OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Wednesday, 22 May 1996
せきるら琍戳
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 MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
琖皇某Q.C., 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
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
法此某
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 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
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
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
綠癡某
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
癩現砛くネ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 MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
現叭甝喘ネC.B.E., J.P.
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
竒蕾拷琖ネJ.P.
MR NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
舅ㄆ叭篴ネ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 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 LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
そ叭ㄆ叭狶坟ネJ.P.
MRS LESSIE WEI CHUI KIT-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
癩竒ㄆ叭畗间祸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.
Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Regulation 1996 191/96
Building (Oil Storage Installations) (Amendment)
Regulation 1996 192/96
Places of Public Entertainment (Amendment)
Regulation 1996 193/96
Building (Planning) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 194/96
Building (Construction) (Amendment)
Regulation 1996 195/96
Building (Standards of Sanitary Fitments,
Plumbing, Drainage Works and Latrines)
(Amendment) Regulation 1996 196/96
Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance 1996
(19 of 1996) (Commencement) Notice 1996 197/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Apportionment Ordinance) Order (C) 45/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Crown Leases Ordinance) Order (C) 46/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Crown Lease (Pok Fu Lam) Ordinance) Order (C) 47/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Crown Rent and Premium (Apportionment)
Ordinance) Order (C) 48/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Civil Aviation (Births, Deaths and Missing
Persons) Ordinance) Order (C) 49/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Dangerous Goods (Consignment by Air)
(Safety) Ordinance) Order (C) 50/96
ゅン
ゅン沮穦某盽砏材14(2)兵砏﹚τタΑ矗ユ
兜ヘ
妮猭ㄒ 猭そ絪腹
1996繧媚璹砏ㄒ 191/96
1996縱纗猳杆竚璹砏ㄒ 192/96
1996そ渤甌贾初┮璹砏ㄒ 193/96
1996縱砏购璹砏ㄒ 194/96
1996縱硑璹砏ㄒ 195/96
1996縱徖ネ杆竚恨
逼祘の碯┮夹非璹砏ㄒ 196/96
1996祙叭璹兵ㄒ1996材19腹
1996ネら戳そ 197/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セだ舥兵ㄒ (C) 45/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ﹛兵ㄒ (C) 46/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
﹛痢н狶兵ㄒ (C) 47/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
祙の基だ舥兵ㄒ (C) 48/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
チネのア萝兵ㄒ (C) 49/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ繧珇Λ笲
兵ㄒ (C) 50/96
Sessional Paper 1995-96
No. 82 Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1995
き︓せ穦戳ず矗ユゅン
材82腹 щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦き厨
Address
Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council 1995
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), may I present the IPCC's Annual Report for 1995.
The IPPC is an independent advisory body appointed by the Governor to monitor and review the investigation of public complaints directed at the police. Whilst the investigation work is carried out by the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force (RHKPF), the results of investigation, together with all the relevant CAPO files and documents are examined in depth by the IPCC, which is supported by a full-time secretariat. A case will not therefore be finalized until the IPCC has endorsed its investigation results.
In 1995, the IPCC reviewed and endorsed a total of 3 195 complaint cases involving 4 633 allegations. Of these, assault, over-bearing impolite conduct/ abusive language, neglect of duty/improper action, unnecessary use of authority and fabrication of evidence constituted the bulk of the complaints with assault cases topping the list, representing some 38.4% of the total number. Of the 4 633 allegations endorsed, 732 were resolved by what is called informal resolution; 133 classified as "Substantiated" or "Substantiated other than Reported"; 23 as "Not Fully Substantiated" (previously known as "Not Proven") I will explain what all this is about afterwards; 720 as "Unsubstantiated"/"Curtailed"; 70 as "False"; 2 837 as "Withdrawn/Not Pursuable" and 118 as "No Fault".
The IPCC often raised queries on CAPO's investigation reports in the course of its deliberations. A total of 442 queries were raised in 1995, part of which led to the reclassification of some 35 cases. Arising from the investigation results endorsed by the IPCC, criminal proceedings, disciplinary and other forms of internal action (including advice and warnings) were taken against 221 police officers in 1995.
Other than the scrutiny of investigation reports, the IPCC also dealt with other major issues in 1995, including studies and reviews as well as reforms of the police complaints machinery.
With regard to studies and reviews, the IPCC conducted comparative study visits, in conjunction with the Security Branch and the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, to a few cities in North America in the latter part of 1995, also to Australia, Japan and Singapore in the recent few months. The study aims at drawing on experience from other countries with a view to improving the police complaints system in Hong Kong. To help foster reforms to the complaints system, the IPCC also proposed and the Administration agreed in 1995 to second a directorate Administrative Officer for six months to the IPCC to review CAPO's procedures. This officer was appointed in January this year and the review is still in progress.
In 1995, the IPCC completed reviews on the reterming of "Not Proven" classification to "Not Fully Substantiated", and the subjudice procedures. The "Not Proven" classification has caused considerable confusion to members of the public who are not acquainted with the terminology used in the police complaints system. Literally "Not Proven" means there is no substance in the complaint, whereas in actual fact when the classification is used by CAPO, it implies that "there is some reliable evidence to support the allegation made by the complaint but insufficient to fully substantiate the complaint". The proposed terminology of "Not Fully Substantiated" is therefore in line with the Chinese term of "Not Proven" 礚猭Ч靡龟.
To turn to other activities, the IPCC understands that the Administration aims to introduce the draft bill to make the IPCC a statutory body to the Legislative Council within 1996. The IPCC has deliberated on the draft a few times and agrees that notwithstanding areas of concern which will be further deliberated and, needless to say, also deliberated in this Council subsequently, this bill will provide a necessary legal framework to preserve the present IPCC system. To improve its monitoring role, the IPCC continued to interview witnesses in 1995 to clarify matters directly with them. By the end of the year, a total of 21 witnesses were interviewed. The IPCC attached equal importance to the publicity of its activities and the prevention of complaints. A logo design competition was organized in 1995 to boost the public understanding of the work of the IPCC. As a result of IPCC's proposal, and later sponsorship, the RHKPF actually successfully organized a "Courteous Police Officer" Selection Scheme to promote police image.
Towards the end of 1995, the IPCC decided to enhance its monitoring role by introducing the Observers Scheme. Under the Scheme, IPCC members would observe CAPO's interviews with witnesses or the conduct of scene visits. The Scheme has been put on trial for 12 months since April this year.
Before I end, Mr President, I would like to express my appreciation, on behalf of the IPCC, of the valuable contribution made by yourself before you were made President and also to Mr Benjamin WONG Pui-tong, JP whose terms of office with the IPCC expired on 1 January this year. I would also like to thank the Commissioner of Police and his staff in CAPO for their co-operation during the year.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
United States Special 301 Law
1. 糕蚌┚某拜畊ネ碞瓣現┎禩程穝浪癚厨沮瓣疭301猭盢翠"ㄤ芠诡"摸菏诡虫現┎讽ЫセЫ
(a) 讽Ы癸"ㄤ芠诡"摸瞶秆︙
(b) 讽Ы癸翠Ω砆菏诡虫Τ︙癸郸の
(c) 穦σ納钡牟ㄤ砆"ㄤ芠诡"摸瓣產┪跋獽羛莱
坝氮畊ネ瓣禩る┏祇疭301猭厨い瓣粄Τ竒蕾砰╰瓣產の跋⊿ΤЧ到玂臔醚玻舦┪ゼ琵醚玻舦惠玂毁瓣そキ把籔蒥初笆赣厨р硂ㄇ瓣產㎝跋だ摸癸醚玻舦玂毁程ぃì镑瓣產┪跋"纔瓣產虫"ㄤΩ琌"纔菏诡虫"程琌"菏诡虫"赣厨ョΤ"ㄤ芠诡"场だ沮и-
瞶秆硂场だ蝶阶Τ闽薄猵獶虫и-
笵瓣禩硂场だ矗⊿ΤだΤ玂毁醚玻舦薄猵称闽猔瓣產硂场だョ矗の16瓣產の跋祇甶の箇戳秈甶τ翠琌ㄤいぇ
疭301猭厨祇и-
碞翠砆"ㄤ芠诡"场だボア辨и-
瓣現┎弧翠現┎ミ猭㎝磅猭よ竒蹦㎝盢穦膥尿蹦兜縩伐︽笆羆服程地脖箉砐拜ョ瓣現┎蔼糷﹛眏秸翠穦玂臔醚玻舦ガ現る地脖箉砐拜ョ盢穦肚笷妓獺
и-
ぃゴ衡籔"ㄤ芠诡"场だㄤ瓣產㎝跋钡牟羛莱и-
粄硂妓暗ぃ琌程讽よ猭и-
獺膥尿玂籔瓣現┎钡癸杠琌龟悔Τよ猭
糕蚌┚某拜畊ネ渤┮㏄翠琌程碙㎝宽︑パ禩跋坝璶氮滦材琿の程肚碈羆服瓣⊿Τそ秨秆睦翠ミ初眏秸瓣だ蝴臔醚玻舦坝氮滦琌種羆服㎝現┎┯粄翠硂よ暗眔ぃì種瓣暗猭临琌肚碈厨笵ぃ睲贰и辨坝秆睦
PRESIDENT: Mr CHIM, do you mean, would the Secretary explain? Secretary.
坝氮畊ネ翠現┎ぃ粄и-
玂臔醚玻舦よ暗眔ぃ镑ㄆ龟瓣現┎疭301猭厨い疭眏秸-
笵翠現┎玂臔醚玻舦よ暗縩伐穦膥尿タ矪瞶ㄇЙ锚醚玻舦祍┪ㄤ笆и璶氮滦いи睲贰弧羆服ネセる玡┕地脖箉穦ǎ瓣蔼﹛ㄤい珹坝叭场(Secretary for Commerce)纯冈灿秆睦翠現┎玂臔醚玻舦よ┮暗贺︓Τ闽肚碈厨笵и獺糕某穦種翠琌獺︑パ穦иぃ碞肚碈厨笵蝶阶
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, I think the business community is very disappointed at the fact that Hong Kong is now put under the "other observations" section by the United States Government. Although the Secretary mentioned that we are not as bad as the other lists, "priority foreign country", "priority watch list", and the "watch list", the fact remains that before this we were simply not on any list and now we are on this so-called "other observations". Now during our meeting with Mr Lee Sands, USTR, one of his main......
PRESIDENT: Would you please come to your question, Mr TIEN?
MR JAMES TIEN: Yes, I will. The main concern that Americans have is not about the intellectual property right infringement in Hong Kong itself, but the fact that a lot of exports going around the rest of the world happen to go through Hong Kong.
So the question I want to ask the Secretary is, according to the second paragraph of her answer which stated "the vigorous action already undertaken and will continue to be undertaken", whether the Hong Kong Government will have new initiatives and legislation or any other action taken to make sure that the transhipment of these illegal products going through Hong Kong could be stopped?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, indeed the Government, with the agreement of this Council, late last month passed a new piece of legislation called the Intellectual Property (World Trade Organization) (Amendments) Ordinance. That Ordinance has already come into effect and the provisions that are now being implemented include two specific ones aimed at tackling the problem of pirated products being exported through Hong Kong from another place to the rest of the world. The Ordinance also empowers copyright owners to apply to the court for detention orders to detain products suspected of infringing copyright at our borders with China. It is my belief that with these addition legal instruments available, both to the Hong Kong Customs as well as to copyright owners, Hong Kong should be in a better position to tackle transhipment problems relating to copyright piracy.
In addition, the Hong Kong Customs has also stepped up co-operation and liaison with the relevant authorities in mainland China. The Hong Kong Customs held three very useful meetings, both with the Guangdong provincial authorities as well as with the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone authorities. I think there is now agreement between both sides to exchange information and intelligence, to organize more exchange visits as well as seminars, and to the extent possible, to conduct co-ordinated operations. I think only less than a week ago, Customs mounted a very successful, co-ordinated operation at Man Kam To. In that operation, Customs was able to seize over 20 000 copies of pirated products.
Disposal of Seized Relics
2. MRS ELIZABETH WONG asked: With regard to the seizure of relics imported illicitly into the territory from mainland China, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how it disposes of such relics; and
(b) of the number of pieces which were returned to the Chinese Government in the past year, and the reasons therefor?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, under section 18 of the Import and Export Ordinance, imports of relics to and exports of relics from Hong Kong are illegal if they are not properly manifested. Such acts are subject to a maximum penalty of a fine of HK$2 million and imprisonment for seven years. The unmanifested relics will be seized and liable to forfeiture. They will be directly forfeited to the Government if there is no claimant or, if there is a claimant, they may be forfeited by a court order or returned to the claimant as appropriate, after the hearing of the application by the claimant.
Once the goods are forfeited to the Government, they will be subject to the disposal of the Government upon the completion of all court proceedings. In the spirit of close cross-border co-operation between Hong Kong and China, arrangements will be made to return relics smuggled into Hong Kong from China to the Chinese authorities. In 1995-96, 1 059 pieces of relics with a total estimated value of $64 million have been returned to China.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, we should not be aiding and abetting the plunder of any national culture or treasure. Can the Secretary tell us what is meant by her "properly manifested"? It is because according to a book written by David MURPHY entitled "Plunder and Preservation: Cultural Property Law for PRC", China has indeed very tough laws on smuggling of relics and it is entirely possible that the whole area of relic might come under the umbrella of foreign affairs after 1997.
PRESIDENT: Were you making a statement after the initial question?
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: In fact, I am asking whether the Secretary can elaborate on her terminology in the first paragraph "not properly manifested"? I do not understand what she means by "properly manifested", how properly is properly?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, under section 18 of the Import and Export Ordinance, every carrier or importer is required to submit a form which, I believe, in the trade is called a manifest. On that manifest, the carrier or importer is required to state clearly and explicitly the products being carried or being imported into Hong Kong. This is what I meant when I said "properly manifested" in my main reply. If the Honourable Member is interested, I can, of course, give her an extract of section 18 of the Import and Export Ordinance.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I am indeed not satisfied with the Secretary's reply. I think she has entirely missed the point. Many people in Hong Kong are worried that after 1997 ......
PRESIDENT: Mrs WONG, I have no wish to see this turning into a debate.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, may I rephrase my question. Does the Secretary consider that there is a need to impose sanctions and prohibit the sale of Chinese relics in her terminology of proper manifestation?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, if I understand the question correctly, there is provision for both payment of fines as well as sentencing under the Import and Export Ordinance in the event that a carrier or importer is found and convicted by the court of failing to submit a manifest to the Hong Kong Customs.
Renminbi as Currency in Circulation in Hong Kong
3. 霉不瓣某拜畊ネ挪セ翠禫ㄓ禫箂扳坝┍钡臮チ刽蹿潦現┎セЫ
(a) 癸セ翠ㄏノチ刽蹿潦の箂扳坝┍秈︽チ刽传笆現┎現郸㎝Τ闽猭ㄒ︙の
(b) Τ籔い瓣現┎坝癚舦耴チ刽Θセ翠瑈硄砯刽ぇ┦璝Τ冈薄︙のΤ︳璸チ刽翠舦耴戳瑈硄薄猵
癩竒ㄆ叭氮畊ネ
(a) 翠礚猭ㄒ砏恨ㄏノチ刽┪ヴ︙刽蹿潦禦芥蛮よ┘種ㄏノ㎝钡ヴ︙贺砯刽场だ︽︑パカ初竒蕾よ禦芥蛮よ︑︽匡拒︙贺砯刽秈︽ユ
传チ刽┪ヴ︙刽箂扳穨叭砯刽传坝兵ㄒ┮砏恨玂毁禣Τ闽坝ぃ讽も猭传砯刽沮赣兵ㄒ砯刽传坝ゲ斗甶ボ瞓蹲瞯のゲ斗沮璹Α秨ミ眎更Τ兜璶戈ユ虫沮ㄑ臮絋粄
(b) и-
ぃ窽ゎチ刽翠瑈硄のㄏノτい璣羛羘㎝翠疭︽現跋膀セ猭А睲贰弧翠疭︽現跋現┎︑︽璹砯刽磕現郸ぃ籔い瓣現┎坝癚チ刽翠瑈硄┦拜肈
и-
礚ヴ︙絋沮ノㄓ︳璸瞷のチ刽翠瑈硄秖ぃ筁и-
獺癸翠刽瑈硄秖τēΤ闽计肂礚阶瞷┪盢ㄓ常穦灿
霉不瓣某拜畊ネ沮琎ぱ翠琘厨彻锣瓃瞏靡ㄩ厨祅絞い瓣チ蝗︽琘﹛ゅ彻ゅい某い瓣現┎莱荷е璹︙翠㎝瞏砯刽が瑈硄現郸......
PRESIDENT: Dr LAW, please come to your question.
霉不瓣某拜叫拜現┎癸い瓣チ蝗︽赣﹛某Τ︙瞶秆Τ笆籔い瓣Τ闽场秈˙坚睲ㄆ
癩竒ㄆ叭氮畊ネи⊿Τ筁霉某┮矗ê厨彻厨笵ぃ筁и竒矗翠疭︽現跋盢ㄓ︑︽璹砯刽の磕現郸┮и-
獺礚斗籔い瓣現┎坝秖チ刽翠瑈硄拜肈︓Τ闽砯刽い瓣ず瑈硄拜肈硂琌い瓣現┎ㄆи-
粄翠現┎ぃ莱箇
Establishment of Correctional Services Staff at Whitehead
4. 独岸藉某拜畊ネ沮厨笵セるらフホ差チ犁祇ネ奶睹ㄆンΤ胓毙竝纯砆碞現┎セЫ
(a) フホ犁らの讽も絪︙ㄆ祇讽边Τぶ胓毙竝犁ず讽
(b) 胓毙竝フホ犁ずΤ︙ň忌杆称ㄒ礟ň忌︾狝单ㄑㄏノの赣单杆称计秖︙
玂氮畊ネ
(a) フホ霹痙いみタ盽逼琌だらㄢ讽ら㎝АΤㄢ痁近传磅︽ǖ呸玂の犁ら盽戮叭ら–痁Τ80玥–痁Τ60Τ210戮タ盽快そ丁痁矗ㄑ犁ずㄤ狝叭Τ60戮犁ず踞ヴ痙盝㏑戮叭ㄆ祇讽边胓毙竝纯竒糤秸20戮犁ず眏ǖ呸㎝犁ず玂秸30戮踞ヴ痙盝㏑戮叭
(b) フホ犁ず贺ぃň忌杆称珹妒瞈竛牡匆㎝礟单
独岸藉某拜畊ネиゼ矗干借高玡叫畊ネ璶―玂氮и璶借高(b)场だ场Τ闽计秖よ﹟ゼ氮谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: I only have a copy of your original question in hand. Was the last part of your supplementary included in your revised question?
独岸藉某拜畊ネ琌氮и借高(b)场だ玡场场だ拜硂ㄇň忌杆称计秖琌ぶ硂よ琌ゼ莉氮滦и稱叫畊ネ璶―玂氮и矗и干借高
PRESIDENT: Secretary, the numbers.
玂氮畊ネフホ犁ず┮ň忌ノ珇タ盽薄猵琌ì镑琌玂瞶パи-
ぃ辨びそ秨硋ン翴衡琌狦独某Τ砍届杠иㄤ初籔冈灿渡酵硂拜肈︓讽玂よи竒琍戳玂ㄆ叭〆穦穦某ユゅン冈灿睲贰弧沮и-
┮讽ら祇ネㄆ珿㎝и-
は莱
独岸藉某拜畊ネ胓毙竝戮竒盽ボ差チ犁もぃì沮厨笵ョΤ戮纯竒硈尿讽60硂薄猵琌妮龟狦妮龟玥玂穦ミㄨ浪癚瞷差チ犁ずも㎝ň忌杆称狦穦杠ㄣ砰璸购琌妓の︙辅龟硂ㄇэ到惫琁
玂氮畊ネи琍戳玂ㄆ叭〆穦穦某竒酵のㄆフホ差チ犁ㄆン祇ネぇи-
е暗浪癚τ∕﹚ジ戈1,500窾じㄓ糤差チ犁玂㎝恨瞶も硂计ヘ琌单胓毙竝竨叫100瞶胓毙┷竨㎝癡絤惠璶琿丁┮璶碭るぇ糤硂よも琌戳丁牡よ氮莱и-
も秈緉フホ㎝窾﹜畐差チ犁翴獽眏玂
讲蚌某拜畊ネ現┎セЫ讽ЫΤσ納スΤ奶睹祇ネň忌砞琁よ穦Θ逮ㄆだю阑ヘ夹︓穦穖管硂ㄇ杆称讽ЫΤ璸购ňゎ㎝磷㎡
玂氮畊ネフホ犁反胊縱㎝眏玂璸购ぇいи-
ョ箇称兜惫琁碞琌眏癸犁ず妒瞈紆┪礟单ň忌ノㄣ矪玂綿㏕Τ闽縱ョê┮孔"︽現跋"砞瞅呼糤癸硂ㄇン玂㎝玂臔
朝挪狶某拜畊ネフホ差チ犁奶睹ㄆン癸犁㎝戮硑Θ穕ア琌ぶ硂穕アパ街ㄓ璽砫?
玂氮畊ネ琍戳玂ㄆ叭〆穦穦某и-
竒癚阶筁フホ差チ犁硂ㄆン赣﹙ㄆンず縉反丁犁ず┬и-
讽礛穦荷еㄆ龟フホ差チいみΤㄇ犁琌竚┮ゼゲ惠璶Ч┮Τ縉反犁Τㄇ戮惠璶讽τ盢ó进氨獃フホ犁ず氨ó矪-
ン┪╬ó进差チ忌睹綝反胊硂よ現┎穦蹦縩伐篈ㄓ矪瞶ヴ︙戮綝穕アτ矗竭纕璶―
PRESIDENT: Mr CHAN Kam-lam, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
朝挪狶某拜畊ネи辨玂絋禗и-
穕ア窥基琌ぶ穕アパ街ㄓ┯踞弧現┎穦暗ㄇㄆ薄硂琌パ翠祙ㄓや临琌パ羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝ㄓ璽砫㎡
玂氮畊ネи-
瞷⊿Τ辅龟璸购㎝ЧΘΤ闽冈灿璸购┮惠禣ノ絋龟计ヘи獺惠璶计窾じ︓戮┮綝穕アи-
﹟ゼΜ戮患ユㄓ璶―竭纕计ヘ┮ヘ玡临⊿Τ硂よ计︓砫ヴよタи┮弧犁讽礛璶パ翠現┎眖そ┊ずや狦戮璶―竭纕τи-
粄瞶杠ョ穦パそ┊や恨瞶差チ犁砫ヴ琌パ翠現┎璽砫ぃ琌パ羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝璽砫
綠產碔某拜畊ネ竒喷禗и-
–Ω穐犁常Τ奶笆ㄆン祇ネョ惠璶牡よ蝴獀叫拜玂穦粄痷σ納辅龟現郸碞琌穐犁ぇ玡琿丁ㄒ48秸牡よ秈差チいみ眏玂τ獶礢さΩ硂ㄆン┪┕ㄆン妓祇ネ胓毙竝砆︓Τ差チ発ǐ眔牡よ
PRESIDENT: I am afraid this is outside the scope of the original question.
眎簙┚某拜畊ネ沮厨笵讽ら┮祇甮妒瞈紆琌筁戳τ紇臫ゎ忌睹Θ叫拜玂Τ浪癚㎝眏ň忌杆称恨瞶絋玂┮Τ杆称常琌Τ
玂氮畊ネ絋龟Τ厨彻厨笵讽┮祇甮琘ㄇ妒瞈紆┮籠ら戳琌筁戳и-
眖牡诡场莉眡ㄤ龟硂ㄇ妒瞈紆セō獶筁戳琌ウ-
笲癳ㄓ翠岿筁戳らи-
ㄆ玡ョ籔紅坝坚睲硂ンㄆ┮ㄤ龟硂ㄇ妒瞈紆獶琌筁戳
谅ッ闹某拜畊ネフホ差チ犁琌钡チ﹡τさΩ奶睹ㄆン癸﹡チョΤ璽紇臫膀さΩ奶睹現┎穦σ納穐綞フホ差チ犁
玂氮畊ネи-
既ご礛Τ17 000差チ翠璶差チ犁︗翴珹フホ窾﹜㎝緙瑆硂薄и-
獺祏戳ず盢フホ差チ犁穐綞琌⊿Τぃ筁и-
秆∕よ猭琌荷е盢孩翠差チ缓讽差チ缓ョ硋˙盢–犁计搭ぶτフホ差チ犁㎝ㄤ差チ犁程沧ョ穦и-
Θ缓禫玭差チτ礚斗膥尿
︙玊く某拜畊ネ沮玂倒и-
璶氮滦(a)场だㄆ祇讽边胓毙竝琌糤秸20戮犁ず眏ǖ呸秸30戮㏑и瞶秆ぃ琌岿粇硂琌ゼ祇ネ奶笆ぇ玡┮糤もи獺﹚琌︳璸┪琌Μ薄厨陪ボ穦Τ奶笆祇ネ瞷ㄆㄓ琌もぃì镑琌︳讽奶笆腨┦㎝砏家ら穐犁玡穦逼も珹秸ㄇ牡秈緉犁ず蝴獀
PRESIDENT: I have earlier ruled the last part of the question out of order as it is outside the scope of the original question. But, for the first half, Secretary for Security.
玂氮畊ネ闽讽边┮祇ネㄆン㎝и-
癸差チ穦ネㄆτΜ薄厨胓毙竝竝兢膀ネミ猭Ы玂ㄆ叭〆穦琍戳穦某竒睲贰弧и-
忌睹玡┮钡ぃ絋ョ⊿Τ非絋弧︙穦祇ネㄇ或ㄆ薄и-
┮钡弧草ら盢穐犁差チそガΤㄇ差チ穦ネㄆ鲸恨и-
竒箇Ν场竝ㄇ戮差チ犁ず盝
Enforcement Actions against Pirated Softwares
5. ㏄辩睶┥某拜畊ネ挪1996醚玻舦禩舱麓璹兵ㄒ莉セЫ硄筁現┎セЫ
(a) パ陆筿福盒扳芥笆ら镣腨τㄤ扳芥翴场だ栋い翠计筿福坝初Τ闽场Τ甅璸购赣单坝初眏磅猭︽笆ゴ阑硂摸笆
(b) 筁12るずΤ闽场赣单坝初磅︽ゴ阑硂摸笆戮叭Ω计穓莉陆筿福盒计秖のㄤ羆
(c) 筁12るず碞赣单竜︽秈︽浪北计のΘ竜ゑㄒ猭畑┮矪程蔼程㎝キА籃の
(d) Τ闽场碞赣单竜︽秈︽浪北Τ笿ヴ︙螟璝礛穦蹦縩伐︽笆秆∕螟糤癸ぃ猭だ纞
坝氮畊ネ翠闽ㄇ堵翴㎝坝初眏磅猭︽笆ゴ阑扳芥陆玻珇珹陆筿福盒笆и稱眏秸闽埃璓ゴ阑箂扳陆玻珇笆ョ眖だ綪㎝秈よ癸硂摸笆砮过硂ヘ夹闽籔牡よ拟も癸沮嘿Τ堵穦㎝Τ舱麓デ竜栋刮把籔セの阁挂陆笆蹦縩伐笆磅猭︽笆珹薄厨穓栋㎝秸琩挡狦计Ω娩挂Θ篒莉陆筿福盒の计Ω阑穓琩︽笆いΘ盎瘆Μ旅硂摸陆筿福盒翴翠闽璓眏籔い瓣Τ闽讽Ы獽玂毁醚玻舦眏磅猭の蹦娩挂羛︽笆
き闽蹦273Ω︽笆苯亢箂扳㎝だ綪陆筿福盒笆穓莉359 000唉й魁筿福硁ン筿福盒㎝紇钩盒羆︳璸笷2,700窾翠じセる闽场笆192Ω浪莉21窾唉陆筿福盒㎝紇钩盒︳璸1,400窾翠じセるㄓ弧┮浪莉陆筿福盒㎝紇钩盒计秖㎝基よだ单き58%の52%
きΤ72の丁そ疉の籔筿福盒の紇钩盒Τ闽祍ノ舦笆τ綝浪北Θ竜ゑ瞯69%さる硂よ浪北计144のㄢ丁そΘ竜ゑ瞯琌81%
き–﹙疉の筿福盒の紇钩盒陆ン璸衡程蔼程のキА籃蹿肂だ翠刽33,000じ翠刽500じの翠刽9,300じせるΤ闽计だ翠刽52,500じ翠刽300じの翠刽12,500じきΤㄢ笻ㄒ疉の筿福盒㎝紇钩盒陆笆だ砆夯るのるさるずΤ18笻ㄒ砆夯戳程る
琘ㄇ薄猵闽碞硂ㄇン蹦浪北︽笆穦笿ㄇ螟硂ㄇ薄猵珹礚猭絋﹚舦局Τōだ┪舦局Τゼ碞獻デ舦ㄆ﹜矗ㄑì镑靡沮┪舦局Τ礚種蹦ㄆ浪北︽笆┪舦局Τ礚猭璽踞盡產靡ㄓ翠浪北┮惠禣ノ闽の醚玻舦竝㎝籔舦Τ闽︽穨の诀篶眏羛么躬纘舦局Τōτ浪北躬纘舦局Τ籔и-
Τ闽场穦沮–﹙ン薄猵-
矗ㄑ戈ㄏ-
镑и-
秈︽ㄆ秸琩㎝浪北
㏄辩睶┥某拜畊ネ坝璶氮滦材琿瘤礛矗闽籔牡よよゴ阑硂ㄇΤ舱麓デ竜︽氮滦材琿矗籃蹿㎝胓籃玱钩は琈瞷禜坝琌種硂ㄇ籃蹿㎝胓籃籔陆盒ネ種肂㎝柬ゑ弧琌"ǎエ"叫拜硂琌は琈現┎﹍沧礚猭ゴ阑êㄇ福璝礛現┎盢︙莱
坝氮畊ネ翠琌跌猭獀穦翠猭獀и-
猭琌縒ミ┮猭畑糵瞶獻デ舦琌パ糵猭﹛∕﹚砆琌Τ竜琌パ糵猭﹛∕﹚祘ㄒ籃蹿蹿肂㎝夯戳单ぃ筁現穦碞–﹙浪癚狦現粄筁淮セ糵瞶赣﹙ン猭畑┪蔼猭畑碝―滦ㄆ龟筁ョ纯Τ硂妓ㄒи氮借高睲贰るミ猭Ы硄筁醚玻舦禩舱麓璹兵ㄒ﹚硂兜穝猭ㄒ狦Τì镑靡沮杠翠闽㎝舦局ΤΤ猭舦辊祍笆矗浪北パ猭畑∕﹚-
琌莱ぉ﹚竜
糂胺祸某拜畊ネи笵ㄇ扳芥陆盒狥坝初ずΤ丁┍綫搭穕ア-
穦琍戳き秨ヒ綫琍戳せ秨綫︓Τㄇ犁穨ぱ闽瞒犁穨坝セЫ現┎Τ磝搐硂薄猵琌妮龟璝礛翠闽癸Τ︙癸郸
坝氮畊ネи⊿ΤΜ翠闽硂よ厨и穦р糂某┮瓃薄猵锣翠闽硂琌妮︽笆┦借拜肈и穦璶―翠闽羆菏秆氮糂某硂兜借高 (Annex)
虫ヲ昂某拜畊ネい禩驹ㄤいみ拜肈疉の醚玻舦拜肈ㄆ龟翠ňゎ獻デ醚玻舦拜肈ら镣腨ㄆ莱癬縩伐ノ叫拜瞷翠闽Τì镑も秈︽硂よ材㏄辩睶┥某借高セ┮弧......
PRESIDENT: One supplementary at a time please.
虫ヲ昂某拜ㄤ龟常琌疉の拜肈瞷赣贺笻猭笆ぃ琌栋い计坝初パ闽ゴ阑笆腨糉┮赣摸笆竒だ床︓ㄤ坝初叫拜坝穦筁计璶坝初秈︽磅猭︽笆瞷玱璶坝初磅︽┮翠闽斗肂糤も
坝氮畊ネи-
–常穦籔翠闽羆菏浪癚-
ゴ阑陆笆よ絪も琌ì镑拜肈程きのさ翠闽硂よ戈方竒糤40%パ117糤︓164и秆ゴ阑箂扳糷獶盽羉┮и璶氮滦い矗瞷闽埃箂扳㎝だ綪よ磅︽ゴ阑闽㎝牡よ拟も辨薄厨穓栋よ暗ㄇ狦и-
磝搐ゑ耕非絋薄厨玥も秸よ眔狦
PRESIDENT: I must say the Secretary and the Commissioner would be most thankful for Members' intelligence.
Assistance for Provisional Legislature
6. 纯胺Θ某拜い瓣現┎﹛ガるらタΑΘミ羬ミ猭穦τ羬ミ猭穦盢赣ら戳玡秨﹍笲碞現┎セЫ穦甧砛そ戮るら玡羬ミ猭穦秈︽эの紀埃猭非称ㄒэ舦猭の篗綪玡箇〆穦猭舱某篗綪せ兵璹兵ㄒτ单猭紀埃┪э琌籔翠┎砮ミ初笻璉
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネи-
﹟ゼ笵羬ミ猭穦盢︙Θミ┪硂诀闽穦︙の︙秨﹍笲и-
ョぃゴ衡储代パ┮惠戈и-
螟钡氮滦纯某矗拜ぃ筁и稱矗翴種ǎ
璣瓣現┎㎝翠現┎癸羬ミ猭穦ミ初琌絋璓τセЫ㎝カチ渤常だ睲贰璣瓣㎝程籔い瓣烩旧穦编ョビи-
ミ初らΤ惠璶и-
穦膥尿ビ硂ミ初
ㄤΩパヘ玡︓璣瓣舦るら挡玡セ翠斑舅ミ猭诀闽碞琌ヘ玡ミ猭Ыミ猭Ы琌パ匡チそ秨㎝そキ匡ㄓㄣΤ絋㎝猭甭舦τ匡チ计琌菌ㄓ程蔼現┎┯空琌膥尿籔硂ミ猭Ы
材埃┮瓃и-
いよ絋ボぃ穦羬ミ猭穦矗ㄑヴ︙ぃ筁и-
穦籔膚〆穦のらヴ︽現﹛ㄣΤ膀娄ㄆ叭よ矗ㄑ
材羛羘璹︓せるらぇ玡璣瓣盢膥尿璽砫恨獀翠τい瓣硂よ盢穦い瓣烩旧纯ぃ初ビ-
﹚穦宽羛羘い瓣捌羆瞶窥ㄤ礰程籔璣瓣穦编ョΤ弧せるらぇ玡羆服枷盞皘㎝瞷ミ猭Ыご穦舦璽砫セ翠︽ㄏ恨獀舦
纯胺Θ某拜畊ネ翠羆坝穦畊バ玊某璓ㄧ羆服某羆服钡羬ミ猭穦硂ㄆ龟の秸ㄇ蔼そ叭羬ミ猭穦叫拜現┎粄バ玊某硂兜某穦翠そ叭砰╰ず籹硑ベのぃゲ璶睼睹㎡
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネ羆服倒ぉ羆坝穦獺い竒睲贰弧и-
ミ初и璶氮滦いビи-
ミ初и-
ぃ穦羬ミ猭穦矗ㄑヴ︙纯某┮弧ベぃ
PRESIDENT: Mr TSANG Kin-shing, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
纯胺Θ某拜琌畊ネи借高场拜そ叭ㄆ叭赣兜某穦籹硑ベの睼睹⊿Τ氮и辨镑碞氮
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネи弧眔睲贰и-
セぃ種琵﹛羬ミ猭穦矗ㄑ┮纯某┮弧薄猵セぃ
法此某拜畊ネそ叭ㄆ叭弧ぃ穦羬ミ猭穦矗ㄑヴ︙翠┎穦蛤膚〆穦㎝らヴ︽現﹛狦羬ミ猭穦Θ盢Τ闽э猭璶―硓筁膚〆穦┪ヴ︽現﹛現┎璶―杠現┎篈盢穦︙
PRESIDENT: Secretary? It is hypothetical anyway.
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネタ┮弧硂琌兜储代┦拜肈и-
ぃ腀種筁Ν储代ら妓籔ゼㄓ︽現﹛
法此某拜畊ネ現┎弧ぃ穦羬ミ猭穦矗ㄑヴ︙ウ皐癸琌ы┪ㄆ㎡硂ンㄆ硓筁ㄤ現┎璶―
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネи-
┯空ら穦瞶の蛮よΤ膀娄絛瞅ず籔ヴ︽現﹛荷秖︓らヴ︽現﹛惠璶現┎矗ㄑ或の妓и-
瞷顶琿荡癸ぃ﹜ヴ︙储代и-
辨痙ヴ︽現﹛玻ネ秈˙籔坝癚
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, is the Secretary's stand, explained in his reply, reflecting in full the stand of the Civil Service as a whole?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIC SERVICE: Mr President, what I have said reflects the stand of the Government as a whole.
辩模┚某拜畊ネ現┎璶氮滦材き琿矗い瓣捌羆瞶窥ㄤ礰程籔璣瓣穦弧せるらぇ玡羆服枷盞皘㎝瞷ミ猭Ыご穦舦璽砫セ翠︽ㄏ恨獀舦叫拜硂琌穞ボせるらミ猭Ыゲ斗秆床㎡璝琌杠琌ボ璣瓣現┎竒┯粄羬ミ猭穦盢穦硂ㄆ龟璣瓣現┎盢穦蹦或︽笆宽羛羘矪瞶硂ミ猭Ы砆秆床拜肈
PRESIDENT: I am afraid this is outside the scope of the original question.
綠產碔某拜畊ネ翠┎矗ユいよΤ闽羬ミ猭穦弧┇ず某Τ闽紀埃のэ猭ㄒ非称パヴ疭跋㎝﹛璽砫続叫拜現┎琌ボ翠┎穦ノヴ疭跋の﹛措笵羬ミ猭穦穞寸朝э跑筁┕は癸羬ミ猭穦のぃ穦羬ミ猭穦篈
PRESIDENT: Secretary, you may answer without countering the argumentative part.
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネ"穞寸朝"硂ㄥ珿︑癘簙蔼セ讽ら糂üの龙獺刺笵穞寸朝羭Τヘ碞琌脓ゴぱ......
PRESIDENT: Secretary, I am afraid this is not an answer.
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネиタ沽刚氮綠某借高
PRESIDENT: It is very interesting. But ......
そ叭ㄆ叭氮и瞷膥尿氮
PRESIDENT: Please tackle the question, shorn of all arguments.
