system that is separate yet co-operative. This is the essence of our system's success. Legislative Council condemnation of the Government now would only harden our mutual positions, be counter-productive and also imply the need for structural change to our system.
I therefore oppose the motion's purpose and phrasing, but not its underlying principle of more voluntary transparency in the Government. Therefore, Mr President, I will vote against the motion. Thank you.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I must first declare an interest. By that I mean community interest. And in the interest of the community, I think that the Government has committed three wrongs by not letting the Public Accounts Committee have sight of the relevant documents and available information pertinent to the Director of Audit's Report No. 25.
By "the three wrongs", it is meant that they have wronged: the Hospital Authority, the Auditor and the senior staff responsible for setting up the Hospital Authority. I shall explain why.
On 8 November 1995, the Director of Audit tabled his report in this Council.
This was a valuable report on results of value-for-money audits and the Government's accountability was once more put under the microscopic keen scrutiny of Legislative Council Members. And so it should!
In the report, the Director of Audit charged that the principles for the formulation of the HA remuneration package were breached. One of the sacred principles was that the cost for the setting up of the HA must be comparable to that of the Civil Service.
The Director of Audit reiterated that whilst the package was broadly comparable with that of the Civil Service at the time, over time, the encashed housing benefit which is pegged to salary will, over a period of 20 years, be in excess of their counterparts in the Civil Service, by $6.7 billion at current prices! A huge excess indeed, if the estimates were true!
So, what went wrong?
Without the evidence to support the Director of Audit's report, the competence of the Director of Audit is not put beyond doubt and the good image of the HA is irrevocably damaged by the innuendo implicit in the report that there was little "value for money" gained on the HA.
Unless the audit report is substantiated, inevitably a host of questions needs to be legitimately asked by the community. For example: Who unleashed the Director of Audit on the Hospital Authority? Why now five years after the setting up of the Hospital Authority? Who selects the agenda for the Director of Audit to enable him to select appropriate accounting policies and to apply them consistently? Indeed, how independent is the independent audit? What is the process of drafting the report? Who shapes the report? Is the published report materially different from the first draft? If not, why not?
Far be it from me to suggest or cherish any conspiracy theory, the community has a right to ask these questions and to know the answers; and these answers can only be provided by the Government through a revelation of relevant records. Alas, now we shall never know! All this is hidden in the dark labyrinth of power in the Government Secretariat.
Be that as it may, the Director of Audit claimed that not only was the principle breached at the time, but that the senior officials in charged of the policy collectively and deliberately concealed it from both the Executive Council and this legislature! These were serious charges indeed.
Unless these charges can be substantiated, the validity of the Director of Audit's report is seriously challenged and his credibility further undermined. He is unlikely to escape the accusation of having quoted out of context; of gross incompetence and of inadequate research in the formulation of his report.
My understanding of an audit report is that it is free from material mis-statement and that it gives a true and fair view in all material respects of the state of affairs which forms the substance of his report. As the case stands, Report No. 25 can only be qualified through non-production of available evidence.
For the Administration to hold back and to resort to claims of class confidentiality is to dodge the facts and to confuse class confidentiality with content confidentiality.
The production of papers is unlikely to undermine the power of an executive-led Government, which is hopefully still there to lead.
But it is unconscionable to frustrate the deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee by refusing to produce the relevant papers. This must be condemned.
That notwithstanding, Mr President, I have also joined my honourable friend, Mr Eric LI, in wishing the Chief Secretary a successful visit to Beijing.
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, I have to make it clear at the outset that the Administration strongly objects to the Honourable Eric LI's motion. The allegation that the Administration has refused to co-operate with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in the performance of its duties is simply not true. On the contrary, the Administration has always done its best to co-operate fully with the PAC and to assist it in its work, and we did so in the examination that the Committee carried out into the Director of Audit's report on the review of the housing benefits provided by the Hospital Authority to its staff.
The motion refers to the paper presented to this Council on 19 November 1986 by the then Chairman of the PAC, which set out the scope of the work of the Director of Audit in carrying out "value for money" studies. The Administration did indeed accept the proposals in this paper. But nothing in the paper suggested that the PAC should have access to Executive Council documents, as the motion implies. Whether or not this is necessary is a wholly subjective judgment, and it is wrong to suggest by juxtaposition that it was accepted, either explicitly or implicitly in 1986.
Let me remind Members of this Council of the extent of the Administration's co-operation with the PAC during its recent inquiry into the Director of Audit's report on the Hospital Authority staff's housing benefits. All officials involved, including the former Chief Secretary, the former Secretary for Health and Welfare, the former Secretary for the Civil Service, the present Secretary for the Treasury, the former Chairman of the Hospital Authority and the present Chief Executive of the Authority, attended the PAC's hearings several times to answer Members' queries. The Administration also provided the Committee with the relevant internal correspondence between the Hospital Authority and the Government. I myself gave detailed answers to the questions raised in a series of letters sent to me by the Chairman of the PAC, including full details of those parts of the relevant Executive Council memoranda and discussions which related to this issue. The record is clear. We did our best to give every assistance to the PAC in its deliberations. All relevant information was provided to the Committee and I reject any suggestion that the Administration deliberately misled the PAC.
The Administration's position on the confidentiality of Executive Council memoranda and records is well known and I have stated it many times in my letters to the Chairman of the PAC. We believe that it is essential to uphold the long-standing principle of keeping Executive Council proceedings confidential in order to ensure that there is no inhibition in the free exchange and presentation of views in the Executive Council. It would be against the public interest to compromise this principle. This view is not unique to Hong Kong. It is in line with the practice in the United Kingdom where the courts have, as a general rule, held that Cabinet papers are as a class immune from disclosure, and where I understand there is no precedent for Cabinet papers being made available to the United Kingdom PAC. As Executive Council papers are equivalent to United Kingdom Cabinet papers, they should, by analogy, be immune from disclosure in Hong Kong. Indeed, this argument has been accepted on a number of occasions by the courts in Hong Kong. The suggestion that a claim of confidentiality for Executive Council papers should be based on the contents rather than the class of the documents concerned is clearly not in line with this principle. Furthermore, this approach would be likely to lead to endless disputes between the Government and this Council over whether the contents of particular documents were sensitive in nature. We believe that the public interest is fully protected by the fact that the Director of Audit is allowed access to Executive Council papers and can form his own independent judgment as a result of this.
The Honourable Albert CHAN has argued that the rule regarding confidentiality should be relaxed since the other cardinal rule regarding collective responsibility can be applied flexibly. I wish to clarify that whilst the rule of collective responsibility can be applied with flexibility, that in no way reduces Executive Council Members' commitment to collective responsibility. To ensure the proper functioning of the Executive Council, the confidentiality rule has to be maintained. We will continue to provide PAC with full details of the relevant part of Executive Council papers but not the paper themselves. That already reflects flexibility in the exercise of the confidentiality rule.
Let me reassure Members that the Administration fully recognizes the role of the PAC as a "watchdog" over public expenditure and that we will continue to co-operate with it fully in order to help it perform its duties efficiently and effectively. In the particular case of the Hospital Authority staff's housing benefits, the PAC has produced its Report and the Administration will soon complete its review of the Hospital Authority remuneration package. Although the Honourable Miss Emily LAU would not agree, I have to advise that in my view, we should now point the way forward rather than dwell on what has happened in the past. I hope Honourable Members will recognize the responsible and co-operative attitude that the Administration has taken in this case, and that you will reject the motion.
Finally, Mr President, although not germane to this motion, let me thank Honourable Members for the good wishes they have extended on my forthcoming trip to Beijing. Far from my spirits being affected, I can assure Mr Eric LI that I set off in good cheer and I look forward to good progress in my discussions with Mr LU Ping.
Thank you, Mr President.
PRESIDENT: Mr Eric LI, you are now entitled to reply and you have five minutes 18 seconds out of your original 15 minutes.