そ叭ㄆ叭氮и氮滦琌翠現┎穦腨宽の宽眖羛羘の膀セ猭砏﹚и-
⊿Τ種瓜脓┪暗ヴ︙ㄤㄆ薄и-
斑ヘ夹琌宽羛羘の膀セ猭
︙玊く某拜畊ネ叫拜現┎穦甧砛蔼そ叭疭琌﹛ら丁痁绊そ叭ōだミ初┚翠現┎边丁痁玱ōだ╬羬ミ猭穦眖τ纐砛"ら甅甅"暗猭龟︽蛮┚㎡
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネΤ闽そ叭丁钡ㄤ現┎璹Τ腨砏﹚そ叭玥材553兵絋︙贺薄猵そ叭钡セōㄤ玥ずㄤい翴絋ぃΤ痲侥狦Τ痲侥Τ闽そ叭ゲ斗莉眔场す砛暗硂よ
PRESIDENT: Mr Albert HO, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
︙玊く某拜ㄤ龟и璶そ叭ㄆ叭氮程场だ穦甧砛そ叭硂妓暗ㄏΤ痲侥ご穦甧砛-
边丁暗硂妓
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネи-
薄猵ぃ腀種碞ㄇ安砞┦ビ叫┪ゼ纯矗ビ叫耞ぃ筁狦笿Τ硂贺薄猵и-
膀セ穦σ納Τ闽﹛钡硂ㄇ蛤現┎膀セミ初Τ侥τ現┎硂よミ初琌獶盽睲贰
ッ笷某拜畊ネ璶氮滦材琿る玡セ翠斑ミ猭诀闽碞琌ヘ玡ミ猭Ы沮и┮ヘ玡ミ猭Ыミ猭琌ㄓ︑ㄢ舅ゅン璣虎㎝癡現┎琌羘嘿ㄣΤミ猭羬ミ猭穦玡玻ネ琌笻は璣虎㎝癡璝琌杠現┎穦窽Α窽崩匡〆穦崩匡羘嘿ㄣΤミ猭羬ミ猭穦㎡
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネパ硂兜借高竒禬禫そ叭ㄆ叭絛瞅┮狦す砛杠и稱叫иㄆ舅ㄆ叭и氮
舅ㄆ叭氮畊ネиぃ初竒沽刚碞硂拜肈睲贰弧翠現┎ミ初τΤ闽硂よΤ讽そ秨厨笵иㄆそ叭ㄆ叭ビ翠現┎癸羬ミ猭穦ミ初и-
ぃ穦ヴ︙︽笆紇臫瞷タ笲ミ猭Ы︗㎝獺硂ミ初琌睲睲贰贰︓某┮矗安砞┦借高獺и璶篋盽も猭氮碞琌и-
礚猭矗ㄑ安砞┦氮滦
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
ッ笷某拜琌畊ネи借高ぃ妮安砞┦借и辨坚睲璶氮滦材琿い絋Τ矗硂翴弧玡翠斑ミ猭诀闽碞琌ヘ玡ミ猭Ыи借高琌嘿ㄣΤミ猭羬ミ猭穦琌笻は璣虎の癡硂獶安砞┦借高
舅ㄆ叭氮畊ネиぃゴ衡碞硂兜┮孔猭┦拜肈獶猭┦秆睦┪氮и獺狦疉の猭┦拜肈﹚穦Τ硚畖氮㎝耞
ッ笷某拜畊ネ狦舅ㄆ叭ぃ倒и氮滦穦璶―現瞷初現┎氮и借高狦谋眔ぃ惠璶杠砛祔Α倒и氮滦и借高琌羘嘿ㄣΤミ猭羬ミ猭穦舅琌笻は璣虎㎝癡
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE Wing-tat, you have put yourself out of order. You are seeking the expression of a legal opinion as the solution to a legal problem.
產不某拜畊ネиЧフ現┎﹛ヴ︙丁常ゲ斗绊讽現┎ミ初┮孔現獀琌いミぃ筁иぃフそ叭ㄆ叭┮弧狦そ叭痁丁ㄒ安暗ㄇ╬穦Τ痲侥痲侥蛤現┎ミ初Ч琌ㄢㄆ狦蠢ㄤ琜篶舱麓┪暗ㄆ杠......
PRESIDENT: Mr LI, please come to the question.
產不某拜叫拜妓穦疉の痲痲眖︙τㄓ狦ぃ琌痲拜肈龟借琌┚拜肈叫拜琌┮Τ翠現┎そ叭ゼ現┎纯竒璶翠現┎┪璣瓣現┎粆┚
PRESIDENT: I take your second part as the same question.
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネ約竡ㄓ弧"痲"迭ぃ虫窥痲и刚羭ㄒ狦現┎現郸琌躬纘蒥チぃ璶废τ蔼そ叭ビ叫边蠢废そㄏぃΜ厨筍и-
ぃ穦甧砛硂妓暗硂薄猵疭琌蔼そ叭糷逼埃現┎現郸㎝ミ初ぃрウ-
σ納痲琌ぃち龟悔
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Hospital Authority Savings
7. ︙庇古某拜沮眡洛皘恨瞶Ы筁癩現Аボそミ洛皘硓筁矗蔼ネ玻盢眖洛皘–┮竊戈方ノ祇甶穝狝叭τ竊戈方夹筁だ1%2%㎝3%碞現┎セЫ
(a) 洛皘恨瞶ЫΤ璶―そミ洛皘矗ユ硓筁矗蔼ネ玻竊戈方冈灿戈
(b) 洛皘恨瞶Ы赋ㄆ穦纯癚阶赣单戈の
(c) そミ洛皘洛皘恨獀〆穦纯癚阶赣单戈
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ洛皘恨瞶Ы璶―洛皘矗蔼ネ玻ヘ琌硄筁硂诀躬纘恨瞶穝絪皌戮叭穝逼㎝穝砞璸琘ㄇ祘眖τ糤Θセ痲洛皘┮矗蔼ネ玻妮瞶阶┦龟借挡狦琌э到も秸皌㎝矗蔼狝叭借τぃ琌竊戈方
洛皘恨瞶Ы羆快ㄆ矪砞Τ蹲厨琜篶璽砫穓栋の俱瞶Τ闽洛皘玃秈ネ玻戈τㄓ洛皘ョр蹦ノ璶よ皐よ猭㎝非玥洛皘恨瞶Ы赋ㄆ穦
洛皘璸购㎝癩現箇衡い矗蔼ネ玻琌璶吏竊τ璸购㎝癩現箇衡АパΤ闽洛皘恨獀〆穦硄筁㎝菏诡
Prisoners Injured or Killed in Custody
8. 讲蚌某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 筁–Τぶデ胓毙竝霹痙戳丁ō砰砆脓阑τ端┪
(b) 祇ネ单ㄆン︙の
(c) 赣单い產妮Τ莉眔竭纕
玂氮畊ネ瓃借高だΘ场だ瞷硋氮滦
(a) ︓き硂ず礚デ砆脓阑τぃ筁セるら狵àΜ┿┮纯祇ネ脓阑ㄆン旧璓赤ネ硂琌﹙ㄆンきのせ︓るゎ笿脓端デ计ヘだΤ408510520の193
(b) 赣单脓阑ㄆンパ╬縩┪ま癬ㄤいぶ计ㄆン癬琌Τ眏畓┪ろ废杜夯い戒痴笆琌废戒猔セる祇ネデ笿脓ōㄆ牡よごタ秸琩ㄆン癬
(c) デ粄Τだ瞶パ碞ま璓端ㄆ纕硓筁猭祘璶―竭纕︓霹痙戳丁砆炳デ瓃薄猵妓続ノㄤ產妮ùさゼΤ硂摸纕┪莉眔竭纕ㄒ
News Coverage of Sovereignty Handover
9. ッ笷某拜Τ闽舦簿ユ祸Α現┎セЫ
(a) 箇璸Τぶ穝籇穦セ翠蹦砐琌Ω祸Α
(b) 盢癸硂ㄇ穝籇矗ㄑ︙贺の
(c) 穝籇翠蹦砐琌斗璶箇莉眔讽Ыу璝礛赣逼琌斗眔い瓣現┎種
現叭氮畊ネ
(a) 現┎穝籇矪蝶︳肚碈癸厨笵舦簿ユ祸Α砍届る丁セの穝籇诀篶秈︽秸琩ùさΜ滦陪ボΤ2 300穝籇Τ種厨笵舦簿ユ祸ΑのΤ闽脖ㄆぃ筁パ瞷禯瞒簿ユら戳﹟Τ13る箇璸ゼㄓ盢膥尿Τ穝籇诀篶ボΤ種把籔τ程沧计笷计
(b) パ舦簿ユ祸Α琌セ翠菌脖ㄆи-
絋ゴ衡続讽逼よ獽肚碈厨笵ㄒ盡砞穝籇の約冀いみよ獽肚碈厨笵舦簿ユ祸ΑのㄤΤ闽脖ㄆ
(c) и-
穦膥尿崩︽瞷Τ現郸琵瓣癘ぃㄓ翠蹦砐厨笵セ翠兜祇甶現┎礚種э肚碈厨笵セ翠脖ㄆ瞷Τ逼
Vehicles Hitting Overhead Bridges
10. 糂胺祸某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 筁祇ネぶ﹙ó进珹┮更砯蔼猭ㄒ砏﹚蔼のΤ闽óㄆ玡⊿Τ穦牡よの笲块竝τ疾のぱ爵種
(b) 讽Ы︙砮过磅︽笵隔ユ硄猭ㄒいΤ闽砯ó蔼ぃ禬筁4.6μ兵ゅの
(c) 讽Ы穦蹦或惫琁ňゎ摸種祇ネ
笲块氮畊ネ︑きるㄓ讽Ы钡莉﹙ぱ爵穕反厨Τ闽冈薄更ン獺ぱ爵琌綝更砯筁蔼ó进疾反
沮笵隔ユ硄ユ硄恨砏ㄒ砏﹚ヴ︙緍緋ó进硈┮更砯蔼禬筁4.6μ妮笻猭猭ㄒ礚倒ぉヴ︙僚
砯ó快瞶祅癘も尿ゲ斗硄筁ゅン糵の祅癘浪琩絋玂ó进才砏﹚蔼и-
–Ωó进浪喷ョ穦浪琩ó进蔼ùさи-
⊿Τó进浪喷い祇瞷ヴ︙禬┮﹚蔼ó进
讽礛隔現竝竝穦浪喷┮Τ穕反︽ぱ爵〓︽óぱ爵絋﹚埃秈︽呗祘琌临惠璶蹦ㄤ惫琁羭ㄒㄓ弧パ独绢阁纒稻笵︽ぱ爵纯竒祇ネ筁﹙種讽Ы程э赣ぱ爵阁糤ㄤ硄︽蔼郸
箇ň惫琁の肚よ"ó进更砯玥"更Τ冈灿ま笲块竝﹚戳籔砯ó笲块穨穦编ョ穦-
眏秸斗宽瓃ま赣竝ョ穦さ甃﹗"笵隔﹗"い祅絞Τ闽ó进更砯拜肈疭絑
ン
筁綝蔼禬ó进
穕反︽〓︽óぱ爵
ら戳 翴るら纒稻笵︽ぱ爵独るら纒稻笵︽ぱ爵独るら睲芖笵︽ぱ爵￤ホ恏るら独λ笵︽ぱ爵翠笲笆初るら狵à笵︽ぱ爵抖刁るら芖笵︽ぱ爵吏籄笵ユ矪きるら纒稻笵︽ぱ爵独きるら獵そ隔︽ó繥笵じ硔秏ききるら纒稻笵︽ぱ爵独せきるら狵à笵︽ぱ爵抖刁
Personal Safety of Hong Kong Residents in Border Areas
11. ㏄辩睶┥某拜現┎セЫ
(a) Τ戈陪ボ筁セ翠﹡チ霉打の瞏筁挂笿の砆敖叛癩计
(b) 秆娩挂祇ネザ叛竜龟悔薄猵牡よΤ笆秈︽秸琩絋﹚硂贺竜龟悔计珹ゼΤ厨计
(c) 牡よ穦籔ずそゴ阑ㄢザも娩挂秈︽ザ叛笆の
(d) 讽Ы穦钡┪硓筁い瓣そЫ緉翠羛蹈﹛ずΤ闽讽Ыは琈娩挂祇ネ︽のザ叛竜薄猵玃ㄏずΤ闽讽Ыэ到霉打娩挂獀玂毁セ翠﹡チ┕ず癩のō
玂氮畊ネ
(a) 翠﹡チ霉打の瞏筁挂笿┪砆敖癩τ牡よ厨计
ザ叛癩框ア*0 14 234き0 9 109せ
る︓る0 1 32
* 硂ㄇ琌厨嘿框ア癩场だ疉のザ叛
(b) 牡よるΘミはザ叛疭缓钉癸霉打娩挂跋ザ叛拜肈疭缓钉穓栋Τ闽霉打祇ネザ叛计沮㎝薄厨秈︽だ猂т赣摸竜家Α㎝デ堵翴眖(a)琿计ǎ拜肈北牡よ穦盞ち菏诡瓃薄猵莱薄猵蹦続讽惫琁癸ゼΤ羭厨ザ叛牡よ礚ヴ︙参璸
(c) 牡よ硓筁娩挂羛蹈措笵竒盽籔瞏そЫ玂盞ち羛么ゴ阑霉打い璣娩挂竜珹ザ叛ず
(d) 牡よ㎝瞏そЫぇ丁称ΤЧ到肪硄措笵矪瞶籔娩挂竜Τ闽ㄆ﹜琂Τ硂妓措笵獽礚斗碞ㄆ緉翠そЫ羛蹈碝―
Public Utilities' Engagement of Debt Collection Companies
12. 朝岸穨某拜程セ钡莉カチщ禗Τ闽翠筿癟竨ノΜ计そ發癚ろ蹿癸カチ硑Θ逮耑Τǎの現┎セЫ
(a) 琌Τ菏恨そノㄆ穨诀篶竨ノΜ计そ臮發癚ろ蹿の
(b) カチ场щ禗赣单逮耑
竒蕾氮畊ネ
(a) 砏恨そノㄆ穨そ犁笲瞷︽猭ㄒい礚兵ゅ结舦ぉΤ闽讽Ы癸竨ノΜ计そめ發癚ろ蹿よ砏恨現┎菏恨そノㄆ穨そいΤ產㏕﹚筿癟呼蹈狝叭竒犁坝翠筿杠Τそ翠穝筿癟Τそ籔㎝癘約癟Τその翠瓣悔筿癟Τそ竨ノΜ计そめ發癚ろ蹿沮и-
┮Μ计笲逼Τ闽そ盞ち菏诡癸め硑Θ逮耑翠筿杠その翠瓣悔筿癟ΤそㄒΜ计そА竒筁瓃そ过┏糵琩Μ计そめ祇ㄧンА斗莉眔翠筿杠そ┪翠瓣悔筿癟ΤそㄆуτΜ计そョぃ眔獶タ盽丁ず羛蹈め
(b) カチ璝Μ计そ逮耑莱竨ノ赣单Μ计そ诀篶щ禗拜肈ゼ莉眔骸種秆∕カチ莱牡よ羭厨カチョΤ闽菏诡讽Ы碝―ㄒ籔筿癟そΤ闽ユぉ筿癟恨瞶Ы矪瞶
Security at Public Hospitals
13. DR DAVID LI asked: It was reported recently that the lax security arrangements in Queen Elizabeth Hospital had given rise to an incident in which a patient, who had been reported missing, was found three days later to be hiding on the roof of the Hospital. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of cases involving the disappearance of patients from public hospitals in the past three years; and
(b) of the security measures currently adopted by public hospitals to prevent patients from running away and whether the public hospitals will step up these measures?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, given that the statistical data on disappearance of patients are captured and collated on a systematic basis by the Hospital Authority only since January 1996, the requested information is not available for 1994 and 1995. However, a total of 159 such cases were reported in the first quarter of 1996, a majority of which involved Vietnamese boat people, illegal immigrants or drug addicts.
Patients wishing to leave the ward to which they have been assigned should first inform the hospital staff, who will monitor closely the number and location of individual patients. Furthermore, standard procedures are in place to contact the family and to initiate a search in cases where patients are found missing. Assistance from the police will also be sought, if necessary.
Given the nature of hospital services, additional measures to prevent patients from running away must be balanced against their interest to enjoy freedom of movement and an open ward environment. A number of measures have been adopted in the last few years to strengthen the internal security of public hospitals. These include security access control system, electronic tagging system for babies, automatic door alarm and close circuit television. Apart from training programmes aimed to sharpen the security awareness among hospital staff, each hospital has also appointed an officer to co-ordinate security measures and to train up the responsible personnel.
Five-year Comprehensive Redevelopment Programme
14. 地某拜碞┬〆穦"┬〆穦"程そガΤ闽せ〓︓箂箂箂〓箂箂き俱砰璸购現┎セЫ
(a) 穦盢穦辅Θ穝そ箇痙虫︗竚"璸购"い紇臫そ︘め璝穦叫弧
(b) ΤㄇΤそ絃睲╊穦砆ノ砍﹡虫︗τ搭赣璸购紇臫そ︘め砆竚恏诀穦
(c) ┬〆穦︙絋玂Τì镑穝そ虫︗跋竚紇臫そ︘めの
(d) 竒材Ω砆珹璸购ず屡バ恏材き畒の材せ畒ㄤ祘砆ㄢ┑戳ㄤ︙τΤǎの┬〆穦盢蹦︙贺惫琁絋玂程穝俱砰璸购戳ЧΘ
┬氮畊ネ現┎盢ㄇ穝辅Θそ恏箇痙场だ虫︗竚程そガせ〓︓箂箂箂〓箂砏购戳ず俱砰璸购紇臫︘めи-
钡タΑそガ睲╊ら戳穦∕﹚钡Μ逼灿竊
俱砰璸购絃い穦挤场だよ砍﹡虫︗絃璶︗カ跋の芖珹稯冻绢繷戛贾碔╭璟￤屡バ猳俄蔼禬笵バ芖吏籄㎝ホ疆現┎俱砰璸购紇臫︘め矗ㄑ跋竚盢ぃ穦硂ㄇ﹡璸购祇甶兜ヘτ陪帝紇臫
┬〆穦璹俱砰璸购穦σ納︘め癸跋竚惠―の钡Μ虫︗珹穝虫︗の乃虫︗ㄑ莱秖穦荷絋玂矗ㄑì镑钡Μ虫︗骸ì︘め惠―紇臫︘めセō惠璶尺の竒蕾薄猵匡拒︘穝虫︗┪乃虫︗场だ︘め┪穦匡拒綞瞒跋┪潦禦﹡虫︗
現┎きそガΤ闽俱砰璸购箇﹚〓箂箂箂秈︽屡バ恏材きの材せ畒璸购τ程そガせ〓︓箂箂箂〓箂俱砰璸购玥р屡バ恏祘э︓箂箂箂〓箂秈︽硂兜璸购纯э戳Ω
璸购э戳琌パ砍闽钡Μ恏璸购斗跌狥纒诀初毁锚蔼恨糴丁τ﹚币紈翠瓣悔诀初í濸à穝诀初る币ノ狥纒诀初毁锚蔼盢糴硂丁逼ㄏи-
到ノ闽钡Μ恏祇甶肩
Opening-up Contract Officer Posts
15. 腑瓣辆某拜沮眡︑現┎玡盢沟戮︗秨ㄑそ戮そ秨膙硋︓さ秨きだぇΤ闽戮︗碞現┎セЫ
(a) 赣单戮︗羆计の┮妮场の箇璸︙盢┮Τ戮︗秨
(b) 秨赣单戮︗秈琌笷箇戳ヘ夹璝Τ︙璸购е秈の
(c) 現┎秨赣单戮︗Τ笿螟璝Τ螟︙
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネ秨戮︗逼る癬龟琁Τ闽逼続ノパヴど戮戮︗τΤ闽きるら┪骸硂ㄇど戮戮︗穦局Τッ┦﹡チōだ璶―セ家Α狝叭兵ン尿┪セ璶―瞷︽竨ノ兵蹿尿ぉ秨ㄑ膙硋讽戮︗秨︗の戮戈Аビ叫膙硋场穦Θミ款匡〆穦珼匡程続踞ヴ赣戮︗
и-
讽︳璸Τ591踞ヴど戮戮︗τきるら┪ぇ骸穦秨戮︗逼紇臫场购だΤ闽计ヘ更ン︑る龟琁秨戮︗逼ㄓΤ124戮︗竒秨Τ41戮︗タ秨筁祘い
礛τΤㄇ薄猵秨戮︗逼ぃ続ノ瓃591戮︗硂ㄇ薄猵珹匡拒膥尿兵蹿尿きるら既氨钡锣︓盽肂のㄉ癶ヰ絪ビ叫玡莉锣セの∕﹚ぃビ叫尿ヘ玡ゎΤ231戮︗瓃ㄤいτゼΤぉ秨
︓秨ㄤ緇戮︗秈斗跌Τ闽︙の︙贺よΑ匡拒現┎ビ叫尿竨硂ㄇ骸玡12るる斗匡拒尿竨よΑ
秨戮︗逼タ龟琁Τ闽礚笿螟
ン
场购だ
踞ヴど戮戮︗计ヘ
︳璸计
场计ヘ縱竝40竝18チ矪25れ祘竝103徖ネ竝13吏挂玂臔竝22現┎︽狝叭钉22ガ現竝22┬竝40穨竝13現┎穝籇矪12現竝99猭穿竝14現羆竝20瘆玻恨瞶竝24翠筿28畉昏穨︳基竝10笲块竝12叭竝10ㄤ场44羆计591
Green Manager Scheme
16. 谅ッ闹某拜Τ闽瞷現┎崩︽吏玂竒瞶璸购戳搭ぶ场眎の筿ノ秖現┎セЫ
(a) ︑崩︽赣璸购ㄓΤㄇ現┎场〆ヴ吏玂竒瞶の-
戮だ︙
(b) 叫场膜︑崩︽赣璸购ㄓ场┮竊眎の筿ノ秖
(c) 現┎Τㄤ蛤秈璸购獽秈˙搭ぶ瓃戈方の
(d) 瞷Τㄇ场ご砏购吏挂現蹲厨璸购秈
砏购吏挂現氮畊ネ
(a) ︑眖パる秨﹍崩︽吏玂竒瞶璸购ㄓ現┎场19㎝67场〆ヴ吏玂竒瞶-
硄盽琌┪场ヴ
(b) 场〓┮竊〓筿ノ秖膜ンき羆竊眎〓筿ノ秖
⌒眎ノ秖搭ぶ22%
⌒紀Μ秖糤11%の
⌒筿ノ秖搭ぶ6%
(c) 诀筿祘竝匡﹚そ渤縱秈︽方蝶糵璸购︑ㄓ方蝶糵璸购竊1,000窾じノ筿秖箇硓筁赣璸购秈˙搭ぶノ筿秖現┎挤600窾じ崩︽竊方惫琁ゼㄓ現┎斗20丁現┎加膀セ砞琁щ戈崩︽硂ㄇ惫琁秈˙搭ぶノ秖現┎秈︽兜眎碻吏ㄏノ╯絋﹚ㄏノ硑癸搭ぶ鹅ノ秖琌Τ┮腊и-
ョ躬纘吏玂竒瞶荷秖暗秈˙搭ぶノ秖
(d) 現┎场19㎝67场–﹗А砏购吏挂現蹲厨璸购秈
ノ秖
畉ゑ瞯ノ筿秖
畉ゑ瞯 紀Μ
畉ゑ瞯〓场︓﹗籔
き︓﹗ゑ称爹︓﹗籔
き︓﹗ゑ 称爹︓﹗籔
き︓﹗ゑ称爹 ガ現烈︽現竝-43.66% 1.20% 219.60%いァ現郸舱15.83% 50厨 羛ノ-6.12%ガ現竝いゅそㄆ恨瞶Ы41.64% 蛮粂猭ㄒ吭高〆穦 羛ノ-37.94%そ叭ㄆ叭-6.54% 羛ノそ叭ㄆ叭烈そ叭蚌癡矪39.56% ︑厩揭祘8.41% 舅ㄆ叭礚计 羛ノ竒蕾-13.15% 羛ノ-45.65%毙▅参膚-16.18% 羛ノ癩現-44.88% 羛ノ癩竒ㄆ叭247.15% 穝笆38.74% Θミ穝场255.00%徖ネ褐-13.86% 羛ノ現叭礚计-99.77% -98.49%┬礚计礚计砏购吏挂現の叭5.97% -1.84% 176.52%現獀臮拜快そ21.05% 礚计ゅ眃約冀19.44% 穝猭ㄒ10.45% ぃ珹祙叭加8.25%玂礚计礚计坝-1.08% 羛ノ笲块-28.84% 0.10% 寒笰矪0.00% 0.68% 3.15%洛励徊钉2.94% 1.15% -1.58%縱竝45.12% ISO9000ゅン┮璓0.60% -3.89%计竝-6.21% 羛ノ竝18.24% パ穐綞快そτ璶
ㄏノ穝礚计現┎参璸矪-15.52% 38.17%パ9秈︽い戳参璸の瓣チネ玻羆璸购-26.04%チ渤狝叭矪-3.73% 4.53% 29.01%チ矪-1.38% 6.29% 3.29%れ祘竝-25.91% -2.19% -17.27%ビ禗盡 アㄇ计82.59% 穝快そ40.00%そ爹矪-32.73% 羛ノ胓毙竝2.67% 18.41% 穝の穝砞称翠闽40.64% 4.94% -26.12%措叭竝5.68% き綞
穝快そ毙▅竝-28.91% -4.35% 10.38%诀筿祘竝9.53% -1.47% 纒紅の筿场羆场-66.91%琌诀筿
祘竝羆场吏挂玂臔竝3.50% 礚计3.80%ň矪礚计礚计現┎︽狝叭钉-17.25% 3.88% -55.46%現┎ó进恨瞶矪11.17% 羛ノ現┎て喷┮礚计礚计現┎玻穨竝-27.52% 羛ノ現┎ㄑ莱矪0.21% -3.40% 徖ネ竝9.75% 3.40% 18.55%隔現竝-6.61% 25.72%珹玭伦いみ穝快そ5.25%現叭羆竝-8.43% 10.99% 31.46%翠磕恨瞶Ы礚计13.74%快そ耎の筄洛皘ㄆ叭竝-5.88% -2.85% 133.11%┬竝-22.68% 1.24% 34.26%羆服疭稧現盡そ竝66.97% 穝笆9.98% -27.89%チ挂ㄆ叭矪-4.32% 4.48% 434.27%щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦14.85% 5.63% 17.65%穨竝-1.47% -0.13% 250.89%現┎穝籇矪-20.46% 5.79% 1.58%戈癟м竝-19.92% 羛ノ-18.98%祙叭Ы礚计-14.14% -14.10%醚玻舦竝7.70% 4.57% 猭诀篶43.05% 快そ耎の穝狝叭4.01% 68.68%骋矪26.00% 穝玥4.44% -16.66%爹矪-12.62% 羛ノ現羆竝-3.67% 羛ノ猭穿竝19.86% 羛ノ現竝礚计 羛ノㄆ矪-9.94% 1.09% -9.91瘆玻恨瞶竝礚计 羛ノノ秖
畉ゑ瞯ノ筿秖
畉ゑ瞯 紀Μ
畉ゑ瞯〓场︓﹗籔
き︓﹗ゑ称爹︓﹗籔
き︓﹗ゑ 称爹︓﹗籔
き︓﹗ゑ
称爹砏购竝-45.43% 10.21% 秎現竝-3.48% 1.73% -9.71%現┎叭Ы-99.44% 13.97% -8.71%そ叭ノ〆穦礚计4.56% 翠筿-12.75% 2.33% -4.23%畉昏穨︳基竝11.30%パ畉昏蝶︳舱22.86% パ快そ耎-0.75%跋办カ現羆竝18.52% 21.12% -1.49%產翠牡叭矪6.35% 12.15% 14.15%產翠ぱゅ-18.93% -2.99% 39.42%羱の狝叭兵ン盽叭〆穦-26.19% -4.17% 75.00%そ叭羱の狝叭兵ン盽叭〆穦-33.82% -14.54% 0.00%厩ネ戈快ㄆ矪0.52% 7.67% 穦褐竝5.00% 11.62% -60.57%筿癟恨瞶Ы15.12% 39.11% -22.72%┹甶竝28.57% 惠璶τ级糶
厨8.89% -6.31%禩竝-12.01% 2.06% 24.18%笲块竝3.72% 羛ノ畐叭竝-14.29% 羛ノ紇跌の甌贾ㄆ叭恨瞶矪-0.29% 羛ノ厩毙▅戈〆穦-1.43% 28.36%きる癬ㄏノ穝快そよ101.36%カ現羆竝8.09% 2.31% -4.63%叭竝礚计礚计
羆肂-22.08%-5.52%10.87%*羆砰计㎝κだゑ珹êㄇユのき计ゑ耕场/
British Citizenship for Non-ethnic Chinese Minorities
17. MISS EMILY LAU asked: In view of the statement by the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 1 May 1996 that the Labour Party would give full support to a government bill to grant British citizenship to the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong, will the Administration inform this Council whether it has stepped up efforts to urge the present British Government to bring forward such a bill in the United Kingdom Parliament and, if so, what the British Government's response is?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Hong Kong Government has consistently supported the case of non-Chinese ethnic minorities with sole British nationality for the grant of British citizenship. The British Government's guarantee, announced by the Prime Minister on 4 March 1996, of admission to and settlement in the United Kingdom in the unlikely event that they ever came under pressure to leave Hong Kong was a significant improvement on previous assurances given to this group. We will continue to put our case to the British Government whenever the opportunity arises. We welcome the support for this case from any quarter.
Airline Check-in Counter Indicators at Kai Tak
18. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Regarding airline check-in counter indicators along the passage way leading to the vehicle drop-off area at the Departure Hall level of the airport at Kai Tak, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) when such indicators were last updated; and
(b) why indicators of some airlines which have been in operation at the airport for quite some time have still not been put up?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) The airline check-in location signage along the passage-way leading to vehicle drop-off area at the Departure level will be updated when there are changes in the location of the airlines check-in areas. It was recently updated in April 1996.
(b) There is not enough room along this passage-way to provide check-in location signage for all scheduled airlines serving Hong Kong, which at present comes to 52. The Director of Civil Aviation has consulted the Transport Department and the Airlines Operators Committee on this issue. To ensure that the location signage is readable by motorists and passengers in the cars, it has been agreed that check-in location signage be provided for 14 airlines with the highest passenger throughput at Kai Tak. These airlines together carry 83% of the total departing passengers.
Gambling Activities on Vessels Departing from Hong Kong
19. 糕蚌┚某拜現┎セЫ
(a) ヘ玡Τぶ看翠膀差更そ秈︽戒痴笆
(b) Τσ納ミㄒ恨赣单差唉セ翠办┮秈︽戒痴笆のΤ︙猭ㄒ菏恨赣单差唉秈︽ㄤ笆甌贾都籡疍单の
(c) Τ钡莉щ禗孔赣单差唉Τ瞅Αщ猔璣眘翠辽皑穦辽ㄆ笆璝ΤΤ闽讽Ы︙矪瞶赣单щ禗
現叭氮畊ネΤ闽借高瞷略氮滦
(a) 沮и-
┮瞷Τㄢ看差更パセ翠そ沮厨秈︽戒痴笆パ厨嘿差唉獶セ翠爹赣单差唉瓣悔办眖ㄆ摸笆ぃ翠猭┮菏恨叫把綷ゅ(b)兜
(b) 現┎⊿Τσ納ミㄒ恨赣单差唉セ翠办┮秈︽戒痴笆и-
ぃセ翠跋磅︽翠猭埃獶差唉セ翠爹薄猵瓣悔办デ獽穦沮翠猭ㄒ浪北
坝差兵ㄒ材369彻恨差岔┮Τ翠膀犁快眖翠祇祘差常璶竒現┎喷差ヴ浪喷絋玂差唉瞒秨翠翠玡才セ翠夹非
闽甌贾よ沮そ渤甌贾初┮兵ㄒ材172彻差唉セ翠办ず矗ㄑそ渤甌贾斗ビ烩礟酚蒥現Ы㎝跋办蒥現Ы琌だ︑恨烈絛瞅祇礟诀闽
︓都よ徖ネ竝竝ボ浪のň兵ㄒ材141彻﹚Τ兵ゅ秸琩环瑅近差祇ネい瑀ㄆン㎝矪瞶差徖ネ薄猵
讽Ы礚疭猭ㄒ砏恨摸差唉秈︽籡疍笆の
(c) 牡よボ-
ゼΤ钡莉щ禗赣单差唉Τ瞅Αщ猔璣眘翠辽皑穦辽ㄆ笆
Code of Banking Practice
20. 霉不瓣某拜現┎セЫ磕恨瞶Ы﹚"蝗︽穨玥"Τσ納某琌︽
(a) 祇秗蝗︽"扳"穝秗布扳基蔼ゲ斗ㄆ玡眔現┎у斗冈瓃┮眔ノ硚
(b) 蝗︽カチ矗ㄑ箂扳磕玻珇ゲ斗Τ闽ゅンい睲贰┮Μ"–龟悔瞯"の矗Ν临蹿籃玥砏﹚
(c) 蝗︽籔箂扳め┮璹﹚ゅン莱ら盽ノ粂览称
(d) ﹚"犁穨も猭ま"ㄑ蝗︽┮竨ノΜ计そ宽眖の
(e) 皐癸戳场だ蝗︽璹獺ノ兵ゅㄏㄤ材┸臩め戈璹ま玂毁蝗︽め╬留舦の
璝Τ挡狦︙璝︙
癩竒ㄆ叭氮畊ネ蝗︽穨玥"玥"瞇籠絛瞅珹╬め程盽ノ蝗︽狝叭ㄒ蹿禪蹿㎝獺ノ借高い┮矗の兜埃材兜А玥览乎借高材(a)场だ矗Τ闽猭﹚刽兜琌蝗︽刽祇︽兵ㄒㄣ砰砏恨τぃ妮玥絛瞅翠猭ㄒ礚砏﹚蝗︽刽斗扳ㄆ龟Τ琂﹚蒥初扳芥穝侣刽Μ旅珇τ硂ㄇ刽Аぃㄤ禦芥︓扳ぉΜ旅单刽﹚基ごパ祇秗蝗︽∕﹚
蝗︽穨玥舱"舱"碞览乎紉高蝗︽穨そ穦㎝禣〆穦礛も秈︽冈灿玥览瞷顶琿и-
ぃ﹜碞借高材(b)︓(e)场だ┮矗ㄆ兜ㄣ砰某絋莱ぃ筁舱瞷タ碞硂ㄇㄆ兜逼Ω籔借高σ納絛氓
(b) 舱盢穦σ納蝗︽穨兵ㄒ粄诀篶琌惠璶め矗ㄑ箂扳蝗︽玻珇弧戈禪蹿㎝獺ノよ硂ㄇ戈珹璸衡非玥珹惠璶璸瞯㎝Τ闽禣ノのΜ禣珹矗Ν临蹿┪筁戳煤蹿籃蹿单
(c) 舱盢穦σ納琌惠璶睱フゅ睲贰览﹚粄诀篶籔ㄤめぇ丁兵蹿ョ才猭ゅンゲ斗絋ヘ
(d) 翠磕恨瞶Ы硓筁る砞ミ筿杠荐帹钡莉Τ闽粄诀篶沟ノΜ计そщ禗せきる璓ㄧ┮Τ粄诀篶璶―ボㄤΜ计そぃΜ计︽笆い癸ヴ︙繷┪龟悔纞┪忌︽τ粄诀篶のㄤΜ计そョぃ眔材珹禪蹿吭高產妮┪狟ね刚瓜發癚ろ蹿单礚籔粄诀篶帽竝タΑ踞玂禪蹿杜叭磕恨瞶Ыョ璶―粄诀篶埃禪蹿の踞玂戈氨ゎΜ计そ┸臩吭高┪材戈Τ闽玥穦更沟ノΜ计そ秈˙ま舱種﹚赣玥ㄤず甧玡莱览称のそガセ场だのΤ闽吭高场だ硂ㄢ场だ箇戳穦せせる┏オそガの
(e) ┮Τ粄诀篶ゲ斗宽戈╬留兵ㄒΤ闽Μ栋ㄏノのΤめ戈砏﹚赣玥ョ穦更Τ闽め戈玂盞秈˙まㄒ粄诀篶ゲ斗睲贰のㄣ砰﹚︙贺薄猵め玂盞戈ぉ┸臩のゲ斗紉―め種ㄤ睲贰秆睦┸臩戈瞶パの絛瞅
MOTIONS
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That -
(a) the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134) be amended in section 51(2), by repealing "$50,000" and substituting "$450,000";
(b) the Dangerous Drugs Regulations (Cap. 134 sub. leg.) be amended in regulation 5(7), by repealing "fifty thousand dollars" and substituting "$450,000"."
He said: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Section 100A(1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) provides that the Legislative Council may, by resolution, amend any ordinance so as to increase the amount of any fine specified in that ordinance, as well as the amount of any fine specified in that ordinance as an amount that may be prescribed in subsidiary legislation made under the ordinance.
The motion before Members seeks to:
(a) increase the maximum level of the fine specified under section 51(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, from $50,000 to $450,000, as an amount that may be prescribed in subsidiary legislation made under the Ordinance; and
(b) increase the maximum fine specified in Regulation 5(7) of the Dangerous Drugs Regulations, from $50,000 to $450,000, which may be imposed by the court for any offence in contravention of the record-keeping requirement stipulated in the Dangerous Drugs Regulations.
The Dangerous Drugs Regulations set out, inter alia, record-keeping requirements to be adhered to by an authorized person when supplying a dangerous drug. This is to ensure that full particulars of the acquisition and supply of dangerous drugs are recorded. Such records facilitate the monitoring of the acquisition and supply of dangerous drugs by authorized persons. The present maximum penalty stipulated under Regulation 5(7), and capped by section 51(2) of the principal Ordinance, for any offence in contravention of the record-keeping requirements, is $50,000 and imprisonment for three years.
Taking into account the fact that the fine has not been revised since 1969, the seriousness of the offence, the community's concern about the problem of illicit sale of dangerous drugs, and the need to keep the fine at a sufficiently high level to maintain its deterrent effect, we propose to increase the maximum level of fine from $50,000 to $450,000.
The Action Committee Against Narcotics, as well as the medical and pharmacist professions have been consulted and are in support of the proposal.
The Administration is determined to tackle the problem of illicit sale of dangerous drugs. As part of our overall efforts to tackle the problem, we have proposed to tighten the record-keeping requirements on the acquisition and the supply of dangerous drugs, through amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Regulations which are tabled in this Council this afternoon. The Amendment Regulations, if effected, will remove certain exemptions or alternative arrangements which are liable to abuse. The proposed increase in the maximum level of fines will serve to maintain the deterrent effect of penalties for offences in contravention of the record-keeping requirements.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I support the motion on behalf of the medical profession. Having said that, I have to say that this does not touch the core of the matter. There are obviously black sheep in the medical profession, for example, who are basically peddling drugs, using the good name of medical treatment. What is being done now is not enough really to protect this particular movement. And I do hope that in the course of time, the Government, through different channels, could look into the ways and means to actually impinge or convict the illegal sale of drugs, even through the medical profession, as drug peddling and not just as keeping improper records. Similarly, the rampant illicit sale of drugs, in pharmarcies and dispensaries across the counter, which are supposed to be sold only on prescription must also be tackled. I would urge the Government to really look at the core of the matter, for by just raising the fines, you are only touching the tip of the iceberg. Thank you.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I would like to thank Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung's support for this motion. I certainly take to heart his urging that the Government should continue to look at and examine our legislation governing the sale of dangerous drugs to see how it may be improved and we will certainly do so. I hope that we will also have support of members of the community across different sectors and I hope we will get some useful advice and suggestions from them when we hold another meeting of the Governor's Summit on Drugs tomorrow. Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
DOGS AND CATS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
TELECOMMUNICATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (AMENDMENT) 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
DOGS AND CATS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Dogs and Cats Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Dogs and Cats (Amendment) Bill 1996 be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legal and institutional structure necessary to support regulations safeguarding members of the public from serious attacks by dogs.
Existing legislation requires that a dog be kept on a leash in a public place, prohibits the keeping of a dog which persistently annoys or menaces neighbours or passers-by and prohibits anyone from allowing an unmuzzled ferocious dog into a public place. If a magistrate receives a complaint that a dog is dangerous, he may order that the animal be destroyed or kept under proper control. These provisions apply to dogs in general, without reference to specific breeds.
The Bill has three main provisions.
First, it enables a police officer or any other authorized officer to seize and detain any dog that has bitten or attacked any person and, subject to the outcome of any appeal, to destroy the dog if it has caused the death of a person. A dog can also be destroyed in circumstances where it cannot be seized without a serious risk to public safety or if a magistrate orders its destruction.
Secondly, the Bill provides for appeals against various decisions made, and actions taken, by the Director or an authorized officer under the Ordinance to be considered by the Administrative Appeals Board.
Thirdly, it proposes that a Dogs and Cats Classification Board be established to determine, on application to it, the breed of a dog or cat. The Board will have 11 members appointed by the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries after consideration of nominations made by tertiary education institutions, animal welfare associations, veterinary surgeons' organizations, dog breeding organizations and the Police Force.
Once the Bill has been passed by this Council, the Government intends to introduce Regulations which will classify dangerous dogs into three categories, namely, fighting dogs, known dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs and set out the specific controls applicable to each category.
The "fighting dogs" category will consist of the Pit Bull Terrier and similar breeds. These dogs are liable to attack a person without provocation or warning and may inflict serious injuries or death. The proposed regulation will ban importation and breeding of such dogs. Possession of such a dog will also be prohibited unless it is neutered and covered by insurance to a value of not less than $100,000 to indemnify damage caused by the dog. If the breeder of an existing fighting dog surrenders his dog to the Director for destruction during the transitional period of 120 days, he will receive an ex-gratia payment of $3,000.
The "known dangerous dogs" category will consist of individual dogs classified as such by a magistrate on application to him that the dog has a history of attacking and injuring people. Possession of such a dog will also be prohibited unless it is neutered and covered by insurance to a value of not less than $100,000 to indemnify damage caused by the dog.
The "potentially dangerous dogs" category will consist of breeds including among others Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, and American Bulldogs. These breeds do not normally attack people without provocation but they have the size, strength and potential ferocity of a guard dog. Such dogs are capable of inflicting serious injuries on people if they attack.
Under the proposed regulation, it will be an offence to allow a dog in any of the three categories to go into or remain in a public place unless it is both on a leash and muzzled.
Mr President, I commend the Bill to this Council.
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).
TELECOMMUNICATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Telecommunication Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Telecommunication (Amendment) Bill 1996 be read a Second time.
It is the intention of the Administration that laws which may have impact on press freedom or the freedom of expression should be amended or repealed. Following a comprehensive review of all relevant legislation, sections 13C and 28 of the Telecommunication Ordinance were among the provisions identified which might affect press freedom or freedom of expression.
Section 13C(3)(a) empowers the Broadcasting Authority to include a condition in a radio licence under which the licensee may be required not to broadcast radio programmes which would contravene a direction by the Governor in Council or the Broadcasting Authority, or other regulations. This provision is considered excessive.
Clause 2 of the Bill repeals section 13C(3)(a). This is in line with the repeal of a similar power regarding television programmes. We will follow this up at the mid-term reviews of the radio licences by deleting the condition in those licences which reflects this section.
Notwithstanding the repeal of section 13C(3)(a), the Broadcasting Authority will retain the power to regulate the standards of radio programmes, and the courts will have the power to ban programmes in specific circumstances, as set out in section 13M of the Telecommunication Ordinance.
Section 28 makes it an offence to transmit a message known to be false by telecommunication. This provision is considered too vague and onerous.
Clause 3 of the Bill accordingly replaces section 28 by a new provision which prohibits the transmission of false or deceptive distress, safety or identification signals. This is in line with the requirements of Article 47 of the Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union.
Mr President, I commend this Bill to the Council.
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).
FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance."
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄1996紅の穨竒犁璹兵ㄒ
兵ㄒΤㄢ璶ヘ材琌甭舦骋矪矪祇既氨硄㎝窗玃э到硄材琌璹Τ闽⊿Τ宽眖既氨硄┪窗玃э到硄砏﹚妮笻猭
沮瞷︽兵ㄒ骋矪矪礚舦Τ闽氨ゎ縱絃┪氨ゎ絃ずヴ︙祘┪诀竟笲ㄏΤ瞶パ獺絃ず笻ㄒ薄猵穦のョ掉﹛ビ叫パ猭畑氨ゎΤ闽巨
パビ叫猭畑㏑硄盽惠璶耕丁ビ叫戳丁ゼΤ埃旧璓繧薄猵Τ闽縱絃穦祇ネ腨種兵ㄒ某骋矪矪莱莉甭舦Τ闽狥㎝┯坝祇硄-
ミいゎ癸硑Θ腨ō砰端甡繧┪氨ゎㄏノ繧砞琁
骋矪矪盢穦璹絋场ま絋玂祇既氨硄ぇ玡赣矪続讽戮糵уΤ闽∕﹚蹦ノ璓夹非秈︽糵у钡莉既氨硄粄∕﹚ぃそキよΑ璶―骋矪矪滦癸滦挡狦ぃ骸Τ闽︽現禗〆穦矗禗
癸êㄇぃ穦癸硑Θ繧笻ㄒ薄猵и-
某甭舦骋矪矪祇窗玃э到硄璶―狥の┯坝﹚丁ずタ笻ㄒよパぃ宽窗玃э到硄妮笻猭и獺穝惫琁穦ゑヘ玡パ骋矪祇腢粅獺暗猭Τ躬纘狥㎝┯坝縩伐э到
パ穝猭ㄒ琌玃ㄏ狥㎝┯坝宽の糹︽-
瞷︽兵ㄒ砫ヴ玃秈穨и-
某穝猭ㄒ莱赣ネ
程兵ㄒ某ぃ宽眖既氨硄程蔼籃琌籃蹿50窾じの菏窽12る狦ㄤご礛ぃ宽眖硄砏﹚玥–ぱ籃蹿程蔼笷5窾じи-
粄ぃ宽眖既氨硄穦の琌兜腨竜︽璹﹚耕籃
畊ネи略矗某
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
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 24 April 1996
糂簙煌某璓勉畊ネ1996チ挂璹兵ㄒㄓゅセΞ坚睲讽Ы禫玭現┎矗缓琘禫玭差チ璶―埃獶禫玭現┎┶荡赣兜璶―┪埃獶猭皘Τ闽薄猵掉耞赣差チ砆霹痙琿ぃ瞶丁玥猭皘ぃ眔沮チ挂兵ㄒ虏嘿"赣兵ㄒ"材13D兵掉耞霹痙赣ヘぃ笷璓┪赤ア玂せるら盢赣兵ㄒ矗ユセЫ哪睦ㄤ璉春
セЫ纯Θミ兵ㄒ〆穦╯赣兵ㄒパセ踞ヴ畊兵ㄒ〆穦籔讽Ы羭︽穦某σ納せ刮砰矗種ǎの糵某パ闽猔舱麓猭盡穨刮砰の┮矗ユ種ǎ
╯赣兵ㄒ〆穦Μパ场だ刮砰┮矗癸兵ㄒず甧眏疨は癸セ瞷栋い哪瓃兵ㄒ〆穦┮╯璶闽猔ㄆ兜
〆闽猔赣兵ㄒΞ崩陆璣瓣枷盞皘∕﹚胔好ミ猭崩陆枷盞皘∕玥琌讽
現┎粄現┎莱猭皘∕某癸猭ㄒ璹礚ぃТ現┎臛嘿セ翠舅猭︽現のミ猭琌舦だミ猭诀闽戮砫琌猭ㄒ膏睦︽現诀闽琌矗ㄤ粄蝴臔そ渤痲猭ㄒτミ猭诀闽玥∕﹚琌硄筁赣兜猭ㄒ癸猭诀闽ぃ穛拜肈セぃ讽Ы眏秸現┎現郸琌盢禫玭差チ霹痙单缓瞒翠讽Ы獺枷盞皘∕玡"单缓瞒"琌逼盢差チ缓禫玭┮惠丁ㄤい珹单禫玭讽Ы碞缓禫玭差チ璶―莱┮惠丁禗猭皘やǎ秆枷盞皘玱Τぃ掉∕羭硑Θ猭簗瑌紇臫セ翠霹痙差チ現郸珿Τゲ璶璹Τ闽猭ㄒ龟琁蝴臔そ渤痲τ璹現郸览某璹琌盢赣猭ㄒ確︓讽Ы獺琌枷盞皘赣兜∕玡痷タ猵
兵ㄒ〆穦伐稰闽猔琌赣兵ㄒ甧砛ヴ種╇窽獽穦籔そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そ虏嘿"赣そ"材兵Τ┮牟赣兵ゅ兜玂靡ㄤい珹"ヴ︙ぃ眔ヴ種ぉ╇窽"赣兵ㄒ籔そΤヴ︙牟ぇ矪猭皘沮璣虎材VII5兵盢ぇ紀埃
畊ネ某教ゲ笵赣そ翠続ノ絛瞅璝玂痙兵ゅ┮恨ㄤい兜玂痙兵ゅ琌籔挂猭ㄒΤ闽场だ刮砰粄赣兜パ璣瓣翠帽璹そ┮璹﹚玂痙兵ゅぃ続ノ赣兵ㄒ赣兵ㄒ籔礚舦秈セ翠の翠硆痙秈硆痙の瞒秨翠ㄆ﹜礚闽τ癸ヴ︙翠禫玭差チ挂ōだ⊿Τ紇臫〆τ璶―讽Ы坚睲ㄤ癸玂痙兵ゅ続ノ絛瞅ミ初
現┎臛嘿赣兵ㄒ礚甧砛ヴ種╇窽琌矗ㄑ┮惠猭琜篶龟琁莱у獶猭簿チ︑禫玭撮セ翠τ璹霹痙現郸赣兜現郸琌瞶のゲ璶讽Ы粄赣兵ㄒ琌兜挂猭ㄒ妮璣瓣現┎せу赣そ┮璹﹚玂痙兵ゅ続ノ絛瞅ず猭ㄒ碞翠τē赣兵ㄒョ琌玂痙兵ゅ続ノ絛瞅ず览某タノ琌糤兜兵ゅ璹禫玭現┎莱缓璶―玡霹痙ヘ埃"单缓瞒"ョ"单钡Μ瓣莱"硂兜猭ㄒ琂才籔秈硆痙の瞒秨翠Τ闽挂ヘョノ砏恨赣单ㄆ﹜赣兵ㄒ礚斗そ┮τ赣兵ㄒョ礚ヴ︙籔舅ぃ才ぇ矪
闽赣兵ㄒス莉眔硄筁穦旧璓赣单禫玭差チ綝礚戳╇窽-
獶禫玭瓣チ禫玭現┎琌ぃ穦钡-
缓讽Ы秆睦︑る秨﹍禫玭現┎獶盽絋ボ穦碞–﹙祇钡Μ┪┶荡钡Μ硄讽Ы眏秸礚戳╇窽拜肈セぃ沮チ挂兵ㄒ材13D1A兵猭皘Τ舦まノ"瞶丁"代刚掉﹚癸Τ闽差チ╇窽琌ぃ猭
兵ㄒ〆穦闽猔ㄆ兜琌ビ叫ō玂臔猭祘い赣兵ㄒ玠畓猭皘﹚霹痙琌猭σ納┮ΤΤ闽靡沮ㄤい兜靡沮琌禫玭現┎ぃΜ獶禫玭瓣チ現郸Τ禫玭現┎タΑ┶荡讽Ы璶―ぃуΤ闽差チ缓薄猵霹痙赣差チ妮ぃ瞶┪ぃ猭硂玱獶翠現┎┮北
讽Ы粄猭皘ぃσ納╇窽戳琌筁の沮赣兵ㄒ琌ぃ瞶猭皘╯霹痙ヘよ莉结ぉ舦ゼ砆篗琌┑筐︓Τ闽ㄆ龟戈称Т﹍︽ㄏ┮戈琌禫玭現┎碞穦钡Μ缓禫玭差チ┮莱戈ゼ莉靡龟玡猭皘┮ヴ︙∕﹚常琌储代の材ōだ瞦瓣現┎は莱τ
讽Ы睦埃硂好納矗览某〆穦糵某顶琿タ讽Ы粄Τ闽タ睲贰は琈ㄤ癸禫玭差チ┮龟琁霹痙現郸哪盢-
霹痙"单缓瞒"ヘョ珹"单禫玭現┎莱"絋﹚-
琌莉钡缓猭皘まノ瞶霹痙戳玥繦睦砆霹痙
糵某讽Ы┮矗览某〆穦糵某顶琿タ兵ㄒ〆穦〆Τぃ種ǎ场だ〆粄竒タ兵ㄒ睲贰讽Ы霹痙現郸琌ゲ惠の瞶ボ︑パ囊㎝チ羛某盢穦や竒タ兵ㄒチ︗某ボ舦颗讽Ы霹痙現郸の舦拜肈ㄢ甡ㄤ┮妮現囊某盢穦や竒タ兵ㄒ
兵ㄒ〆穦╯赣兵ㄒ筁祘い猭臮拜纯ボ赣兵ㄒ讽Ы某タ睲贰は琈ㄤ癸禫玭差チ┮龟琁霹痙現郸盢穦讽Ы矗ㄑ耕眏瞶沮Θ婚ジΤ闽兵ㄒ甧砛ヴ種霹痙嘿τ兵ㄒョ才そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔その璣虎砏﹚
场だ〆は癸竒タ兵ㄒ兵ㄒ穦玠畓セ翠┮ㄉ︑パ膀娄ョ穦癸舦硑Θ穕甡
艷祸某粄览某〆穦糵某顶琿タΤろ絋祔穦酚翠畍そ穦某碞览某兵ゅ材131AB兵矗兜タセ穦痙艷祸某︗秆睦ㄤ览某タ冈薄
セ獺ㄤ某祔ョ穦哪睦-
種ǎ琌セ兵ㄒ糵某〆穦畊ōだ┮厨
畊ネセ種ǎ琌讽Ы霹痙現郸瞶τ竒タ兵ㄒョ絋は琈ㄤ現郸ヘ夹
セ略朝勉やパ現┎矗兵ㄒタセ
朝挪狶某璓勉畊ネ棒峨ヘ玡猭ㄒ簗瑌現┎セЫ矗惠璶璹チ挂兵ㄒ︽現讽Ы膥尿龟︽霹痙êㄇ单缓差チ現郸ぃ穦砆猭畑崩陆
チ羛粄膀翠龟悔惠璶σ納赣兜璹﹚舦玂毁兵ゅ珿и-
穦や琌Ω璹и-
踞み璝ぃ荷е硄筁Τ闽璹盢穦Τぃぶ差チノ猭ㄒ簗瑌猭皘矗禗и-
ョ踞みㄇΤ安ōだ靡ゅン差チ穦莉眔睦
ㄆ龟硂贺"痴痴"︽笆诀穦Θセㄤ龟Τ闽禗砠禣ノА莉眔猭穿竝矗ㄑ
ヘ玡現┎セЫ┮矗璹翴絋埃獶の︓禫玭讽Ы钡タΑ穦┪丁钡硓筁羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝タΑ穦翠┎Τ闽┶Μ差チㄆ┪差チ琿瞶丁ずごゼ莉眔禫玭讽Ы龟ōだ玥猭皘ぃ掉﹚Τ闽差チ砆禫玭現┎┶Μ
ㄇ蝴臔禫玭差チ痲刮砰穐舦单瞶├は癸琌Ω璹チ羛粄琌Ω璹龟悔籔舦┰ぃ闽玒璹兵ㄒ琌ぃ穦差チ綝礚戳╇痙差チご碞╇痙丁筁ぃ瞶τビ叫秈︽猭滦
舦ぃ莱琌ㄇ┾禜玥τ琌ネネ瞷龟翠種腀笷眔睲贰猭ㄒ簗瑌琌惠璶恶干狦σ納差チ舦拜肈陪礛笻は翠種腀
渤┮㏄翠┎禫玭差チ拜肈瞷畉眏種и粄ヴ︙現郸А璶酚臮チ薄翠癸禫玭差チ荷だ翠┎の璣瓣現┎玱ゼ瓣悔穦翠程痲はτêㄇ蝴臔禫玭差チ舦痲刮砰篕翠癸禫玭差チぃ笵瓣現┎禫驹薄種挡┮紇臫ㄤ癸禫玭差チ現郸オ穘耚差チぃ玻ネㄇぃ龟瞷ほ稱
羇ㄏ翠┎莱瓣悔穦某逼磅︽侯︽笆璸购Τ闽场磅︽ぃ┕ぃ拜ㄤ種腀τ虫酚Μ暗猭氨ゎ禫玭ぃゲ璶ほ稱и玃叫讽Ы荷еガ材Μ甧翠現郸瘤礛Μ甧禫玭差チも尿瞷э跑ぃ单翠ぃΜ甧ㄓ翠差チ-
荡场だ痙翠秈︽郝祘碞Τ诀穦ㄤ﹁よ瓣產
畊ネㄏи-
さぱや琌兜璹и-
フ硂兵兵ㄒご穦ㄇ禫玭現┎ボぃ钡Μ差チ眔睦讽礛临珹ㄇぃ瞶戳╇痙瞶パ差チ莉猭畑睦碞チ羛借好現┎盢︙矪瞶Τ闽拜肈差チ莉睦τ磕穦琌︽ぃ硄硂妓暗穦差チ程沧痙翠τぃ禫玭τ翠カチЧぃ钡差チ磕穦
チ囊︙玊く某弧и-
⊿Τ瞶沮㎝靡沮陪ボカチぃ種差チ磕穦и-
辨らㄓ翠跋カチ帽笲笆の硓筁肚冀碈ざ眏疨㊣羘璶―現┎ミ缓┮Τ孩翠差チさぱミ猭Ы叫腀羘ョ睲捶陪ボ︙某稱眔靡沮и辨︙某镑碙チ種τэ跑チ囊∕∕﹚
畊ネи玃叫現┎膥尿砞猭秆∕差チ莉睦礚猭碝拜肈玂靡翠璣現┎砰簿ユ舦ぇ玡蛾骸秆∕耑翠差チ拜肈
セ略朝勉
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I understand the anxiety of those who feel threatened by the lawless minority among the Vietnamese migrants. I sympathize with the difficulty of the Administration in trying to solve this vexing problem. But this Bill is completely wrong. In its over-reaction to the recent Privy Council decision in which four Vietnamese migrants were released, the Administration is seeking to introduce a bill which would seriously compromise our most valuable safeguard of the liberty of the individual. It is unwarranted. It sets a dangerous precedent. I strongly urge this Council to vote against the Bill.
The Administration has indicated that amendments to the Bill will be introduced at the Committee stage. On that basis, they invite this Council to pass the Bill. I have studied those amendments with great care. In my view, these amendments do not overcome the fundamental objection against the Bill. Moreover, they contain an ambiguity which can be totally damaging.
I have, by notice to you, Mr President, indicated that, should the Bill pass its Second Reading, I will seek to remove that ambiguity by means of an amendment at the Committee stage. You will no doubt deal with that matter if and when it arises, at that stage. However, Mr President, I hope that that stage will never come. We should reject this Bill now, without hesitation. We are dealing here with a principle which must be upheld if personal liberty is to be given effective protection: the principle that nobody can be deprived of his liberty save where the law expressly allows, and whoever exercises that power of detention, must prove to the court that he does so strictly according to law.
This principle is accepted by the Administration. In the Privy Council decision I have referred to earlier, the principle is once again re-affirmed:
"If a jailor could justify the detention of his prisoner by saying "in my view, the facts necessary to justify the detention exist", the fundamental protection afforded by a habeas corpus would be severely limited."
Does this Council wish to erode that protection? Can this community afford to allow that protection to be eroded in the face of the severe challenges to human rights in the run-up to 1997?
The power of detention under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance
Mr President, the subject matter of the Bill is the detention of Vietnamese migrants under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance. The relevant provisions empowers the Director of Immigration to detain a Vietnamese migrant "pending removal".
It is therefore for the Director of Immigration to prove the facts necessary to justify to the court that this is indeed the case.
This is what the present law requires. The Administration has made it clear that they do not wish to disturb this requirement. Yet the Bill they have put before this Council runs directly contrary to it, by restricting the court's power to hear all the relevant evidence, and makes its own determination on whether a detention is still for the purpose of pending removal. Clause (2)(a) of the Bill in effect prohibits a court from finding that the purpose of a Vietnamese migrant's detention has failed or become spent except in the narrow case, where the Government of Hong Kong had been notified that a request for the approval to remove him to Vietnam had been rejected.
Thus the court is, in effect, precluded from determining any facts except whether a notice of rejection by the Vietnamese Government has been received. And where no such notice has been received, the court is precluded from finding that the purpose of detention pending removal has failed. This can hardly be called a real "determination" at all.
Arbitrary detention
Further, this Bill is also open to the criticism of arbitrary detention. Making the lawfulness of the detention, in effect, dependent on a notice being issued and received, given the track record of the Vietnamese authorities, may certainly be criticized for arbitrariness. It flies in the face of common sense, that whether or not there exists strong proof that a person has no chance of being accepted by the Vietnamese Government, the only piece of evidence the court can be concerned is with the notice of rejection or the lack of it.
Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary ...... detention". The Bill therefore contravenes the ICCPR. Whether it is thereby inconsistent with the Letter Patent or not, it will be very wrong for this Council to pass such a law.
The Privy Council decision and purpose of the Bill
Mr President, not only is the Bill wrong and undesirable. It is also wholly unnecessary. According to the Administration, this Bill has been introduced in order to plug the "loophole" created by the Privy Council decision which undermines our detention policy regarding Vietnamese migrants.
But what is in the decision which the Administration seeks to counter? What is the "loophole" that the Administration seeks to close? In his speech introducing the Bill on 24 April, the Secretary for Security told this Council the decision which has created the problem:
"[the 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 is therefore spent and they could no longer be detained. The Privy Council accepted these arguments ......"
He also described the "loophole" in these terms:
"...... there is a real risk that fraudulently obtained documents may be produced by them [that is, the VMs] to seek release from detention. In the Administration's view, this is a potential loophole which should be closed as quickly as possible."
It was also felt that the Privy Council had not given sufficient weight to the fact that it took a long time for the Vietnamese Government to respond.
But these are matters of evidence and a finding of fact which can and should be dealt with by new evidence. Now, the Secretary had told us that effective action had already been taken. The Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had since visited Vietnam. The Vietnamese Government had agreed to study the problem. Responses to request for repatriation in the last six months had been expeditious. In their response to the Bar Council's comments on the Bill, the Administration said, in no uncertain terms: "If they [the Privy Council] had had the facts, we believe they would have decided differently." If so, what problem can the Administration possibly have defeating any future application for habeas corpus for the release of Vietnamese migrant, on the argument that non-Vietnamese residents will be refused repatriation?
In any case, as the Secretary had told this Council on 24 April, all Vietnamese migrants within the terms of the Privy Council's decision who came to the Administration's knowledge had already been released. Far from dealing with a real, substantial and pressing problem, we are being asked to legislate on speculation for the famous hypothetical. The Administration is truly making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The entire need for the Bill can be said to be built on a spider's net of errors. The Secretary for Security said that the long period for obtaining a response from the Vietnamese authorities should not "in general be treated as evidence of refusal or rejection by them." The court has never done so. The Secretary said that the Administration is "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." There was never such an assumption. In any case, the Bill does far more than just preventing such an assumption from arising.
Finally, in a letter dated 4 May, the Secretary told Members of the Bills Committee that the need for legislation arose from the Privy Council not supporting the view that "the time taken to put in place the arrangements for the repatriation of Vietnamese migrant to Vietnam [includes] the time taken to secure a response from the Hanoi authorities to our request for his return."
In reality, the Privy Council decision expressly referred to the provision in section 13D(1A) of the Ordinance, and said that in deciding what is a "reasonable period" of detention before detention becomes unlawful, the court must take into consideration "the extent to which it is possible to make arrangements to effect his removal" and "whether or not the person has declined arrangements made or proposed for his removal".
There is simply no justification to tamper with the present law, and no justification to interfere with the Privy Council's decision, which in such a timely fashion, reaffirms one of the most important functions of our courts in safeguarding the liberty of the individual. This is what the rule of law has been called into being to defend: the liberty of the least of us against the mightiest of the state machinery.
Mr President, the rule of law is a seamless garment. Rend it anywhere, and it is damaged in the whole. Compromise a part, and we compromise it entirely. There is not one rule of law for us, and other for Vietnamese migrants. Do not let anyone tell us that the compromise is only temporary, and all these provisions will be scrapped in a year or so, when all the Vietnamese migrants will have been sent home. But by then, it will be too late. If this Council accepts and passes this Bill today, we will be telling the world that we are prepared to compromise our stand in protecting the individual against unlawful detention. The harm of that compromise will not be confined to any migrants or illegal entrants. It will be the first tear that rends asunder the fabric of our rule of law.
Thank you, Mr President.
朝篴篱某璓勉畊ネ禫玭差チ拜肈耑セ翠倒セ翠竒蕾穦の獀盿ㄓ↖璽踞㎝伐ぃ紇臫稱玡セ翠カチセ笵弘钡蕾硂竤綝現獀拜肈┪Ы墩锣跑τ璶発禫玭繦硂拜肈╈┑ㄤㄓ翠禫玭発ぃ琌現獀螟チτ琌竒蕾螟チ┪嘿ぇ"差チ"セ翠ぃ莱礚戳膥尿硂拜肈╈╈┰┰τ莱赣Τ秆∕快猭
畊ネэ跑瓃現郸Чぃ翠┎ぃ量笵猵瓣穦癸硂拜肈簔ぃ闽み琌パセ翠縒┯踞琌ぃ㎝伐ぃ瞶
さΩ禫玭差チフホ犁穌ㄆ縉奔-
戈瓜╈┑郝の缓璸购獺琌籔ら玡翠┎莱璣瓣枷盞皘ㄒ睦砆禫玭┶Μ差チΤ闽タΤ闽"睦︽笆"璓差チΤほ稱虑奶笆τま癬穦闽猔縉反戈眖τ辨膥尿孩痙セ翠︓磷缓
羛穦粄現┎莱眏差チ犁恨瞶の氨ゎ睦差チ差チ犁い暗波旧埃差チほ稱τ程沧秆∕快猭琌荷е缓"┮Τ"差チ翠┎さΩ"ο干╟"よΑ璹チ挂兵ㄒㄏ翠┎膥尿Τ舦╇痙单缓禫玭差チ琌眔や︓Τ舦舱麓踞み兵ㄒ璹穦玠畓猭皘舦現┎癸玂靡-
ぃノ踞み
セ伐闽猔缓差チ拜肈セぃЙ璚盋み現┎矗拜"狦翠┎ぃるら玡秆∕差チ拜肈碸服ρ耴バ穎"ぃ腁腹"璣瓣穦ぃ穦秎近砞︗盿差チ產㎡"
セ略朝勉
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, I am afraid that what we will do today if we pass this Bill is to make a blueprint for the neutralization of those safeguards that are supposed to protect fundamental human rights in this community.
Our fundamental rights are supposed to be secure because we supposedly have an Administration that respects our rights so much that they will not knowingly infringe them. And we are supposed to have an independent Judiciary that would not contenence those infringements. And furthermore, this Council would not authorize any encroachment on our rights, and that all three are constitutionally bound to observe international standards of human rights protection.
Unfortunately, the progress of this Bill shows how flimsy these safeguards can be under pressure.
The Bill is intended to undo the effect of the decision rendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Tan Te Lam case. The Administration says the Bill plugs a loophole carelessly poked in the law by that decision. But the Bill does not merely rearrange legal technicalities. It throws aside fundamental principles of the common law, as they were applied by one of the most respected courts in the common law world. What the Administration calls a "loophole" is in the fact the minimum space that the Judicial Committee regarded as necessary to safeguard human liberty.
The Judicial Committee agreed with the High Court in Hong Kong that, as a matter of fact, the appellant Vietnamese detainees had no prospect of repatriation or perhaps I should use the world "removal" since that is the legal term because Vietnam does not regard them as its nationals and will not accept the repatriation of non-nationals. On this factual basis, the Committee held that the Administration had no power to detain the appellants. The Committee accepted the Administration's general policy, however, of detaining Vietnamese migrants pending their removal. But in the appellants' circumstances, where that purpose could not be carried out, the Committee did not regard the missing formality of an express rejection by Vietnam as a good enough reason by itself to keep them behind bars. It held that the lawful purpose of their detention was spent and ordered their immediate release.
Mr President, you might find the talk of "spent purposes" sounds very technical, but the Judicial Committee made it clear that its legalisms, its legal reasoning arose from concern for human liberty. The Committee expressly reaffirmed the long-standing, common law principle that "the courts should always regard with extreme jealousy, and these are the words of the Privy Council "extreme jealousy", any claim by the executive to imprison (an individual) without trial and allow it only if it is clearly justified by the statutory language relied upon."
What we have in this decision is an example of the independent Judiciary doing its job well. While paying due deference to the underlying policy, the Judicial Committee restrained the Administration from treating particular individuals unfairly in their particular circumstances.
Despite its notional respect for human rights and judicial supervision, however, the Administration has shown no respect for the judges' concerns in this case. Officially, the Administration has attacked nearly every aspect of the decision as mistaken or misconceived. The Administration implausibly depicts the Judicial Committee as being bumbling legal oafs who misconstrued Vietnamese government policy, got the facts wrong about the appellants' nationality, failed to appreciate the importance of the Administration's detention policy, and gave too little thought to the effect the decision would have on the policy.
Some comments emanating from the Administration have verged on calls for a more compliant Judiciary. The Refugee Co-ordinator, Mr Brian BRESHIHAN, attacked the Judicial Committee for "not listening to the sentiments of the local community" and he said he looked forward to its replacement by a court that might do so in the future.
I am not at all persuaded by the Administration's intemperate action to the Judicial Committee's decision. It sounds to me like the whinging of a litigant who is upset about losing his case. Unfortunately, the Administration has turned rash words into rash action in the form of this Bill.
The Administration is proposing some cosmetic changes to the Bill to mollify its critics, but nothing that truly alters its basic effect. While the Bill as originally drafted tells the judges the answer that they are expected to give in the future, the Bill as the Administration proposes to amend it tells the judges more subtly which questions they should not ask in the future. Either way, the Bill will prevent the judges from examining again whether a formal Vietnamese response, pending which a particular individual remains in detention, is really worth waiting for in that individual's particular circumstances.
The Judicial Committee has already concluded that for certain individuals, Vietnam's response is predictably unfavourable and does not justify the continuing deprivation of their liberty without trial. However, we go about overruling that decision the detention that we authorize will be arbitrary, unjust and inappropriate.
Despite its troubling implications, the Bill has been pressed forward with irresponsible haste. Legislators were pressured to make extradordinary arrangements for the Bill to be passed from First Reading through enactment in a single day. Such unnecessary urgency would have prevented us from exploring the Bill's implications at all, and would have made this Council into a rubber-stamp. As it is, we will be voting on amendments that have had only a cursory examination.
The Administration brushes aside constitutional objections to the Bill by claiming that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, although entrenched in the Letters Patent, does not apply to the Bill. This is because of the weasel words in the Letters Patent, "as applied to Hong Kong." The Administration interprets these words as meaning that it has reserved the right to disregard international human rights standards as the apply to immigration legislation. If the argument prevails, it will allow it to prevail, it will be the fruition of a long history of equivocation about human rights, which the Administration always purports to champion while simultaneouly taking care not to bind its own freedom of action too tightly.
This Council has the power to override the Judicial Committee's decision. But we should hesitate before we join the Administration's rush to dismantle legal safeguards that protect the fundamental rights of an unpopular minority. Our own considered decision may well be the last one of those safeguards in this instance.
Of course, the political landscape may make such hesitation difficult for some. The Vietnamese detainees have long overstayed their welcome here. The riot two weeks' ago at Whitehead Detention Centre casts an even longer shadow over them. The prevailing mood is deeply hostile to them.
But, Mr President, none of the political factors have any real bearing on the merits of the Judicial Committee's decision, which was limited to a narrow set of circumstances that affect only a fraction of the detainees. The decision moderates the Administration's detention policy, but comes nowhere near overturning it. But these political factors do add up to precisely the type of circumstances where people most in need of the protection afforded by the judicial supervision that this Bill is set to undermine.
If we enact this Bill, we will demonstrate in what political circumstances fundamental rights are not legally secure in Hong Kong. The only question is whose right will they be next time.
Mr President, for these reasons, I will vote against the Bill, with or without the Administration's cosmetic amendment. The Bar Council's amendment that the Honourable Miss Margaret NG will be proposing goes some way towards preserving the judges' ability to take account of all the circumstances in a particular case, and I will therefore support that amendment.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I need not rehearse or repeat the arguments put before me by my honourable friends, but I think it is important to satisfy ourselves that the proposed amendment is devoid of arbitrariness in detaining people, or there is every danger that the law in its amended version, as proposed by the Government, might be invalidated and struck down by the courts.
I am a layman, so I should hope to speak in layman's terms. I believe, in layman's terms, that the common law requires the observance of safeguards to prevent the arbitrary detention of an individual. The revised Bill, which will be amended at the Committee stage, will include the expanded meaning of the concept in "detained pending removal" , that is, to include, in the case of a Vietnamese, asylum seeker awaiting a response from the Government of Vietnam. Consequently, a Vietnamese asylum seeker who is a subject of a deportation order will be detained, not only pending his removal but also pending a response to the request for his removal from the Government of Vietnam.
Now, to ordinary people like me, I think it spells trouble. I think it is a case of double arbitrariness. Now, while the legislature is ordinarily entitled to modify or override any common law principle, Article 7 of the Letters Patent now prohibits the enactment of a law that restricts the rights and freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong under the common law or statute law. To attempt to modify this is to override the common law principle, and this will be to restrict the right to freedom from arbitrary detention under the common law, in violation of Article 7 of the Letters Patent.
So, Mr President, if in passing the Bill it means crossing constitutional lines and the whole question of constitutionality is subject to challenge, if in passing the Bill it means that this Council will violate the right to equality of protection of individuals before the law, if in passing the Bill the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom from arbitrary detention is denied, we will be doing not only the Vietnamese or any other asylum seekers a grievous injustice, we will indeed do grievous injustice to this Council by passing a Bill which is basically wrong.
I have heard the sentiments of the local community. I have also received some petitions, and I think many of the petitioners have spoken loudly, clearly, eloquently, but they may not have fully grasped the legal aspect of this Amendment Bill. I think it is up to us, I think it is incumbent upon this legislature, to vote on the point of principle on which, I suggest, we should all make a stand. There are many in the community, I am sure, who support the protection of the rights of the individual, the dispossessed, the marginalized, the poor and the elderly. Hong Kong people are very kind. I think it will be doing them an injustice if we were to suddenly change the spirit of everything by passing a Bill which is ill or badly understood. There are many among us who value personal freedom and the protection of equal rights before the courts to obtain a judicial decision.
Mr President, I appeal to my fellow councillors, honourable colleagues, to vote against the Bill.