產不某璓勉畊ネиさぱ某安э禤朝よネぱΤΘ祘杠甧硄筁ぃ筁иョ稰谅碭︗某祇ēㄒ辩醇翬某矗の厨ず甧и谋眔и-
さぱ臛阶ぃ莱癚阶厨セōиョ蔼砍钮種︽現Ыゅン癸眀〆穦ㄓ弧琌獶盽璶莱赣ユㄓ
и稱坚睲ㄇㄆи粄眀〆穦矪瞶俱ンㄆ荡癸⊿Τ粄洛恨Ы暗筁ヴ︙ぃそキㄆ俱厨い⊿Τ弧筁
朝岸穨某ゑи-
〆穦弧眔ΤиЧ觅㊣苸現┎矪瞶︽現Ыゅン玂盞薄鶪莱蹦ゑ耕糴㎝甧г篈ㄆ龟硂贺弘ョ㎝糂紌某┮弧璓
иも娩ョΤ闽璣瓣︽現猭ㄒ舦┦ゅンи獺祔穦Τ硚畖盢硂舦┦ゅンユぉガ現硂ゅン睲贰陪ボ璣瓣ず徽琌笆㎝猭畑ゼゲ﹚猭畑∕ユゅン璝-
谋眔猭畑琌Τ惠璶癸猭畑璶―ョ糴肞矪瞶硂贺弘иョ辨靡翠猭畑㎝ミ猭Ы弧ミ猭Ы︙璣瓣瓣穦ぃ–Ω常眔硂ㄇゅンㄆ龟硂琌璣瓣籔翠舅ぃ璣瓣瓣穦ぷㄤ琌ず徽琌パ磅現囊舱Θ琂礛パ磅現囊舱Θ瓣穦獽︑礛计ヴ︙硂摸某┪ヴ︙まノ舦猭璶―眀ヘ〆穦ョ笵硂琌﹚ぃΘ硂獶舅猭ぃ甧砛钩翠まノ舦猭ョ獶ぃ钩翠矗某宁砫現┎τ琌ヴ︙眀ヘ〆穦畊常笵璣瓣ㄓ弧琌Ч⊿Τ诀穦Θ┮⊿Τㄒぃ琌猭ぃ甧砛τ琌セ現獀瞷龟璣瓣秨ぃㄒ硂琌㎝翠セЧぃ薄鶪
独窥ㄤ军某ョ矗の闽厨ず甧拜肈莱パ计竝竝氮滦耕続ō眀〆穦畊и禗產さΩи俱某琌癸ㄆぃ癸и-
糵綷计竝竝厨琌皐癸êンㄆ辨т靡沮耞Ч琌⊿Τ熬╬
硄盽и琌種Χギ棚某弧猭ぃ筁さぱи玱谋眔耕螟種弧璶瞦代材弧璝︽現Ы祇ē阶璶瞦代杠獽ぃタ絋馋獶粄眀〆穦瞦代衡タ絋盾ミ猭Ы某だи谋眔ョ璶眖眀〆穦à狦弧洪瞦代ョ︳︽現Ы︳ミ猭Ыョ︳現┎
妓︳︽現Ы㎡瓣瓣穦某ぷㄤず徽某-
ぃ虫ゎぃ跟癬ㄓ∕﹚璶ㄓそ秨臛阶㎝そ秨腊磅現囊臛臔∕﹚-
セ⊿踞み㎝┤笵-
稱或弧┤ミ猭Ы穦粇ノ硂兜舦硂ョ琌︳眀ヘ〆穦и-
Τ魁琵и-
琌暗眔ョ︳現┎舦иさぱョ弧現┎セ琌舦搐и-
暗宁砫ウ璝硈宁砫ぃи谋眔Χ某琌び︳現┎舦
иЧ種ガ現Τよ琌籔и-
и-
琌碞﹙ㄆン谋眔琌暗眔ぃ镑獽琌ぃ莱眀ヘ〆穦砞璶―и-
暗或ぃ暗或иョ種琘祘и-
眀〆穦琌璶玡иョ穦盢さぱ臛阶ず甧㎝現┎讽Ы氮勉冈灿╯眀〆穦盢ㄓ璝笿妓ㄆ薄и獺さぱ┮臛阶ず甧癸и-
妓矪瞶琌Τ讽腊谅谅畊ネ
Question on the motion put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr Eric LI claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on Mr Eric LI's motion.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr SZETO Wah, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Dr Philip WONG and Mr David CHU voted against the motion.
Mr CHIM Pui-chung and Mr Paul CHENG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 37 votes in favour of the motion and two votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
ASSISTANCE TO CHRONICALLY ILL PERSONS
MR MOK YING-FAN to move the following motion:
"セЫ玃叫現┎糤癸戳痜眞跋や穿狝叭珹糤戳痜眞碞穨诀穦跋洛励眃確狝叭のや穿戳痜眞︑舱麓祇甶戈方虑э到-
ネ借"
馋莱某璓勉畊ネさΩセ矗Τ闽癸戳痜眞や穿臛阶よ琌辨酬癬穦そ渤癸戳痜眞硂竤闽猔癸-
碞穨竒蕾のみ瞶よΤ┮瞶秆よ讽礛琌辨現┎镑σ納セのЫずㄤ某さぱ┮矗種ǎ荷е﹚現郸竒蕾碞穨確眃单ネ惠璶癸戳痜眞矗ㄑ続讽
ㄤ龟癸戳痜眞や穿セ翠琌拜肈瞷玂︳璸翠Τ窾戳痜眞狦現┎︳璸セ翠ρ癸翠羆ゑㄒ盢穦パ箂13%糤︓箂箂箂15.4%传杠弧セ翠戳痜眞计ョΤ穦繦ρて瞷禜τΤ┮糤礛τセ翠穦褐狝叭ぃ耞眔э到ぇ悔穦の翠┎玱癸戳痜眞や穿Τ┮┛菠戳痜眞よ碞穨︘盝单よ荷猍跌の泊よ-
竒蕾弘のみ瞶ョ眔ぃ程膀セや穿-
ら盽ネ癸螟螟币睛
и稱酵酵碞穨よる痜が舱麓羛幅秈︽兜秸琩陪ボ戳痜眞ア穨瞯蔼笷きΘ碞穨ぇい玥Τぃぶт眔戮よ讽いΤぃぶ戳痜眞痜祇τ綝沟礚瞶秆沟
碞穨セō癸戳痜眞τēΤ伐璶┦礚阶み瞶弘㎝竒蕾常讽璶眖穦瞶├τē碞穨セō琌贺舦ョ琌贺把籔穦癪膍穦禜紉–常ぃ莱ō砰摧摧毁单綝猍跌の筳瞒┪砆玠キ单碞穨诀穦
眖痜眞竒蕾àτē碞穨搭淮痜眞獀痜┮硑Θ竒蕾璽踞痜眞や禥洛励媚のノ珇羭ㄒτē登痜痜–琍戳А惠や干﹀皐禣ノ璝痜眞Τ㏕﹚┪Μ癸-
竒蕾璽踞の胺眃АΤ钡闽玒
阶癸痜眞み瞶の弘よ紇臫い瓣肚参穦⊿Τ戳痜眞產畑い┕┕砆跌贺璽仓玌粂Τお"痜玡礚У"ぷㄤ癸ㄇ獶碔肝產畑τē酚臮戳痜眞龟琌讽癸戳痜眞溃ョパτㄓ痜眞璝痚痜τア沧ら硆痙產い︑碙の︑獺А穦穕讽痜眞祇谋︑ぃ癸產穦ǐ荡隔瓜︑反ネ㏑珿癸痜眞ㄓ弧ぃ虫琌竒蕾穿ê或虏虫琌痜眞弘や琖痜眞镑Τ︑獺の碙腨ㄓ癸ネ痷タ磕穦
礛τ侯芠瞷薄鶪戳痜眞碞穨よ玱粇秆の猍跌埃沟眔沟眞琘贺痚痜τ礚瞶盢ㄤ秆沟ㄒぃ秤计痜眞碝тョ癸ぃぶ螟羭ㄒτē瞷砛現┎诀篶そ犁场のそ常穦戮玡璶―喷ōㄏ赣诀篶┪そセ┯空竨叫琘痜眞沟ス祇瞷沟眞Τ琘贺戳痚痜沟┕┕盿Τ猍跌泊盢痜眞┶窖ㄏ赣盺︗ゼゲ籔痜眞痚痜Τヴ︙闽玒单癸痜眞猍跌伐琌沟セ癸痜眞痚痜Τ粇秆┪ぃ瞶秆┮璓и籔チ常粄沟莱盢痜眞痚痜の┦借σ納龟借惠璶のビ叫蝶糵夹非衡讽
よ瘤礛瞷Τ沟蚌癡璸购の骋矪甶碞穨狝叭ㄢよ戳痜眞т碝硂ㄇ璸购の狝叭玱Τㄤ笲国狠沟蚌癡璸购い瞷┮砞璸揭祘ず甧の┦借┕┕┛菠蒥初惠璶ゼΤ臮の痜眞龟悔薄鶪旧璓痜眞钡蚌癡ご碝т笿讽螟ㄤΩ甶碞穨狝叭よ瘤礛沽刚盡戳痜眞矗ㄑㄇ匡皌逼パ璽砫癸痜眞痚痜ゼΤだ粄醚挡狦琌ざ残倒痜眞ぃ蝴┪┦借セぃ続
挪戳痜眞碞穨笿贺贺拜肈τ癸ㄓ弧碞穨癸-
讽璶┮セのチ癸現┎Τ某
腀種竨叫戳痜眞沟矗ㄑ祙兜搭
耎瞷Τ"確眃戮穨ノㄣ膀"狝叭絛瞅の糤猔戈戈沟糤砞徊祸竟┪虏虫砞琁よ獽竨叫┪膥尿沟ノ戳痜眞
糤のэ到碞穨徊旧籔蚌癡狝叭碞穨蚌癡の蒥初惠―ゲ斗が皌︓蠢痜眞碝т┪锣ざ把蚌癡璸购玡ゲ斗冈灿秆痜眞のㄏΤ痜眞碝т続の蚌癡
現┎场骋矪单莱蹦笆翠沟の诀篶恨瞶崩︽毙▅腊-
秆戳痜眞惠璶の搭ぶ癸-
粇秆︓洛皘┪褐诀篶よョσ納甶Α钡牟沟よ-
秈︽毙▅よ沟矗ㄑ徊埃-
癸竨ノ戳痜眞踞紐
き 現┎莱︑舱麓矗ㄑ纔磃躬纘-
膙щ現┎狝叭┷夹眖τ戳痜眞矗ㄑ碞穨诀穦
せ 程現┎莱糤挤戈方Θミ膀戈︑舱麓のв腀诀篶崩︽碞穨徊旧狝叭の祇甶︑沟璸购
瞷琵и-
锣酵酵戳痜眞確眃のみ瞶徊旧拜肈戳痜眞埃竒蕾碞穨癸讽螟ㄤみ瞶弘の薄狐ョ穦ㄤ┮眞痚痜跑てのぃ獽τ砛≧阑瞷徖ネ臔瞶诀篶┮矗ㄑ狝叭常癸眞痜矗ㄑō砰穿钡獀励τ┕┕淮跌眞弘のみ瞶┮溃の惠璶癸痜眞ネ借ョぶ瞶穦τ確眃狝叭よ狝叭絛瞅璶栋い畓醇の端摧ō戳痜眞玥盽砆船狝叭癸禜ぇ挡狦旧璓砛戳痜眞瞷︑炳渡┪ア癸穦癸盢ㄓ玦
ㄤ龟戳痜眞み瞶の薄狐耑ㄤい琌-
癸︑ō痚痜⊿Τだ硓过瞶秆洛ネ⊿Τì丁痜秆睦ㄤ┮眞痚痜洛励筁祘の紇臫琌痜眞產畑の穦や眖τ癸ネ㏑猭のㄤ基芠玻ネ跑て
璶戳痜眞秆∕薄狐弘のみ瞶拜肈и-
谋眔斗眖ㄢよもи-
璶―現┎糤洛叭も瞷洛叭癸痜ゑㄒ琌1癸90龟伐ぇぃìもの戈方Аぃì薄鶪洛叭瞷矪瞶ㄇ候痜竒蕾惠璶τゼ痜矗ㄑみ瞶徊旧单よ狝叭ㄆ龟痜眞籔痜眞ぇ丁が渡禗だㄉ癸-
ネ瞶のみ瞶胺眃腊锚盡穨ぃì徖ネ褐诀篶ずセ礚猭踞ヴ笆舱麓à︹の搭淮戳痜眞薄狐の弘溃
埃糤洛叭の盡穨もゑㄒи璶―現┎糤癸痜︑舱麓戈瞷痜︑舱麓穦ш簍讽璶à︹碞琌干現┎洛励の褐狝叭诀篶癸戳痜眞酚臮ぃìぇ矪斗笵ㄓ礚阶產畑挡篶包︗单常Τ┮锣跑筁┕包┕┕璶ш簍產畑酚臮à︹璽砫酚臮產畑いρ畓┪Τ炒產畑Θτ產畑计よョ┕┕Τきせ︗Θ克妮闽玒讽盞ち礛τ穦镣羉篴包︗ら亥矗蔼ぇ悔ㄢ兜Τ┮э跑挡狦ρ畓┪盿痜┕┕產畑酚臮薄鶪︑舱麓の穦璝倒ぉ瞶や癸眏痜眞︑祇揣讽璶ノ瞷场だや穿戳痜眞︑舱麓戈方薄鶪現┎龟Τゲ璶糤癸硂ㄇ舱麓穿疭琌竒蕾よ
程и稱酵酵瞷現┎そ渤毙▅よタセ┮矗の蒥チ㎝沟癸戳痜眞秆ぃì癸痜眞玻ネ粇秆┪猍跌セ粄現┎Τ惠璶縩伐崩約跋の洛臔醚毙▅躬纘蒥チ癸戳痜眞闽猔硓筁糤蒥チ癸痜眞醚ㄏ-