肅繟某璓勉畊ネ翠筁20癸禫玭差チ┯踞瘤ぃ幢弧琌紈礚秖衡琌く︓竡荷
и-
Τㄈ瑆程差チ19 000疉の差チやョ琌程胑20ㄓ73货翠じτ羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝︓さご╈ろ翠┎10货翠じ
硂计ぃ或璶禣瞶璽踞眔癬翠琌荡癸ぃ穦筁だ璸耕ㄢ琍戳玡祇ネフホ差チ犁忌笆竒过┏篟反翠癸差チ甧г糴の甧场だк┶缓差チぃぃ钡и-
到種澈临厨紈
Τ借好и-
癸差チぃぃ笵璓奶睹繵ネㄆ龟琌翠癸差チ酚臮ぃ度矗ㄑ程膀セ笵惠璶и-
临碙猭獀の猭そキ玥ノ祙窥硓筁猭穿竝戈êㄇゼ砆禫玭讽Ы龟ōだ差チ竅蔼皘禗畑の璣瓣枷盞皘崩陆翠┎"单缓"瞶パ戳霹痙-
猭瞶ㄌ沮沮玂︳璸硂よ秨や穦κ窾じ璸
ヘ玡硂摸ゼ龟ōだ差チΤ7 000讽い960砆霹痙程ぶ18る安硂у差チ常碻硚畖滦翠┎霹痙-
暗猭Τ闽禣ノ盢伐蔼璶琌翠璶膥尿┯踞癸硂ㄇ砫ヴ癸翠琌伐ぃそキ
и獺差チ瞶秆-
玡ゲ穦砆缓珿ぃ堡玙繧璉程ゃ刚瓜発磷缓㏑笲
箇ǎゼㄓ差チ犁ご祇ネ摸奶睹瘤礛и-
タ候缓差チ计嘲尿搭ぶ玂场もの砞琁はτ璶ら镣眏硂よ秨や┯踞程沧ョ辅翠ō
ヘ玡狥玭ㄈ瓣產タ硋˙ЧΘ侯缓︽笆羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝ョ秨﹍竚ōㄆ蓟もぃ瞶翠⊿Τ瞶パ虫縒礚戳璉璽硂菌框痙ㄓ钓ぷㄤ琌い瓣現┎戳玡秆∕Τ闽拜肈
チ羛や璹チ挂兵ㄒ辨磷竊ネ狵锚缓差チ秈礚戳糤и-
璽踞и-
ビ翠┎ゲ斗荷е缓场差チ
畊ネセや讽ЫΤ闽璹
辩模┚某璓勉畊ネи睲贰笵禫玭螟チ拜肈筁20琌翠↖璽踞翠祙窥иョだ砰教カチ翠癸硂ㄇ螟チ礚阶琌現獀┪竒蕾螟チ荷笵竡砫ヴ薄猵ごぃ耞ǎ差チ犁ず钡硈祇ネ忌ㄆンの瓣悔林阶у蝶稰獶盽极и笵场だカチみ┏常辨ノ荷ちよ猭荷е秆∕螟チ拜肈礚阶琌龟琁窽超犁現郸璶―材Μ甧翠現郸璶―璣瓣"┏"┯空计钡Μ孩翠螟チ┪琌さぱ矗チ挂璹兵ㄒぃ筁и粄硂兵ㄒぃ秆∕螟チ拜肈
瘤礛翠カチ癸禫玭Τ伐は稰谋眔猭ㄒ㎝現郸癸-
荡ぃ莱も硁琌璽砫ヴミ猭Ы某и辨︗ㄆ∕玡璶睲贰颗秖硂兵ㄒ癸穦盿ㄓ俱砰拜肈ぃ岿狦璶莉現獀セ窥チ種杠や現┎兵ㄒ讽礛琌は磝и辨產繰稱稱и-
さぱ∕﹚盢穦紇臫计κ︓计ō︑パи-
∕﹚盢穦癸翠┮堡猭獀㎝舦硑Θだ瞏环璽紇臫
╯澈現┎さΩ矗硂兵ㄒ癸秆∕螟チ拜肈Τ腊盾氮琌﹚陪兵ㄒ硄筁籔癸孩痙翠螟チ计琌ぃ穦硑Θヴ︙э跑琌兵ㄒセぃ穦э跑ヴ︙ōだぃ阶琌差チы┪螟チ传杠弧∕硂兵ㄒぃ穦Θ螟チ讽礛ぃ穦Θ翠ッ﹡チ┮ぃ穦ま禫玭撮翠
兵ㄒ┮紇臫碞琌窽超犁籔秨犁计ΤだΤ踞み甧砛螟チ眖窽超犁锣秨犁碞穦癸獀硑Θだ┮辨盢螟チ常闽窽超犁и瞶秆-
踞み疭琌戳眖筿跌厨彻㎝穝籇肚碈いǎ场だ螟チ忌┭︽畖讽礛и⊿Τ踞玂┮Τ锣秨犁螟チぃ穦癸獀硑Θヴ︙ョ⊿Τ快猭絋玂-
ぃ穦癸﹡チ硑Θヴ︙逮耑拜肈琌╯澈琌ぃ琌┮Τ禫玭常琌炳ゴ產㎡琌ぃ琌┮Τ禫玭螟チ常琌竜デ┮璶闽癬ㄓ㎡︘秨犁禫玭デ竜瞯琌痷ゑ翠俱砰デ竜瞯蔼㎡︗ㄆиЧや腨胓笻猭и-
ぃ莱赣踞み禫玭螟チいΤ穦癸獀篶Θ┪癸﹡チ硑Θ逮耑獽﹚兵猭ㄒ盢┮Τ禫玭"呼ゴ荷"ぃ阶╧ρギ常闽窽超犁ず踞み技笻猭τ盢俱砰竤常闽癬ㄓ管-
程膀セō︑パ硂琌礚阶︙弧ぃ硄タи-
ぃ穦Τ技獵ぶデ猭┪瞏甦恏瑈硈癸﹡チ硑Θ逮耑τミ猭盢┮Τ獵ぶ常闽癬ㄓ┪と癸┮ΤゼΘ龟琁甦窽
畊ネㄤ某竒冈灿量瓃眖猭瞶硂兵ㄒ︙瘆胊猭獀疭琌猭皘舦㎝ō︑パ硑Θだ胊ㄒиぃゴ衡狡и稱眏秸翴碞琌安さぱ某程沧∕﹚硄筁硂兵ㄒ癸秆∕螟チ拜肈盢睝礚腊ㄤ盿ㄓ璽ノ盢穦禬筁兵ㄒ稱辨笷┮孔"矪"
иさぱは癸硂兵ㄒぃ琌璶蝴臔翠瓣悔羘臕磷砆瓣悔林阶у蝶翠舦蛮夹非よは癸ヴ︙玠畓翠舦某よ玱羭も硄筁笻は舦夹非猭ㄒぃ琌踞み翠盢ㄓΘ螟チτ瞷腊腊硂竤禫玭螟チ眔ō︑パи┮闽みㄤ龟だ虏虫玱璶碞琌讽и-
硄筁硂兵ㄒ穦ヴ︙ぃ阶琌┪计τ穦綝礚瞶Ι痙砆管膀セō︑パиΤ瞶パ獺琌穦┮и穦は癸兵ㄒ弄ぃ筁狦兵ㄒ弄硄筁杠и穦∕や艷祸某タи癑み辨畒︗ㄆ疭琌ゴ衡∕や現┎ㄆ粄痷σ納-
布癸计κ︓计︑パ┮硑Θ紇臫-
讽いΤρΤギΤタЁΤ琌獵ぶ狦蛤繦チ種τ篡溃畓墩竤┪︽現よ獽τ盢-
闽癬ㄓ碾-
︑パê或и-
临衡琌碙舦某盾
眎簙┚某璓勉畊ネ程窗枷盞皘掉∕翠┎ぃ莱Ι痙禫玭┶荡Μ甧獶禫玭盖差チΤ闽﹚琌家絢Τㄇ戳ぃ镑矗ㄑΤゅン枷盞皘∕玱矗ㄑ贺芖勾チ靡紇捌セ硈芖讽Ыぃ靡龟ㄤ痷鞍挡狦咎硂ㄒ翠璣現┎睦计κ差チ硂兜惫琁差チい硑Θエ紇臫ぃぶ瓜措笵眔睦硂珹禫玭ゼЧΘ郝祘差チ
さΩフホ差チ犁奶笆㎝︽и-
睲贰琌竒筁弘み郸购ㄤ璶ヘ夹材琌卑㎝縉反螟チ犁︽現加スΤ闽郎砆反差チ獽矗穝ōだㄌ沮珹痷安螟だ靡ン才枷盞皘∕"猭磲"靡ン枷盞皘∕竒翠螟チ現郸籹硑礚絘礚荷陈沸材琌陪皐癸璽砫恨瞶胓毙竝戮刚稱だゲ発ǐ筁祘い差チぃミ匡拒程虏獽隔畖︑発ǐはτΤぃぶ差チ圭腀盢丁ㄓч胓毙竝盝秈︽瘆胊のチ羛︗ミ猭Ы某材ぱミ差チ犁秆ㄤ瘆胊祘ラ初驹疎и-
稰綺佩狦胓毙竝戮ぃの発ネ端痷琌螟︳璸差チ瘆胊︽獻デ猭緑и-
叭斗瞏眖硉秆∕癸Τ闽笻猭差チ猭掉
さ︙莱差チぃ耞ど忌のはк薄狐︙Τ恨瞶差チいみず︙胓矪逮ㄆだ︙ňゎ摸ㄆンΩ祇ネ︙膥尿崩︽Τ闽缓︽笆璸购琌惠璶糤挤戈方硂ㄇ常琌и-
斗贝癚ㄆ薄
讽礛Τㄇ笵竡穦粄璹チ挂兵ㄒの差チ犁奶笆琌ㄢ﹙縒ミㄆンㄆ龟ㄢ陪琌Τ闽玒
ㄓ翠笵竡ミ初ㄓ到差チ┮筁ㄏΤ差チ発瞒差チ犁ㄆン祇ネぃ穦讽禫夯矪瞶琌盢差チ癳犁硋亥ΩㄢΩ﹉筁﹉糤差チ縑溃差チ胓毙竝戮ゴ阑翠猭獀弘
量―笵ゲ斗琌蛮よ翠癸禫玭差チ量笵薄-
綝笿差チ犁﹡チ玱ネ稺ぇい-
踞み︑ō発差チ差チ忌睹端胓毙竝端牡硂衡ぃ衡笵㎡翠搂笵竡ㄓ到差チ传ㄓ澈礛琌忌
иΩビ差チ拜肈ゲ斗眖硉秆∕玥╈╈癸翠俱砰穦≧阑差チ︽翠螟钡и-
ぃ琵差チ╆Τヴ︙ㄌ苦㎝ほ稱Τ"猭磲"碝瓣膟ぃ睲贰猭η︹盿ゲ斗棒峨玥禫玭差チΘ瓣悔瞴拜肈穦Ω翠璽↖钓
畊ネチ羛さΩや現┎璹チ挂兵ㄒ棒峨Τ闽簗瑌ミ猭ЫΤㄤㄆ粄現┎さΩ璹笻は舦そㄏ砆╇窽礚戳綝╇窽兵ㄒㄤい兜兵ゅ絋猭畑Τ舦箋ガ睦砆粄琌ぃ瞶戳╇窽硂兵ㄒ玂毁礚戳╇窽薄猵ぃ穦瞷猭臮拜Τ闽璹ゼゲ笻は舦そ
畊ネヴ︙獶猭秈翠埃獶ōだ沮羛瓣┮璹兵ン砆螟チ玥┮ΤА獶猭挂珹砆郝禫玭差チ翠現┎癸獶猭挂常Τ絋現郸碞琌埃獶讽現┎絋ぃ穦钡赣单玥-
盢穦砆缓﹡さΩ枷盞皘ㄒ穦э跑翠現┎癸獶猭挂現郸ㄏゼ莉眔獶猭挂ㄓ方現┎┶荡钡Μ硂ㄇ獶猭挂矗ㄑㄇ靡沮τΤ讽現┎┶荡钡Μ赣单-
笶莉眔睦
さぱ臛阶埃獶﹚翠現┎癸獶猭挂現郸玥и-
セぃΤ或瞶パ矗は癸狦舦虑硂琌種翠現┎┕獶猭挂現郸琌笻は舦㎡
畊ネセ略朝勉やさぱタ
︙玊く某璓勉畊ネセチ囊祇ēは癸1996チ挂璹兵ㄒ弄и-
瞶パ虏虫碞琌狦硄筁チ挂璹兵ㄒ穦玠畓猭畑玂毁ō膀セ︑パ舦硑Θぃ▆ミ猭ㄒ癸秆∕差チ拜肈玱睝礚腊и钮筁碭︗やさΩ現┎矗璹ㄆ祇ēи龟ぃびフ-
琌硂兵ㄒ跑Θ秆∕差チ拜肈窾莱艶う-
盽弧猭ㄒΤ簗瑌ㄆ龟-
琌秆-
┮弧簗瑌琌或㎡
и璶弧翴礚阶現┎さΩ矗兵ㄒ硄筁籔兜膀セ現郸玥琌ぃ穦э跑琌現┎⊿Τ璶―э跑τさぱ⊿Τヴ︙ㄆ璶―э跑ê碞琌狦璶霹痙ヴ︙禫玭差チ﹚璶Τヘゼ郝玡-
琌单郝郝砆粄琌獶螟チ杠-
碞璶单缓硂琌⊿Τэ跑現郸玥琌狦-
⊿Τ诀穦砆缓┪缓琌换换礚戳杠-
莱赣眔安睦┪睦-
眔安睦琌ゼ眔睲贰莱狦Τ睲贰莱粄-
莱赣禫玭杠-
獽璶沮安睦兵ンチ挂ㄆ叭矪厨眖τ钡缓︓瞷ゎ⊿Τ矗璶碞硂兜膀セ現郸璹┪э跑
さΩ硂兵ㄒ盿ㄓ或э跑㎡ㄤ龟虏虫碞琌現┎ぃ骸種枷盞皘程∕疭琌ぃ骸種硂∕い猭畑糵某靡ㄑ癸薄Τ粄﹚禫玭現┎タ龟︽┶荡钡Μ獶︑瓣チ現郸俱测癟筁祘いㄤ龟翠┎荡癸Τ诀穦︓琌莱赣Τ砫ヴ矗は靡-
砫ヴ琌斗弧狝猭畑膀┪礛瞯膀娄ボ禫玭現┎⊿Τ硂兜現郸狦硂弧猭獺獽Θи獺ヴ︙ノ硂現郸辨莉安睦差チ禗穦綝婚琌現┎ぃΘ传杠弧︓さぱ猭畑粄﹚ㄆ龟碞琌禫玭現┎ぃ穦Μ獶禫玭膟差チ硂琌拜肈闽龄┮
現┎瞷ㄤ龟荡癸临禫玭現┎坚睲Τ舦﹛よ靡ㄓ崩陆猭畑玡┮掉﹚ㄆ龟-
Ω禗砠い矗穝靡沮и獺猭畑ぃぃ钡穝靡ㄑ琌現┎⊿Τ硂妓暗ウはτ秈︽ミ猭猭畑糵﹚靡ㄑ舦畊ネ硂贺暗猭琌セソ竚㎡猭畑测钮よ靡ㄑ眖τ︽ㄏ玂毁ō︑パ舦硂贺暗猭琌и-
琌荡癸﹚
畊ネ狦硂兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁杠盢穦硑Θ伐抡㎝伐ぃ瞶挡狦ㄤ龟瞷竒祇ネ碞琌禫玭﹛硓筁贺硚畖そ秨┪╬钡┪丁钡兜現郸ê碞琌-
ぃ穦Μ獶︑瓣膟差チㄤ龟產常笵硂妓霹痙竒⊿Τ種竡-
竒⊿Τ诀穦砆缓-
莱赣眔安睦琌現┎ご礛璶盢-
眏霹痙琌单禫玭現┎そゅ絋﹚ㄤ┮孔そ秨現郸ㄤ龟現┎琌惠璶硂妓暗㎡硂妓暗Τヴ︙種竡㎡狦ぃ筁琌ぃゲ璶管硂ㄇ禫玭差チ︑パㄇヴ種のぃ続讽霹痙
畊ネㄤ龟硂兵ㄒ矗猭舦刮砰㎝猭刮砰矗芠翴硂兵ㄒ穦笻は現獀舦㎝そチ舦瓣悔そ眖τ穦砆璣虎掉﹚礚硂ㄇ常琌称碙刮砰珹翠畍そ穦ㄈ瑆舦芠诡翠舦菏诡瓣悔疭砵穦Hong Kong Justice の翠差チ闽猔舱单и-
┛跌-
種ǎ㎡現┎纯竒矗ㄏ琌笻は瓣悔そ硂ㄇ兵ゅ妮玂痙兵ゅ絛瞅ず传杠弧現┎礚斗Τ闽挂兵ㄒ瓣悔舦そ珹材兵
Τ闽硂よи谅翠舦菏诡矗ㄑㄇ戈眖êㄇ戈眔羛瓣舦〆穦纯竒癸そ膏睦ま祇蝶阶"General Comment"絪腹24(52)材琿"ちは琈瓣悔策篋猭そ兵ゅぃ妮玂痙兵ゅ絛瞅ず珿帽竝瓣ぃ玂痙舦硂よ猭膥尿砪芥ィ刘磅︽慌ㄏ摧гぃ笵赤ア碙腨癸の胓籃ヴ種╇痙┪霹痙管稱▆の﹙毙︑パ崩﹚ゼ糵ぇ玡Τ竜"膀瓃戈の羛瓣舦〆穦┮祇まи辨現┎ぃ璶粄-
玂痙兵ゅ玂毁τ簔跌瓣悔舦そ兵ゅ
畊ネ羆珹ㄓ弧ㄤ龟硂兵ㄒ⊿Τ棒峨ヴ︙簗瑌現┎琌稱荷秖Τ舦╇痙硂ㄇ差チ╇痙ヘ琌璶单禫玭現┎Τ絋龟氮滦現┎ぃ瞶ㄤ龟ウ竒睲贰笵硂氮滦ず甧-
璶笷ヘぃ堡玠搭猭畑舦︓簔跌舦そ┮チ囊琌荡癸ぃ钡
畊ネи┮弧琌猭だ猂и钮ㄆ矗紐納珿и材场だ祇ē穦弧硄筁┪ぃ硄筁硂兵ㄒ狦
材и稱眏秸琌瞷枷盞皘ㄒτ砆睦Τκи-
⊿Τ靡沮陪ボ┪и-
獺盢穦Τ秖獶禫玭膟差チ盢砆睦礚阶︙硂琌膀セ舦玥狦-
莱赣砆睦杠и-
莱碙-
舦
材紐納差チ穦籹硑安ōだ靡ゅンτノさΩ枷盞皘ㄒ莉眔安睦瞒秨窽超犁и獺瞷硂或顶琿差チ戈Ν現┎矗ユ狦弧差チ甧镑籹硑ㄇ安靡ンㄓ鞍硑ōだи荡癸ぃ獺硂ㄆи獺チ挂ㄆ叭矪盡產常讽碔竒喷挪ㄇ琌鞍硑靡ンㄆ龟翠現┎竒盽癬禗ㄇㄏノ安靡ン┪ㄏノ安靡ン瞶パ盢ぃぶ珹膟患秆挂и荡癸ぃ穦胔好現┎硂よ
иぃ穦粇獺差チ穦硂ㄒτ奶睹Ωフホ差チ奶睹ㄆン﹉づ阶琌籔枷盞皘ㄒΤ闽и獺竒筁硂ㄆ差チ莱睲贰笵-
ㄏ反防差チ犁ず戈ぃ笷╈┑膥尿孩痙翠ヘチ挂ㄆ叭矪临Τㄤ戈-
莱赣睲贰笵︑暗猭穦畕骋礚╒さΩ毙癡竒筁現┎肚㎝毙▅и獺-
ぃ穦ノ枷盞皘ㄒ暗ㄇぃ瞶┦︽眖τ莉眔安睦
и-
⊿Τ瞶パ獺硂ㄒ穦ま差チㄓ翠⊿Τヴ︙格禜и-
紐納硂ㄆ狦ぃ┋Τ差チ硂ㄒ紇臫ㄓ翠膥尿痙翠и粄膀セ琌禫玭現┎ガ兜現郸碞琌ぃ穦Μ獶︑瓣膟差チτぃ琌и-
霹痙現郸狦-
笵ㄓ翠穦Τ诀穦痙杠獺霹痙-
常ぃ穦狦-
獺禫玭現┎現郸琌ぃΜ獶禫玭膟差チ杠玥и-
э跑霹痙現郸┪糤現┎霹痙舦ぃ镑筀ゎ差チㄓ翠и稱ビ翴枷盞皘∕τ镑瞒秨差チ犁差チ-
ぃ琌眔礚兵ン睦-
琌眔安睦狦и-
笵盢ㄓ禫玭現┎穦Μ-
杠-
ご礛穦砆缓
畊ネи-
谋眔現┎莱癸瞷龟狦禫玭現┎痷Τ現郸琌ぃΜ獶︑瓣膟差チ杠現┎膥尿霹痙-
琌⊿Τ種狦禫玭現┎⊿Τ硂兜現郸琌ㄇ粇旧┪禫玭現┎瞷ご羭囱ぃ﹚杠現┎莱赣荷е籔禫玭讽Ы坚睲眖τ过┏秆∕硂拜肈
и-
ミ猭Ы琌パ匡羭玻ネи-
璶稸σ納硂兵ㄒи-
荡癸ぃ硄筁ㄇ笻は瓣悔舦そ┪玠畓и-
猭畑舦紇臫и-
盢ㄓ猭獀紇臫猭畑玂毁и-
ō︑パ舦猭ㄒ硂琌и-
程膀セ砫ヴ绊硂玥玂徖и-
猭獀玂徖и-
舦癸翠环ㄓ弧琌荡癸璶ぃ虫癸计κ差チ┪ㄢ差チτ琌癸и-
计κ窾癸и-
阁禫妓璶
チ囊穦や艷祸某矗タ坚睲硂現郸ヘ夹讽礛и-
穦は癸兵ㄒ弄硄筁
糕蚌┚某璓勉畊ネ禫玭差チ拜肈筁ぃ耞耑翠耑翠讽礛現┎┮贺磜▂㎝у蝶琌ぃ璸ㄤ计程璶琌翠﹍沧琌璣瓣癠恨跋琌璣瓣崔チΩ璣瓣ㄓ翠弧┮┮琌翠暗狦拜肈秆∕ぃ砫ヴ斗パ翠┯踞パ產瞏ちのだ秆璣瓣現┎鞍到㎝崩玱砫ヴ︽畖硂贺薄猵翠現┎㎝ミ猭Ы某Ν莱沮瞶材Μ甧翠現郸
ㄆ龟и-
癸禫玭差チ盚礚薄獶笹ぃ眔街穦腀種硂妓暗㎡翠琌螟チぇ眔ささら祇甶璶酚臮ㄤ跋ぃ筁┮孔"砲螟臮"τΤ猭琂礛さぱ˙и-
璶у蝶璣瓣現┎芥翠痲ㄏ︑舓礛猼猼瓣酚臮よ舦痲︓舦材и-
璶宁砫瓣現┎硑Θ禫玭硂Ы︑临繵繵暗"笆"ㄏ翠耑㎝ぃ薄筀
и癸┮孔瓣悔舦舱麓翠у蝶Τ┮獶某跋Τセō現郸-
êㄇ舱麓ぃち種├㎝瞶稱Τぃぃ弧︑瞶├獽荡癸タ絋產莱キ颗龟悔吏挂ㄓ暗ㄆ瓣┮孔舦舱麓碞差チ拜肈癸翠у蝶簔跌ㄆ龟穦翠癸ウ-
ぃ碙㎝舧讽礛и-
穦秆禫玭差チ戳砆╇窽ぃ笷璓-
ヘ㎝瞶稱璚矪
翠現┎ン快ぃㄆ琌差チ秈︽村弧禫玭计瘤礛ご礛琌玻竡穦ㄆ龟玡﹁癪瞷璊вカ竒ㄣΤ︑パカ初疭借芖êщ戈Τ翠щ戈︓и-
眖肚碈眔芖ê谤ヾì靡禫玭琌穦竒蕾秨跋翠現┎莱差チ村弧-
ざ残禫玭瞷
и-
常笵禫玭差チ﹡痙翠カチ㎝現┎璶-
禣窥現┎莱龟︽Τ現郸瑉禟-
禫玭琵-
程ぶ暗ㄇネ種┪Τㄇ戈セ硂羆耕瞷–る常璶瑉禟-
ネ禣玱笷ぃ產ヘㄎ
畊ネиさぱ祇ēは癸現┎璹翠琌︽現旧跋ㄤ龟現┎ㄆ薄琌龟︽猭﹁吹Α┮孔︽現旧礚粄瞷翠禫玭差チ临Τ窾璣瓣枷盞皘∕癸-
Τ瞷現┎璹猭ㄒи粄莱ノ掉らㄓ翠差チ狦玡綝浪北竒莉礚竜繦綝╇璶瞷硄筁猭ㄒ∕и粄癸琌ぃそキ瞷差チ薄猵碞琌狦現┎镑玂靡瞷硄筁猭ㄒぃ穦癸瞷孩痙翠差チΤи碞穦ぉやぃ筁狦硄筁猭ㄒ琌皐癸瞷孩痙翠差チ笷璓贺︽現旧и玥荡癸穦は癸и祔穦钮玂氮滦粄и布ぃ璶и箇代∕挡狦琌30癸27布穦墓布狦粄и布璶碞ゲ斗玂靡祔璹莉硄筁ぃ穦紇臫瞷孩翠差チ硂妓и穦や兵ㄒ狦ぃ玂靡杠и獽穦は癸
瞷畒Τ硂或︗畍-
常ぃ矗睲捶猭芠翴и獶猭盡穨ぃ眔ぃ糐-
畊ネㄏ祔硂兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁и粄現┎莱癸瞷龟秆∕拜肈盢﹛常璶筁寸-
璶臮のよ痲讽礛иは癸兵ㄒ瞶パΤㄤ┮孔チ某礚阶︙產璶翠ち龟拜肈のㄤ龟悔㎝芠―キ颗
畊ネи略朝勉
霉璓某璓勉畊ネセㄓさぱиぃゴ衡祇ēи⊿Τ把籔Τ闽兵ㄒ〆穦钮︗某祇ēи龟гぃ︘иぃフさぱΤ闽猭ㄒ璹╯澈籔差チ砰現郸Τ︙闽玒︙穦弧ê或Τ闽差チ現郸拜肈иぃフ︙ぃ耞癚阶フホ差チ奶睹ㄆンêΩㄆン蛤さぱ璹╯澈Τ︙闽玒㎡
и钮筁某祇ē硋亥フ琌或ㄆㄓΤㄇ呸胯碽Τㄇぃ睲贰Τㄇ弧и-
筁┕倒差チび舦-
玱デㄆ┮и-
璶р-
舦管硂種├ㄤ龟琌繧狦デ岿и-
莱まノそキ猭癸掉∕㎝胓籃τぃ琌э猭ㄒ猭结ぉ膀セ舦綝管狦ミ猭Ы膥尿硂贺暗猭ぃ窽踞みら翠膀セ舦猵
и辨ミ猭Ыㄆ稱睲贰и-
さぱ┮暗琌或ㄆ礛∕﹚
PRESIDENT: Mr LAW Chi-kwong, please speak to the question.
霉璓某谅谅畊ネи稱и祇ē竒挡и琌辨ミ猭Ы某镑σ納睲贰さぱ拜肈τぃ琌癚阶膀セ差チ現郸
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊ネ現┎矗1996チ挂璹兵ㄒňゎ禫玭差チΤ瓣臔酚瞶パτ禫玭現┎莱┶荡Μぇ玡翠現┎碞眔莱枷盞皘ㄒτ矗Ν睦-
Τ闽璹︑パ囊粄⊿Τ牟そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そτ現┎笆э璹ノ迭ョ磷筁猭畑σ納贺舦︑パ囊や硂兵璹兵ㄒ
瞷璹琌р猭ㄒ簗瑌棒峨猭ㄒ睲捶笷Τ恨ヘτぃ琌Τヴ︙穝恨ㄓ管差チㄇ莱Τ舦弧璹ぃ琌玥┦э笆┮и-
ぃ踞み穦籔Τ猭ㄒΤセ借だ猍
︓猭畑舦程穝セ玂毁猭畑ぃ穦ぃゲ璶よ猭畑琌∕﹚琌睦差チ玡惠璶р禫玭現┎琌竒莱硂渤ㄤいㄓσ納猭畑ご琘差チ霹痙戳︓粄ぃ瞶τ睦砆霹痙パ猭畑舦⊿Τ砆管猭ㄒ睲贰璹霹痙沮㎝チ挂ㄆ叭矪矪舦┮и-
ぃ粄穦瞷ヴ種霹痙繧
Τр硂兜璹舦拜肈琌簔跌–瓣產┪跋常ゲ礛Τㄤ挂恨舦
讽差チ╄笷翠Τ闽场竒睲贰禗-
璶羬匡拒-
秆睦郝現郸琌-
匡拒─钡郝硂琌琂Ττ眔羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝種皌現郸瓣悔┮钡硂兜現郸砆郝獶螟チ差チ碞璶钡霹痙单缓τ砆靡龟ぃ缓翠現┎碞穦睦-
霹痙戳丁-
┮筁ぃ琌デネτ琌犁ず癸︑パネ-
璶赤ア琌磕翠穦︑パ硂琌–獶猭挂常莱赣
舦舱麓ぃ耞у蝶翠癸差チぃ镑笵-
阶沮琌膀-
ぃ钡翠郝現郸τ绊砆挪﹚差チ獶猭挂螟チ-
ぃ骸犁ずネ非-
┶荡钡ㄆ龟碞琌ヘ玡ゎ砆瓣悔粄砛郝現郸琌Θτ砆缓差チ⊿Τヴ︙砆甡︓ネキ碞琌ǎくǎ醇翠現┎璣瓣現┎㎝羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝癩現孩翠差チノ货じ璸–差チキА–るノ阀3,700じ硂珹犁┬蝴戮羱洛励禣ノネ秨や㎝らノ珇单ゑ癬カチ硂┤ぃ弧琌痢-
舦舱麓癸翠ぃ耞篕ぃ癸и-
ぃそキ琌"み暗胊ㄆ"ㄏ差チぃ斌ほ稱ノ荷よ猭к┶缓
ㄤ龟讽叭ぇぃ琌╉翠琌笵癸差チτ琌︙磷差チΤ痙翠单诀穦ほ稱ㄏи-
е缓差チ戳翠現┎еΤ缓秈ǎ薄猵琌差チ︑腀缓㏄碞Τ禬筁700差チ︑腀缓差チǎ翠現┎∕みе缓-
τ圭腀匡拒︑腀缓
硂瞷禜タ靡и-
筁礷眏秸璶Τ絋缓丁差チフ龟悔矪挂τぃΤぃゲ璶ほ稱現┎瞷陪ボ∕み︑パ囊琌舧и-
ご稱眏秸翠禫蛮よ常ゲ斗灿砏购е缓м砃逼瞷睹の禫玭よ璶Τì镑非称钡Μ瓣差チ-
ミ︑產堕
弧┏и-
临琌ゲ斗翠材Μ甧翠現郸眖セち耞禫玭诀ㄓ翠τ簿チ瓣ほ稱
渤┮㏄把籔︑腀缓璸购计眔1 600Τ缓计ぃ筁琌2 300籔る侯︽笆璸购服旧舱┮璹–る1 800ヘ夹Ч叉竊璶琌瓣某竊ネ狵差チ粇Τ诀琌┶荡︑笆禫玭瓣現┎矗材措笵よ沧Θ獁紇ぃ筁弧そ笵杠瓣璽砫螟チ拜肈﹛獶ぃフ翠螟-
辨е缓硉瞷硂兜"禫玭瓣簿﹡瓣璸购"碞琌倒ぉㄇ绊︑琌螟チ差チ程诀穦璶-
︑粄才螟チ戈せるら玡︑腀禫玭獽禫玭钡郝и辨パさぱ︓戳挡玡羛瓣螟チ盡そ竝瓣現┎の┮Τ癸犁ず差チΤ紇臫珹┮Τ舦舱麓㎝よ荷差チ秆睦赣兜璸购腢抠-
ノ硂诀穦︑笆ビ叫禫玭
畊ネは癸現┎硂兜璹某Ч癸翠璉璽禫玭獶猭挂龟悔拜肈跌璝礚窣––盢硂ㄇ獶猭挂单翠猭﹡チ硂贺叉瞒瞷龟瞶稱竡琌瞷羬獶猭簿チ拜肈瓣產┮ぃ甧狦瓣悔夹非ㄓ颗秖翠莱硂拜肈よ猭ぃ瞷璶︓チ﹁よ瓣產眖翠龟悔薄猵σ納さぱ璹狦莉眔硄筁窽超犁ず差チ斌ほ稱狦さぱ璹綝∕獽ま祇差チ膥尿ほ稱硂妓琂锚差チ缓秈ま祇翠ぃ籔紐納и-
碙禥ゴ笵竡ミ猭Ыㄆ叫拜-
琌癸眔︘翠㎡
畊ネ︑パ囊や現┎璹
糂紌某璓勉畊ネи祇ēは癸現┎璹チ挂兵ㄒ
и稱莱㏄辩睶┥某弧杠и獺и籔畊ネ常穦癸眔︘翠畊ネ獺癘眔匡羭讽は癸禫玭螟チ㎝差チ羘獶盽糉甡缄贷畊ネ籔ии-
匡跋い常绊璶笵ミ初癸禫玭差チせ妓и辨盢ㄓи︑㎝Τ▆某常莱赣笵ミ初癸êㄇㄓи-
よ碝―и-
腊畓讽礛и-
辨Τ腊硂ㄇ璶琌и-
ゲ斗稱稱и-
琌螟チ穦琌螟チ琌螟チ临Τ405ぱい瓣玻囊獽穦钡Μ翠街笵薄猵и獺暗璶玡稱稱稱и-
璉春稱稱и-
盢ㄓ翠瞷Τ硂妓兵ン酚臮ㄇ畓и辨и-
荷暗иぃ辨さぱ硂兜碞璹兵兵ㄒ臛阶τ捍笆翠Ω珼癬-
こ禫玭翠临Τ405ぱ碞砆い瓣钡Μ產常守首ぃи-
瞷莱赣︵蕾ぃ莱Τ硂ㄇこ跌穦技畊ネи種霉璓某┮弧и-
瞷琌癚阶璹兵兵ㄒぃ莱盢杠肈ц硂或环
и︑ぃ穦弧びи獶盽種㎝粄チ囊︙玊く某矗兜種ǎи谋眔現┎さΩ矗硂兜璹璶琌稱棒峨枷盞皘∕竖簗瑌琌и種︙玊く某┮弧さΩ硂贺暗猭穦玠畓猭畑玂毁ō︑パ舦τ硂翴琌и踞み瘤礛セЫ猭臮拜и-
現┎瞷矗璹ぃ穦砆猭畑掉﹚笻は瓣悔舦そи獺現┎笵狦さぱ艷祸某矗タア毖現┎腀纕е碞穦Τ刮砰猭皘珼驹現┎矗穝璹狦ぃ┋猭畑痷掉﹚現┎矗璹笻は瓣悔舦そτи-
ミ猭Ы硄筁硂兜璹и獺硂穦и-
籜槽и-
稰廓Ъ
Τ某矗︙翠暗ê或瓣悔穦ぃフ翠璚みи獺翠︑フ翠礚阶窥ы┪ㄤよ常︙瓣悔穦ご礛у蝶и-
翠カチ㎝某常ぃ秨み碞琌и-
Τ礚狠暗钩さぱ現┎矗璹硂贺ㄆ薄ㄤ龟ㄆンセō荡癸ぃ琌ê或腨и荡癸種艷祸某┮弧琌現┎筁だは莱Τ7 000ゼ砆龟ōだτ讽いΤㄇ琌地盖Τㄇ︓琌獶禫玭膟禫玭現┎ぃ穦Μ-
瞷現┎弧ぃノ弧и-
ぃ種禫玭現┎硂兜現郸┮и-
﹚璶禫玭現┎フ堵滦龟琌禫玭現┎Τ穦滦и-
踞み穦瞷ヴ種㎝礚戳徥痙拜肈現┎弧猭畑∕猭畑璶硂兵兵蹿弧禫玭現┎フ堵滦龟и谋眔硂妓猭畑舦現┎兵ㄒ〆穦穦某弧硂璹兵ㄒ穦猭畑舦癶癶碞琌┮癸現┎矗硂兜Τ闽玂毁ō︑パ璹兵ㄒи稰框狙膀硂璹兵ㄒ穦玠畓猭畑舦┪穦砆珼驹┪痷笻は瓣悔舦そ┮иぃや現┎矗璹
畊ネи辨產稱稱狦さぱ現┎璹Θ硄筁и-
瓣悔穦祇或獺㎡︙翠暗ê或ê或窥ご礛眔硂或畉羘臕㎡現┎㎝某琌璶浪癚琌Τㄇ秈︽ボ現┎獽甡┤獽弧璶抖莱チ薄盢舦┻嶯ぃ瞶穦㎡
某盢硂ㄆ籔程フホ差チㄆン睼酵и谋眔馋ㄤМи獺и-
⊿Τ穦や差チㄏノ忌暗êㄇㄆи-
辨到差チ荷暗吏挂琌螟и-
ぃ穦やㄏノ忌硂贺︽畖畊ネ盢硂ンㄆ籔フホ差チㄆン┰闽玒穦糤溃フホ差チㄆン穦カチ疭琌畊ネ籔и匡跋ず﹡チ极琌﹡チ极и-
碞ぃや玥Ω碞穦膙匡ア毖畊ネиぃ笵и把籔匡羭砛耕и┋笲拜肈琌ㄤ龟и-
玡硚ゼ......
PRESIDENT: Miss LAU, please speak to the question.