倒ぉ痜眞翴闽胔籔弘や钡-
籔炊硄妓琌穦だ
锚丁闽玒Τ闽癸戳痜眞竒蕾穿よ拜肈и穦チ︗Θ郭Θ某セ量瓃
セ略朝勉矗某
Question on the motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has given notice to move an amendment to this motion. Dr LEONG Che-hung has also given notice to move an amendment, not to the motion, but to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's proposed amendment. The amendments have been printed on the Order Paper and Members have been advised by circulars issued on 19 April and 23 April respectively. I propose that the motion, the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment be debated together in a joint debate.
Council shall now debate the motion, the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment together in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr LEE to speak and to move his amendment to the motion, and will then call upon Dr LEONG to speak and to move his amendment to Mr LEE's proposed amendment. After the joint debate, we will first vote on Dr LEONG's amendment to Mr LEE's amendment, then on Mr LEE's amendment, whether or not amended by Dr LEONG's amendment, and last on Mr MOK's original motion or his motion as amended by the previous amendments, as the case may be. I now call upon Mr LEE to speak and to move his amendment.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN's amendment to MR MOK YING-FAN's motion:
""戈方""莱洛励硋兜Μ禣"の"虑""搭淮戳痜眞竒蕾璽踞㎝"
某璓勉畊ネи笆某タ馋莱某某タず甧某ㄆ祘ずи┮更
さぱи矗タㄤ龟琌к某琌矗眶タ琌辨ビ璶―現┎洛励硋兜Μ禣現郸︙и弧硂琌к某㎡ㄤ龟Ν玡ミ猭Ы竒硄筁︙庇古某兜某璶―現┎硋兜Μ禣現郸現┎寂璴Α兜и璶к某現┎Ч⊿Τ碙ミ猭Ы计種ǎи硂Ω矗侣ㄆ琌辨矗眶現┎Ч篗綪硋兜Μ禣現郸
さぱ臛阶и谋眔琌璶–常穦痜ㄤ龟琌だ畓ッ环ぃ笵痜臸︙穦ㄓ羬︑ō產刚稱钩ぃ┋眞痜秈洛皘竒琌埂痜臸肺减玱礛丁祇瞷ㄓ┮钡洛励狝叭琌斗硋兜Μ禣俱產畑痜臸耑临璶癸洛励禣ノ璙и-
穦ぃ癸戳痜眞⊿Τ琁ì镑穿も临璶-
竒蕾璽踞и-
み︙г㎡
и谋眔虏虫ㄓ弧硋兜Μ禣現郸碞琌"禭痜だō產"螟笵硂獽琌и-
洛励現郸盾и獺徖ネ褐祔祇ē穦矗êρ腹碞琌翠洛励狝叭"穦絋玂ぃ莱Τ竒蕾τ眔ぃ続讽洛励狝叭"ぃ穦絘τ眔ぃ禘獀硂だ瞶狦и硂ぇ爹竲獺獽は琈現┎璙ㄨぇ矪ê爹竲碞琌"ぃ莱Τ竒蕾τ眔ぃ続讽洛励狝叭ぃ逼埃Τ璶渡產亢玻ㄓ传続讽洛励狝叭"Τ某弧"ē琌肛㎡"и稱籔產癬瞷疭琌現┎祔穦矗の穿
蓟嚎ㄈ膀弧穦腊Τ惠璶и-
刚硂穿诀︙笲硂穿膀ビ叫兵ン琌材肂ぃ禬筁產畑い︗计材產畑纗籛ぃ禬筁┮惠洛励ノ珇τ產畑纗籛璸衡よ猭琌ぃ瞶穦琌き產畑產畑ы┪產畑夹非常琌妓и纯璸衡祇瞷ㄤいΤ抡よ碞琌ㄓ硂產畑纗籛肂耕侯穿ビ叫临璶腨临璶候產稱钩硂妓穿诀ぃ甧Θビ叫
и刚羭ㄒ狦璶杆み纽癬婚竟基15,000じ玥璶產畑纗籛禬筁45,000じ獽ぃ莉眔穿狦纗籛痷禬筁45,000じ獽璶眖45,000じ纗籛澄15,000じㄓ硂琌は琈и┮弧璶渡產亢玻㎡琌"禭痜だō產"㎡セōΤ计窾じ纗籛ぃ衡現┎ぃぃ穿临璶眞痜掸縩籛и谋眔瞷俱龟戳痜眞璽踞び筁↖
拜肈琌┮弧蓟嚎ㄈ膀–莉眔200窾じ挤蹿のΜ硂琌現┎硂200窾じノЧ獽氨ゎ癸戳痜眞穿ぃ瞶穦-
挡狦Τ惠璶痜眞砆┶窖
現┎竒盽眏秸翴琌硋兜Μ禣砰瞷"︑"玥艼钮癬ㄓ"︑"钩瞶拜肈琌甅ノ或ㄆ薄狦琌︘皊┍Α洛励痜┬璶―êㄇ"︑"и稱⊿Τ穦は癸狦甅ノ禣毙▅璶︑厩禣и獺俱穦常穦は癸硂現┎ぃ矗ㄑ膀セ毙▅妓"︑"甅ノ膀セ洛励狝叭矗ㄑよ琌ぃ瞶洛励琌膀セ穦狝叭⊿Τ稱ネ痜痜碞﹚璶眔禘獀硂琌程膀セτ硋兜Μ禣玱笻は洛励琌膀セ狝叭硂贺弘カチ穦拜и-
Τ煤祙蹿︙眞痜玱ぃ眔膀セ洛励狝叭临璶и-
"︑"瞷硂妓腨璙僚ㄤ龟计"ゴ"常穦砆跌┮孔""-
穦谋眔-
煤祙蹿眞痜临璶砆現┎璙掸窥琌ぃ瞶ㄆ龟カチ煤ユ祙蹿┪癪膍穦莱Τ舦瞶戳現┎矗ㄑ程膀セ穦狝叭
程и-
瞷┮弧Τ闽Μ禣疉の1货じ膀セ180货じ洛恨Ыや琌ぶ计ヘ癸痜ㄓ弧玱琌掸芠蹿兜и辨產闽猔瞷俱ㄆ龟穦戳痜眞戳┯↖竒蕾璽踞
и辨產やиタ
Question on Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment proposed.
PRESIDENT: I now call upon Dr LEONG Che-hung to speak and to move his amendment to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG's amendment to MR LEE CHEUK-YAN's amendment:
""""盢兜"の"硋兜Μ禣""瞶て珹僚竒蕾Τ螟Μ禣""
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I rise to move my amendment to Mr LEE's amendment as printed in the Order Paper. As Mr LEE has just mentioned and Members will recall that an almost similar motion on abolishing all itemized charges with immediate effect was moved by the Honourable Michael HO last May when similarly I also moved a comparable amendment. My amendment then was defeated by two votes, thanks to the disappearance of the three voting government officials. Today, I presume my amendment will face similar fate. Yet, I would appeal to Members to look at the argument with raison.