糂紌某и獺и-
ぃ莱硂ㄇ碿墩繷и-
莱赣绊玥弧︑種ǎ┮и穦は癸現┎矗璹狦и-
ぃΘ杠艷祸某矗タ瘤礛и谋眔ぃび沮и瞶秆琌盢璹临︓現┎ゼ矗璹玡薄猵и辨痷暗硂翴⊿Τ匡拒薄猵и穦や艷祸某猭の畍そ穦矗タ
и辨︗ㄆさぱ荷秖穦畓竤祇獺弧и-
穦︙癸-
琵瓣悔穦笵ミ猭Ы㎝翠現┎ご礛琌笵ミ初矪瞶差チ拜肈
谅谅畊ネ
郭Θ某璓勉畊ネиチ祇ēや現┎璹и-
獶莉或現獀セ窥τ琌ㄆ阶ㄆ翠俱砰痲à∕﹚
Τ闽霹痙現郸よ癸矪瞶禫玭差チ逼翠弧琌暗眔ぃ岿痷タ到差チ⊿Τ莲-
瓣悔穦翠暗猭才瓣悔舦夹非
"霹痙差チ单缓"現郸琌癸差チぃ眔現郸赣現郸竒キ颗翠穦┯踞の砫ヴの瓣悔穦舦璶―の夹非
チや璹兵ㄒ瞶パ琌璹兵ㄒ"单缓瞒"眔睲贰﹚τ霹痙单缓瞒ヘぃ甧アは猭畑璶σ納芠ㄆ龟碞琌禫玭現┎癸翠┎矗缓璶―琌竒倒莱璝ゼΤ氮滦玥"单缓瞒"ヘぃ穦アτビ叫ō玂臔差チご矗ㄢ瞶パビ叫睦
材矗だ靡沮靡瘤礛ゼΤ禫玭現┎滦"单缓瞒"ヘ癸赣差チτē竒アㄒêㄇ摸枷盞皘ㄒい碭ビ叫ō玂臔差チ狦矗ㄑ龟借靡ゅン靡︑琌獶禫玭瓣チ┪靡︑琌芖┪ㄤΤ闽靡猭畑穦だσ納薄の靡沮τ∕﹚琌уō玂臔狦差チ矗靡沮ぃ痷絋┪矗ㄑ安靡ンや靡沮玥赣差チō玂臔ビ叫盢螟Θ
材璝差チ霹痙戳竒ぃ瞶丁ご单缓差チ沮材1A蹿瞶パ猭畑ビ叫ō玂臔珿"单缓"霹痙ぃ琌礚戳τ璶钡"琌砆霹痙琿ぃ瞶戳丁"
さΩ璹現┎羘嘿ぃ牟舦猭の瓣悔舦そ璝Τヴ︙差チ穦┪刮砰ぃ種硂猭種ǎ翠猭荡癸Τ舦猭畑珼驹チ粄穝璹才瓣悔舦夹非の璶―竒キ颗"霹痙現郸"穦惠璶の舦σ納┮и-
や現┎璹
セ略朝勉
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネ禫玭差チ拜肈耑翠禣禬筁70货じそ┊и-
ぃ翠カチ临ろ禫玭差チ或и-
ぃ癸瓣悔穦и-
翠カチ临暗ぃ或и谋眔翠カチ竒礚穃み场だ孩翠禫玭差チぃ⊿Τ稰谅翠秘ぉ-
磃临厨紈Ω祇笆奶睹︽笆临ぃ耞盢︽笆どま璓ぱ孩翠差チΘセ翠穦"璸紆"翠┎龟ぃ羇甧-
ゲ斗ミе缓差チ硉
瓣現┎の把某筁ㄢぃ耞セ翠差チ祇粇旧獺渤某皘せる硄筁兜甧砛孩翠差チ穝郝猭穝縐翴差チほ稱瞷秈︽眔耕抖︑腀缓璸购綝ч差チ奶睹ㄆン繵繵祇ネк某︽笆跑セ糉パ繰Г荡祇甶︓忌奶睹端借单钡甡胓毙竝戮牡のカチネ㏑
畊ネㄆ龟翠┎眖ㄓ⊿Τ璙差チ差チ瞒秨禫玭い钠瑈翠ōだ琌妮獶猭挂翠現┎既Μ甧-
-
矗ㄑの甧ōぇ┮荷瓣悔穦竡叭ョ差チ矗ㄑì镑ō玂毁癸硂"璸紆"翠莱や翠┎蹦ち︽硚畖荷е盢┮Τ差チ缓禫玭и-
ぃ甧гぶ计逮ㄆ差チ膥尿穙睹俱穦圭
框狙琌︓さ穦のセЫずごΤぶ计羘舦虑砇臔痙翠逮耑差チ丁钡差チ礙ョ篊翠┎缓差チ秈и稱硂ㄇ莱睲贰瞷ぃ琌禫玭差チ舦τ琌フホ差チ犁胓毙竝舦琌︘差チ犁翠カチ舦琌и-
600窾翠カチネ㏑癩玻
セЫΤㄇ眏秸璶碙チ種и稱硂ㄇョ璶睲贰瞷翠チ種碞琌璶胓籃フホ差チ犁デ竜逮ㄆだ碞琌璶玡Ч缓孩翠禫玭差チ畊ネ翠竒禫玭差チびセЫ莱碙翠カチ種腀セ辨畒︗チ種痷タ抖莱チ種ぃ璶舦瞶パ锚缓差チ
さぱミ猭Ы癚阶1996チ挂璹兵ㄒ璶ヘ琌璶ňゎ差チノ瓣膟ōだ好拜璶―猭皘掉-
礚斗砆霹痙ㄒ差チご礛玂痙Τ禗砠舦猭畑ョ膥尿笲ノ皍薄舦霹痙丁ぃ瞶瞶パ掉﹚睦差チ璹兵ㄒ⊿Τ玠差チΤ舦
硂兵猭ㄒ璹籔丁膙辽ヘ玡薄猵τē禫筐ЧΘ璹禫差チ穦ノ硂猭簗瑌蹦ノ店安靡ゅンτ莉瞒犁チ羛ぃ腀ǎ痙翠差チ緓ㄆ端のチ羛盢や1996チ挂璹兵ㄒ玃叫翠┎ゲ斗玡盢┮Τ孩翠差チ缓禫玭
畊ネセ略朝勉
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I am grateful to the Bills Committee under the chairmanship of the Honourable Ambrose LAU for its thorough examination of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1996. In the course of scrutinizing the Bill, certain concerns and criticisms have been expressed by a number of organizations and some Honourable Members which have been repeated in a number of speeches today. We have already responded to these criticisms and concerns fully in the Bills Committee, but I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate the Administration's position.
First, a question is asked as to whether we need the Bill at all. The answer is, yes, we do. I have explained that the purpose of the Bill, when it was first introduced into this Council on 24 April, is to close a loophole. Let me emphasize that illegal immigration is a problem which Hong Kong faces every day. Detention of illegal immigrants, including Vietnamese illegal immigrants, is a necessary policy to deal effectively with this problem. We detain illegal immigrants not for the sake of detaining them. The ultimate aim is to effect their repatriation to their countries of origin as soon as possible. Clearly we cannot stand by and watch our policy of detaining Vietnamese migrants being undermined or clouded by uncertainty.
The Bill is necessary to close a loophole which may be exploited by Vietnamese migrants who claim, on the basis of documents which are not even accepted by the Government which purportedly issued them and which had been or may continue to be obtained in its dubious means, that they cannot be repatriated and therefore cannot continue to be detained illegally. We already have to release over 270 Vietnamese migrants in the wake of the Privy Council's judgment. We have no intention to re-detain them until and unless the Vietnamese Government has given clearance for them to return to Vietnam and arrangements are made to effect their repatriation. But Honourable Members should bear in mind, in this context, that there are still about 5 000 Vietnamese migrants in our camps whose clearance has yet to be given by the Vietnamese authorities. Furthermore, so long as this loophole remains unplugged, we face the risk of further arrival of Vietnamese migrants in the future attracted by the prospect of being released into the community. Why should we wish to see Hong Kong exposed to such a risk?
Secondly, there have been misguided accusations that the Bill legislates for arbitrary and indefinite detention, thereby breaching human rights principles and our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong. The Administration disagree with such accusations, and in this context, may I draw Honourable Members' attention to the comments by the legal adviser to this Council, as repeated by the Bills Committee Chairman in his speech earlier today. In drawing up the Bill, we were mindful of the need to strike a balance between our detention policy on the one hand and the individual's right to liberty on the other. There is a specific provision in the Bill which makes it clear that it does not, I repeat "not", preclude the courts from finding that a person has been detained for an unreasonable period of time. The remedies of judicial review and habeas corpus will continue to be available to all those detained under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance.
Thirdly, in the course of the Bills Committee's deliberations, some Honourable Members have expressed concern that the Bill might fetter the court's ability to hear evidence before it and to reach its own conclusion. I shall be moving at the Committee stage an amendment which addresses this concern by clarifying the legislative intent of section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance while ensuring that our policy objectives are met. I will explain in more detail when moving the amendment.
I understand that the Honourable Miss Margaret NG, notwithstanding the Committee stage amendment which I shall propose, will also be moving another Committee stage amendment on the grounds that it will further clarify the law. The Administration does not agree with her amendment. The Bill, if amended as I will be proposing at the Committee stage, is sufficiently clear. Ultimately, as it is for every other law, it is for the courts to interpret and apply this law. In the Administration's view, Miss Margaret NG's Committee stage amendment would undermine the legislative intent of the Bill and would effectively put us back to almost square one.
The long-term solution to the Vietnamese migrants problem, whether in respect of Vietnamese migrants who are in detention or those who have been released, is to return them to Vietnam. Honourable Members may wish to note in this context that during the first four and a half months of this year, we have successfully repatriated more Vietnamese migrants than the whole of last year. Nevertheless, much work remains to be done to achieve the objective of clearing the camps by mid-1997. We are redoubling our efforts in this regard. We shall also continue to seek to resolve the problem of clearing the remaining 5 000 Vietnamese migrants, including the so-called non-national cases, for return to Vietnam through diplomatic channels and in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
In the meantime, it is important that we do nothing to undermine our policy of detaining Vietnamese migrants pending repatriation. The legislative proposal before Honourable Members is necessary for the preservation of that policy. When the Vietnamese migrant problem is completely resolved, which I hope can be achieved before mid-1997, there will be no further need for that part of the Immigration Ordinance dealing with Vietnamese migrants, and we would take steps to repeal it.
Mr President, I recommend the Bill to Honourable Members.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Miss Emily LAU and Mrs Miriam LAU 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 Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1996 be read the Second time. Would Members please register their presence by pressing the top button, and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: We are 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, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, 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 and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the motion.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the motion and 26 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).
Committee Stage of Bill
Council went into Committee.
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clause 1 was agreed to.
Clause 2
CHAIRMAN: Both the Secretary for Security and Miss Margaret NG have given notice to move amendments to clause 2. I will call upon the Secretary for Security to move his amendment first, as he is the Public Officer in charge of the Bill and he had put in his amendment earlier than Miss NG.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Honourable Members. The proposed amendment to clause 2 addresses a concern expressed by some Honourable Members and clarifies our legislative intent while retaining the broad principles of the original Bill.
We accept the concern expressed in the course of the Bills Committee's deliberations that the Bill, as originally drafted, may be construed as unnecessarily restricting the court's ability to hear evidence before it and to draw its own conclusions. The proposed amendment removes such a restriction on the court. Instead, it reinforces our legislative intent by making it clear that the purpose of "detention pending removal" includes the purpose of pending a response from the Vietnamese Government.
It is common sense that our ability to repatriate an illegal immigrant, including a Vietnamese illegal immigrant, depends on the willingness of the country of origin to accept him. In reality, when a Vietnamese migrant is screened out as a non-refugee, we will seek the agreement of the Vietnamese Government to accept him for return. When clearance is given by the Vietnamese Government, we then make appropriate arrangements, depending on whether he is to be returned under the Voluntary Repatriation Programme or the Orderly Repatriation Programme, to effect his return. Until then he is detained. That is our detention policy and that, we thought, was the effect of section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance.
However, while the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong supported our interpretation of the law as it stood, the Privy Council did not. In order to ensure that the law reflects clearly our detention policy, we seek to amend it by making clear that the purpose of "pending removal" includes the purpose of pending a response from the Vietnamese Government. There is nothing in it which gives rise to indefinite or arbitrary detention or in any way infringes common law principles or our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting
"(a) by adding before subsection (1A) -
"(1AA) Subject to subsections (1AB) and (1AC), where -
(a) a person is being detained pending his removal from Hong Kong; and
(b) a request has been made to the Government of Vietnam by -
(i) the Government of Hong Kong; or
(ii) the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees acting through his representative in Hong Kong,
for approval to remove the person to Vietnam,
for the purposes of detention under subsection (1), "pending removal" (单缓瞒) includes awaiting a response to the request from the Government of Vietnam.
(1AB) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in subsection (1AA) shall be interpreted as giving authority to the Director under subsection (1) to detain a person for a purpose other than pending his removal from Hong Kong.
(1AC) For the further avoidance of doubt, nothing in subsection (1AA) shall prevent a court, in applying subsection (1A), from determining that a person has been detained for an unreasonable period.";".
Question on the amendment proposed.
CHAIRMAN: I propose that the amendments to clause 2, proposed separately by the Secretary for Security and Miss Margaret NG, be debated together in a joint debate.
Committee shall debate the amendments to clause 2, proposed separately by the Secretary for Security and Miss Margaret NG, in a joint debate. I will call upon Miss NG to speak on the amendment proposed by the Secretary for Security as well as her own proposed amendment, but will not ask Miss Margaret NG to move her amendment unless the Secretary for Security's amendment has been negatived. If the Secretary for Security's amendment is agreed, that will by implication mean that Miss Margaret NG's proposed amendment is not approved.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, may I thank you now for giving me leave to move an amendment later on in this debate.
Although my amendment is taking the form of an alternative Committee stage amendment, in nature and in spirit, it is more of an amendment to the Administration's amendment for the purpose of clarification.
As I have made clear in my speech in the debate at the Bill's Second Reading, I am against this Bill because it is unnecessary and because it wrongly takes away the court's power to make a real determination about whether the detention of a Vietnamese migrant is lawful or not, that is a real determination about whether the purpose of the detention "pending removal" has failed.
The Administration has largely accepted that the Bill is problematic. They have said so openly. Their Committee stage amendment must, therefore, be understood as an attempt to overcome the relevant criticism while basically maintaining the original legislative intent. The Secretary has repeatedly maintained that the legislative intent remains unchanged.
What, then, is the legislative intent? Mr Chairman, the Administration's intention is clear as stated in paragraphs 17 to 18 of the Administration's brief to the Security Panel on 10 April. It reads as follows:
"What we are seeking is only to clarify
that in considering whether the purpose
of detaining a Vietnamese migrant has
been spent, the Court should give proper
weight to a very important factor,
namely, whether the Vietnamese
Government has rejected the Vietnamese
migrant in question.
The proposed amendments
outlined above (that is, the Bill) will not
take away the court's power to decide
on an application for a writ of habeas
corpus before it. Nor do we seek to
fetter the court's discretion."
Mr Chairman, although in my view an amendment to the law is unnecessary, I would have been prepared to accept it if the Bill had kept itself to precisely that. However, such was not the case. It vastly overshot the target of requiring the court to "give proper weight" to whether a request had been rejected. And it severely enfettered the court's discretion.
Now, in the Administration's Committee stage amendment, the aim must be to cure the overshot and to release the fetter, so as to reflect the real legislative intent.
However, in redrafting the Bill, an ambiguity had been introduced, I refer to the concluding words of (1AA):
"for the purposes of detention under
subsection (1), "pending removal"
includes awaiting a response to the
request from the Government of Vietnam."
It is capable of a reading consistent with the legislative intent quoted earlier. However, there is a strong possibility of giving it the opposite reading. Because of the ambiguity of the meaning of "include", it is possible to interpret these lines as precluding the court from considering the question whether, overall, the purpose of "pending removal" has spent, once the Director of Immigration is able to show that a response is still being awaited from the Government of Vietnam.
An analogy may make this danger clearer. Say, if a legislation provides ""vehicle" includes a bicycle", then once the court is satisfied that a bicycle is involved, the court does not have to inquire into whether a "vehicle" is involved.
The objection to the Administration's Committee stage amendment is, therefore, in the first instance, ambiguity. Legislation must be clear. Particularly when it comes to legislation directly affecting a person's liberty and an executive authority's power to detain him without trial, no ambiguity can be countenanced by a responsible legislature. We therefore must remove the ambiguity.
A different but even stronger objection would arise if the latter reading is indeed the amendment's true intent, and in any event, its true effect. If this is the case, then there is no difference in effect between the Committee stage amendment and the Bill. The court is still reduced to only concerning itself with whether a request for repatriation has been rejected by the Government of Vietnam. In that case, all the objections I raised in my earlier speech in the Second Reading debate are restored. This remains a Bill which undermines the court's protection of personal liberty. Mr Chairman, I shall not repeat these objections here.
The Administration appears to assure us that this is not the intent, purpose or effect of the Committee stage amendment. The letter of the Secretary for Security dated 4 May 1996, submitting the Administration's draft Committee stage amendment to the Chairman of the Bills Committee, clearly indicated that the legislative intent had not changed. The Secretary said, in paragraph 4, "In this form, the Bill in no way affects the court's ability to consider any evidence before it and to make its own judgement." I emphasize "any evidence".
In paragraph 5 of the same letter, referring to the question of the duration of detention, the Secretary said, that "the time taken to put in place the arrangements for the repatriation of the Vietnamese migrant to Vietnam" must be understood as "including the time taken to secure a response from the Hanoi authorities".
If that is what is meant, then, in my view, clarification is necessary. Clarification is not achieved by (1AB) in the Administration's Committee stage amendment because it is circular or tautological. If "awaiting a response to the request from the Government of Vietnam" is included in "pending removal", then by definition it is not a purpose "other than" "pending removal". The present (1AB) is simply not good enough.
Mr Chairman, the crux of the matter on whether the court's power is unduly restricted is simple. It can be decided by an answer to this question. Does the court have the power to enquire into whether the purpose of pending removal is spent, in spite of the fact that no rejection has been received from Vietnam? If the answer is "yes", then the court's power is safe. If the answer is "no", then we are back to the Bill: the amendment is a mere travesty. Worse, it may with justice be described as "wolf in sheep's clothing".
To ensure that (1) the ambiguity is removed, and (2) removed in the right direction, I will be proposing my own Committee stage amendment. The main text of my Committee stage amendment is identical with the Administration's Committee stage amendment except for the following words which will be added to the end of (1AB):
"and no court considering whether a person
is being detained pending removal shall be
precluded from determining that the person
is not so detained notwithstanding that a
response is awaited to the request from
the Government of Vietnam."
Mr Chairman, I appreciate a double negative is not the most straight forward sentence to read, but a little analysis will make its meaning clear. If I may recommend Members to start from the word "notwithstanding", it simply says that, although a response is awaited, this fact in itself would not stop the court from deciding that a person is not being detained pending removal.
It merely removes an impossibility: awaiting response does not preclude the court from finding the purpose of pending removal has failed. But whether this purpose has failed or not remains a matter of evidence and the conclusion the court draws from the evidence. It certainly remains open to the court to decide that the person's detention is pending removal and should not be released.
In this way, the court's power of determination truly remains unfettered while attention is drawn to the factor of awaiting a response from Vietnam. It certainly poses or permits no assumption that the purpose of pending removal has failed merely because response has not been received for a period of time.
Finally, I should clarify one point. I have followed the Administration in using the term "response" from the Government of Vietnam. In doing so, I understand the word in its plain ordinary meaning. This contrasts with the term "notify" or "notification" in the original Bill.
Mr Chairman, for all the reasons I have set out, I strongly urge Members to reject the Administration's amendment and support mine. The defence of personal liberty requires them to do so.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
〆︙玊く某璓勉畊ネ祔ㄆ∕﹚妓∕玡礚阶琌やы┪は癸現┎璹┪や┪は癸艷祸某タи稱拜拜產琌睲贰秆êㄇ璹のタ種疭琌Τ闽現┎璹
и獺產常穦筁玂倒и-
獺獺い弧さΩ璹兵ㄒ現郸ヘ夹琌よ眏秸璶確枷盞皘∕玡猵传ēぇ碞琌猭畑礚阶︙璶单禫玭現┎莱赣莱非ㄓ∕﹚霹痙琌ア硂琌枷盞皘∕玡猵よ弧猭畑∕﹚舦疭琌σ納靡ㄑ舦ぃ穦紇臫иЧê獺稰家絢硂家竁ㄢ薄猵иぃ秆硂兜璹睦竡のウ┮盿ㄓ狦狦現┎弧ぃ穦浚枷盞皘糵某靡ㄑ舦传ēぇぃ棒峨硂┮孔簗瑌ê或︙璶矗璹㎡俱兵璹兵ㄒヘ︙狦現┎睲贰弧ぃ稱浚猭畑糵某靡ㄑ舦ê或艷祸某タΤ︙㎡ㄤ龟ウ琌盢硂ンㄆ眔睲贰羆珹ㄓ弧и痷谋眔現┎硂兜璹家竁ㄢ┮и-
礚猭やよ艷祸某タ現郸ヘ夹睲贰や籔и獺產常穦Τ︑沮
畊ネ兵ㄒ確弄臛阶某癸и-
ē阶矗у蝶и谋眔硂ㄇу蝶続ノи-
瞷癸璹篈薄猵┮и辨ㄇ莱
朝挪狶某矗瞷チ種睲贰カチぃ钡êㄇ差チ磕穦Τ帽やиぃ笵秈︽帽笲笆-
琌睲贰弧琌は癸差チ磕穦沮и┮-
⊿Τ弧硂翴琌弧璶荷е秆∕差チ拜肈狦琌硂妓杠и穦や瞷拜肈琌Τㄇ琘ㄇ沮猭砆睦┪︓砆郝螟チτ痙翠иぃ翠︙﹚ぃ钡-
иぃ獺翠ぃ钡-
疭琌芖璏磕翠
朝挪狶某弧и-
弧眔び玂毁舦︑パē阶拜и-
Τチ種и稱眏秸ンㄆ讽и-
量舦и-
種琌–舦常碙τぃ莱赣ㄇ眏墩计┪眔计布计τ马溃ぶ计硂琌笻は舦玥
CHAIRMAN: The question is on clause 2, the two amendments to it, not on an earlier debate.
︙玊く某ぃ岿硂ㄇ琌や┪は癸タ膀セ玥┮и璶ビ硂ㄇ種ǎ郭Θ某チ矗瞶パ弧-
穦や......
CHAIRMAN: This is not a debate on the earlier Second Reading motion. It is on clause 2 only.
︙玊く某иフ畊ネ拜肈琌狦沮郭Θ某┮矗瞶秆ㄏ硄筁現┎璹差チご猭畑矗ōだ靡ゅン狦-
獶禫玭膟砆睦-
獽⊿瞶パや現┎璹-
や艷祸某タи辨-
睲贰秆現┎現郸ミ初現┎現郸ミ初琌稱確枷盞皘∕玡薄猵猭畑ゲ斗現┎眔禫玭現┎莱∕﹚τぃ琌钩Ωㄒ妓郝ōだ禫玭龟︽ぃΜ獶禫玭膟差チ現郸τ盢-
睦и辨チㄆ稱睲贰ぃ璶癸硂兜璹猭睦竡┪現郸ヘ夹Τ粇秆τ岿粇∕и辨-
糵稸σ納∕
程и稱ㄤ龟翠琌癸禫玭差チ矗ㄑ程膀セ㎝莱赣矗ㄑ狥﹁ぃ璶и-
琌程糴ㄆ龟獶瓣よセ⊿Τ╇痙現郸程紈瓣︗场ㄓ翠秆翠薄猵癸и-
弧-
Τ计窾禫玭螟チ⊿Τ╇痙現郸иぃ琌稱ゑ耕и稱眏秸翴碞琌и-
ぃ琌程糴и-
瞷┮暗琌程膀セ莱暗ㄆи-
ぃ莱癶玥翠碞穦瓣悔籜槽
畊ネи辨產や艷祸某タは癸現┎矗璹
CHAIRMAN: Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I shall invite Miss Margaret NG to speak for the second time, if she wishes to, as she will not be given the chance to speak after the joint debate.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, thank you. I do wish to respond, Mr Chairman, because in the earlier stage of debate, many Members in opposing or supporting the Bill had also mentioned the Committee stage amendments. So therefore, Mr Chairman, I hope you will bear with me if I refer to their speeches at that point.
Mr Chairman, firstly, I would like to thank all those Members who had shown support to my amendment, and I am very much encouraged by the principles that they have stated in such eloquent terms. Mr Chairman, they make the case much better than I can, and I am very grateful for their support.
Mr Chairman, I would also like to make a second, general remark which is that in the course of the debate, whether it is in connection with the Bill or in connection with the Committee stage amendments, there appeared to be a crudeness of approach. It seems to be very, very broad brush. If we are against Vietnamese boat people because of the various things they do, then we support the Bill and oppose my amendment, and therefore if we oppose the Government's Bill and support my amendment then that must be because we support Boat People, including the violence they have shown in the recent incident in Whitehead. Mr Chairman, this is, with respect, not the right attitude. Whatever our view towards the general policy on Vietnamese migrants, whatever our sentiments, we should closely examine the Bill and the amendments for the actual effect. Our duty requires us to do so.
Mr Chairman, some of our Members have taken the opportunity to voice the general view towards the Vietnamese boat people problem, and of course they have the right to do so, but I think we should really keep to the issue on hand and the issue on hand arises from the Privy Council's decision.
The Privy Council's decision has been criticized for making a lot of trouble for Hong Kong, but, with respect, that decision is exceedingly sensible and reasonable, obviously so. And it goes like this. If the Vietnamese Government has a policy of not accepting non-nationals then there is just no possibility of removal. Now, this must be right. If the Government does not agree that there is such a policy or the policy is actually not put into practice, then what the Government ought to do is to overturn this fact by evidence.
Now, are we saying that even if there is no chance for repatriation we should still detain these people until the detention has lasted so long that they could rely now on the second limb of the Bill or the amendment, that is, when they have been detained for an unreasonable period of time? That must be wrong. So, if we pass the Government's amendment, it would mean that we allow the Administration to lock up someone even though the lawfulness is questionable, and that cannot possibly be right.
Mr Chairman, I now refer to specific points raised in different speeches. I shall not go to each and every one of them, but there is one point, for example, by the Honourable CHEUNG Hon-chung. He referred to the fact that this Bill deals with the treatment of illegal immigrants and that the situation had been changed by the Privy Council decision. He reiterated that our present policy regarding illegal immigrants should not be changed. With respect, he has misunderstood our policy towards illegal immigrants. It is that this Government cannot detain an illegal immigrant unless it is done according to the law. The law says that they may detain an illegal immigrant pending removal. What is required is that the Government, the Administration, should be the people to prove that this purpose is still alive, is achievable.
The Government ceases to have power to detain anybody, any illegal immigrant if it has become unlikely that he can be removed from Hong Kong, that he can be accepted by the country of his origin or suspected country of origin. This policy remains unchanged. Whether it is in the Bill or in the Committee stage, that policy should remain unchanged. I think that the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW also raised the same point, that we are dealing with illegal immigrants, we are not dealing with the inhabitants of Hong Kong. But narrowly, speaking on the rights of illegal immigrants, on the executive authority regarding illegal immigrants, the situation is the same. If you exercise a power of detention, you must prove that you are exercising that power lawfully. And whether you are exercising that power lawfully or not is for the court to decide, and the court in deciding must have power to look into all relevant evidence. That is what we are talking about. And it is on this point that I claim that the Government's Committee stage amendment is not clear.
Now, Mrs Selina CHOW, in stating the position of the Liberal Party, seems to support the Administration's Committee stage amendment on the understanding that the court's hands are not tied, that the court would still be able to consider the overall question whether the person is being detained for the purpose of pending removal. And I understand that my amendment is not supported by the Liberal Party because it is not necessary. I think this needs to be underlined. And that appears to be the same position as the Honourable Bruce LIU. That is to say, my amendment is not supported not because it states a policy which they do not support but simply because they think it is not necessary. And their understanding of the intent of the Bill is such as not to preclude the court from considering overall whether the person's removal is still possible, notwithstanding no response has yet been received from Vietnam.
Now, I would prefer Members to accept the view of the Honourable Albert HO that if there is a chance of the present Committee not stating that, if there is a chance of their being wrong, then they should support my amendment because my amendment makes it very clear. It is not against their fundamental view.
Mr Chairman, finally I come to the speech of the Secretary for Security in moving the amendment. The Secretary reiterates the original intent and confirms my view of what he considers the loophole to be, namely, that people may be able to use fraudulent documents. With respect, this argument will not work. The document may be false or it may be true. Now, if it is true, if this person is indeed a non-national and if indeed there is a practice and a policy of not accepting non-residents, non-Vietnamese, then surely there is no point detaining him. So, everything depends on whether the document is false or true. Whether a document is false or true is a matter of evidence and should not be pre-judged. The Secretary cannot be saying that we should lock these people up in case their document is false or in case the document is falsely obtained.
The Secretary also says that the Committee stage amendment of the Administration does not preclude release when a person has been detained for an unreasonable period of time, but Mr Chairman, the time, the duration of detention and the purpose of detention are two different things. If the detention is for an unlawful purpose then even one hour of detention is too long, because if the purpose is unlawful then the executive authority just cannot detain this person. So, the Secretary should not be referring to the second limb because we are really talking about the first limb, which is the purpose of the detention.
At the end of the day, Mr Chairman, I am simply making two points, namely, we must not allow our emotion or our view, general view towards Vietnamese boat people, to get away with our better judgment. We should look at each of the Committee stage amendments in a detached manner, study the effect in law, especially because it would affect the personal liberty of people to come and because it sets a bad precedent because it is ambiguous.
Mr President, if Members generally agree that the law should be clear, I would strongly urge them to support my amendment and vote against the Government's amendment. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I hesitate to debate on law with such an eminent barrister, but since Miss Margaret NG raised a query as to why the Liberal Party is supporting the government amendment rather than hers, I will try and explain, although not quite as eloquently as Miss NG has tried to persuade this Council to support her.
Actually, as far as the two amendments go, I think that the one focus that we should zero in on is Miss NG's addition to subsection 1(AB), which reads: "And no court considering whether a person is being detained pending removal shall be precluded from determining that the person is not so detained notwithstanding that a response is awaited to the request from the Government of Vietnam." It took me a long, long time, not being a lawyer, to make out what that meant but I did in the end. What it meant was that, although Miss NG was unsuccessful in defeating the Government's Second Reading of the Bill, and although she has accepted the Government's Committee stage amendment in redefining the phrase "pending removal", which is (单缓瞒), which is to include "awaiting a response to the request from the Government of Vietnam", she has chosen to add in the rather longish phrase that I just read out in order to take away on the other hand what on the one hand the Government has given in the amendment to try and make it absolutely clear that the Government's policy of awaiting a response is actually reflected in the law.
What she is doing is in fact to allow the Government to give this clarification on one hand and take away on the other. She is actually giving, under her amendment, the power for the court to disregard the "awaiting response to the request from the Government of Vietnam".
Now, I think that this, of course, may not be acceptable if it were not for subsection 1(AC) which actually is already very plain in the Government's construction, which says very clearly: "For the further avoidance of doubt, nothing in subsection 1(AA)" that is, the one defining "pending removal" to include "awaiting a response to a request from the Government of Vietnam" "shall prevent a court ...... from determining that a person has been detained for an unreasonable period." That means that, in spite of that definition on "pending removal", the court is still not being prevented from determining that the person has been detained for an unreasonable period.
Now, in our view, the "pending removal" definition has to be seen in the context of this entire amendment that has been put forward by the Government. We feel that because there is subsection 1(AC), the risk of the so-called arbitrary detention is not there. So, that is why we feel that for the sake of clarity, for the sake of very clearly spelling out the government policy as reflected in the legislation, and also because of that safeguard in subsection 1(AC), we accept that the Government's construction is indeed better than Miss NG's.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I shall be brief and I hope simple. The Honourable Miss Margaret NG argues that, even as amended as I now propose, the Bill will still be ambiguous. With respect, there is nothing really ambiguous about it. That is not only my view but also the view, as I understand it, of the legal adviser to this Council.
To amend the Bill as proposed by Miss Margaret NG could once again cast doubts as to whether the purpose of "pending removal" does indeed include "pending a response from the Vietnamese Government". If the effect of her amendment is to permit releases from detention while awaiting a response from the Vietnamese Government as to whether the Vietnamese migrant is acceptable for return, it would drive a coach and horses through our detention policy as I have described earlier. In effect, we will almost be back to square one.
Miss Margaret NG's amendment is not about clarity, but to change the detention policy which I believe is supported by the community. Any Honourable Member's right to propose such a change cannot be gainsaid, but I believe that it would not be in the best interests of resolving the Vietnamese migrants problem, nor is it welcomed by the community at large. I strongly urge Honourable Members to support the amendment which I propose and not to support the Honourable Miss Margaret NG's amendment.
Question on the amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr Ronald ARCULLI and Mr IP Kwok-him claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: The Committee shall now proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: May I remind Members they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendment to clause 2 moved by the Secretary for Security be approved. Would Members please register their presence by pressing the top button, and then proceed to vote by choosing 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 LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, 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 and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the amendment and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was agreed.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Margaret NG, as the Secretary for Security's amendment to clause 2 has been agreed, you may not move your proposed amendment to clause 2 as it is inconsistent with the decision already taken.
Question on clause 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bill
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
IMMIGRATION (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.
MEMBER'S MOTIONS
PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 20 May. 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 amendment, where applicable. Other Members, including the mover of the amendment, will each have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his or her speech.
STRENGTHENING OF CIVIC EDUCATION FOR YOUTH
MR LO SUK-CHING to move the following motion:
"耚叉崔チ竡毙▅潮紇セЫ玃叫現┎荷е﹚絋のЧ俱そチ毙▅現郸蹦莱惫琁碻亥秈よΑ縩伐セ翠獵ぶ崩︽そチ毙▅叭―ри-
獵蚌緄ΘΤ瓣產芠├Τチ壁種醚Τ穦砫ヴ稰Τ縩伐秈ネ芠Τ縒ミσΤ瓣悔跌偿盧﹟チの猭獀弘ㄣ称蔼﹟笵紈薄巨㎝癸瓣產籔穦ㄆ叭玦┯踞そチ"
霉睲某璓勉畊ネセ笆某硄筁某ㄆ祘┮更セ某
畊ネ繦翠耴瓣翠ōだ荡场だ盢パヘ玡崔チ参獀常蒥蒥チэ跑Θ翠い瓣そチ皌硂ōだэ跑︙眏翠そチ毙▅龟讽玡叭パ獵ぶ琌и-
ゼㄓ穦眏獵ぶそチ毙▅璶ヴ叭
き玡翠現┎琂⊿Τ絋のЧ俱そチ毙▅現郸ョぃ跌そチ毙▅︑眖い璣碞翠玡硚帽竝羛羘の翠┎翠崩︽某現現┎秨﹍闽猔そチ毙▅き毙▅竝矗厩そチ毙▅まрそチ毙▅矗ど耕璶︗竚礛τ翠そチ毙▅ご栋い厩ず翠┮崩︽そチ毙▅琌⊿Τ瓣產芠├甶秨翠┎ㄨ種穦蠢瓣產癹磷瓣チのチ壁毙▅
筁翠そチ毙▅よ皐現郸Τ碭疭翴
1. そチ毙▅ヘゼ耚叉崔チ竡毙▅潮紇毙▅竝рそチ毙▅籔菌瞶ㄖ穦膥τ盢い厩そチэ竒蕾のそ渤ㄆ叭硂ㄇヘいΤ闽瓣產芠├チ壁種醚А颗チ毙▅のそチ舦籔竡叭单ず甧だ砲きそチ毙▅まいそチ毙▅揭祘翴﹙Ξ礚矗の瓣產そチōだ砫ヴ籔舦
2. 現┎⊿Τрそチ毙▅翴毙▅揭肈ㄓ矪瞶щ戈方のΤ⊿Τ盢そチ毙▅い厩ゲ斗秨砞揭祘そチ毙▅度琌册称毙▅兜ヘ
3. きま瘤礛璶―厩ネ癸い瓣薄猵Τ┮粄醚粄醚い瓣俱そチ毙▅揭祘┮ゑぶ瘤礛揭祘いΤ矗厩ネ"稲瓣ōい瓣篴"まいい瓣琌┾禜┪菌┦阀├⊿Τ厩ネ瓣チ砫ヴ琌弧⊿Τ瓣チ癸い瓣┮莱荷砫ヴ
4. 籔現┎闽玒よㄨ種癹磷翠現┎琌崔チ参獀現舦芠ㄆ龟パ翠地翠獶讽產珿毙▅竝ま镑窗玃厩ネ荷秖ノ現┎┮矗ㄑ贺措笵紇臫現┎∕郸ウ癸チ現獀哪睦ョ蹦翴ゎよ猭癸チ猭ョ妮
5. 筁そチ毙▅陪現獀瞶稱蚌緄⊿Τヴ︙現獀肚参哪瓃硂陪礛崔チ竡ぃ現獀瞶稱τ籔翠菌螟玻ネ纔▆現獀肚参Τ闽
6. 瘤礛現┎︑郒セ翠猭獀琌恨獀や琖筁┕そチ毙▅猭毙▅ㄢ玡纯Τ秸琩陪ボи-
獵ぶ癸猭獀よ粄醚腨砲Τぃぶ粇秆
羆τēぇ筁┕翠そチ毙▅ず甧耕凹琘ㄇ笵紈の穦毙▅揭肈ㄤヘ鹅硑竤镑宽ㄇ畉ぃ窖τ非笵紈璶―の穦砏絛Θ"蒥チ"揭祘筁だ熬醚拈块よτ┛跌稰薄щの笵紈┯踞よ蚌▅瓣產のチ壁芠├パ硂ㄇ芠├┮镑璴ネㄓ竤砰粄稰︑花稰砫ヴ稰籔現獀穦瞶稱癸篈籔︽ぃ祇揣ノ現獀瞶稱妓翠そチ毙▅螟笷縀纘種в籔穦砫ヴ狦
畊ネさ毙▅竝そガ厩そチ毙▅ま絑硂まゑき侣ま琌耕矗"瓣チ耴妮稰""チ壁︑花稰""チ壁竡""稲瓣竡"单阀├セ癸毙▅竝硂贺タ跌瞷龟暗猭ボやセ辨現┎荷е辅龟硂ま眏獵ぶそチ毙▅材˙琌硂ま度琌и-
そチ毙▅穝墩秨﹍τи-
そチ毙▅現郸龟ぃ莱Ы厩
畊ネσ納翠筁┕そチ毙▅拜肈の癸耴柜穝薄猵そチ毙▅現郸Τゲ璶莱э跑莱ぃ戳ぃ吏挂璶―
畊ネセ粄セ翠穝そチ毙▅現郸莱赣Τㄤ皐癸┦莱穝薄猵
1. 繦翠﹡チ現獀ōだэ跑そチ毙▅ゲ斗だは琈翠現獀︗籔翠﹡チ現獀ōだ跑て
2. い瓣ず蔼︑獀疭︽現跋翠盢籔瓣ずㄤよΤ畉钵翠そチ毙▅斗璶だσ納翠い瓣疭┦㎝翠﹡チい瓣そチ縒疭┦
3. "瓣ㄢ"︙矪瞶翠戈セ竡砰籔ず穦竡砰龟悔闽玒㎡硂琌讽狡馒拜肈パㄢチユ┕镣候盞痲糤ㄤ狡馒┦蛮よ闽玒斗璶┘碙ぃ耞秸俱籔э到翠そチ毙▅ゲ斗砮过"瓣ㄢ"現郸璶ヘ夹パ"瓣ㄢ"琌硄筁膀セ猭ㄓ砰瞷翠そチ毙▅ゲ斗崩ざの炊の膀セ猭璶ヴ叭
4. 籔膀セ猭毙▅盞ち闽琌猭毙▅崩甶翠﹡チ璶粄醚の崩約膀セ猭临斗粄醚㎝宽翠猭㎝翠龟琁瓣猭碙ㄢ猭畉钵硂莱赣琌翠そチ毙▅い猭毙▅璶ず甧
5. 翠穦琌地砰穦翠﹡チ莱癸い地チ壁菌ゅてΤ讽粄醚虑ミチ壁粄稰籔︑花稰︙眏い地チ壁芠├莱赣琌翠毙▅璶揭肈
6. 崔チ恨獀ぃ玻ネ穦耴妮稰の穦砫ヴ稰繦翠耴い瓣盢癸崩︽穦毙▅矗ㄑ耕Τ兵ンи-
ゲ斗到ノ硂诀笿
7. パ翠盢龟︽"翠獀翠蔼︑獀"翠そチ毙▅ゲ斗珹チ毙▅ミタ絋チ芠├蚌緄蒥チ癸チ現獀粄醚の縩伐把籔現獀篈籔
8. 舦毙▅莱翠そチ毙▅いΤ璶︗竚獵ぶ埃粄醚︑そチ舦莱瞏ㄨ秆︑┮莱荷そチ砫ヴ㎝竡叭
9. 笵紈毙▅琌そチ毙▅いぃ┪场だ獵ぶ︑ミタ絋ネ芠├の笵紈芠ぃ度Τ-
┦祇甶ョΤミ╟㏕瓣產芠├籔穦種醚眔矗琌い地チ壁菌ㄓ┮崩盧纔▆笵紈夹非莱赣獵ぶ拈块
10. 瓣悔常穦翠﹡チョ莱╆Τ約溜瓣悔跌偿秆い瓣瓣悔穦い︗籔à︹翠籔闽玒の摸だ砫ヴτぃ璓逮ネ阿筰チ壁竡薄狐
畊ネそチ毙▅莱赣琌じて毙▅埃厩毙▅現┎穦跋肚碈渤ゅて刮舱麓㎝產畑皌琌ぃ┪秸穦よの崩笆現┎疭琌毙▅竝の現叭竝莱踞璽縩伐烩旧砫ヴ厩莱赣琌崩笆そチ毙▅程玡帹厩揭祘い埃タ砏ヘい疭琌粂ゅ菌瞶单磕そチ毙▅ず甧ョ莱硄筁揭笆Α癸厩ネ秈︽毙▅叭ㄏ崩︽そチ毙▅家Α镑妓てセ某現┎綠σ納рそチ毙▅縒ミゲヘ
畊ネそチ毙▅Τ崩︽龟Τ苦眖ㄆそチ毙▅醚篈籔現┎莱タ跌畍戈蚌癡щ戈方
畊ネセ略朝勉笆某某
Question on the motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: Mr LAU Chin-shek has given notice to move an amendment to this motion. His amendment has been printed on the Order Paper and circularized to Members. I propose that the motion and the amendment be debated together in a joint debate.
Council shall debate the motion and the amendment together in a joint debate. I now call on Mr LAU Chin-shek to speak and to move his amendment. After I have proposed the question on the amendment, Members may express their views on the motion and the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK's amendment to MR LO SUK-CHING's motion:
"埃"蹦莱惫琁碻亥秈よΑ""縩伐セ翠獵ぶ"玡"㎝""蚌緄Θ""Τ蝴臔舦種醚""Τ瓣悔跌偿""玦炊匡砰瞷チ蝴臔猭縒ミ砮过猭獀弘"埃"盧﹟チ猭獀弘"の"玦┯踞そチ""眖τ痷タ叉瞒崔チ参獀""
糂ホ某璓勉瞶畊ネセ略沮某ㄆ祘矗セ某癸霉睲某某タ
そチ毙▅ㄤ龟ヴ︙瓣產穦常璶癚阶獵ぶそチ毙▅ぇ玡и-
璶络睲そチ毙▅ヘ夹よ猭籔ず甧
そチ毙▅ぃ单稲瓣竡毙▅囊て毙▅ぃ琌現獀拈块菌禗и-
盢そチ毙▅单瓃パτ現獀拈块琌菌磀粿方らセ瓁瓣竡毙▅瓣チ囊玭ㄊ現舦囊て毙▅い瓣穦竡穝攫ㄥ絛現獀毙▅常琌程ㄒ
そチ毙▅ヘ夹ぃ琌獵ぶ拈块疭﹚現獀稱钡疭﹚種醚篈はそチ毙▅程璶琌獵ぶ矗ㄑ腫蚌緄穝縒ミσのㄣу
パそチ毙▅ヘ夹ぃ琌秈︽現獀拈块и-
ゲ斗σ納或Α秈︽笷瓃ヘ夹
и粄パ現┎﹛贡旧そチ毙▅┕┕琌程玂程甧ま癬阶よ猭現┎﹛贡渡额┵磷碞淮礚猭獵ぶ矗ㄑ瓜钩
璶郸购Ч到そチ毙▅程琌チ丁旧現┎璽砫矗ㄑ癩現戈方硄筁厩穦狝叭诀篶獶現┎舱麓崩笆硂妓笷ヘ夹籔Αが皌
и稱璶ΤЧ到そチ毙▅ゲ斗Τ絃璸购τㄤい程璶琌ず甧ゲ斗и┮量讽い珹"絛瞅"の"菌""絛瞅"琌绢溜"菌"琌羇瞏
翠筁崔チ毙▅ぃ眏秸璶崩約ヴ︙そチ毙▅ぃ筁翠毙▅玥┕┕Τ種醚眏秸翠竒蕾Θ碞τ穦砲碔腶眖ㄓぃ穦Θ毙▅ず甧场だ毙▅ョぃ穦禗獵ぶ或琌チ舦┗翠惠璶暗竒蕾笆現獀舦穦そ竡碞磷ぇ玥ささら翠穦チ舦種醚琌祔矗蔼и-
玱ご礛钮贺┣嘲瞒阶秸ㄒ"羬ミ猭穦琌チ砰瞷""紀埃舦猭籔舦礚闽"单硂贺ㄨ種┛菠㎝粇旧ヘ碞琌穝獵ぶぃミ癸チ舦タ絋粄醚眖τ崩笆チ祇甶の舦玂毁璶痷タ耚叉崔チ参獀碞ゲ斗琵獵ぶΤ絛瞅の菌τぃ琌熬籠-
Τ兵ン縒ミσ匡拒-
粄タ絋現獀竒蕾穦ネよΑ
酵"菌"礚好琌眔и-
跌拜肈癸菌粄醚и-
セぃ戳辨獵ぶ镑Τì膀娄σ崩笆穦玡秈框狙琌泊Τぃぶ現舦甡┤チ癸讽舦はк羆琌Τ種醚穝獵ぶ拈块пΡ菌瓜钩らセ礷Ω縴эΩ驹獻地龟碞琌陪ㄒらセ現┎┮矗そチ毙▅琌璶穝┑尿-
瓁瓣竡弘刚拜硂妓瓣產竡チ壁竡眔崩約盾
翠︽盢耴い瓣セ翠獵ぶざ残い瓣菌讽礛伐Τ種竡ぃ筁иゲ斗菌荡癸ぃ虫琌闽緙驹菌籔κチ壁璚螟菌讽セ翠耴い瓣獵妓惠璶笵瓣矮菌ゅ菌せ菌单さ琌ゅて㏑㏄琌タ程ぃぶ蝶阶┮嘲よ癸ゅ﹡礛唉ぃ矗辨а癘硂琿菌硂妓暗龟ア辨粄醚菌ゲ斗τぃ匡癸讽舦Ττㄨ種框а吵城ネ盡逆ゅ彻弧眔ボ"い癸璣瓣弧琌ぃ琌匡拒┦翠㎝い瓣Τ瞶パ璶―い粄醚い地チ壁秆い瓣瞷莱琌τぃ琌匡拒┦翠チ壁薄狐ぃ度琌緙驹κき耴莱ゅ耴"
瞶畊ネ临Τκぱ篨糾獽穦篨糾穦繦ぇど癬讽礛翠カチ常辨璣崔チ筁ぃ琌種崔チ秨﹍
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉矗タ谅谅
Question on the amendment proposed.
︙玊く某璓勉瞶畊ネ硂碭るㄓ翠衡绑伐碔毙▅種竡そチ毙▅獽琌ㄊ現┎弧и-
瞷チ匡ミ猭诀闽琌ぃ琌笻は膀セ猭┮-
璶Θミ羬ミ猭穦-
箇称〆ヴㄇ穦钮いよ弧杠秈羬ミ猭穦硄筁いァ現┎┮璶硄筁猭︓ぃ痷タ癸羬ミ猭穦琌痷Τ猭瞶膀娄琌笻は膀セ猭㎝羛羘琌笻は約カチ種腀单拜肈羆ぇ瞷猑碞琌いァ現┎┮弧ㄆ獽竒Θㄆ龟╃狾ㄆ獽μΘ稲瓣稲チ壁翠琌⊿猭は癸︓и-
绊玥は癸獽穦砆ぃ稲瓣ぃ琌▆そチи痷倪硂单ㄆ薄穦甶翠碔Τい瓣穦竡疭︹そチ毙▅ぃ筁и-
﹍沧璶癸о拒獽琌и-
╯澈腀種ǎи-
膥尿┕崔チ妓暗抖チ暗ㄇ钮眖現┎弧杠そチ┪琌璶暗盧﹟チ︑パ舦猭獀Τ縒ミσ侩琌獶稲瓣そチ
瞶畊ネи-
タ硋˙ǐチ匡羭某現翠癸局臔猭獀ē阶︑パ穝籇︑パキ单诀穦猍跌单舦禗―ぃ耞矗ど碞钩エ近ぃ氨玡簎笆荡癸ぃ癴锣
そチ毙▅ョ莱绰硂よ籔チ霍˙秈チ囊ㄤㄆ睲贰弧и-
癸チ㎝そチ毙▅芠翴さぱи稱酵酵瞷そチ毙▅ㄇぃТ到よ辨現┎ら穦э到
そチ毙▅〆穦璽砫崩約そチ毙▅〆穦パ現┎璽砫竒禣琌パ現┎挤蹿〆穦琌硓筁ㄢ摸笲家Α崩約そチ毙▅
〆穦场だ竒禣琌ノ〆穦妮舱珹19跋だ跋〆穦籹舦毙▅猭獀弘毙甅羭快そチら甶凝癚穦の籹厨虫眎筿竊ヘ单肚ㄤΩ〆穦ョ硓筁"そチ毙▅戈璸购"戈ㄤ獶θв腀刮砰穦狝叭诀篶单崩︽ㄇㄤチ丁そチ毙▅笆玃秈包キ单︗玃秈ρ闽猔セō痲碙畓醇莱Τ舦痲单
计玡〆穦–┮眔現┎挤蹿Τκ窾じ︓き〓せ〆穦糤︓Τ窾じ竒禣ぃ筁硂窾じい挤倒"そチ毙▅戈璸购"玱Τ200窾じ羆挤蹿20%沮〆穦厨戈︓ヘ玡ゎ〆穦Μ904兜戈璸购ビ叫いу261兜Θビ叫瞯ぃìㄢΘ︓き硂ㄢず〆穦挤214窾じ戈62"そチ毙▅戈璸购"笆兜ヘ
瞶畊ネ硂ㄇв腀刮砰チ厩獵ぶいみ跋いみ包いみのㄤв腀刮砰单硓筁ō砰︽よΑ龟筋そチ毙▅縩伐把籔穦ㄆ叭の崩約そチ種醚螟禥琌だ眔や
и眏疨某現┎莱糤挤蹿ぉ硂ㄇв腀诀篶琵-
镑崩笆-
︑璸购ョ莱戈獶θв腀刮砰崩約ぃΑ贺摸の絛氓そチ毙▅笆ㄏカチ磃
瞶畊ネ眏獵ぶそチ毙▅ヘ莱赣琌璶蚌緄и-
Τ縒ミㄣу┦σのだ猂侩琌獶縩伐把籔穦ㄆ叭玦┯踞そチ竡叭㎝蝴臔そチ舦の绊玂徖膀セ舦玂徖猭玡キ单猭獀弘のそチ莱ㄉΤ舦舦チ㎝猭獀琌礚猭だ秨τチ㎝猭獀ㄣ砰砰喷琌璶硓筁猭縒ミ硓筁癸舦碙の硓筁炊筂カチ镑キ单诀穦把匡羭硂琌獶盽璶┮膀硂翴и-
や糂ホ某タウ镑砰喷そチ毙▅ㄣ砰ヘ夹㎝弘
程и琌稱酵酵ㄇ伐舦㎝盡瓣產そチ毙▅┕┕琌琂﹚喘ㄇ圾て種醚篈┪疷筰チ壁竡и-
ぃ莱琌硂妓и-
ぃ辨ǎ硂ㄇそチ毙▅挤蹿穦現獀紇臫璓崩約チ舦猭獀種醚璸购ぃ莉現┎粄τ綝管挤蹿
и略朝勉やタ某㎝霉睲某某
MR DAVID CHU: Mr Deputy, I second Mr LO Suk-ching's appeal. We must make our youths ready for the post-colonial era. I do not support Mr LAU Chin-shek's amendment which is too politically oriented. Let me explain.
I have long advocated educating our children about their obligations as well as their rights. Our youths must be taught right from wrong. They need our guidance. If we are not providing it, then we were at fault and cannot blame anyone else for their troubles and our failings.
For years, our Government has been reluctant to introduce moral education, which is a major component of civic education. Some of our opinion makers appear embarrassed about promoting our cultural heritage and communal identity.
This is so partly because some in our midst have imposed on society the western view that morals should not be taught. They say morality is subjective and ambiguous. I say this is not so. They say Hong Kong is a western society and must do things which liberal westerners approve. I say this is nonsense because many in the west are also calling for the return to moral standards and family values which had made their countries successful. More and more westerners are rejecting the liberal ideology and embracing tradition. Our 4 000 years of civilization and 2 500 years of Confucian teaching have clearly passed the test of time.
There are many points in Mr LO's motion. I will discuss several of them. One of these is his call to us to help Hong Kong decolonize. By this he means the end of mindless copying of things western. By this he means we have something intrinsic in our ways which we should nurture, not toss away. By this he means we should distill what is good in other societies and keep out the bad. By this he means we should instill pride and personal dignity in our youths. By this he means educating our youngsters to lead, not to follow fads, to do things for themselves rather than expect foreigners appointed by the Queen to do things for them. I was raised in America, and let me tell you, everyone respects someone who is true to his roots, true to himself. Nobody thinks much of a pet monkey, however well it can mimic.
When our Government does agree to civic education, it concentrates on letting people out to vote and sue for their human rights as defined by activists. I agree democracy is important. Human rights are important. The independent Judiciary is important. The Basic Law in fact enshrines these for our future. We go to the polls once every four years. We sue for human rights once in a blue moon. We try to avoid the court if we could. We, however, take with us our moral being every second of the day for all our lives. I am convinced that civic education devoid of moral education is like wearing shoes without bottoms.
The civic education I envisage is one that also instructs our youths of their duties as much as their liberty. The latter without the former is a recipe for anarchy. I would like to have a civic education that echoes the sentiment so well expressed by John F KENNEDY: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". That country, in our context, is China, of which Hong Kong is a highly autonomous but inseparable part.
Only when our youths can strike the balance between commitment to society and their personal freedoms are they truly educated, truly responsible, truly free. A slave to fashion fashion of clothes, fashion of ideology is still a slave even if he thinks he is free. We must have the correct civic education to inoculate our children against the moral laxity and cultural licence that are causing decay to many western societies societies which we should sometimes pity rather than admire.
I support Mr LO's motion. You can be sure I will continue to push for thorough civic education into the Special Administration Region era just around the corner.
讲蚌某璓勉瞶畊ネ翠現┎ㄓ弧琌ゼタ跌そチ毙▅祇甶︓き毙▅竝崩厩そチ毙▅ま礛τ˙琌癬˙翴籔絋のЧ俱そチ毙▅現郸禯瞒﹟环猵翠┮崩︽そチ毙▅琌⊿Τ瓣產チ壁芠├祇甶悔タ筁寸戳龟Τゲ璶荷е璹Ч称現郸讽い斗疭眏秸┕┮じ珹瓣產チ壁の現獀ゅて辣干筁┕崔チ毙▅痷
‵バ跋某穦〆癠いゅ厩ㄈび╯┮碞筁寸戳翠獵ぶそチ種醚秈︽秸琩挡狦陪ボ-
炊筂癸現獀のそㄆ叭篈渡伐㎝璽パ╯┮秈︽秸琩祇瞷翠獵チ壁種醚い︑и壁竤種醚翠獶盽眏疨癸チ壁種醚耕畓τ癸チ壁ゼㄓ祇甶獺みゑ耕痢畓礛τㄓい厩揭祘рそチ毙▅ず甧穦毙▅い瓣粂ゅ单ヘのㄤ揭笆ず堡┕┕跌醚肚甭τ┛跌薄稰羛么の紈︽蚌▅璓厩ネぃ︽癸竤砰笆穦砆笆把籔ぃ来眔眖いΜ厩策︙ㄓ縩伐щ穦ㄆ叭のネ㎡
癸翠耴辣干筁ぃìさセ翠崩︽そチ毙▅莱рみの礘翴瓣產籔チ壁毙▅ㄏ穝獵ぶ埃罙の糹︽そチ舦の竡叭耎溜-
跌偿-
︑祇玻ネ癸翠い瓣の祇甶ㄏ㏑稰薄種毙▅莱眏皌瞶┦そチ毙▅虫祇甶琵-
痷タ粄醚の稰ō瓣產だ莱Τそチ砫ヴの舦獺發―チ猭獀の︑パ稲瓣薄種崩笆瓣產ゅ祇甶
碞そチ毙▅ず甧よ翠秈羛某眏い瓣菌肚参ゅて瞶瓣薄毙▅癸翠疭跋ぷ璶膀セ猭毙▅セ粄眖瞶┦の稰┦à瞏獵ぶみ┦祇甶︓璶
瞶畊ネ临Τ翴眔矗碞琌そチ毙▅ぃ莱砆Ы厩絛瞅ずそチ毙▅籔俱穦琌闽獵ぶ硓筁ぃ措笵厩策現┎莱踞讽旧à︹縩伐崩︽そチ毙▅τ毙▅そチ毙▅玡帹ㄤ畍戈借紇臫ぷ畍戈蚌癡獽ぃ┪現┎龟莱щ戈方眏毙戮そチ毙▅よ醚篈の烩旧穝ぶΘ穦い绊だ砞瓣產穦ヴ
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉や霉睲某某谅谅
璣某璓勉瞶畊ネ璣瓣翠参獀崔チ現郸獺翠現┎┪┪ぶ┪Τ種礚種ぇ丁穦镣睭て翠瓣產チ壁芠├璶發饭セ翠そチ毙▅菌獽ǎ
瘤礛き翠厩砞Τそチτ临琌い厩穦σヘぇパ揭祘ざ残翠現┎舱麓㎝ㄤよ現厩ネ洪琌綫朝㎝璉粀戈┮ㄏ璶σ刚癸厩ネ闽粄よご琌睝礚腊筃阶秆︑チ壁τㄓ竒その穦毙▅琌栋い厩ネ癸穦拜肈㎝セㄆ叭粄翧Τ疉の"瓣產""チ壁""そチ舦籔竡叭"单揭肈
ㄇ戈瞏毙▅玡帹きせ硈瞶毙い矗の"ㄊ"迭ぃㄏノτ讽ㄇ厩琘ㄇ竊ら本い瓣瓣篨ョ穦砆毙▅竝笻は毙▅玥ㄒ牡临璶秈︽浪北
︓き翠現┎沧祇厩そチ毙▅まぃ筁パず甧筁約獂τぃ龟戈方㎝珿砆毙▅厩嘿"セ礚澫量"
︓さら穝せま㊣窾酬﹍ㄓ產讽礛戳辨蔼纯竒Τ毙▅厩㎝箇〆Θそチ毙▅ゼㄓよΤぃ種ǎ璶だ猍チチ舦毙▅籔チ壁毙▅ぇ丁莱赣︙彼┪莱︙秸
箇〆Θ糂ㄎネ纯ボ"ぇそチ毙▅ず甧翴莱ㄢよ琌瓣產芠├チ壁種醚の癸い地チ壁菌粄醚眏て糤瓣產チ壁耴妮稰ㄤ琌揭祘ま秈膀セ猭毙甭......瘤礛チ舦の吏玂毙▅讽璶硂ㄇ獶琌讽叭ぇ"瓃硂礷杠纯ま癬ㄇ毙▅癹翾粄チチ舦毙▅籔チ壁毙▅莱赣琌がτ獶が逼ジ
и粄ヘ玡癸翠厩担ㄓ弧琌璶锣跑硂筁寸┦ㄨ翠厩ネ璶癸ㄓ羬τ癸パ璣瓣妮そチ锣跑Θい瓣そチ㎝疭︽現跋﹡チτ碞琌硂竤獵ぶ玡硚籔い瓣現獀㎝竒蕾祇甶Τぃだ澄闽玒い瓣カ初ぇタ琌и-
硂痁ゼㄓ甶竲ぇ┮蚌緄-
癸い瓣ず秆癸瓣產チ壁薄胔㎝膀セ猭粄醚А琌厩そチ毙▅砫礚禪
ぃ筁安筁и-
濓厩ネ
翴秆翠璶匡
せるら祇ネ濛或ㄆ
娩玒朝よネ
碸﹚眃翴秆Θら緓
┪安и-
濓厩ネ
ヲ穦繦佛
ヲ穦敖诨灿ㄐゝ濓ら癘痢
ヲ穦ㄈ盋ぺ
и-
戳-
局Τチ壁︑花稰︓瓣產チ壁祇甶┯踞だ砫ヴ㎡
┮и粄礚阶琌チ舦瞶├ы┪琌瓣產チ壁薄胔常莱翠そチ毙▅いш簍单だ秖à︹
妓ㄤよ舦毙▅瓣悔毙▅猭獀毙▅┦毙▅吏玂毙▅瞶毙▅单琌獶盽璶┮и某
(1) 盢瓃毙▅絛氓タ砏揭祘舱Θ縒ミ侯厩厩ネ︑パ匡拒琌把籔穦σ
(2) 現┎ぃ莱盢そチ毙▅踞厩ō毙▅竝莱眏てそチ毙▅〆穦のそチ毙▅戈方いみ厩矗ㄑì镑や穿
(3) 糤砞盡砫そチ毙▅揭祘祇甶ヴ参膚㎝菏恨そチ毙▅祇甶籔笲
(4) щì镑戈方絋玂まい兜某抖崩︽
筁翠礚阶穦竒蕾┪現獀よ常琌癬冻撮癸τēи-
そチ毙▅玥琌┮孔"函硓Α"琌"暗眔暗眔"┮安さぱ璶и-
厩ネ發筁钡ㄓ羬и-
そチ毙▅龟琌ヴ笵环
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉︑パ囊穦や霉睲某某
綠模磁某璓勉瞶畊ネ翠禯瞒るら逞程κぱい瓣碞璶癸翠確︽ㄏ舦翠穦よ硂锣跑τ非称﹚膀セ猭ぇи-
常睲贰秆翠耴盿ㄓ種竡碞琌и-
盢挡κㄓ崔チ参獀┯チ猭獀弘絋ミ"瓣產ㄢ贺"龟︽翠獀翠㎝蔼︑獀
獵ぶ琌穦ゼㄓ或妓獵ぶ獽∕﹚盢ㄓ穦阀穦琌或妓翠镑眔祇甶程腳禥戈方碞琌︙ㄏ獵ぶ粄醚翠耴痷タ種竡琌だ璶揭肈Τ膀硂膀娄玂靡翠尿祇甶㎝羉篴铆﹚
ㄓ翠⊿Τそチ毙▅翠崔チ毙▅琌チΑ毙▅参獀璶―砆参獀暗抖チ程癸ちō娩ㄆぃ籇ぃ拜甀繷璚稦崔チ現┎承硑癩碔硑碞у︓诀竟︑糐"礚竤"硂贺み篈荡癸ぃ続翠さ祇甶
翠獵ぶ璽菌结ぉㄏ㏑-
︙睲贰笵"い瓣"瞇竡フ"и琌い瓣"倒ぉ獵ぶ続讽莱瓃惠璶そチ毙▅琌程ち翠い戳秨﹍崩︽そチ毙▅陪礛ゼ才硂璶―
瞶畊ネ戳ㄓи-
у蝶翠崔チ参獀琌硂程国狠碞琌ぃ辨讽秆︑瓣ㄏ-
ぃ镑秆︑瓣產︑チ壁㎝ゅて暗禟禟狝狝抖チぃу蝶硂贺ぃチ㎝縒朋舦セ借
翠毙▅戳ㄓ瓣產チ壁毙▅毙▅ス矗の瓣產チ壁獽Τ瑇瞨脋癘眔览獵彻丁羛穦穦矗璶糤"翠獵璶粄醚︑チ壁ゅて"砆粄び庇稰ぃ﹜碭竒羮ǒ"莱荷秖倒ぉ獵耎溜ネ芠诀穦"畊ネ硂ンㄆ琌祇ネ
パǎ崔チΑ毙▅紇臫獵ぶ癸い瓣瓣薄秆癸い瓣ず現獀竒蕾穦ゅて粄醚ぃτチ壁芠├痢畓チ壁粄稰い瓣ゅて璉春氯吵癸﹁よ禨蝶い瓣ē阶ゼ続讽醚硂ㄇ瞷禜タタ弧崔チ参獀セ借┮弧常琌崔チ参獀"界"そチ毙▅莱皐癸獵ぶタ絋ネ芠癸ㄆ倒ぉ基の琌獶耞单よ崩︽
瞶畊ネセ粄翠耴琌眏獵ぶそチ毙▅诀矗瓣產チ壁毙▅眖粄薄稰︽よも蚌緄厩ネ癸︑チ壁纔▆肚参篴菌︑花稰ㄏ-
粄醚㎝稰瓣產砍癐篴癲㎝痲闽р瓣產羉篴碔眏︑砫ヴ莱荷竡叭㎝竧ㄏ㏑眖τ穝︑и﹚︗埃堵泊氟堵繷緑独ブ涧ぇ临Τ聋痷痷タタい瓣み
翠ㄓ琌猭獀カ獵ぶ龟莱粄痷厩策㎝秆膀セ猭砮过猭獀弘盢ㄤ┑尿︓翠碞チ弘セ粄璶ㄏカチ渤の獵ぶ粄醚筁κ管и-
現獀舦琌翠玡硚拜肈矗Τㄇ匡羭τ膀セ猭材き兵の材せ兵场炊匡玻ネミ猭穦某㎝︽現﹛璹ヘ夹и-
璶硄筁龟筋绰㎝龟瞷硂ヘ夹ミパ璣瓣参獀翠跑い瓣舦疭︽現跋パ璣瓣恨獀翠跑い翠︑恨瞶ㄉΤ蔼︑獀翠パ崔チ参獀翠跑チ秨舦猭獀羉篴﹚翠
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉
糂簙煌某璓勉瞶畊ネ璶荷е璹絋のЧ俱そチ毙▅現郸現┎斗璶フ眏獵ぶそチ毙▅︙Τち┦膀娄璹そチ毙▅翴
眏獵ぶそチ毙▅ぇ┮ㄣΤち┦琌临Τκぱ翠獽耴い瓣硂琌菌锣ч惠璶翠﹡チ疭琌獵ぶゅて粄㎝み瞶続莱单よ钡硂岸菌锣чい瓣锣ч瞷"き"穝ゅて笲笆戳穝ゅて笲笆旧碞だ跌癸瓣チ秈︽币籜毙▅辩币禬眎"穝チ"緗ǔ"ミ"讲じ蚌旧毙▅"緄ΘЧぇ"单菌靡"き"穝ゅて币籜ノ癸い瓣瞷崩笆Τ罿挪翠挡崔チ参獀耴い瓣斗癸獵ぶ秈︽"み瞶砞"蚌緄-
穝チ壁ゅて続莱耴癸耴ぇ翠獀翠㎝蔼︑獀┯踞
タ"き"币籜笲笆み琌稲瓣竡籔チ壁竡妓翠耴ぇ悔獵ぶそチ毙▅み㎝翴莱琌瓣產チ壁毙▅ぇ┮璶眏秸硂み㎝翴琌翠戳崔チ竡毙▅ぇ獵ぶ瓣產芠├㎝チ壁種醚睭痢硂贺猵ぃ翠讽產龟瞷瓣ㄢ㎝蔼︑獀
瞶畊ネ盢瓣產チ壁毙▅獵ぶそチ毙▅翴だㄢ场だ琌い瓣ゅて毙▅琌膀セ猭毙▅
チ壁ゅて毙▅ぇ璶ウ琌玃秈チ壁粄璶硚畖チ壁砰㏕礛临Τ砛疭紉チ壁琌ゅて絛氓τチ壁確砍セ借碞琌チ壁ゅて確砍セ觅地盖膟厩璣毙甭癸ゅて籔チ壁闽玒芠翴"い瓣稲︑チ壁琌ウ承硑︑ゅてい瓣稲︑ゅて琌и-
Τネ︑ゅて┮ゥ▅ㄓ基╰参㎝︽家Αい谋眔︑パ︑"絋ゅて粄琌チ壁粄㎝瓣產粄玡矗τ翠筁┕厩毙▅ㄤいい瓣ゅて毙▅陪痢畓毙▅竝莱挤ì镑戈方荷е毙砞璸よ眏い瓣ゅて毙▅ず甧
瞶畊ネそチ毙▅翴莱琌眏厩崩︽膀セ猭毙▅膀セ猭琌翠疭跋セ猭蚌緄獵瓣產チ壁芠├穦砫ヴ稰のチ猭獀弘膀セ猭莱琌程毙挪膀セ猭琌场兵ゅ腨略猭ㄥ厩酚セ秈︽毙▅狦ゼゲ瞶稱セ某毙▅竝莱盢そチ毙▅縒ミヘい瓣ゅて㎝膀セ猭み㎝翴皌そチ毙▅ㄤず甧―ず甧㎝Α碔まネ笆尖
瞶畊ネ皌セ┮そチ毙▅み㎝翴現┎莱挤ì镑戈方埃眏毙砞璸临莱荷е蚌癡そチ毙▅盡揭ヘì镑畍戈毙▅竝ョ莱糤砞盡砫そチ毙▅揭祘祇甶ヴ眏参膚籔蝶︳Τ闽
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉
郭Θ某璓勉瞶畊ネ翠淮┕┕砆畴"礚"癸セōチ壁のゅて粄醚の粄耴ぃぶ毙▅矗璶崩︽チ壁毙▅の稲瓣毙▅毙▅竝程穝祇そチ毙▅まいョΤ矗の璶蚌緄厩ネ癸瓣產耴妮稰眏-
癸い瓣ゅて粄チ種莱赣и-
蚌緄瓣產チ壁芠├-
碝︑方糤チ壁瓣產芠├и-
璶磷チ壁毙▅Θ"稲囊毙▅"ョ璶磷そチ毙▅瞋蠢参獀肚の拈块ㄣ璶磷瓃紐納跑Θㄆ龟碞ゲ斗玂瞷厩砃︑の︑パ吏挂ョ琌琵厩のρ畍Τ︑舦∕﹚甭揭ず甧坝ョΤ︑パ絪璹揭セず甧礚斗竒筁現┎糵琩ヴ︙眏厩毙甭琘ㄇ疭﹚ず甧┪硓筁︽現も琿搭揭セず甧暗猭ぃ虫管厩ネ薄舦の稱丁ぃそチ毙▅祇甶ョぃ続﹜翠︑パ穦
霉睲某某惫勉い矗瞶稱そチ借ㄒ穦砫ヴ稰瓣悔跌偿单チ種硂ㄇ借常琌そチ莱Τ借ョ琌そチ毙▅﹙Ξぇㄤいи疭稱矗縒ミσ璶┦Τ獵镑癸贺ぃ眎の種ǎу┦だ猂ョ镑挪贺ぃ現獀眎┪ミ初璉獺├-
癸贺穦某肈镑璽砫の瞶┦∕﹚ョΤ獵镑縒ミσ-
だ侩"稲瓣"籔"稲囊"ぇ丁だ厩崩︽そチ毙▅莱赣癡絤厩ネуσの︑獽-
镑Τ玂毁︑そチ舦の糹︽そチ竡叭の砫ヴ
癸糂ホ某タチ琌やそチ毙▅ㄤいみ揭肈碞琌贝癚現┎籔そチ舦砫闽玒τチ︑パ舦猭獀タ琌络﹚現┎籔そチぇ丁莱Τ闽玒璶玥ョ琌チ︑パ穦ゲ璶兵ンи-
莱赣蚌緄チ︑パ舦猭獀種醚ョ倒ぉ-
ì镑稱丁贝ゼㄓ現
闽そチ毙▅崩︽惫琁ㄓ毙▅竝常躬纘厩函硓Αよ猭厩崩︽そチ毙▅硂贺盢そチ毙▅ず甧函硓ぃ厩ぇずよ猭ㄤ龟Τぃぶ国痜硂贺よΑろ╰参パそチ毙▅獶縒ミ厩┮厩ずョ⊿Τ毙畍盡砫参膚Τ闽揭祘ㄤΩタ砏揭祘竒讽候薄猵璶臮そチ毙▅硂よ祇甶琌螟璶菏诡毙厩秈の蝶︳毙厩璸购ョΤ螟︓厩琌Τ崩︽そチ毙▅ョ礚惧チ粄璝讽Ы痷Τ港種崩︽そチ毙▅碞莱赣荷еΤ丁㎝Τ˙艼盢そチ毙▅厩縒ミ厩Τ˙艼絪糶Τ闽揭祘乎璶毙▅竝ョ莱い厩ず糤砞ヴ戮毙畍璽砫そチ毙▅参膚
畍戈蚌癡癸そチ毙▅崩︽ョ琌だ璶瞷毙▅厩皘揭祘い疉のそチ毙▅场だ讽ぶ︓徊旧跌厩矪┮羭快そチ毙▅甶凝╯穦の畊瞯常ぃ瞶稱ゼ盢Τ闽芠├肚患厩毙▅厩皘莱穝络﹚畍戈蚌癡揭祘ず甧糤そチ毙▅じ徊旧跌厩矪ョσ納厩羭快セ蚌癡揭祘腊-
崩︽そチ毙▅
セ略朝勉チや某のタ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
眎ゅ某璓勉畊ネせ盢︓–├せㄆン笆常井籈翠稲瓣薄胔и稱癬い瓣钢︺獵钢"或и泊盽瞈и癸硂稲眔瞏↖"
稲硂稲眔瞏↖泊瞈–и-
饱├せ螟璏笴︽㎝繰Г竤いи纯-
泊い瞈讽и-
┣砫崔チ稭チ毙▅獵ア瓣產耴妮稰のチ壁粄稰и玱硂竤稲瓣そチ绊㎝荐港い﹀ψ硈稰薄拜肈琌и-
瓣產┪и-
毙▅Τ⊿Τ堡硂祇︑ずみ稲瓣稰薄㎡Τ⊿Τ盢ㄤ跌钵狠τ筀㎡
癸耴ㄥ㎝穝現舦笴︽栋穦繰Г穦綝炳盿烩笴︽舱麓穦砆絣讽笴︽栋穦ē阶挡︑パ綝筀碞Θ矗そチ毙▅程控ゼㄓ程σ喷琌临Τぶそチ穦幢ㄓ膥尿绊稲瓣τぃ発磷玦蝴臔そチ舦痷タ龟筋そチ毙▅弘㎡
竒筁κㄓ崔チ毙▅氯吵场だ獵礚チ穦吏挂策篋跑Θ抖チ癸舦耴и-
踞み俱穦璶钡祑綪瓣產チ壁芠├㎝チ筀瞷龟獵耴ア︑パ㎝舦そチ毙▅Θ酵
"稲瓣"琌稲硂瓣產稲硂稲チ稲瓣ぃ﹚璶ヘや㎝粄恨獀瓣產現舦硂琌盢ㄓそチ毙▅疉の稲瓣毙▅チ壁毙▅現獀毙▅┮璶癸程珼驹翠癸耴瓣產チ壁㎝そチ舦贺贺好納Τ闽そチ毙▅ず甧某ゼㄓ穦跑眔狡馒
癸さぱ"眏獵ぶそチ毙▅"臛阶иよや霉睲某某иョ種糂ホ某タ盢蚌緄獵蝴臔舦種醚璶︗竚盢某矗"盧﹟チ猭獀弘"ㄣ砰"玦炊匡砰瞷チ蝴臔猭縒ミ砮过猭獀弘"硂妓タ盢才耴そチ毙▅程ちō㎝瞷龟惠璶
硂まビ稲瓣籔舦拜肈セㄓチ壁粄㎝稲瓣薄胔琌瓣チ伐︑礛硄稰薄璶ō吹吹翠獵щ秈瓣產胔╆ぃк┶ぃ発磷ぃ倪ぃ礚ーê或瓣產芠├ぃ︑τ祑綪㎝拈块
狦盢局臔瓣產瞷現舦緍そチ舦ぇ碞穦瞷臦舦㎝縒掉讽瓣產現舦甡钵ǎ碞琌癸舦筋今琌伐舦瓣產そチ┮癸程诀硂诀ㄏΤ腞舅猭玂毁绢芞現舦玱穦пΡ猭種┪Τ猭ぃㄌ虑筀そチ蝴臔舦種醚硂琌縒掉穦程磀玸
翠崩︽そチ毙▅璶チ壁毙▅㎝稲瓣毙▅ぃǐ熬疷㎝ヘゲ斗璶矗舦毙▅㎝チ毙▅琵俱穦玦瘆舦種醚痢畓のチ诀ぃì㎝吏挂蚌緄獵縒ミσ臛琌獶㎝︽
︽そチ毙▅琌程璶沮程贾琁穦㎝瓣悔疭砵舱麓秸琩祇瞷Θい厩ネ種ぱ结舦ぃ莱砆管瞶├玱Τ筄Θ厩種牡よㄏノ忌好デㄑ┪は癸加秨砞弘痜眃確いみ单硂ベタ琌︽ぃ程ㄎ糶酚秈˙êㄇㄌ舦墩繷某チ玱籔現舦膚称羬ミ猭穦龟筋縒掉量碙猭玱や临碿猭㎝甧гΤ膀セ猭ぃㄌタ琌崩笆そチ毙▅程抡控
璶Τ崩笆そチ毙▅厩そチ毙▅盢ш簍伐璶à︹ぃ筁そチ毙▅璝蹦ノ函硓Ατぃ砞縒ミヘ崩︽杠狦琌ぃ穦瞶稱┮程秨砞穝侯そチ毙▅揭祘盢そチ毙▅いゲぃぶ舦稲瓣チ壁チ猭獀单絛氓籔縒ミσ单兜ヘ挡ΘΤ厩ネ祇甶ヘ硂妓蚌緄厩ネΘΤ蝴臔舦チ種醚Τ瓣產チ壁芠├Τ穦砫ヴ稰瞷そチ
畊ネさぱи礛祇谋Ги癸澈礛琌甝喘ネи临甝ネヴ毙▅参膚礚阶妓и羆谋眔さぱ⊿Τ毙▅参膚畒测钮琌框狙иぃ︙ぃ筁礚阶妓セ略朝勉や糂ホ某タ
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネ77玡きるらㄊΤ竤厩ネ笴︽ボк某讽い瓣現┎瓣悔㎝穦芥瓣產舦硂竤厩ネ"瓣舦ず埃瓣搁"稲瓣︽笆だは琈-
Τ眏疨チ壁種醚の蝴臔瓣產舦翧ミ初さぱ翠獵ぶΤぶ癸︑瓣產チ壁Τ讽硂竤厩ネㄏ㏑稰硂痷琌稰踞紐沮兜秸琩挡狦祇瞷翠獵ぶぃび谋眔︑稲瓣璝箂だЧぃ稲瓣100だ伐ㄤ稲瓣翠獵キА倒︑57だ厨粄チ壁毙▅琌ㄤい璶讽翠砆拜の琌よ氮竒盽琌翠┪琌翠い瓣穦钡弧琌い瓣獵晋┮ǎぃ
计瓣產そチ毙▅琌膀娄毙▅揭祘璶场だパ緙驹菌璣瓣磨現郸臦翠翠瞋崔チ崔チΑ毙▅沮翠厩い厩㎝厩翠厩戳⊿Τ秨砞タ砏そチ毙▅揭祘︑い璣羛羘帽竝そチ毙▅砆矗毙▅某ㄆら祘翠現┎き祇厩そチ毙▅まぃ筁堡翠┎⊿Τち龟崩︽ま璶―
さる毙▅竝祇穝厩そチ毙▅ま穝まゑきま琌Τ耕秈"瓣"阀├"チ壁︑花稰""稲瓣竡""チ壁竡"单揭肈硂禯瞒и-
獵ぶ粄醚瓣產チ壁临Τ隔璶ǐ临惠璶и-
毙▅肚碈の俱穦皌よǎ
畊ネ璶そチ毙▅Τ龟琁璶и-
獵ぶミ癸瓣產チ壁粄ゲ斗璶よ兵ン皌埃璶Τ崩︽そチ毙▅∕み揭祘ョ惠磝搐讽穦蹈钡皐癸瞷┮癸現獀籹碔稰揭祘璶ㄏそチ毙▅ま辅龟そチ毙▅ヘ莱璶秨砞縒ミヘΘミ翠┦厩そチ毙▅〆穦戳蛤秈そチ毙▅┹甶薄猵ぃ耞э秈㎝蝶︳
︓きそチ毙▅〆穦窾じ戈肂いΤΘ琌ノ戈獵ぶ笆戳ㄓ┛跌崩笆そチ毙▅琌硑Θ瞷さ穦獵ぶそチ種醚チ壁種醚痢畓ぇ沮兜Τ闽獵ぶ瓣產籔チ壁種醚よ秈︽秸琩厨い祇瞷ΤΘ獵ぶボ︑ōい瓣τぃ稰︑花ゼㄓ瓣ㄢ翠癸篒礛ぃ種醚篈㎝基砰╰и-
ゲ斗ㄣу┦σ借珿そチ毙▅ず甧翴莱瓣產芠├チ壁種醚い瓣い瓣瞶膀セ猭の瓣ㄢ瞶秆讽Ыョ莱砞ミ兜チ壁毙▅膀戈刮砰㎝厩羭快摸笆硓筁笆瞏獵ぶ癸瓣產瞷㎝菌粄醚㎝秆矗蔼翠そチ種醚钡翠菌┦耴
畊ネセ略朝勉
独綺笽某璓勉畊ネ獺–常穦觅Θやそチ毙▅蚌緄獵ぶΘそチи-
ゲ斗╒菌毙癡磷絢迭璉贺贺拜肈霉某弧瓣產芠├チ壁種醚ㄤ某常Τ矗硂ㄢ嘿ㄢぃ钡霉某弧い地チ壁瓣產チ壁碞琌τ╯澈妓癸㎡
い瓣Τ碭チ壁狦琌チ壁種醚穦琌簙‵ゅ竡㎡ぶ计チ壁常穦Τ硂好拜狦ノチ壁琌ノρ筁嘿甧瓣產程ぃ璶ノチ壁硂ㄢ狦チ壁種醚琌贺疷筰チ壁竡螟笵獻菠い瓣らセチ壁竡ぃ琌チ壁竡盾螟笵監炳礢びらφ耙チ壁種醚ぃ琌チ壁種醚盾螟笵甡Τ︹フ贺チ壁種醚ぃ琌チ壁種醚盾硂ぃ矗ㄑ礹璚菌毙癡ョ琌и-
克ō筁礹璚菌毙癡ヴ︙瓣產常ぃ莱蚌緄硂摸チ壁種醚и谋眔霉某惠璶秆睦睲贰╯澈弧チ壁種醚琌或チ壁種醚
妓瓣產芠├ぃ莱簍跑Θ稲瓣碞琌稲囊ぃ镑Θや瓣產诀竟筋今チ舦瞶パ瓣產芠├﹚璶膀瞶├碞琌瓣產琌妮チ瓣產琌チΤ︑舦チΤ舦匡︑現┎璹狝叭チ現郸硂妓パチ局Τ瓣產瓣產芠├琌и-
┮蚌緄荡獶ミ筋今チ舦臦舦ê贺瓣產芠├иョ辨霉某秆睦睲贰瓣產芠├琌或瓣產芠├
畊ネそチ毙▅璶Θи-
笵程璶ㄤ龟ぃ琌揭セ毙▅τ琌讽и-
蚌緄獵ぶи-
倒-
瞶├㎝瞶稱籔-
┮ǎ瞷龟琌皌狦Τ穦砫ヴ稰Τ縒ミσ盧﹟チの猭獀弘獵セぃㄉΤ栋穦︑パぃ硓筁布匡︽現﹛㎝ミ猭穦τ璶砆钡笻は膀セ猭羬ミ猭穦硂獵穦獺┮钡そチ毙▅琌獺の莱赣钡㎡
狦獵ぶǎ骸笵紈硓筁魂偶礚幵︽独乃笷τ發―穦そ竡の痷タチ玱砆硋砆菏窽獵獺┮钡そチ毙▅㎡
狦獵ǎ疭舦籔胋耞ジ穦炊硄デㄆ璶簀琅囊デ肥ぱ竜玱礛礚ㄆ穦獺そチ毙▅㎡
ㄓい瓣嘲常弧い瓣穦笵紈ㄓ碿てㄤ龟瞶パ虏虫瞶稱ほ防钮毙癡厩策筽網弘玱盿倒礹璚竒喷ㄤネア毖はτ笻璉瞶稱玱Θ硂ㄇ獵ぶ穦發―瞶稱㎡┮и辨讽и-
臛阶硂某龟悔發―そチ毙▅и-
ぃ虫ゎ蚌緄獵ㄇ瞶稱и-
临璶ミ癬硂ㄇ淮蝴臔痷タτ硂ㄇ獵谋眔瞶稱琌痷タ瞷龟穦い龟瞷
糕蚌┚某璓勉畊ネиび⊿Τ祇ēΤㄇ穦弧糕蚌┚澈穦ê或繰ㄆ龟и菊癩竒よ璓戳某臛阶窖摸龟獶セ┮
さぱ弧そチ毙▅иョ诀穦弧碭杠產秆崔チ籔瓣產琌Τㄇぃㄒ瞷獵ぶ┮渡琌-
みヘい簈琍琍初-
玙ネ㏑繧オ侥疾或琌-
みヘい案钩τ-
︓盢產倒ぉ窥纗籛癬ㄓ禦初ㄩ獽厩玡模-
穦ǐê㎡讽礛琌翠程菊皑初硂ㄢ贺毙▅礚粄琌崔チ程瞷龟猵現┎ぃ稱カチ稱ㄤㄆ薄┮硂獽硑Θ稱猭"碞琌ぃ戒獽爹﹚絘"戒碞爹﹚块皑で竒盽а癘︑璶暗ㄆ薄
Τ贡そチ毙▅肈┽阑い瓣現┎ョ衡┮孔そチ毙▅и-
秆翠瞷﹛闹常琌烦程Τㄇき烦-
┮钡计琌崔チ毙▅タ┮孔︙ㄓい瓣み︙ㄓい瓣︙ㄓい瓣薄ㄤ龟ぃ琌-
岿琌崔チ毙▅岿︓芖程匡羭祅谨羆参ぇ┮﹚璶ノ渡克縒み篈芖筁κ⊿Τい瓣みい瓣い瓣薄癸κぱ耴い瓣薄猵そチ毙▅よи-
ぃ琌躬纘現獀稱渡瞷い地Τ常琌独ブ涧い瓣Ν地勾禲瓣眔ㄤ瓣產臔酚セ竒⊿Τい瓣薄い瓣み┮Τ硂或借好耴い瓣ぇ﹉づ阶毙▅琌絃Μ︓ぶ﹚璶硂妓暗
讽礛ス疉の現獀碞穦Τ某┦現獀琌⊿Τッ瞷ㄓタ絋盢ㄓ芠紇臫τ現舦簿ユ┪現舦ㄤ跑てΤぃ猭┮そチ毙▅璶ヘ琌璶獵フ暗笵瞶獶兵隔硄霉皑フ暗笵瞶琌程璶ㄒ厩σ刚ゲ﹚Τ材㎝篯Ю篯Юぃ﹚岿祇揣ぃτㄏミ猭Ы某ぇい產ゼゲ菊–镑︑肛琌–揭肈录贰
穦璶獵ぶ秆毙▅炊の┦斗紈︽籔砰▅よ眔キ颗祇甶и-
玭龙瘤礛琌灿瓣產ㄤ毙▅炊の疭砰▅よА眔﹚Θ罿硂ㄇ碞琌そチ㎝瓣產毙▅礚粄翠筁碭ㄓ秈˙м竒蕾眔讽Θ罿ō翠τ︑花琌︑花ぇ緇ぃ璶筁だ︑藕斗獵放毙▅ぇい﹟砰喷繧珿現┎莱浪癚ゼㄓ毙▅よ皐砰▅醇㎝瓣產芠├よ-
Τ睲捶隔
︓現獀よΤ蔼い┪︓厩ネ镑フだ猂厩ネ龟螟秆或琌タ絋現獀隔┮毙▅ぃ莱赣筁だу蝶ヴ︙и-
ョ粄舦チ瓣產芠├璶┦莱赣祇甶硂よ毙▅ㄏ厩ネタ絋Θ隔硚眔币祇и-
ぃ璶盢熬ǎ現獀種醚拈块倒獵
畊ネиや某癸糂ホ某熬珼隔帹Τ借好略朝勉
PRESIDENT: I now invite Mr LO Suk-ching to speak on the amendment to his motion. You have five minutes to speak on the amendment, Mr LO.