Since the debate in May 1995, the Hospital Authority has already abolished the charges for nine privately-purchased medical items. Very specific guidelines were also given to facilitate application to the enlarged Samaritan Fund. I hope the Secretary for Health and Welfare would elaborate on this and also refute the argument put forward by Mr LEE just now. So I entirely agree that this is not enough. For many of those who have chronic illnesses, they will need further assistance. Yet, to abolish all irrespective of the situation and the financial assessment, either for the rich or the poor, does not stand to reason. Through a blanket abolition of itemized charges, it implies that a completely free public medical service will be given to all, the poor and the billionaire alike. It implies also that Hong Kong should be moving into a socialized medical service, a proven disaster in countries which have attempted to practise it. Mr President, through such a blanket abolition, more and more, even affordable patients, will be attracted into our public hospital services. The recent scenes of camp beds again in many public hospitals tell the story. It will not be long before we will return to the dark ages of long waiting list, cramped hospital wards and disgruntled staff. Furthermore, Mr President, experience has shown us and Mr LEE has just mentioned that also, that a call for total abolition is a call that the Government will not act on no matter what the voting result today may be. Let us therefore be pragmatic. I personally would like to call on the Government to further rationalize the itemized charges and to include complete waiving of such charges payable by those who have financial difficulties. For those of you who really want to support our chronically ill patients pragmatically, properly and expeditiously, you should support my amendment.
I would like to turn now to say a few words on the original motion which I fully support, in particular, community support services for the chronically ill and I will be stressing on the importance of self-help groups and the lack of commitment on the part of the Government to have these groups properly supported.
Mr President, as I have been involved in taking care of the sick and sometimes the chronically sick, I am well aware of their suffering physically and mentally. Often times, they face discrimination socially and in seeking employment. Often times, they feel helpless as they have no way to share their feelings with anybody else.
Community support and self-help group are therefore vital because through coming together and through the concept of "痜鸡", they are able to seek solace from others with the same problem, often getting comfort from the fact that they are not alone and getting encouragement from those who have been suffering from the same problem for even longer.
Through bulk buying, for example, these self-help group patients often get cheaper rates for disposable medical appliances they frequently need. Their families too often benefit not only from comfort, but also understanding the problem of the disease much better.
Mr President, over the last decade, through the enthusiasm of the patients and their families and with the keen support from the medical profession, more than 60 such mutual help bodies have been established, all running on donations and their own expenses. With the establishment of the Hospital Authority, many hospitals have taken an interest and the lead to link their own patients. Again these are established and run not on government or Hospital Authority's funding, but through kind donations raised by the hospitals themselves. The announcement of the Financial Secretary that some eight Patients and Carers Resources Centres will be established with some $6 million is, therefore, welcomed and a step in the right direction. Yet, there are two areas that we should not overlook.
Firstly, the Government should not lose sight of the existing patients' self-help groups and hospital patients resources centres. Ways and means must be introduced to have these well-running bodies financially supported to encourage improvement. Just because they are in function and doing well is no excuse for the Government to shirk its responsibilities.
Secondly, the details of these new eight Patients and Carers Resources Centres should be clearly worked out through consultations with the existing groups. It would be a farce if these centres so established have low utilization rate simply because they are in less accessible locations or they are not providing services in line with the needs of the chronically ill. The embarrassment of the elderly health centres which are so poorly subscribed should never be repeated.
Mr President, in the White Paper on Rehabilitation released less than a year ago, the Government repeated its previous consent to set up five Community Rehabilitation Network centres by 1998-99. The first such centre opened in Sheung Wan in 1994 to the jubilation of many self-help groups. Yet, both the first and second ones are still running on lottery funds, rather than regular government subvention. The fate of the others are still to be determined. In short, the whole project appears to be stalled because of the lack of financial resources, not much only some $5 million a year that would benefit more than 50 000 patients. Will the same apply to the promised eight new patients and carers resources centres?
I do hope that the Government will look into all these angles and I would appeal to Members to support my amendment to the amendment made by Mr LEE. Thank you.
Question on Dr LEONG Che-hung's amendment to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment proposed.
独綺笽某璓勉畊ネ癸胺眃ㄓ弧琌璶癸篊┦痜眞Τ璶ぃ腊-
竒蕾礚斗ㄌ綼そ穿稬痢腊τ璶ㄏ-
蝴︑碙㎝︑獺ㄏ-
谋眔ご礛琌タ盽钉ヮだ堡篊┦痜眞碞穨よ常螟τ程ㄢㄓ俱骋笆カ初ぃ春薄鶪ア穨瞯胟ど篊┦痜眞讽礛癸螟
妓腊篊┦痜眞碞穨材и-
惠璶腊痜蝴胺眃搭ぶ叉玻钡獀励丁ㄒ登痜痜狦钡﹀睪硓猂獀励玌嘿瑍登叉玻丁碞穦ぶ钡浮的硓猂獀励堡ヘ玡翠現┎矗ㄑ﹀睪硓猂瑍登狝叭ご礛ぃì狦Τ干﹀皐ㄏ-
⊿Τê或砲﹀-
碞ぃ穦ê或痟Τ弘暗ヘ玡洛恨Ы硋兜Μ禣ぃ腀痜禣矗ㄑ糤ネ﹀瞴縀狝叭﹚璶痜︑や禣ノ讽禥ㄤ龟穦癸痜眞確穨糤锚
材и-
莱э到痜眞痁ユ硄狝叭琵-
よ獽痁瞷臟ㄤ龟莱э到狝叭琵砰端摧ㄏノ確眃ぺヘ玡セぃì酚臮碞穨惠―沮и-
秆瞷確眃ぺ㏕﹚隔絬竒盽"脄醋"ǎ痜眞ㄤ龟惠璶硂摸ユ硄狝叭
材痜眞ぃㄌ綼沟薄ㄓ竨叫-
-
ゲ斗Τмぇㄌ綼硂мぇ眔τ硂贺м砃ゲ斗琌カ初┮惠璶現┎ゲ斗痜秨快疭癡絤揭祘続-
ō砰惠―腊-
だ祇揣肩ヘ玡痜眞硄盽щ禗戮穨癡絤Ы㎝骋矪ゼ硂よ矗ㄑì镑狝叭戮穨癡絤Ы莱赣э到の糤揭祘の厩︗莱ヘ玡篊┦痜眞惠―骋矪莱眏甶м砃舱祇甶ㄏ痷タち龟腊痜眞τ獶琌矗ㄑ┮孔┦戮穨ざ残硂贺狝叭ゼゲ程続痜眞惠―ヘ玡骋矪甶м砃舱ビ叫祘筁だ羉狡癸痜眞硑Θぃ獽硂よョ莱赣荷秖э到
材沟ぃ竨ノ痜硄盽琌癸痜ぃ秆-
痚痜穦肚琕倒ㄤ┪穦ㄏㄤΤみ瞶┪よ紇臫ㄤ龟и-
惠璶倒ぉ毙旧沟礚斗Τ硂よ踞紐沟踞み痜陈沸ぃ秤ヴ盽惠痜安τぃ戮┪︽ǐぃ獽甧端┮ぃ竨叫硂ㄇ痜眞硂ㄇ踞紐獶礚笵瞶沟ョ琌竨ノ痜眞祇瞷硂ㄇ臮納龟琌筁だ肛骋矪莱赣眏肚腊痜眞続莱穝戮︗沟ぃノΤ硂よ踞み
ㄤ龟ぃ╬骋笆カ初ぃ竨叫篊┦痜眞龟悔現┎沟いΤ2.2%琌畓狦ぃ璸衡︹碞Τ1.7%τв腀褐诀篶碞澈礛辅Τ1.1%畓沟パǎ現┎в腀诀篶洛恨Ы㎝ㄤそ犁诀篶常莱赣璹﹚睲贰ヘ夹の璸购盿繷竨叫篊┦痜眞-
痷タ把籔獺痜眞ㄤ龟琌т
и-
辨現┎笵痜眞⊿Τㄤ龟琌よ拜肈莱砞ミ〆穦ぉ浪癚璹ミ絃現郸ㄏ痜眞钩胺眃妓ㄉΤ局Τ︑碙
朝挪狶某璓勉畊ネ徖ネ褐﹛の洛皘恨瞶Ы"洛恨Ы"璽砫竒盽穦癸肚碈某┪叫腀眏秸"ぃ莱Τ窥τぃ莉眔続讽洛励"硂腞┯空τ硂ョ琌箂硄筁洛皘恨瞶Ы兵ㄒい兜璶兵ゅ
ぃ筁癸翠瞷计禬筁26窾戳痜眞τē硂ㄇ场常琌腞晾ē籔ㄤ弧"胺眃碞琌癩碔"ぃ弧"Τ癩碔传胺眃"禟ち