霉睲某璓勉畊ネセ矗さΩ某眔璝現囊笆セ矗癸某ㄇ種ǎ硂ㄇ現囊珹チ囊ョ珹チセ膀セ琌觅-
種ǎョだ猋洁-
穦某ぇ玡產Τ肪硄㎝坝セ琌钡-
種ǎ癸某莱э糂某┮矗タセ膀セ種ㄤず甧狦糂某ㄆセ矗セョ穦σ納ㄤ種ǎㄇэ
ㄆ龟癸︙眏獵ぶそチ毙▅и-
琌矗產常觅ず甧拜肈琌⊿Τゲ璶常某惫勉ぇずチ郭Θ某纯竒某セ糤ㄢ兜ず甧碞琌盢そチ毙▅縒ミヘの砞ミ厩そチ毙▅〆穦セ觅硂ㄢ兜某祇ēずョΤ矗の琌莱讽盢ㄢ翴某惫勉ず㎡
パさΩ某琌矗のㄇ現郸玥⊿Τ疉のㄣ砰某狦某ず度度硂ㄢ兜ㄣ砰某┪玻ネ岿谋粇硂ㄢ翴琌程璶セ琌钡チㄇㄤ某ョ獶盽稰谅郭Θ某癸硂翴ボ瞶秆
畊ネ糂某タ"蹦莱惫琁碻亥秈よΑ"单セ粄セЫ莱赣玃叫現┎荷е璹現郸ㄣ砰磅︽玥琌続﹜蹦碻亥秈よΑ硂妓琌耕叭龟㎝璽砫ヴ篈驰腹┪ㄇ現獀簍琌甧璶ㄣ砰辅龟临琌莱倒ぉ現┎﹚丁ㄆ薄礚琌ぱЧΘセ程ぃ钡琌糂某タ"盧﹟チ猭獀弘"τэ"玦炊匡砰喷チ"セ獶は癸炊匡琌糂某粄炊匡碞ゲ礛镑砰喷チ┪炊匡碞琌チ弘ちず甧琌霫澄チず瞇硂ㄇ腹嘿チ癸チ瞶秆龟稰磀玸и-
刚ㄇ祇甶い瓣產-
Ν龟︽炊匡ㄤいΤㄇ瓣產瘤礛琌龟瞷炊匡ごゼゲ镑砰喷チ弘и-
崩笆チ祇甶琌莱赣炊匡斑ヘ㎡セ螟觅糂某硂兜タセョ略叫︗某ぃ璶囊妮┪τ膀某ず甧やセ某谅谅畊ネ
現叭璓勉畊ネ現┎崩︽そチ毙▅現郸獶盽絋и-
ヘ夹琌璶ㄏカチ粄醚闽猔㎝把籔そㄆ叭ㄏ-
秆㎝碙舦蚌緄-
癸翠耴妮稰の躬纘-
縩伐把籔穦ㄆ叭
龟︽硂兜現郸и-
璓絋玂カチ镑秆㎝蝴セōそチ舦㎝舦フ︑パチ穦硂ㄇ舦┮盿砫ヴ硂琌弧и-
璶︑パチ猭獀穦そ竡单阀├の硂ㄇ阀├讽さ㎝ら穦現獀竒蕾㎝猭砰╰い┮祇揣ノ镑瞏チ丁
и-
眖ゼΤрそチ毙▅パ現┎縒┯踞ㄆ叭筁и-
獶盽┋笲镑籔穦顶糷荐みΤ醚ぇ拟もㄆ龟さタ琌そチ毙▅〆穦Θミ㏄赣〆穦Θ珹厩毙畍畍ㄤ盡穨跋㎝そ叭ㄤ璶珹癚阶㎝络﹚そチ毙▅ヘ夹㎝絛瞅〆穦籔跋そチ毙▅〆穦㎝ㄤ刮镑候盞喘そチ種醚獺ョ籔ㄤΤ闽現┎场羭快兜崩約笆
и-
眏そチ種醚絛氓ぇずΤ翴肈猭獀璶┦把籔そㄆ叭碙舦ㄤ龟–肈ヘ︑ノ絞簍勉ㄓ秆睦и瞷с璶量瓃ㄇ璶翴
材碞猭獀璶┦и-
穦秆睦猭ぇ玡キ单硂阀├猭猭诀篶縒ミぃ︽現诀闽箇璶┦抄糵刮糵癟の炊硄猭砰㎝膀セ猭┮Τㄤ疭翴
材把籔そㄆ叭よи-
穦眏秸カチΤ舦τΤ诀穦ぃ猍跌㎝礚瞶▂薄猵把籔そㄆ叭チ匡羭い眔щ布㎝莉匡舦
程碙舦ぇи-
穦秆睦┮Τ常ㄉΤ舦ぃ阶琌眏┪畓ы┪獷惠穿常莱ㄉΤネ︑パ舦猭玡キ单Τ舦把籔そㄆ叭㎝祇種ǎ单硂ㄇ常琌膀セ猭舦
さぱ霉睲某矗某眏秸伐Τ惠璶眏獵ぶそチ種醚硂絋琌獶盽璶揭肈ョ琌現┎ㄓ┮崩︽翴ぇи-
硓筁厩のそチ毙▅〆穦㎝獵ㄆ叭〆穦璓и-
獵ぶ拈块タ絋篈基芠㎝獺├獽ら-
┯踞穦㎝そチ砫ヴ
иぃ粄霉睲某㎝糂ホ某ㄤい猭-
粄ゲ斗翠獵ぶ非称耚叉崔チ竡潮紇钡珼驹㎝莱翠らい瓣疭︽現跋惠璶и玡酵のΤ闽猭獀種竡癸舦碙㎝把籔そㄆ叭璶┦常ぃ琌崔チ穦筁框τ琌瞷穦┮ゲ惠翠縒疭ぇ矪ウ琌瓣悔常穦ョ琌じて穦и-
磕い﹁基芠毙▅穝ㄏ-
ぃ虫ゎ镑耎溜瓣悔跌偿ョ镑碙い瓣ゅて肚参
セЫ︗某纯把籔览獵ㄆ叭〆穦祇獵彻絋ミ瓃猭獀阀├基芠癪膍▆赣彻哪Τ闽獵ぶ祇甶玥㎝瞶稱Τ闽よ矗ㄑ把σ彻眏秸璶蚌▅淮ㄏ-
粄醚癸穦砫ヴ╆腨略笵紈芠㎝縩伐ネ篈ョ璶祇甶-
縒ミσの琵-
秆︑ネ︑パチ穦┮踞ヴà︹赣彻–ㄢ浪癚Ω硂ㄇ基芠彻Ω浪癚Ω莉眔﹚┮Τ把籔矗蔼獵ぶそチ種醚刮砰矗ㄑま
そチ毙▅〆穦场だ戈方㎝常栋い硂よΤ某矗の現┎肂猔戈2,000窾じき︓硂丁笆竒禣и-
Θミ盡砫毙▅舱〆穦镑甶秨兜ヘ夹环獵ぶ璸购〆穦獵ぶ籹材甅Τ闽舦㎝猭獀毙甅挪讽竒喷〆穦Ω崩甅ㄠ担癸禜舦毙▅毙甅厩㎝跋刮砰は莱躬籖Τ禬筁κ毙畍㎝跋烩砈畊Τ闽崩ざ癚穦ゼㄓ计る〆穦穦崩毙甅ㄤ场だの盡厩玡ㄠ担㎝獵ぶ籹穝毙甅穦籔稧現そ竝拟も羭快"卖そチ隔"笲笆
硂ㄇ笆ㄤい肈琌獵ぶ崩約膀セ猭и-
穦р筿跌約冀65虫じ"膀セ猭D"筿跌竊ヘ胯魁Θ紇盿祇厩穦崩闽膀セ猭毙珹ㄠ担珿ㄆ獵ぶ癸禜硈吏瓜のΤ闽膀セ猭筽甮盒
〆穦硓筁そチ毙▅笆戈璸购縩伐躬纘跋刮砰矗蔼獵ぶそチ種某Τ28兜疉の獵ぶ癸禜璸购莉眔〆穦禬筁100窾じ戈и蔼砍瓃贺贺の翠崩約そチ毙▅よ猭眔羛瓣菏诡翠辅龟兵瓣悔舦そのΤ闽〆穦古砛
現┎秨﹍癸厩毙甭そチ毙▅よ猭秈︽浪癚穝厩そチ毙▅ま竒筁そ渤吭高さる莉眔揭祘祇甶某穦硄筁и-
璸购琌パさる秨﹍厩崩︽穝まは琈現┎そチ毙▅現郸穝ま睲贰厩そチ毙▅﹙Ξヘ夹篶㎝揭祘絛瞅崩︽家Αの蝶и-
郸菠ま璶疭︹琌眖厩ネà级糶厩矗ㄑ隔ㄏよ硓筁揭ず毙甭㎝揭笆祇甶セōそチ毙▅璸购
穝ま瞇籠霉睲某さぱ笆某┮矗兜篶稱ì靡現┎絋辨蚌▅и-
獵ΘΤ砫ヴ稰㎝┯踞竡叭カチㄏ-
稱縒ミ㎝闽み穦砰ㄓ弧и-
硂まΞ
材ㄏ厩ネ粄醚そチ籔產畑綟ń穦跋穦チ壁瓣產の闽玒蚌緄縩伐篈㎝基芠眖τ癸翠のい瓣玻ネ耴妮稰
ㄤΩㄏ厩ネ粄醚セ翠穦疭︹の秆チ︑パキ单舦の猭獀弘璶腊-
ら盽ネ莱ノ硂ㄇ阀├の
程蚌緄厩ネу┦σの秆∕拜肈мㄏ-
ノ芠篈だ猂穦の現獀拜肈瞶耞
穝ま碞厩崩︽そチ毙▅某贺ぃ家Α埃厩ヘ玡程炊筂蹦ノ函硓Α临珹Τ计︗某┮矗の縒ミ厩㎝侯厩硂ㄢ家Αま某厩挤﹚丁㎝戈方崩︽そチ毙▅匡ノ贺┪贺家Α笷Θそチ毙▅ヘ夹
厩崩︽穝ま毙▅竝穦蹦ノ縒ミ┪侯厩家Α厩矗ㄑ竒盽痁馒兜瑉禟厩服厩穦膥尿玡┕厩贝砐㎝跌诡竒盽厩矗ㄑΤ闽そチ毙▅璸购種ǎ
瘤礛穝まず甧某揭祘絛瞅厩璹セō揭祘场だ跋舱麓厩常纯璶―讽Ы璹甅そチ毙▅揭祘乎璶ぃ阶赣揭祘乎璶琌闽縒ミ厩┪侯厩揭祘祇甶某穦盢穦膥尿╯ㄆ
讽Ы絪璹甅毙厩だ癳倒厩毙厩瞇籠肈珹舦猭獀匡羭σмォい璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭单さ临穦絪璹ㄤ毙絪璹い毙甅粄醚い瓣肈讽Ы穦崩戮毙畍秈璸购癡絤毙畍酚穝ま毙甭そチ毙▅
﹚ゼㄓ纔矪瞶兜ヘи-
睲贰笵カチ疭琌獵ぶ獷惠瞏粄醚膀セ猭"瓣ㄢ"篶稱の癸翠玡硚玂靡タи弧筁崩約膀セ猭の玂毁翠舦㎝︑パ兵ゅ琌筁寸戳いそチ毙▅揭祘翴肈硂翴琌だ璶Τ硂妓暗獵˙镑笵㎝フ︑琌い瓣烈翠疭︽現跋カチ穦癸硂縒疭ōだ骸獺み非称穦踞簍縩伐à︹
Question on the amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr IP Kwok-him claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall now proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: May I remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendment moved by Mr LAU Chin-shek be made to Mr LO Suk-ching's motion. Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button, and then proceed to vote by choosing 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, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Miss Margaret NG, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Mr Eric LI abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 23 votes in favour of the amendment and 16 against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
PRESIDENT: Mr LO Suk-ching, you are entitled to your final reply and you have five minutes and 32 seconds out of your original 15 minutes.
霉睲某璓勉畊ネさΩи矗某臛阶いи︑稰莉眔炊筂や瘤礛產癸и矗ず甧ョΤㄇ好納俱砰τē常觅Θ硂琿菌戳Τゲ璶眏獵ぶそチ毙▅パ筁崔チ恨獀崔チ竡毙▅獵ぶチ壁瓣產芠├㎝種醚计某ョ癸硂瞷龟粄Τ惠璶硂よ眏
и谋眔-
好納琌ぃゲ璶и┮矗癸獵ぶそチ毙▅璶琌皐癸翠ヘ玡龟悔薄猵獵ぶ筁毙▅ゑ耕チ壁芠├┪瓣產芠├種醚癸獵ぶ癸"瓣ㄢ"粄醚㎝-
ōだ锣跑妓糹︽そチ砫ヴ硂よи谋眔現┎程ま璹璶琌妓秈˙辅龟の硓筁贺措笵眏獵ぶ癸そチ毙▅醚
某眏秸璶Τ縒ミσи琌獶盽觅璶眏獵ぶ縒ミσゲ斗癸-
秈︽醚毙▅㎝琵-
秆︙秈︽だ猂安ぃ镑非絋磝搐醚獽玻ネ粇秆τぃ祇揣縒ミσタ獵ぶ癸и-
俱瓣產菌チ壁菌琌ぃ秆筁毙▅よョ砲ㄒ糂ホ某矗のゅて㏑ぶ獵ぶ秆ゅて㏑祇ネ菌璉春㎝Θョぃ秆い瓣現┎癸ゅて㏑篈㎝い瓣妓狝ゅて㏑岿粇Τさぱэ秨菌琌ぃ耞祇甶и-
ョぃ镑瓣產祇甶菌祘い祇ネㄇ岿粇τ﹚そチ毙▅–瓣產–チ壁ㄤ菌祇甶秈祘常穦瞷岿粇礚阶琌紈瓣らセ筁猭﹁吹竡瓣癸材監炳砪芥堵ィ┪璣瓣菌矪眏穖崔チ单硂ㄇ菌ぃ穦紇臫-
セ瓣そチ毙▅はそチ毙▅獽琌璶-
羆挡菌毙癡╒竒喷祇喘︑瓣產チ壁纔╭肚参攫ミチ壁︑碙み︑花稰砞︑瓣產㎝穦и-
ョぃ镑眏秸舦τа癘穦砫ヴぃ莱赣琌眏秸︑パ㎝猭τа玱ㄢ闽玒矗ㄇ拜肈τ莱赣癸獵ぶ拈块醚ㄏ-
Τì镑縒ミσи粄硂ョ琌そチ毙▅璶舱Θ场だ
The digital timer showed 0532
PRESIDENT: Mr LO Suk-ching, your time is up. Could you try to complete your speech by adding two more sentences.
霉睲某セ祇ēЧ拨略朝勉
Question on Mr LO Suk-ching's motion as amended by Mr LAU Chin-shek put and agreed to.
PROVISION OF GENERAL PUBLIC MEDICAL SERVICES AT HALF THE NORMAL FEES AND CHARGES TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITY AND THE ELDERLY
MR FRED LI to move the following motion:
"セЫ玃叫現┎摧痚の60烦┪ρΜそ洛励狝叭禣ノ倒ぉ基纔磃"
地某璓勉畊ネи笆某硄筁某ㄆ祘┮更и某иチ囊矗硂某琌玃叫現┎60烦ρの摧痚矗ㄑ禣そ洛励狝叭セ穦碞硂某瞶├の磅︽灿竊祇ēㄤチ囊某ョ穦碞硂拜肈祇ē霉璓某穦だ猂基纔磃籔俱砰洛励Μ禣現郸闽玒谅ッ闹某穦ざ残瞷穦癸摧痚纔磃のや穿法此某玥穦碞瞷洛励戈ぃì癚阶基洛励璶┦独岸藉某玥穦у蝶瞷現┎65烦ρ狝叭砏购夹非
琌Ω臛阶琌膀"キ单把籔"瞶├瞷現┎畓墩竤矗ㄑА"呼"よΑ矗ㄑㄒ侯穿︘皘の禘禣僚单常渤獶盽砲絘倒ぉ硂ㄇ讽礛呼Τㄤノ矪ゅ秈˙穦и-
癸畓墩竤闽胔ぃ莱琌璶单-
癸伐螟ぉ矗ㄑㄆ龟癸琘ㄇ畓墩竤τē莱倒ぉ-
笆のタ笷璓痷タキ单把籔
碞琌ㄌ硂贺弘τ砞ミ硓筁и-
眔Α纔磃瘤礛龟︽临Τ惠璶э到よㄤ弘﹍沧琌眔猋洁カ現Ыョ秨甶兜"畓纔磃璸购"ㄏ摧痚猋洁ゅ甌竊ヘのノ砞琁瞴初ㄉΤ基纔磃и-
粄硂贺膀キ单把籔τ砞纔磃ゅ秈˙穦眔崩約
и稱碞硂兜某臛阶惫迭ㄇ﹚㎝坚睲琌Ω某臛阶┮"そ洛励狝叭禣ノ"珹炊硄禘盡禘眃臔瞶の炊硄痜┬︘皘狝叭Τ刮砰碞硂兜某臛阶セ矗種ǎ瞷洛恨Ы硋兜Μ禣ㄏ搭癸戳痜τē琌璽踞и璶硂ビチ囊砮ミ初琌は癸硋兜洛励Μ禣チ囊粄硋兜Μ禣琌兜ぃ瞶現郸и-
ぃ穦璶―盢硋兜Μ禣基兜ヘぇずτ琌璶―耕Ν玡セЫ碞硂よ秈︽某臛阶┮ぃ硂狡
パρの摧痚ㄏノ洛励狝叭诀穦耕ㄤ┮璽砫ヴ現┎莱硓筁基そ洛励纔磃-
矗ㄑ狝叭︑眖る讽匡瞷硂︓るㄓи纯贝砐芠俄跋ず丁ρいみ㎝皘ユ酵いи祇瞷ρ產程闽み碞琌そ禘┮Μ禣拜肈瞷炊硄禘Μ禣琌34じ盡禘Μ40じ炊硄痜┬︘皘禣琌60じ癸ρ產τē硂琌璽踞狦ō砰Τ耕を痜τ璶︘皘计る┪Ω盡禘玥Τ闽秨や穦讽讽礛烩侯穿ρ產セぃノ踞みи瞷琌êㄇ⊿烩侯穿ョ琌ネ砲絘娩絫ê竤ρ產沮現┎倒и计陪ボ徖ネ竝Τ60丁禘┮矗ㄑ炊硄禘狝叭–膀セΤ40%ㄏノ琌60烦ρ產痜よτē洛恨Ы烈そミ洛皘痜Τ39%ㄏノ琌65烦┪ρ癸ぃ癬-
⊿Τ60烦だ猂︓眃臔瞶–㎝玥Τ禬筁51%常琌65烦ρ產┮パρ產そ洛励狝叭よ璶㎝κだゑ
現┎穦弧瞷Τρの摧痚惫琁瞷戈碞Τそ褐璸购の侯穿そ褐璸购琌現┎钡矗ㄑぉ摧痚のρㄤい端摧瑉禟ゲ﹚璶アκだぇκビ叫蔼肂端瑉琌璶戳钡酚臮ビ叫и種端摧瑉禟弘琌癸ゼ镑κだぇκアτㄤ摧毁祘玱ì紇臫ㄤら盽ネ玥端摧瑉禟礚腊︓せる┏ビ烩端摧瑉禟计Τせ窾κτ現┎︳璸摧痚翠祅癘玥Τ26窾ǎ端摧瑉禟ㄤ龟ゼ磃の场だ摧痚
侯穿Τρの摧痚摸︓せる侯穿蔼闹碞Τ窾τ摧痚Τ窾и-
璶猔種琌硂ㄇビ烩常琌竒蕾伐辜τρ┪摧痚沮瞷侯穿ビ烩ビ叫眎洛励禣ノ僚靡Чぃゲ煤そ洛励禣ノタ玡┮弧侯穿琌膀呼瞶├τ砞Τの戈玻糵琩籔и-
┮弧キ单把籔瞶├ぃ才
ㄆ龟程Ν矗ρの摧痚洛励基ぃ琌セτ琌現┎箂祇膀糷洛励舱厨硂琌現┎︑厨琌箂せ玡そガи稱ま瓃材270Τ闽ρ產ず甧硂讽礛65烦┪ρ厨ρ產莱莉倒ぉ基禘硈烩端摧瑉禟莱倒ぉ基硂琌現┎箂厨┮基纔磃硂阀├ぃ琌パи承硑はぇせ玡現┎Τ硂某и谋眔и-
莱璶や堡或現┎盢ㄤ撤耫ず;㎡現┎Τ砫ヴ酚臮ρ畓ㄏρㄏノ禘狝叭眔基纔磃и-
某籔厨Τ闽某弘琌璓
チ囊某ρ―禘璶ボ碞眔纔磃チ囊粄莱赣盢"ρ"﹚竡60烦τ獶65烦и-
盢硂よ膥尿龟琁60烦ρ洛励纔磃и-
某祏戳τēゼΤρㄒ6162烦咎ōだ靡靡︑Τ戈莉眔纔磃
碞摧痚薄猵и-
某パ穦褐竝祇眎摧痚ㄏノそ狝叭纔磃靡摧痚︑パ∕﹚琌Τ惠璶谋眔Τ惠璶烩谋眔⊿惠璶┪ぃ尺舧ぃ烩咎靡眔そ洛励纔磃狝叭
讽礛摧痚﹚竡ㄓ常琌螟矪瞶拜肈端摧扭摧痚薄猵单﹟甧﹚のだ摸Τ兜摧毁の戳痜眞玥螟睲贰﹚ㄤ摧毁祘現┎碞盽螟﹚瞶パτ┶荡磅︽Τ闽現郸и-
某穝祇靡璸购莱赣珹碭摸摧痚材烩端摧瑉禟の蔼肂摧瑉禟材竒洛ネ蝶﹚ㄤ端摧祘笷50%ō砰诀穕アㄤい莱珹戳痜眞硂ㄇョ莱Τ戈烩硂靡
讽礛穦Τㄇㄏ眔基纔磃临琌ぃや洛励禣ノㄒ戳︘皘ρ產基临琌璽踞狦Τ硂ㄇ薄猵パ洛叭矪瞶ビ叫現┎洛励僚拜肈獽τ秆硂Ω某臛阶いи獺Τㄇㄆ穦酵のρ產俱砰拜肈辩醇翬某计琍戳玡癚阶筁┮さΩи辨罽絛瞅ぃ琌弧び溜洛励現郸㎝ρ胺眃いみτ琌计摸狝叭и-
辨現┎镑睲捶惠璶㎝и-
某璶―и辨и-
Ыずㄆ璓や硂兜某璶―現┎荷Ν龟琁硂兜纔磃ρ產碞硂兜某臛阶ǎи常は琈-
種ǎ粄硂兜某臛阶琌-
戳-
辨現┎镑痷钮ρ產み羘辨囊狟ね礚囊縒ミ某常镑や硂兜某粇穦セЫぃ刮挡璓琵и-
霍現┎琁溃
セ略朝勉矗某
Question on the motion proposed.