洛恨Ы烈丁そミ洛皘筁碭常竒禣ぃì瞶パ琘摸痜紉Μ禥洛励ノ珇Θセτ硂ㄇ痜い戳痜眞﹡ㄤい璶珹み纽痜登痜の闽竊痜单痜硂贺暗猭セō獽笻璉舅厨祅┮孔–ぱ︘皘60じ浪喷獀励刊のも砃А莱禣膀セ弘セЫ某ョΩ癸ボぃ骸洛恨Ыぃ⊿Τ抖莱チ種はτる┏そガ兜洛励Μ禣琌タē抖盢筁ぃ瞶Μ禣跑Θ┮孔"猭て"猭ぃ碞单瞶硂ㄇ硋兜Μ禣秨や┮瞣疉肂パ计κじ︓计窾じぃ单パ荡场だ惠璶尿钡獀励戳痜眞А⊿Τ铆﹚Μ虫綼稬痢侯穿┪ㄇ稬戮Μ硂掸蔼洛励禣ノ癸-
ㄓ弧碞畉ぃ琌ぱゅ计
ソ戳登癐很戳痜眞ㄒパ–ぱ惠璶钡计Ω玌嘿"瑍▄"獀励ぃ眖ㄆ戮﹀灿璏ネΘ璓瞷砲﹀瞷禜斗–琍戳猔甮︓ㄢΩ"干﹀皐"基璸衡–や干﹀皐惠500じ–る秨や獽笷3,000じぃぶ痜眞パΜΤ圭腀斌ゴ干﹀皐τ砆┯贺砲﹀盿ㄓ礹璚
矗常琌戳痜眞いà瘤礛洛恨Ыガ靔闽竊の砲﹀痜眞筁耾竟Μ禣︙ぃ痜洛皘穦綝笿ぃ洛励癸㎡琌埃瓃摸痜ㄤㄒ登痜砾痝み纽痜单痜碞璶綝洛恨Ыぃ癸㎡
ㄤ龟洛恨Ыそ秨璶紉Μ兜Μ禣い┮Μ肂Τ8,000窾︓1货じオ癸洛恨Ы–钡200货じ挤蹿┮ゑㄒセぃì0.5%硂跋跋蹿兜洛恨Ы玱︑ゴ糒ぺ稰谋痜穦竒蕾螟τ眔ぃ莱Τ獀励
徖ネ褐穦弧翠┎竒竒蕾Τ螟痜砞ミ蓟嚎ㄈ膀┏膀挤蹿2,000窾じ璹の糴膀蝶︳非玥礚好沮現┎そガ计ビ叫蓟嚎ㄈ膀计Τ碩ど镣墩ㄤい︓き计碞耕︓糤┮瞣疉肂ど笷せぃ筁パ膀ビ叫㎝兵ンぃ璙ㄨτ伐ぇ耑チ硂琌┮ビ叫ㄏ筁闽辟盢才產畑い︗计㎝纗籛临璶–Ω洛励惠璶矗ビ叫癸戳痜眞τē埃璶钡痚痜耑临璶–琍戳ǎ矗ユ靡┮惠┯溃㎝弘耑痚痜肺减τ糤璽踞
畊ネ徖ネ褐セㄓ┯空┏玡∕﹚洛励磕戈拜肈环秆∕よそガ兜Μ禣崩弧琌祏戳惫琁穦ず﹚环現郸иち龟辨翠┎镑┮Τ硋兜Μ禣搭淮┮Τ痜ぷㄤ琌戳痜眞竒蕾璽踞痷タ暗ぃ穦Τ痜竒蕾螟τ眔ぃ莱Τ獀励
畊ネセ略朝勉や某タ
霉璓某璓勉畊ネи-
ノ"罽癌"籔"罽‵"ㄓ甧現┎癸戳痜眞確眃現郸"罽癌"ㄒǎ現┎癸跋確眃呼蹈篈"罽‵"ㄒǎ現┎癸︑刮砰ミ初
現┎癸跋確眃呼蹈狝叭篈ア辨辩醇翬某Τ矗の現┎確眃フブず"現┎穦σ納︓ぇ玡赣┮戈癟狝叭いみのき丁跋確眃呼蹈いみ矗ㄑ戈"ぃ筁現┎羆琌ぃ稱┯空┮ョ"斗跌蝶︳挡狦の琌Τ戈方ㄑ笲ノτ﹚"硂弧琌現┎砮"罽癌"弧猭ㄆ龟跋確眃璸购ЧΘㄤ蝶︳╯挡狦陪ボ狝叭ぃ戳痜眞ネ続莱ョЧ才Θセ痲搭ぶ戳痜眞洛皘Ω计籔ら计┮ㄓ洛励狝叭戈方ゑノ跋確眃呼蹈戈方临璶現┎瞷┯空戈ㄢ丁跋確眃呼蹈いみ璶戈材丁陪フブ览戈き丁いみヘ夹ア辨琌材丁いみセㄓ箇衡綠恏砞ミ祇甶筁祘いよ常荷逼埃跋猍跌戳痜眞溃いみ抖秨甶讽秨﹍辅龟ㄣ砰璸购祇谋現┎常波┛戈方拜肈瞷戈ㄢ丁いみ璶戈綠恏いみ硂ぃフ禣よ籔現┎は猍跌ミ初┮传ㄓêㄇ猍跌戳痜眞籔糐
確眃厚ブい現┎矗"Θミ︑刮砰斗倒ぉ戈方㎝盡穨よ"贺膀"矗ㄑ琌惠璶"琌現┎き玱"罽‵"硂戈︑刮砰某フブいア眔礚紇礚萝戳痜眞︑刮砰虑だㄉ竒喷㎝ユ传戈癟狝摸拜肈ぃ玃秈戳痜眞が弘崩秈狝叭э到戈疭琌Θミ戳︑刮砰祇甶獽穦伐現┎龟ぃ莱発磷硂よ砫ヴ
︓碞穨拜肈独綺笽某癚阶иぃ狡ぃ筁иョ稱眏秸翴碞琌и-
莱戳痜眞碞穨矗ㄑ続讽や穿瞷戳痜眞碞穨┮癸螟籔猍跌ぃ紇臫-
確眃籔ネ禣穦戈方
︓某Τ闽硋兜Μ禣タチ囊琌だや︙庇古某矗某臛阶纯秈︽臛阶莉眔讽ミ猭Ыや硂ミ初ョ琌戳痜眞筁┕计ㄓ璶ヘ夹ぇ
セ略朝勉
郭Θ某璓勉畊ネиチ碞Τ闽癸戳痜眞竒蕾穿场だ干翴種ǎ
瞷戳痜眞┮眔竒蕾穿璶眖ㄢ硚畖莉眔琌蓟嚎ㄈ膀戈ㄤΩ琌侯穿摸癸洛励ノ珇戈ㄢ贺硚畖癸戳痜眞ㄓ弧ビ叫も尿常伐羉狡痜眞┕┕璶竒筁糵筁祘烩ぶ穿
材Τ闽蓟嚎ㄈ膀硂膀ビ叫も尿の戈るら穝璹礛τ穝璹痜眞螟眔穿も尿砏﹚ビ叫ゲ斗才ㄢ兵ンビ叫–る產畑羆Μ璶產畑い︗计ㄤ產畑纗籛ぃ禬筁┮惠潦洛励珇璝ビ叫產畑纗籛ぃ禬筁痜┮惠洛励ノ珇禣ノㄢ玥ビ叫僚璝纗籛ㄢぃ禬筁杠玥穦ユパ洛叭の痜﹚だ踞禣ノゑㄒ
癸痜眞ㄓ弧硂ㄇ兵ン㎝常琌ぃ瞶のぃ﹜材瞷產畑ㄏ產畑禬筁い︗计常ぃê產畑Τ璽踞酚臮戳痜眞產畑Θ洛励秨や
材瞷痜眞產畑纗籛砞Τ逼ㄤ龟⊿Τ続讽盢產畑计の產畑疭薄鶪珹ず產きㄒㄏㄤ纗籛Τ5窾じㄤネ借玱ゼゲゑ產畑ΜΤ4窾じ產畑筁眔碔肝現┎璹ミ纗籛陪礛⊿Τ盢產畑计籔ネ借闽玒σ納絛瞅チ某現┎浪癚逼続讽э
材瞷痜璝璶莉眔膀や穿ゲ斗–Ω洛励惠璶矗ビ叫羭ㄒㄓ弧璝痜眞眞Τ登痜惠璶–琍戳ゴ干﹀皐ê或痜眞獽惠璶–琍戳ǎ洛叭矗ユ靡俱祘穦痜眞螟τ癶︓┑粇痜獀励筁祘
材糵у膀筁祘い⊿Τ砞ミ続讽禗诀ス洛ネの洛叭ぃу琘ㄇビ叫痜眞⊿Τ硚畖秈︽禗癸痜眞ぃそキ
Τ闽侯穿瑉禟よ瞷侯穿璸购いΤ兜妮疭瑉禟摸珹–る祇竒盽洛励禣ノのΩ筁祇洛励確眃のも砃ノ珇瑉禟礛τ硂ㄇ瑉禟ビ叫も尿妓羉狡痜璶乖やΤ闽蹿兜ビ叫矗ユ厨基虫单靡ゅン传ēぇパ痜秨﹍︑鼻竬钡媚┪洛励珇獀励︓痷タ莉眔戈惠璶ぞ丁硂癸ち惠璶竒蕾穿痜眞ㄓ弧龟琌禣アㄆチ某現┎荷秖虏てビ叫уの祇瑉禟も尿戳痜眞眔の瑉禟㎝腊
Τ闽洛励硋兜Μ禣チや某タи-
戳痜眞埃ビ叫穿笿ぃぶ螟洛励硋兜Μ禣痜眞璽踞↖瘤礛現┎耕Ν玡そガ穦碞兜洛励ノ珇の媚紉Μ禣ノ硂贺璹﹚Μ禣よΑよΤ猍跌琘摸痜ぇ尔よΜ禣竡瘤兜洛皘繦兜いまビ计兜ㄓ络﹚硂ㄇΜ禣非玥称穦借好痜"颤"龟琌ヴパ甠澄礚眖ビ禗
羆珹τē瞷戳痜眞矗ㄑ穿笲瞷砛国狠羉狡祘┕┕癸ビ叫よ痙螟チ璶―現┎穝浪癚瞷Τ穿ビ叫戈ㄏΤ惠璶痷タ莉眔穿璶―現┎ミ洛励硋兜Μ禣
セ略朝勉や馋莱某某
辩模┚某璓勉畊ネи谋眔現┎眖ㄓ⊿Τ盢確眃狝叭讽琌砫ヴτ確眃現郸ご氨痙毕蕾芠├琌弧癬碞毕Τ︓Τ禕ぃǎ璶墩ぃ瞨疨碞ぃ毕絵は稰よ琌現┎寂璴ㄇ拜肈澈礛ㄏ氮莱龟︽玱ご⊿Τ糹︽┯空癸戳痜眞ヘ玡現┎碞琌癸-
"跌τぃǎ钮τぃ籇"
きる現┎祇眃確現郸の狝叭フブ碞⊿Τ盢戳痜眞狝叭癸禜ㄏ戳痜眞ㄓ癸↖洛励璽踞㎝碞穨螟の跋狝叭-
跋把籔穦
痜眞常琌ネ╈登痜砾痜縸Э痜い砲﹀痝齿の縩剐痜单戳痜癸痜の產ㄓ弧常琌伐ㄤ↖ゴ阑-
琂琌だ礚禿礚猭発磷現┎龟Τ砫ヴ腊-
钡ㄆ龟粄醚痜鶪み瞶-
琵-
﹚︑基よ腊-
щ穦и粄讽玡叭琌荷е糤砞跋確眃呼蹈いみ堡翠瞷Τㄢ丁獶パ現┎钡戈跋確眃呼蹈いみ窾戳痜眞辨砍鼓
眃確現郸の狝叭フブ矗現┎穦σ納︓玡き丁跋確眃呼蹈いみ矗ㄑ戈玱弧"斗跌蝶︳挡狦の琌Τ戈方ㄑ笲ノτ﹚"現┎┕┕碞琌尺舧痙Τも⊿Τ戈方虑τぃ倒ぉヴ︙穿и-
瞷跋確眃呼蹈いみご璶硋ビ叫膀やパ獽現┎癸砞ミ跋確眃呼蹈港種Τぶ
畊ネи辨硓筁さぱ臛阶琵現┎Τ┮眶窥琌璶ノぃ琌璶ㄓ猋洁現┎畐┬ヘ玡Τ秖緇獽莱ノㄓ祇甶胺眃瞶穦戈砞ミ跋眃確呼蹈いみ琌荡癸璶の瞶睝礚好拜現┎洛皘砞Τ痜戈方いみΤ洛叭痜︘皘戳丁矗ㄑ琌痜е獽璶瞒秨洛皘癸憨ネ跋確眃呼蹈いみ倒瞒秨洛皘戳痜眞矗ㄑ玃秈︑и酚臮㎝笷種ǎの惠璶ㄒ矗ㄑ癡絤腊-
穝щ穦Τ戳痜眞莉眔続讽ōみ徊の碞穨腊穦搭淮璽踞玃秈-
癸穦癪膍硂妓現┎衡ЧΘ癸戳痜眞砫ヴ
ㄓ⊿Τ現┎戳痜眞︑舱麓癬ㄓがや硂ㄇ︑舱麓笆珹洛皘贝砐戳痜眞栋砰潦禦洛励竟の媚珇羭快胺眃毙▅量畒の秈︽眃贾笆单硂ㄇ皐癸ぃ痜痝τ舱Θ︑舱麓癸秨秆戳痜眞玃ㄏ痜の產搭淮み瞶溃琌獶盽Τ腊τ眔狦ョ獶盽▆堡パ戈方︑舱麓羮螟矪挂矗ㄑ狝叭и辨現┎穝蝶︳ㄤ砫ヴ㎝à︹戈硂ㄇ︑舱麓倒-
矗ㄑや穿ウ-
瞷程ち惠璶琌穦のゲ惠笲竒禣狦璶硂ㄇ︑舱麓膥尿笲и辨現┎ぃ璶掇莱挤蹿ぉ琵ウ-
镑戳痜眞矗ㄑ狝叭秆∕-
瞷┮癸惠璶
沮16戳痜眞︑舱麓秈︽秸琩陪ボ戳痜眞竒蕾穿︘跋や穿狝叭ユ硄ユの薄狐徊旧よ常綝現┎戳┛菠癸戳痜眞狝叭の戈ぃì琌ぃㄆ龟眖硉糤砞跋確眃呼蹈いみ琌戳痜眞瞷惠㎝龟璶―и-
辨現┎镑港種测钮矗ㄑ穿荷硉干纕筁癸戳痜眞莲ろ辨現┎Гē癬︽腊戳痜眞ㄏ-
ぃノ戳礹璚
法У地某璓勉畊ネ翠そ洛励狝叭Τì祇甶ㄤいぷ︘皘酚臮洛皘恨瞶Ыэ到礚阶秖㎝借ㄢよΘ罿琌眔嘿砛ぃ筁︑パ囊粄パ現┎洛励現郸﹚︗家絢洛励Μ禣э陪眔Ю挡狦瞷ぃ瞶瞷禜︑パ囊癸辩醇翬某矗闽瞶てタи-
琌粄
"⊿Τ竒蕾瞶パτぃ莉獀励"硂琌翠┎砮嘿洛励現郸タタ琌現┎そ洛励Μ禣砞┏絬
翠菌ㄓ洛励琌Τ―禘╬犁洛励礚現┎砞呼
ㄓそ洛励狝叭竒禣糤借艼礛胟どΜ禣ゼΤ莱矗蔼セㄓΤ竒蕾痲呼锣泊跑滴続ǔまуセㄓΤ︑臮パ╬犁洛励锣щそ犁砰╰
呼セ琌褐阀├パ祙や絘璚膀セネ㏑璶―稧基そ洛励ス跑チㄉ膀セ舦甧瞷砲絘絬场だ瞶Ёだノ矗ㄑぉ砲絘絬ぶ计戈方程︽秆∕よ猭琌ぃ竒蕾兵ン痜璹﹚ぃ瑉禟碩τ現┎购呼┏絬狦琌瞶杠и-
獺そ渤琌や
祘эσ納┪瞶σ納琌рそ洛励狝叭购だΘ候籔獶候┦㏑я闽籔獶┦㏑я闽の碔籔獶碔单せ摸現┎碞ぃ舱璹ぃ戈诀ㄒ候τ珸毕ネ㏑祇ネ種ㄆ珿端ぃ拜砲碔禣毕獶候τ珸毕ネ㏑戳痜眞妮硂摸砾痝и-
粄砲璚蝴蔼瑉禟Τ窥膀セ瑉禟τ狦琌獶候τ籔ネ㏑⊿Τち闽玒ㄒフず毁单玥蹦砲絘蔼瑉禟Τ窥玥ぃぉ瑉禟τр纔舦琵倒砲璚痜硂ㄇ篶讽い临Τ灿竊璶約獂癚阶
︑パ囊さぱ臛阶い穦や某癸辩醇翬某Τ闽рΜ禣瞶てタи-
穦や㎝粄ぃ筁и-
ぃや兜"ち"璶―Μ禣タи-
辨現┎碞戳痜眞拜肈╯甅环︽そ洛励や穿現郸
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊ネ戳ㄓ現┎常┛菠戳痜眞惠璶痜眞计玱ぃぶ虫戳痜τ惠璶皘钡獀励Ω碞Τ26窾ㄤ惠璶戳滦禘︳璸戳痜眞翠羆だぇ琌現┎簔跌计渤戳痜眞龟琌パ"谋"跑Θ"戳谋"
パ戳痜眞Τㄤ疭螟珿惠璶疭狝叭τが呼蹈タ琌〓-
惠璶埃龟借媚獀励み瞶や穿癸痜のㄤ產獶盽璶︓癸ㄤ痜薄祇揣紇臫ノ痜が呼蹈琵"痜鸡"痜のㄤ產羛么癬ㄓがΑユ瑈竒喷の┘やㄒ筹砾痜┕┕惠璶も砃ㄓ北砾灿璏耎床玱惠璶ㄤ妓痜ㄒ痜倒ぉやの獺み钡も砃ㄒ眞Τい砲﹀痜ㄠ担–边常璶秈︽ブ猔甮τ產酚臮獶盽硓筁渤產だㄉ籔ユ瑈癸拜肈の碝―ㄎ秆∕よ猭ョ穝痝ㄠ担產続莱挂τ洛臔┕┕ぃのΤ竒喷產笵︙眞痜搭礹璚痜が呼蹈龟Τ基の祇甶ゲ璶
ㄤ龟現┎穦褐現郸セㄓ粄跋が舱麓Θ玱ぃぉ戈痜稱碝―玱砆"竕も竕竲"現┎硂妓"醚量醚暗"螟笵碞琌"戳谋"紉
安璝現┎ぃ稱暗"戳谋"莱龟悔︽笆﹚戳痜眞跋が舱麓現郸珹戈秨砞跋呼蹈穦のㄤ笲籔祇甶Т到戮絪矗ㄑ狝叭程ぶ珹贺盡穨穦瞶獀励畍臔㎝み瞶厩產单
戳痜眞┕┕ㄤ痜鶪τ綝猍跌沟常┶荡竨叫戳痜眞┪琌竒祇瞷獽ミ"緖辰"馋弧ら盽洛媚禣硈ネ璸Θ拜肈瘤礛Τ玂毁戳痜眞摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ莉硄筁玱現┎ゼΘミキ单诀穦〆穦τぃ磅︽戳痜眞ㄌ礛砆玠碞穨诀穦骋矪碞穨狝叭ョ⊿Τ莱戳痜眞惠璶τ矗ㄑ続讽碞穨徊旧
璶秆∕戳痜眞┮癸螟現┎场常Τ砫ヴ穦褐竝莱э跑ㄤ玂ち龟祇甶戳痜眞跋が呼蹈の舱麓現叭莱硉Θミキ单诀穦〆穦辅龟摧痚猍跌兵ㄒτ骋矪玥莱э到ㄤ碞穨徊旧闽臮戳痜眞碞穨薄鶪
畊ネセ略朝勉
朝篴篱某璓勉畊ネ沮現┎戈陪ボ惠戳ㄌ綼媚獀励戳痜眞Τ26窾珹眞Τ砾痝登痜▁痜单痜眞眖き兜秸琩陪ボ砆砐いΤ28.9%眖ㄆら41.6%痜眞Ч⊿ΜΤ6.4%烩侯穿
戳痜眞碞穨拜肈癸﹚螟ヘ玡蚌癡Ы挤蹿κ窾じ︑せる癬矗ㄑ獶﹚戳┦蚌癡璸购籔洛皘戮穨獀励场戳痜眞矗ㄑみ瞶徊旧σ納薄鶪逼钡蚌癡璸购硂璸购琌痷タ腊戳痜眞㎡硂惠璶硂兜揭祘秈甶ヘ玡翠ア穨瞯蔼薄鶪狦沟や厩竒蚌癡荡ぃ甧тセ璶―現┎皐癸硂拜肈糤蚌癡戈竨ノ竒蚌癡戮沟矗ㄑ干禟の祙叭纔磃現┎莱ō玥竨ノ戳痜眞
翠瞷Τ窾ρ硋亥ρてρ计秖ぃ耞糤繦穦羉篴㎝洛厩祇笷キА关㏑眔┑碞さぱ臛阶и临稱酵酵ρ戳癸挂
ㄓ翠⊿Τ俱甅ρ現郸癸ρ狝叭ǎぃ現┎场パ⊿Τ癶ヰ玂毁ρ癶ヰ场だミアΜ竒蕾繦穦瞷螟ネ炒挂瘤礛い瓣ㄓ崩盧緄ρ穛ρ芠├膀翠贺瞷龟薄鶪璓ρ縒﹡吏挂伐碿︘┮い珹泞狾丁┬侣恏虫︗单Τㄇ蔼闹ρ蝴程膀セネ砆膥尿寥稬痢眔鸡羱硂贺薄鶪桂ǎぃ翧и-
盽盽ǎㄇρ╈痜畓ō逻猽刁磅珺═砒ブ絚иぃ窽璶拜翠穦▆㎝砫ヴ稰и-
碞琌硂妓癸ǒ对骋笆计ρ盾
畊ネρ眞痜诀穦耕τ┕┕┑筐碞洛-
癸痚痜粄醚ぃì竒蕾兵ンろㄎ粄痜陈沸翠⊿Τì镑玂胺狝叭箇ň┪┑絯ρ痚痜祇ネヘ玡眞Τ篊┦痚痜㎝戳眞痜ρョ眔ぃ甅ㄣ┑尿┦┪Т到洛励臔瞶沮Τ闽刮砰秸琩ρキА璶ノら丁近現┎禘╬產洛ネ禥Μ禣ㄏρ辨ぇ玱˙現┎洛励癸ρ酚臮ぃìρゼㄉ莱Τ洛励狝叭ま"ノ︑"玥秈︽洛励硋兜Μ禣ρネ琌κょ︓"糘紀"搭ぶ洛ネΩ计┪痜碞ぃ洛ネ薄鶪闽猔セ粄洛励狝叭莱ρ矗ㄑ疭纔磃酚臮ρ竒蕾璽踞のよ獽
き︳璸励緄︗近虫笷臔瞶ρ皘近虫禬筁1窾砞屡バのホ谄Юㄢ丁ρ胺眃いみ龟ぃ骸ì80窾ρ惠璶沮戈陪ボ瓃ㄢ丁胺眃いみㄏノ计玱のㄓ砏购琌肚の崩約ぃìρ┕惠の︽笆ぃ獽┮璓Μ禣秈︽ō砰浪琩单胔好戈方笲ノ絋ち┦セ璶―現┎浪癚ρ胺眃いみㄣ砰笲ㄏ戈方ノ眔ㄤ┮
翠酚臮ρ現郸跋酚臮港礛计ρ辨痙剪眡吏挂讽い璶ρ痙跋ずゲ斗砞ミ摸跋や穿狝叭ㄒ眃臔跋いみ单玥穦ㄏρ膥尿縒﹡の﹖ミ礚現┎莱ぃ跋办砞ミ胺眃いみ
畊ネセ略朝勉
︙庇古某璓勉畊ネиや某タи辨き匡羭某礚斗︗﹛よ某瞒畒笲タ碞墓
チ囊粄現┎莱赣矗ㄑ┮Τゲ惠洛励狝叭и-
ぃ钡硋兜Μ禣逼и-
ぃ猍跌琘ㄇ疭痜ㄒ㎝痜狦痜眞ぃ痜痝τ斗ぃ禣ノ硂琌ぃそキ羭ㄒㄓ弧瞷︽兜Μ禣い現┎弧璶Μㄇ耕禥ノ珇禣ノㄒ硄み纽﹀恨ぃ筁狦籔拉╝êㄇ秈︽计Ωも砃の-
︘瞏ち獀励场计ぱゑ硂ㄇノ珇獽ぃ琌び禥虏Чぃ矗阶畊ネ硂獽琌и-
玥狦痜皘礚阶眞或痜璶や60じ︘皘禣獽莱珹┮Τや狦眞琘贺痜痝τ斗肂煤禣硂妓龟悔э跑и-
Μ禣玥㎝現郸チ囊荡ぃ種現┎矗ㄑㄇ獶ゲ璶狝叭ㄒ罛订獽琌ㄒи-
ぃ種現┎矗ㄑ硂贺狝叭
︓蓟嚎ㄈ膀某碞祇種ǎミ猭Ы徖ネㄆ叭〆穦きるせら癚阶Τ闽ㄆ兜и辨產畊冈癚阶ㄆ龟渤Τ闽Μ禣拜肈璶常琌籔洛励磕戈㎝現郸Τ闽狦現┎らゼ镑睲捶弧洛励磕戈逼и-
獽酚瞷硂妓碞洛励現郸–场だ秈︽臛阶τぃ俱砰╯и-
洛励磕戈逼㎝Μ禣現郸и辨現┎荷е秈︽洛励磕戈㎝Μ禣現郸浪癚
程и稱莱辩醇翬某タ矗"瞶て"拜肈ㄤ龟и谋眔癚阶"瞶て"硂拜肈弧单フ弧或琌"瞶て"и-
玡┮弧Τや獽璶や禣ノ挡狦程沧產常ぃ笵臛阶ㄇ或狦и-
Μ禣現郸琌カチōだ靡秈皘獽斗や60じê或ゼΤ穝現郸玡碞ぃ莱э跑
畊ネセや某タは癸辩醇翬某タ
PRESIDENT: I now invite Mr LEE Cheuk-yan to speak for the second time on the amendment moved by Dr LEONG only. This is in keeping with the spirit in which the House Committee recommends speaking time for Members, since after the joint debate Mr LEE will not have the opportunity to speak on Dr LEONG's amendment to his amendment.
某璓勉и稱虏虫莱材タ︙庇古某┮弧иЧ辩醇翬某タ┪钮絵辩某祇ēゼフ︙孔"瞶て"琌粄瞷Μ禣ぃ瞶┮璶рウ跑瞶ㄇиセō種ǎ虏虫碞琌硋兜Μ禣硂現郸セ碞ぃ瞶┮ぃ瞶て
材и谋眔Τ翴Τ届碞琌辩某弧狦硋兜Μ禣穦êㄇΤ常そミ洛皘―禘瞷ガиぃ笵琌穞ボ瞷╬產洛皘匡チ"ネ種"秨﹍ろㄎぃ筁и玱谋眔硂はτ琌ンㄆ硋兜Μ禣穦ㄏㄇ╬產洛皘盢Μ禣и獺癸翠禣︓琌êㄇΤ禣常琌ンㄆ膙跑眔粿疨Μ禣痷穦"瞶て"琌╬產洛皘Μ禣"瞶て"
程и谋眔狦龟︽硋兜Μ禣現郸穦瘆胊現┎Μ祙セō癸カチ┯空и粄Τ莱赣Τ戈㎝舦ㄏノそミ洛皘狝叭τぃ莱赣-
Ττぃ-
ㄏノ
PRESIDENT: I now invite Mr MOK Ying-fan to speak on the two amendments. You have five minutes to speak on the amendments, Mr MOK.
馋莱某璓勉畊ネи稱ㄢ︗碞и某矗タ某璓谅膀セ-
癸и某琌ぃэ某琌莱赣硋兜Μ禣現郸τ辩醇翬某玥矗"瞶て"拜肈
Τ闽硋兜Μ禣硂拜肈и獺產常癘眔セЫき纯竒碞秈︽臛阶硄筁某璶―硂現郸徖ネ褐龟莱赣ミ猭Ы┮硄筁よ龟琁現郸礛τ︗某常睲贰ボ現┎ぃ⊿Τ繦硂よ琁現临计兜Μ禣兜ヘ硂贺︽癴琁よΑチ琌Чぃやи-
穦や某タ
︓辩醇翬某タタи┮弧и-
琌ぃ穦や硋兜Μ禣現郸ぃ筁и獺狦某⊿Τ某い硋兜Μ禣現郸辩醇翬某穦やи某
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I am grateful to Members for offering their valuable insight and ideas on possible ways in which we can improve the quality of life for chronically ill patients. A number of points covered in this debate touch upon employment, to which my colleague, the Secretary for Education and Manpower, will respond separately.
Let me first of all refer to medical care. Chronically ill patients are a special group requiring regular medical assessment and treatment from the private or the public sectors. In the public sector, all our general clinics operated by the Department of Health are providing these patients with a full range of preventive and curative services, referring them for specialist treatment as and when necessary. Our new Unit Medical Records System, which allows for the systematic storage and retrieval of clinical information complemented by an appointment system providing for the advance booking or follow-up consultation, has also served in many ways to enhance the continuity of care for our chronically ill patients.
In addition to investigations and medication, chronically ill patients receive health education and counselling through group health talks and video shows on a variety of different topics. Those suffering from the same illness are encouraged to form patient groups to facilitate experience-sharing and mutual support.
With the same spirit in mind, the Hospital Authority (HA) has set out in its annual plan, 1996 to 1997, a number of new initiatives to strengthen the medical care for chronically ill patients and to improve the support for community carers. These initiatives include two additional rehabilitation co-ordinating teams and four additional specialist medical teams to provide outreaching services as well as eight Patients and Carers Resource Centres to promote the concept of self-help. Additional facilities will be available in the Hospital Authority Head Office building currently under construction for use by community organizations and patients' groups.
Apart from infrastructure support, self-help groups may also apply for grants from the Health Services Research Fund or the Health Care and Promotion Fund to implement projects aimed at promoting the welfare of chronically ill patients. We believe this is the best way to achieve the greatest impact in promoting the interests of chronically ill patients.
The increased popularity of self-help groups and the rapport developed among patients will provide a very useful forum from which medical needs of chronically ill patients could be gauged in shaping our policy in the provision of medical services.
On community services, some Members have urged us to provide and improve the level and scope of supporting services for chronically ill patients. The Community Rehabilitation Network of the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation is a successful example to show how voluntary agencies can complement the services provided by the Government through group work, by social gatherings and educational programmes for patients and their families. The Network comprises two centres in East Kowloon and Hong Kong Island at the moment, with a third centre being planned for West Kowloon. It would be prudent for us to evaluate the effectiveness of this new service in the light of experience to assess future demand and to minimize the potential duplication with other community services before contemplating any expansion through an injection of public funds.
As part and parcel of our efforts to safeguard the interests of chronically ill patients, those who are in a position broadly equivalent to 100% loss of earning capacity due to total disablement will be eligible to receive a disability allowance of $1,125 each month, or a higher rate of $2,250 each month if in need of constant attendance. The disability allowance is a non-contributory and non-means-tested allowance, aiming to assist families caring for a disabled member. For those chronically ill patients in financial need, they will be eligible for the means-tested Comprehensive Social Security Assistance at a standard rate of up to $3,545 a month to meet basic needs such as food and clothing. In addition, special grants are paid to meet other needs such as accommodation and medical appliances. They will also receive treatment free of charge at public hospitals and clinics. Others in need may apply to the Samaritan Fund for partial or full assistance.
Several Members referred to the need to examine the procedures involved in application for grants from the Samaritan Fund. I can assure Members that we will keep the procedures under close review and propose suitable improvements where necessary.
Some Members have raised the need to provide an equal social status for chronically ill patients. This spirit is enshrined in the Disability Discrimination Ordinance which provides a comprehensive redress system in areas of life where people with a disability may face discrimination, harassment or vilification. These cover employment, education, transport, access to buildings and services, participation in professional organizations, clubs and sports. Anyone who is facing discrimination may take their complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission or direct to the courts in the event that conciliation fails. The law will in itself perform a public education function to complement our other efforts to educate the public to understand the needs of people with a disability and to accept them warmly into our community.
Regarding medical examinations, it is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance to impose special information requirements on people with a disability. In other words, employers cannot ask such people for information they would not ask of people without a disability. As for information of a medical nature specifically, an employer cannot ask a prospective employee to provide such information unless it is necessary to determine if the candidate would be unable to carry out the requirements of the job concerned or would require special services or facilities to take up the job.
Medical fees and charges has often been the subject of debate in this Council, and I do not intend to rehearse all the relevant arguments except to reassure Members that we are examining carefully this complex issue in the context of our health care financing strategies. In doing so, the Government is conscious of the need to safeguard our established principle that no person should be prevented from obtaining adequate medical treatment through lack of means, to focus available resources on those in genuine need for subsidized medical care, and to ensure that the private sector can continue to play an effective role.
Before closing, however, I should clarify one point which a number of Members have mentioned, and that is the point concerning itemized charges. Members have referred to itemized charges on many occasions. These are in fact items required by patients for their different medical conditions which they have to purchase themselves. This has been the practice for quite a long time, and certainly before the HA was set up. These should not be confused with the itemized charges put forward in the public consultation document in 1993.
Those are my remarks, thank you, Mr President.
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネ現┎闽猔戳痜眞碞穨惠璶暗ぃぶи-
穦膥尿戳痜眞矗ㄑ碞穨诀穦
Τ碭︗某矗の骋矪甶碞穨狝叭и稱冈灿秆睦骋矪甶碞穨êㄇ镑踞ヴそ秨┷竨戮︗摧痚珹戳痜眞逼甶碞穨砞ミ戈畐纗続戳痜眞碞穨戈矗蔼碞穨匡皌㎝逼碞穨狝叭Θ
ㄏ穦フ戳痜眞ㄣ称甶碞穨ЧΘ"端胺碞穨玭戳痜眞"ま秆睦贺戳痚痜眏秸戳痜眞ㄌ礛Τ㎝矗眶沟璶猔種ㄆ兜ㄏ戳痜眞沟镑糤獺み祇揣┮
戳痜眞琌甶碞穨璽砫ㄤい摧痚舱糤摧痚碞穨诀穦τ秈︽肚㎝毙▅笆常穦臮の戳痜眞碞穨惠璶硂ㄇ毙▅笆珹沟羭快癚穦砐拜沟ノ摧痚沟籹碞穨虏癟の喘摧痚沟㎝-
沟羭︽箋贱搂赣竒籹称栋いざ残戳痜眞穝甶狾穦羭︽瑈笆甶凝籔ざ残摧痚甶狾甶
и矗"端胺碞穨玭戳痜眞"ま瞷タ癳ぉ沟穦㎝沟и-
贾種р硂ま癳倒闽猔硂拜肈某
ㄓ甶碞穨籔璓玃秈戳痜眞褐㎝舦痲︑舱麓候盞砞猭糤戳痜眞碞穨诀穦
Τ某粄沟蚌癡Ы戳痜眞т碝よ笲Τ国狠и稱坚睲沟蚌癡Ы硂よΤ▆Θ罿ㄒレ‵洛皘琌沟蚌癡Ыㄤい丁蚌癡诀篶赣Ыレ‵洛皘矗ㄑ竒禣秨快兜盡戳痜眞τ砞沟蚌癡揭祘硂兜揭祘琌Τ闽いゅゅ矪瞶㎝ゅ瞷ゎΤ44厩钡蚌癡ㄤい28т琌ゅ┦借沟蚌癡Ы瞷タσ納р硂兜揭祘耎甶︓ㄤ洛皘埃疭砞璸揭祘戳痜眞讽礛ョ㎝ㄤ摧痚妓厨弄ㄤ蚌癡揭祘ㄒ筿福璣粂炊硄杠㎝锣穨繟舗揭祘
現┎瞷タ秨﹍浪癚沟蚌癡璸购и-
穦浪癚贝癚戳痜眞蚌癡よ惠璶
谅谅畊ネ
Question on Dr LEONG Che-hung's amendment to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Dr LEONG Che-hung claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendment moved by Dr LEONG be made to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's proposed amendment.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: One short of the head count. Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH and Mr Ambrose LAU voted for the amendment.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr YUM Sin-ling abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 10 votes in favour of the amendment and 27 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
PRESIDENT: Now that Dr LEONG's amendment has been negatived, we will take a vote on Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment.
Question on Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr Fred LI claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendment moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan be made to Mr MOK Ying-fan's motion.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Howard YOUNG and Miss Christine LOH voted against the amendment.
Mr Ambrose LAU abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the amendment and nine votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
PRESIDENT: Mr MOK Ying-fan, although your original motion has been amended by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment, you are still entitled to reply and you have three minutes 28 seconds out of your original 15 minutes.
馋莱某璓勉畊ネい瓣Τ弧杠"痜琌褐"狦癸戳痜眞ㄓ弧獽ぃ琌褐τ琌篏礹綝笿徖ネ褐㎝毙▅参膚常钵羘弧-
戳痜眞暗ㄆ孔癪膍▆ぃ筁и辨-
さぱ硂┮弧杠А镑ゼㄓ瞷
и辨現┎穦疭痙種癸戳痜眞が舱麓戈拜肈瞷現┎倒ぉが〆穦900じ戈︓穦ㄇが〆穦恏矗ㄑ穦и谋眔現┎莱赣σ納戳痜眞ノ︑╬丁盿痜ぇōㄤ痜狝叭硂贺弘眔現┎倒-
戈ㄏ-
Τが舱麓и辨現┎硂よち龟σ納竒蕾-
矗ㄑㄇ瑉禟ㄏ-
Τㄑ笆穦のㄇ続讽戮-
秈︽Τ闽
Question on the motion as amended by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Dr LEONG Che-hung and Mr MOK Ying-fan claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I am sure that Members all know that they are now called upon to vote on the question that Mr MOK Ying-fan's motion as amended by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment be approved.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Still one short of the head count. Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI and Mr Howard YOUNG voted against the motion.
Miss Christine LOH abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the amended motion and six votes against it. He therefore declared that the amended motion was carried.
ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT SITTING
PRESIDENT: In accordance with Standing Orders, I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 1 May 1996.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 24 April 1996
158
ミ猭Ы せるら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 24 April 1996
157
ミ猭Ы せるら