辩醇翬某璓勉畊ネи祇ēや地某矗某иや璶琌膀某璉弘㎝ㄤ疉の玥ρの摧痚瞶莱眔и-
疭酚臮τㄏノそ洛励狝叭ρの摧痚常妮竒蕾Τ竤
ぃ筁や硂某ぇ緇и辨Ыずㄆの現┎镑灿σ納拜肈
(1) 搭Μ禣ノ┪禣琌絋玂ρの摧痚胺眃ネ程ㄎよ猭
(2) 度琌搭Μ洛励禣ノ-
ㄣ碙腨ネ
(3) 搭Μ禣ノ┪禣琌碞琌絋玂翠俱砰そ洛励╰参Т到笲窾莱▆媚㎡
┛跌胺眃崩約籔箇ň端摧
ㄓ讽Ыぃ耞祇甶そ洛励狝叭矗ㄑ贺程秈洛励м籔狝叭籔穦籔穦烩砈ョぃ耞璶―現┎矗ㄑ稧基洛励狝叭礛τ礚阶琌現┎┪穦常┛菠"箇ň秤獀励"璶┦ぃぶ痚痜ぷㄤ琌ρ痜籔の贺端摧薄ㄤ龟常箇ň
ㄒ安и-
眖搭ぶノ堪蔼義㏕綣ρ眞み纽の﹀恨痜诀穦︑礛搭ㄒ荷Νз埃废碿策畊ネず︑礛搭ぶ眞篊┦や恨痜㎝砾诀穦翠莱赣猭ㄤ瓣產璹╰"胺眃夹"絋﹚琘琿丁ず盢琘ㄇ炊筂痚痜痜祇瞯の瞯搭︓続讽キΤ硂ㄇㄣ砰夹Τ╰参﹚兜莱現郸籔璸购堡洛厩ㄓ崩笆現┎玱φぃ籇︓瞷ごぃ┮笆
ぃぶ"摧毁"ㄤ龟常磷翠端┪ユ硄種琌旧璓-
端摧ぃ耞碿てγ琕ョ禫ㄓ禫眞篊┦齿痜のや恨单忌ㄆンョ礚禿甡端摧ㄒ法眏ネ㎝程辩ぱ岸ネぃ┋綝笿獽琌硂タタは琈и-
玂毁穦獀よご礛拜肈瓃硂ㄇ痚痜㎝端摧ㄒ常琌箇ňτ琌⊿Τ快猭ノヴ︙洛励狝叭辣干
虫綼窥ぃ蝴臔碙腨
璶ρ產の摧痚ㄣ碙腨ネ虫咎搭Μ洛励禣ノ荡癸ぃì镑-
临惠璶Τ钡癳┕︘┮籔洛励┪確眃诀篶狝叭-
惠璶甶洛臔の甶酚臮-
惠璶產叭瞶ら盽ネ-
惠璶Τみ瞶厩產籔戮穨獀励畍腊Γ筁タ盽穦ネ窖摸Аゑ虫琌窥腊ㄓ眔璶
и-
ぃ璶а癘硂竤ご礛綝穦猍跌腞垂堕ㄆン獽琌ㄒ堡ㄆ跋烩砈㎝そ渤ョ丁钡┪钡や籔﹡チ硂贺猍跌み篈и︑辨"キ单诀穦〆穦"Θミぇ镑荷еタ硂ㄇ猍跌拜肈
"Τ戈方"礚猭莱"礚惠―"
畊ネ程セЫΤΩぃ臛阶常琌玃叫現┎ミ硋兜Μ禣┪ぃ贺摸痜矗ㄑ搭禣┪禣洛励讽礛羉篴穦翠讽礛Τ砫ヴだ酚臮Τ惠璶竤礛τ炊硄盽醚禗и-
硂ㄇ洛励禣ノ搭惫琁瞶莱矗ㄑぉ砲痷タΤ惠璶絋玂-
ぃ穦竒蕾螟τ眔ぃ続讽だ洛励胺眃酚臮
瞷翠そ洛励胺眃╰参虏τēぇ甧"Τ祙窥ㄓ莱ぃ耞ど礚惠―"安そ洛励砰沧穦礚猭莱痷タΤ惠璶戈狝叭程沧镑莉眔キ洛励狝叭程胊薄琌そ洛励砰︓穦τ盰检硂獺琌и-
荡癸ぃ稱ǎ薄猵
畊ネセ"洛励胺眃現郸フブ"祇禯さ俱俱22硂戳丁現┎窖╈┑筐筐ぃ籹﹚穝胺眃現郸の环胺眃夹⊿Τ冈灿σ納甅瞶洛励磕戈籔Μ禣現郸
22玡獵さぱ跑Θρ┪摧痚刚拜畊ネ-
临Τ单22盾谅谅畊ネ
法此某璓勉瞷洛励禣ノ僚诀璶パ洛恨Ыの穦褐竝洛叭璽砫糵у侯穿ビ烩烩眎そ洛励Μ禣僚靡︑笆僚禘┮の︘皘狝叭禣ノき〓せΤ窾Ω咎僚靡眔徖ネ竝狝叭禣ノ僚獶侯穿ビ烩狦竒蕾Τ螟ぃや洛皘︘皘禣の禘禣ノ洛叭ビ叫︘皘禣场だ┪场僚
瞷僚诀膀セ璶硄筁の戈玻糵琩礚絋の戈玻の璸衡猭洛叭の洛ネ皍薄舦讽τ–丁洛皘〓禘┮だΤㄇ洛皘琌侯穿夹非把σΤㄇ玥琌蓟嚎ㄈ膀ビ烩兵ン把σ
и︑稰┣畊ネ或硂穦⊿Τ絋ま籔のの戈玻и粄紇臫痜僚诀莱赣Τ甅そ秨τ絋糵у玥玥狦–丁洛皘禘┮暗猭常Τ︑甅癸ビ烩τē穦硑Θ睼睹
и眖ρ矪眔瘤礛禘狝叭Τ僚ㄆ龟琌ㄓぶ笵Τ硂ㄇ诀ㄓ琌ぶ穦34じ禘禣τ洛叭ビ厨の戈玻き〓せ莉僚Ω窾きκΩ耕徖ネ竝960窾羆―禘Ω弧琌獶盽ぇぶ瞷ぃ絋и-
ぃ笵╯澈硂计ぶ琌ビ叫ぶビ叫兵ン璙ㄨ┪琌礚笵Τ硂贺狝叭璶猔種琌瞷炊硄禘―禘Τ34%琌65烦ρ盡禘玥Τ32%65烦ρ狦璸の摧痚硂计盢穦瘤礛и-
基矗某璶弘琌畓墩竤矗ㄑ縩伐τぃ琌翴皐癸砲絘稱钩瘤礛瞷現┎矗ㄑ洛励借ぃΤ窥翴カチ常ぃ穦近刁痝洛励基程镑腊и-
粄盢穦琌禬禫侯穿⊿Τ窥╬產洛ネ疭琌戳╬產洛ネτ璶近現┎禘┮ρ產の摧痚
Τ刮砰и-
は琈–Ω現┎ρの摧痚褐ㄒ摧痚ユ硄瑉禟現┎常穦弧蔼闹瑉禟の端摧瑉禟珹硂ㄇよ惠璶ず┮礚斗Τ戈и獺現┎祔莱常穦矗硂阶翴
畊ネи稱端摧瑉禟ビ烩瘤礚糵琩Θビ叫腨端摧硂現郸腊κだぇκ端摧┪腨癸ぃìκだぇκ摧痚ㄤ摧毁祘玱ì紇臫ら盽ネ璸购礚龟悔腊蔼闹瑉禟瞇痳耕約耕腊Τ惠璶ρ暴ㄤ肂びぶρ洛励惠璶ゑキ盽┮и-
粄砞ミρ洛励纔磃ごΤㄤ璶┦
程и稱量量硋兜洛励Μ禣拜肈Τ刮砰籔и-
钡牟拜и-
矗某洛励禣琌珹硋兜Μ禣地某и-
ぃ穦璶―盢兜Μ禣搭狦硂妓璶―碞琌┯粄硋兜Μ禣琌瞶チ囊纯ききるらミ猭Ы矗某臛阶は癸硋兜洛励Μ禣莉眔硄筁τさるらΤ闽戳痜眞某臛阶いチ囊ョやΤ闽硋兜Μ禣璹チ丁刮砰癸硂兜現郸ョΤは臫現┎よ羘は癸ぇ眏︽磅︽硂兜現郸и-
稰獶盽ぃ骸и-
穦膥尿よ篗綪硋兜Μ禣璸购
畊ネи略朝勉や某
法У地某璓勉畊ネさぱ某臛阶ヘ琌辨現┎洛励よ倒ぉ摧痚籔60烦ρ基纔磃н摧痚㎝ρよи獺穦常穦Τ稰珿穦㎝セЫず常⊿Τ瞶パは癸ぃ筁︑パ囊玱借好琌莱赣祑┦砏﹚60烦戈闹硂琌芠よ猭Τ⊿Τㄤ芠よ猭㎡琌繦洛励秈˙キА关㏑┑胺眃猵ゼゲ㎝烦计本恥и-
砛Τㄇ60烦︓65烦耕60烦︓50烦τ⊿Τ摧痚临ㄓ眔胺眃┮и-
胔好烦计祑┦砏购夹非琌痷耕龟借惠璶夹非и-
辨矗某某㎝現┎莱癸硂拜肈Τ┮秆睦沮и-
┮ヘ玡翠65烦ρ畉ぃ10%狦箇代е獽穦笷20%ヘ玡薄猵ㄓ弧瞷и-
洛励狝叭畉ぃΤ32%ρㄏノ盢ㄓ硂计穦ど笷50%┪60%︓70%璓ノρ矗ㄑ洛励狝叭戈方ぃ耞糤и-
临璶璸の摧痚洛励惠璶┮癸盢ㄓ璶︙だ皌穦戈方㎝ぶ戈方и-
常辨笵穦硑ΘΤ闽紇臫碞璹﹚60烦夹非ㄆ埃癸洛励紇臫и-
临璶σ納翠瞷ㄤ穦狝叭︓癶ヰ闹单常琌籔65烦本恥
и-
瞷琌眎┾琘兜狝叭ㄓ龟琁60烦夹非临琌р┮Τ穦狝叭戈闹常パ65烦60烦狦琌杠俱砰穦璶禣ぶ戈方㎡獺计穦讽胑и-
龟璶瞏剪納璸衡ㄓ琵產笵琌程璽砫ヴ∕﹚и┮瞷洛励い洛ネ︓琌╬產洛ネ蠢痜狦笿⊿Τρ痜┪摧毁祘疭腨痜单-
常穦皍薄Μ禣獶祑┦购Μ禣現┎硂よ琌莱赣蹦玥硂琌弧ぃ瞶穦痜琌60烦τ鲸恨ゼ60烦玱Τ惠璶ㄒ腨摧痚ぃ縒璶基临莱Ч禣衡瞶程и稱笵矗基┮孔きч瞶沮╯澈︙或ぃ琌ччτ琌きчи辨矗某某莱Τ┮秆睦セ略朝勉
肅繟某璓勉畊ネチ羛常粄癸ㄇ疭惠璶腊畓墩竤砰現┎Τ砫ヴ倒ぉн
洛励よ瞷現┎┮矗ㄑ膀糷洛励狝叭玱腨ぃì洛皘︗ρ臔緄痜计ヘぃì近禘丁キА笷单獽琌ㄒ硂ㄇ常ぃ玃秈ρ㎝摧痜胺眃の箇ň贺痜痜祇ネ洛恨Ыるガ兜洛励Μ禣惫琁硂贺硋兜Μ禣よ猭ㄇ竒蕾Τ螟摧痚㎝ρκょパネ誹τ钡ぃゲ璶洛励狝叭
购洛励纔磃夹非ぃ镑ㄏ摧痚㎝ρの碞洛磷痚痜碿てτΤミ炊筂τそキ穦褐戈玥瞷摧痚㎝ρΤ竒蕾螟蓟嚎ㄈ膀ビ叫戈膀ビ叫㎝糵兵ン玱伐ぇ璙ㄨ埃璶才璶―ぇ临璶ǎ–Ω洛励惠璶矗ビ叫現┎硂贺戈よΑ礚好琌舼琜砞竚糵琜篶ぃ度禣︽現戈方τぃΤ腊Τ惠璶痜τρパ戈癟ぃì单螟ㄉ硂ㄇ莱Τ褐购纔磃夹非砰瞷穦癸畓墩竤砰そキ癸癸纯竒翠エ癪膍ρ翴厨ㄏ褐惫琁镑獽チチ痷タ腊Τ惠璶
ㄤ龟洛励狝叭拜肈ぃ琌ЫΜ禣よ翠临いァ参膚ρ玂胺狝叭摧痚"洛励確眃痜"腨ぃìろρ盡禘獀の戳眞痜ρ臔瞶狝叭硂ㄇ拜肈常琌渤ヘ窣狦镑洛励Μ禣倒ぉρ㎝摧痚纔磃ョぃ筁琌狹ó羱現┎莱赣н畓墩竤砰玥璹环摧痚㎝ρ現郸矗蔼洛励狝叭キ
現┎ョ莱赣把σ""Α崩︽"摧痚"倒ぉ摧痚ㄉノそ狝叭纔舦躬纘╬诀篶ぷㄤ琌╬洛励狝叭""㎝"摧痚"Τ矗ㄑ約獂纔磃眖τ鹅硑がн磕㎝坑竤
畊ネセ略朝勉
︙庇古某璓勉畊ネ洛励Μ禣琌獶猭狡馒揭肈и-
璶癚阶琌俱洛励磕戈и-
璶秈︽浪癚т窥眖︙ㄓ∕﹚莱パ街蹿︙煤矗ㄑㄇ或狝叭㎝妓矗ㄑ硂ㄇ狝叭单狦и-
ぃ秆∕硂帮拜肈τ琌弧琘摸狝叭莱Μぶ禣ノ┪ê璶ㄇぶぶэ跑и-
獽ぃ眖俱砰à秆∕俱砰洛励狝叭莱︙Μ禣拜肈┮玥и粄и-
ぃ莱赣盢兜拜肈だ澄箂窰よΑ矪瞶㎝癚阶ぃ筁パ徖ネㄆ叭〆穦Μ現┎浪癚洛励磕戈丁穦┑尿︓硂薄猵и穦σ納狦膀セ浪癚ㄇ程膀セ揭肈临ゼ崩穝現郸玥и-
獽莱赣︽矪瞶ㄇ瞷碞镑暗虏虫甧暗τぃ惠璶单︓碞∕﹚ㄆ薄и琌穦匡拒瞷獽笆も暗τぃ单︓┮и辨狦и-
览︽碞ㄇ场だэ跑ê或さ边地某矗硂揭肈ρ㎝端摧碞琌讽続縒ミ┾ㄓㄇэ跑场だ
程иョ辨現┎埃浪癚瞷禘洛皘Μ禣临璶浪癚胺眃狝叭и-
┮弧硂ㄇΜ禣常琌獀励琌璝瞷ρ胺眃いみ临琌Μ硂妓禥禣ρ獽螟莉眔硂狝叭ㄓ-
ō砰胺眃㎝磷ネ痜┮и辨現┎镑荷е秈︽浪癚㎝璹﹚穝Μ禣現郸ρ胺眃いみΜ禣よи辨ぃ琌禣τ琌禣躬纘ρ產玂ō砰胺眃
畊ネи略朝勉
辩模┚某璓勉畊ネ產常睲贰笵摧痚珹戳痜眞の60烦┪ρ穦ゑㄤΤ耕诀穦痜︘皘-
计礚穨┪Μ稬痢さぱミ猭Ы某-
Μ基そ洛励狝叭禣ノи荡礚钵某ぃ筁и稱癸俱砰洛励戈方秸皌よ矗ㄇ種ǎ
瞷そミ洛皘︘皘禣–ぱ琌60じ禘–Ω琌34じ盡禘琌44じ癸い糷Μㄓ弧弧琌獽﹜癸戳痜眞ㄓ弧拨澈琌↖璽踞и穦辨現┎环稱快猭覸秆洛励Μ禣癸痜眞盿ㄓ拜肈ぷ碞畓竤疭琌顶糷硂よτē莱赣暗ㄇひ
Τ碭拜肈辨現┎灿σ納荷硉э到
(1) 現┎璶俱癸洛励褐阀├跌洛励褐現┎砫ヴ璶パいァ碩挤蹿倒洛励狝叭э到俱砰借現┎瘤礛眏秸⊿Τ穦⊿Τ窥τ痜龟猵琌ぃ琌眞璓㏑痜ぷㄤ琌ρ翴洛励禣仓るぃ洛ネㄏ痜薄︑礛碿て︓苳硂琌и-
程莱闽猔はτ玱現┎┮┛跌腨拜肈
(2) 現┎竒盽┶荡碩挤蹿倒褐狝叭眏秸"ノ︑"拜肈琌礚猭蹿"ノ"︙"︑"㎡┮現┎埃莱糤挤戈方ノ洛励狝叭ぇ莱菏恨洛励狝叭や兜ヘ窥戈痜洛励禣ノ陆秨洛皘恨瞶Ыき〓せ璸购ぃ螟祇瞷羱㎝瑉禟籔洛励砞称㎝媚秨やゑ澈礛笷畉ぃきゑ腶ゑㄒ硂は琈戮狝叭兵ンだ纔玴羭ㄒ洛恨Ы瞶穦ヴ膀セる羱莉16.5%瞷瑉禟妮い糷恨瞶穦ヴ莉37%瞷瑉禟τ蔼洛ネ玥60%瞷瑉禟硂琌ㄤ诀篶┮⊿Τ︓蛮褐拜肈Ν倒计竝篙掸ワ狦現┎そタ瞶菏恨洛恨Ыや獺Τ戈方腊絘痜眞
(3) 現┎σ納"洛励纗籛"穝℡龟︽洛励纗籛絋腊痜眞惠Τ窥やㄇ洛励禣ノウ籔玂繧ぃ琌盢羱κだゑカチ︑めΤ惠璶ㄓㄏノ硂暗猭ぃ琌ユ倒玂繧そ秈︽菏恨㎝笲ノτパ現┎菏恨ㄓ碞耕Τ玂毁讽礛翠薄猵Τ穝℡ぃ酚穐ぃ筁и谋眔現┎莱赣σ納硂ㄇよ猭翠ラョσ納妓秨方現┎碩挤蹿ぉ洛励禣ノよ㎝竊瑈菏恨洛恨Ы瞶秨やи辨カチ洛励褐よ眔狝叭
иΤ闽戈方秸皌稱猭琌辨現┎稱稱妓镑眔窥腊礚猭蹿そ洛励狝叭ㄏノиさぱ觅Θ倒ρ摧痚基纔磃穦戳辨盢ㄓ秈˙倒-
禣洛励狝叭
硂и稱疭癸琘ㄇ戳痜眞τē鲸恨さぱи-
某镑莉眔現┎钡-
ョゼゲ莉眔基纔磃瞷Τㄇ戳痜眞-
獶アκだκ垦ネご眖ㄆㄇ伐Μぃ莉現┎倒ぉ炊硄端摧瑉禟の蔼肂端摧瑉禟硂妓杠-
獽ぃ耴摧痚摸┮-
ゼㄓョぃさぱи-
某そ洛励狝叭基纔磃┮и某硂摸戳痜眞パ蓟嚎ㄈ膀穦璽砫秈︽蝶︳靡ㄏ硂у镑籔蔼肂端摧瑉禟の炊硄端摧瑉禟ゼㄓ莉眔そ洛励基纔磃
畊ネ洛励Μ禣癸戳痜眞篶Θ腨и-
辨現┎镑过┏σ納硂ㄇ龟悔薄猵矗ㄑ基纔磃痜眞眔酚臮セ略朝勉
独岸藉某璓勉畊ネさΩ某惫迭疭夹"60烦┪ρ"矗ㄑ基洛励禣ノ現┎瞷65烦ρ狝叭砏购膀娄и稱ㄤいぃìぇ矪癚阶60︓64烦洛励惠璶
い瓣ゅ膍いΡ搂Τお"せ烦り"
ゅ膍硄σめσョお"鼎せ烦ρきき烦ρШせ烦ρ"パǎい瓣穦常盢60烦﹚ρ
羛瓣蝴秨ρ穦ョ60烦﹚ρㄌ耴
は芠翠現┎る祇ρ狝叭舱厨い某璹ρ狝叭砏购夹非パ讽60烦┪ρ砏购癸禜э65烦┪﹚秸盢65烦ρ﹚竡┮Τρ璶65烦ㄉΤρ狝叭羇绢さ翠﹚秸龟琌ρ﹚竡癶
ㄆ龟赣厨某パㄓ60烦э65烦ρ狝叭癸禜ㄤ琌65烦┪ρㄏノ︘盝の跋や穿狝叭瞯程蔼τ現┎ち龟悔笲ノ戈方笷璓砏购ヘ夹珿65烦狝叭癸禜τ60︓64烦惠璶玥砆砏购┛菠┮赣厨⊿Τㄣ称俱砰┦の玡陇┦礚σ納盢ㄓ跋肩狝叭ㄏノ惠璶
厨嘿60︓64烦靡絋Τ惠璶膥尿莉ρ狝叭現┎⊿Τ絋﹚"靡絋Τ惠璶"﹚竡沮参璸矪きい计陪ボ闹ざ60︓64烦ρ计Τ247 200硂闹ρ玱砆"靡絋Τ惠璶"硂家絢阀├τ砆船斌狝叭龟琌ぃそキ
畊ネ硂砏购ぇ抡タ砰瞷ρ胺眃いみ闹現┎э到ρ胺眃借厨某砞ミ丁ρ胺眃いみㄤヘ琌硓筁ō砰浪琩の胺眃毙▅箇ňのΝ獀励ρ痚痜琵ρ65烦秨﹍钡狝叭痚痜竒祇甶腨˙セ琌Τ笻讽砞ミρ胺眃いみヘ安ρキАΤ80烦关㏑矗Ν60烦秨﹍暗箇ň痚痜70烦﹍祇痜τ現┎ョ惠┯踞洛励禣や安璝⊿Τ暗箇ň60烦ō砰秨﹍痚痜癸現┎璶┯踞洛励禣や現┎莱盢ρ﹚竡パ65烦確︓60烦琵ρ矗ΝㄉΤρ狝叭环ㄓョ搭ρ皘瞯眖τ搭淮穦戈方璽踞
睝礚好拜65烦洛励惠璶耕タ地某耕Ν玡現┎箂祇"膀糷洛励"厨ョ種莱倒ぉ-
洛励基堡Τ闽某︓さごゼ龟瞷иぃ窽璶拜琌ぃ琌60︓64烦ρ洛励惠璶ぃ㎡荡癸ぃ琌徖ネ竝计︳璸き徖ネ竝炊硄禘羆κせ窾Ωい7%29窾Ω琌60︓64烦ρ―禘翠60︓64烦Τ247 000琌弧–60︓64烦ρ產–1.2Ω痜τ硂у讽い竒癶ヰ竒蕾Μぃ耞ぇ緇ゼ镑戈ビ烩炊硄蔼闹瑉禟炊硄蔼闹瑉禟璶65烦ビ叫よ篊┦痜60烦秨﹍Τ膒-
惠璶盡禘狝叭盢穦亥亥糤癸硂ㄇō砰诀ぃ耞癐癶τ竒蕾ぃ耞τē禣洛励琌獶盽璶
畊ネセ略朝勉や地某某
朝胞糭某璓勉畊ネさぱ某某肈琌闽60烦㎝端摧眔禣洛励狝叭纔硂よ羛穦㎝チ羛常穦や耕Ν玡チ羛秈︽兜皐癸瞷Τ穦狝叭秸琩挡狦陪ボ烩侯穿ぇ临Τ竤嘿畓墩竤-
珹ρ產端摧Μ㎝ㄇア穨陪瞷︽穦褐現郸⊿Τ臮の硂竤礚阶洛励㎝ㄤよ常⊿Τ-
矗ㄑヴ︙疭酚臮ㄆ龟-
常琌ㄇΜ鲸恨Τ縩籛琌ぶ瞷︽侯穿現郸-
⊿Τ戈酚臮и-
玱-
龟惠璶俱穦腊硂ㄇ珹ρ產-
瞷タ痷惠璶現┎璹現郸ㄓ穿も膀瓃и-
やさぱ某
瞷ぃぶρ產玡┕そミ洛皘痜┕┕惠璶洛皘ミ近计硂薄猵琌и-
產常笵瘤礛獴竤竤ρ產常ご礛洛皘近ㄤ龟酚翠策篋硂贺薄猵-
Ν莱赣э┕ㄇ洛励砞称耕ㄎよ痜癸或硂薄猵-
ご绊近そ犁洛励狝叭㎡硂タは琈-
竒蕾㎝翠⊿Τ癶ヰ璸购ㄓ玂毁ρ產и-
ョ眖τ瞷ㄇΜ產畑酚臮ρ產よョ癸螟膀硂ㄇぃぶρ產砆近そ犁洛励狝叭硂ㄇρ產獵癸и-
翠穦孔癪膍▆癸-
и-
ぃ窽璶拜瞷-
ρ邻或現┎玱⊿Τ璹現郸ㄓ腊-
㎡и-
粄現┎莱洛励-
ぃ縒璶矗ㄑ基洛励Μ禣莱癸ρ產紇臫︓瞏硋兜Μ禣現郸и︑跋狝叭絋ぃぶρ產パ現┎硋兜Μ禣現郸τ惠璶╈┑洛獀戳痜眞ㄒみ纽痜单┮и谋眔埃洛励禣ノよρ產現┎临璶硋兜Μ禣現郸硂痷タ腊-
硂ㄇρ產ぃ琌烩侯穿ρ產-
琌瞷︽洛励現郸⊿Τ腊竤ρ產┪竤畓墩ρ產
ρ產耕ㄤ疭甧ネ痜┮現┎惠璶荷硉龟琁瓃某タи-
ЫずΤㄇㄆ弧и-
ㄤ龟瞶莱蝶︳俱洛励Μ禣㎝磕戈单拜肈и-
徖ネ舱穦某現┎玱盽盽弧硂ㄇ拜肈惠璶丁ㄓ璸衡の砏购┮硂и谋眔瘤礛さぱ某疉のΤ絛瞅и-
ご礛璶や埃酵のρ拜肈и临稱酵酵端摧薄猵и谋眔端摧妓莱赣璶洛励ㄉΤ基τ硋兜Μ禣現郸-
ョ莱莉僚Μ禣璉籔┮瓃ρ產薄猵妓-
パ端摧瘤礛Τㄇぃ琌びネ玱獶盽螟ㄒ-
ぃт璶癸穦拜肈-
龟惠璶и-
俱穦倒ぉㄇ闽胔羆ㄓ弧и谋眔さぱ臛阶莱玃叫現┎祏戳ず端摧㎝60烦ρ產矗ㄑ洛励狝叭基纔磃畊ネи略朝勉や某
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊ネ洛励狝叭基Μ禣ゲ斗跌俱砰洛励眃確吏ウぃ琌癸摧痚琁彼ぃ琌穦碔肝癸ぃ┋竤贺鮔иゲ斗璶眏秸ウ琌贺舦琌そチ莱Τ膀セ舦
癸摧痚ㄓ弧程璶琌镑琵-
磕穦現┎ききる眃確現郸の狝叭フブ眏秸"把籔"㎝"キ单诀穦"弧璶琵摧痚荷钩ㄤ翠カチ妓膥尿ㄉΤキ单把籔穦笆诀穦璶苯埃锚摧痚磕穦埃惠龟瞷続借籔穦吏挂ョ惠璶荷秖確-
よō砰硂碞琌洛励眃確程沧ヘ
堡現┎常⊿Τ盢硂瞶├辅龟洛励Μ禣現郸現┎よ傍酵"把籔"㎝"キ单诀穦"よ洛励Μ禣現郸玱璉笵τ梗硂龟ア辨
畊ネ玂毁–Τ钡瞶獀励舦礚好琌現┎砫ヴ癸硂ㄇ穦畓墩摧痚ㄓ弧琌硂㏕礛パ钡瞶獀励膀セ舦场だ現┎Τ砫ヴ玂毁璶琌ウ紇臫摧痚琌膥尿ㄉΤキ单把籔穦笆诀穦
沮畓癡絤の碞穨舱い祇厨陪ボ禬筁80%臔初ねㄤ羱翠刽500じ–る寥禬筁1,000じぃì3%-
惠綼克ね穿筁癸惠璶戳钡洛励狝叭摧痚ㄓ弧洛励禣ノ癸-
のㄤ產篶Θ竒蕾溃竒蕾溃ゲ礛硑Θ-
ネㄤよ候罽秨や碞锚-
磕穦
カ現Ы㎝猳弚近АΤ摧痚矗ㄑ基纔磃現郸癸腊摧痚磕穦癬旧ノチ囊戳辨現┎洛励Μ禣現郸ラぃ璶"量甅暗甅"
畊ネセ略朝勉や某
朝篴篱某璓勉畊ネρの摧痚琌穦畓墩竤セ翠-
常眔ぃЧ莱Τ穦玂毁疭洛励酚臮︑眖洛恨Ы龟琁洛励硋兜Μ禣現郸-
┮璚琌陪τ某矗玃叫現┎摧痚の60烦┪ρ矗ㄑそ洛励狝叭基纔磃セ獺覸絯硂ㄢ摸挂現┎"ち"瓃硋兜Μ禣現郸琌过┏よ猭
畊ネセ翠ρぃ耞糤ρネ玱ご眔ぃ玂毁㎝э到ρ竒蕾砲絘のネ挂妓だ腨
竒蕾翠Τぶ场だρΤ癶ヰ玂毁τ场だ癶ヰ┪ㄤ︸玅癶ヰ碞璶癸竒蕾誹-
暴Τㄌ綼現┎稬痢毕蕾┪ヒご璶膥尿颩ㄤいㄌ綼現┎稬痢毕蕾よ瞷虫ōρ侯穿肂琌1,935じ籔羛穦璶―戈い︗计だぇごΤ琿禯瞒
ヘ玡ρ筁60烦璶羛"砲絘蔼畃穦"ㄤい45%眖ㄆ獶м砃︽穨Μ稬50%る羱ぃ筁4,000じ
ρ產ネ借伐畉璚ぃ臭ē洛励狝叭洛恨Ы┏崩兜ΘセΜ禣洛励狝叭钡ゴ阑ぃぶρ產ネ璸疭琌Τ戳痜眞τ⊿Τρ產現┎讽叭ぇ瞶莱Θミρ洛励膀糴瞷蓟嚎ㄈ膀ビ叫戈砲畓ρや↖洛励禣ノ环ㄓ弧碞琌癸ρ磅︽硋兜洛励Μ禣璸购
よ摧痚癸摸Ы沮き眃確現郸の狝叭フブ矗ㄑ戈陪ボせる翠摧痚Τ264 000ㄤい畓醇の砰端摧程だ44.9%の29%-
癸碞穨拜肈常炒挂いネ伐螟確眃厚ブま瓃兜秸琩摧痚ア穨瞯蔼笷50%
ぃ璶弧╬そㄤ龟硈現┎癸摧痚沟Τ┮臮б篒︓るら現┎沟ノ3 941瓃そ叭俱砰絪ぇ2.3%
摧痚ㄏ莉そ沟ノㄤだ稬竝きる摧痚厨陪ボ臔初Τ80%る羱А500じ谅ッ闹某常癸ヘ玡竒蕾锣戳ㄤЫ琌箇ǎ
-
竒蕾よ癸↖溃ら盽禣︑礛玥ゲ斗秨やㄒ洛励狝叭单玱ぃぶ︑洛恨Ы龟︽洛励硋兜Μ禣ㄓ-
璽踞ぃぶΤв腀刮砰粄摧痚矗ㄑ基そ洛励纔磃獶龟磃程璶琌癸摧痚既絯磅︽Τ闽硋兜Μ禣璸购セ粄セЫ莱窗玃現┎龟︽基Μ禣硂兜惫琁膥τ氨ゎ磅︽Τ闽洛励硋兜Μ禣璸购秆∕ρの摧痚洛励挂
セ略朝勉谅谅畊ネ
霉璓某璓勉畊ネ狡の絞阶и琌稱虏祏笷や某
瞷烩侯穿常莉眔僚洛励Μ禣τêㄇΜ菠蔼侯穿τ璶竒盽ㄏノ洛励狝叭ぃぃ莉眔侯穿ョ璶计洛励禣ノ硂ㄇ┮癸竒蕾挂弧耕烩侯穿薄猵羮螟τ硂ㄇい璶珹ρの摧痚パ瞷翠ごゼΤ甅いァ┪チΑ洛励玂繧┪琌洛励纗籛璸购癸ρの摧痚ㄓ弧戳の↖洛励Μ禣獽篶Θ腨竒蕾溃そ洛励狝叭Μ禣い倒ぉ摧痚のρ基纔磃ぃ搭淮-
挂ぃぶビ叫僚洛励Μ禣︽現
セЫぃ氨璶―現┎浪癚俱砰洛励現郸珹磕戈のΜ禣拜肈タ︙庇古某┮弧現┎硂よ陪眔絯篊さぱ臛肈ョ琌膀セ疉の磕戈のΜ禣拜肈и辨現┎よ璶硉ㄤ浪癚よ玱ぃ璶虑┶荡σ納基纔磃某
讽礛現┎ョ穦闽猔硂甅基Μ禣現郸┏穦ㄤ搭ぶぶΜパ硂よ冈灿参璸戈и-
ぃ非絋︳璸現┎穦搭ぶΜぶぃ筁膀瞷洛励Μ禣癸龟悔Θセゑ瞯獶盽のぃぶρの摧痚烩侯穿┮さ癩現現┎ノそ洛励狝叭秨や226货ㄓ璸衡基纔磃┮盿ㄓΜ搭ぶ莱赣ぃ禬筁ㄢ货じ
ぃ筁и-
眖癩現セる┮祇戈い眔眡癩現箇衡いノ穝┯空戈方Τ8货じ┮現┎璶龟︽さぱ某現郸ョぃ甧ぃ筁璶現┎粄硂ヘ夹獽σ納︙硋˙笷︓硂ヘ夹羭ㄒㄓ弧
(1) パ禘狝叭秨﹍基纔磃硋˙秈甶︓痜
(2) ┪パ70烦ρ秨﹍硋˙耎︓60烦ρの摧痚单
ぃ筁ノ或よ猭┪˙艼ㄓ笷現郸ヘ夹妮Ω璶程璶临琌璶絋ミ現郸ヘ夹ョ琌摧痚の60烦┪ρ矗ㄑ基そ洛励Μ禣纔磃и辨ミ猭Ыㄆ常や某の辨現┎縩伐莱
セ略朝勉
ヴ到圭某璓勉畊ネ瞷翠Τ837 30060烦ρ砰端摧Τ77 000τ摧毁玥Τ119 000硂ㄇ膀セタ盽竒蕾拜肈璶綼現┎侯穿のそ褐璸购单瑉禟ㄓ蝴ネ
さぱΤ厨彻厨笵洛皘恨瞶ЫЧΘ兜ρ︑炳拜肈秸琩祇谋翠ρ︑炳ゑ瓣璶セ翠獶褐瓣產癸ρ癶ヰネ玂毁ぃЧ到痚痜鸟ōの盜规﹖縒のい瓣ぃ尺盢みㄆ臩单ョ琌ǎセ翠ρ拜肈腨獷惠眏酚臮τ洛励拜肈︑礛琌ㄤい︓璶
骸60烦ρ產ō砰猵ら亥癐癶τ螟тτ计惠璶盽洛ネ硂贺⊿ΤΜτ惠璶窥洛ネ薄猵-
砆竊︾罽硂ㄇρ產穦犁緄╄к跑畉ㄏ痜穦跑Θ痜ê螟洛獀Τ厨笵弧︓そじ箂箂箂Τ计ρ穦眞Τ戳痚痜20%Τ琘よ端摧30%ρ跌Τ拜肈τ璶琌フず毁惠璶琁も砃23%玥Τ陪钮谋螟
窾ρ產いビ叫蔼闹瑉禟羆Τ窾┮Τρ產ǎ翠Τρ伐惠現┎穿纯竒Τ秸琩厨笵ρキА莉眔Ω現┎炊硄禘狝叭讽い逼钉近膚丁-
ê或丁瑻み单琌或㎡琌竊翴窥τ
┮セ谋眔現┎莱赣荷е腊硂ㄇρ-
纯癸翠癪膍▆瞷現┎惠硂穦翴厨基洛励Μ禣腊-
琵-
边癸耕ぶ螟
翠端摧Τ窾せ讽いΤ场だ砰端摧场だ琌摧毁┮-
ョΤτビ叫端摧瑉禟篒︓きる碞Τせ窾ビ叫硂兜瑉禟ǎ翠端摧ョ獷惠璶и-
腊
ㄤ龟Τ场だ端摧-
琌︑垦ネΤ沟常贺み篈粄端摧Τ┮ぃ腀竨ノ-
さぱ俱砰ア穨瞯癸耕蔼薄猵端摧甧ア穨ア穨螟тㄏㄇ沟腀種竨ノ-
р-
戈溃眞痜端摧惠璶洛獀ョ璶蝴ネ璸┪惠璶驹驹垢垢玂-
戮穨硂ㄇ端摧ō砰のみ瞶ゑタ盽璶癸溃
セョ辨現┎癸端摧妓矗ㄑそ洛励狝叭基Μ禣纔磃┮セや硂某谅畊ネ
徖ネ褐璓勉畊ネさぱ︗某矗砛種ǎиだ舧琍戳玡某纯セЫ碞"ρ現郸"秈︽臛阶讽и冈灿量瓃讽Ыセ翠ρ矗ㄑ兜洛励狝叭┮さぱиぃ硂狡瓃讽ぱ簍勉ぃ筁и稱矗眶︗某и-
タカチ矗ㄑ絛瞅約獂洛励狝叭
Τ闽摧痚よиさぱ稱弧ㄇ-
ㄉノ兜洛励砞琁㎝狝叭皌-
惠璶ㄤい珹パ洛皘恨瞶Ы矗ㄑ︘皘禘ら丁洛励痝の跋甶狝叭砞Τ盡狝叭酚臮摧痚惠璶-
狝ō砰┪诀毁锚荷秖磷瞷框痝硂ㄇ盡狝叭璸Τ弘痜眞τ砞4 873眎弘痜の575弘ら丁洛皘盝︗畓醇τ砞825眎洛皘痜の泊痜τ砞κ眎泊痜и-
穦せ︓崩︽兜穝惫琁戳痜眞秨砞ㄢ眃確参膚舱
獺︗某ョ穦種箇ňぃ胺薄猵絋玂薄猵ぃ璓碿て︓ㄣ┦畓薄猵琌妓璶徖ネ竝ネ︓11烦胔好┪竒禘耞畓ㄠ担矗ㄑㄠ担砰醇代喷狝叭セ翠瞷Τ丁ㄠ担砰醇代喷いみτ材き丁いみ璹セ┏玡币ノ讽Ыョタ璸购糤砞丁硂摸いみ徖ネ竝ョべ洛皘㎝狥跋ぷ紈ひêゴ洛皘场畓醇の砰端摧矗ㄑ的の睛臔瞶狝叭硂ㄇ狝叭穦硋˙耎甶︓丁洛皘场
ぃ筁さぱ臛阶揭肈ぃ琌闽ρの摧痚矗ㄑ洛励狝叭絛瞅┪借τ琌-
┮斗や禣ノ拜肈ㄆ龟и粄斗ぉ贝癚琌絛瞅約拜肈ョ琌弧浪癚そ胺眃洛臔狝叭Μ禣拜肈и-
ぃ莱泊瓃ㄢ摸痜τ莱╯俱Μ禣
︗某常笵セ翠胺眃洛臔現郸璶玥琌ぃ莱Τ竒蕾螟τ眔ぃ続讽洛励狝叭硂兜現郸続ノ–礚阶琌獵ρ胺┪摧痚常跌く
砮过硂兜現郸の┯砮肚参暗猭そ胺眃洛臔狝叭琌パ現┎秖戈ヘ玡痜︘洛皘–ら︘皘禣60じ炊硄禘禘励┮―禘Μ禣玥34じ矗ㄑ洛皘獀励の禘禘痝龟悔ΘセいだΤ97%の80%琌パ現┎Μ挤蹿戈传ēぇ琌パ穦や
瘤礛瓃Μ禣莉戈и-
笵Τㄇ琌ㄌ礛璽踞ぃ癬徖ネ竝㎝洛皘恨瞶Ы常砞Τ僚Μ禣腊竒蕾Τ螟-
薄猵ビ叫僚场┪场だ禣ノ┪蓟嚎ㄈ膀ビ叫穿侯穿琌竒糵琩靡龟竒蕾Τ螟-
セ礚斗やヴ︙洛励禣ノ
さぱセЫ臛阶某膀安砞碞琌┮Τρ㎝摧痚痜常惠璶竒蕾穿ㄆ龟琌そ犁洛皘65烦ρ痜┮痜ㄏノら计禬筁39%Τ13%痜ㄏノら计莉僚Μ禣妓炊硄禘禘励┮―禘眞痜Ω讽いρ34%Τ10%眞痜Ω莉眔僚Μ禣传杠弧场だρΤや莉碩戈洛励Μ禣琌狦蹦某┮ボ現郸よ皐玥–厩ネ㎝產畑包ョ羘嘿礚や洛励禣ノㄏㄤ產眖ㄆ竒蕾笆-
⊿Τ畊ネ現┎琌ぃやさぱ某
Τㄇ某纯竒ゲ斗磷胺眃洛臔狝叭よそ秨やア北и-
ゲ斗到ノ瞷Τ戈方笲ノ程Τち惠璶よ胺眃洛臔よ戈ゲ斗惠璶ㄓ矗ㄑセ某┮某琌糤ρの摧痚痜矗ㄑ戈τぃσ納-
琌Τ惠璶
琂礛そ渤ぃ钡現┎Μ搭ぶτ玠搭狝叭讽Ы獽斗糤挤蹿辣干Μよ穕アΤ场だ痜煤耕禣ノ玥ㄤ痜┪祙獽斗┯踞蔼禣ノ璝痜ΜタΑΜ禣蹦ノよ穦旧璓洛恨Ы–ㄓ︑狝叭Μ禣Μ搭ぶ禬筁20%τ徖ネ竝よㄤΜョ穦搭ぶ︓ぶ16.5%璝蹦ノ材よ玥穦胺眃洛臔狝叭そ秨やΤ┮糤
场だ某砛穦癘眔讽Ы祇"玃秈胺眃"吭高ゅンい纯贝癚硂拜肈吭高ゅン┮更ヘ夹癸禜よ猭珹ㄢ兜がк颗某硂ㄢ兜某璝崩︽┮眔狦琌ぃ穦ΜΤ┮糤搭のぃ穦糤胺眃洛臔狝叭そ秨や材兜某琌ρの烩端摧瑉禟莱︑笆莉僚场だΜ禣莉眔耕戈材兜某琌Τ璽踞痜莱煤耕蔼Μ禣の莉眔耕ぶ戈
鲸恨カチやヘ夹癸禜よ猭兜某-
ぃ钡材兜某硂ㄢ兜某ゼ莉眔蹦セ礚猭崩︽
るらミ猭Ы穦某畊某碞吭高ゅン秈︽臛阶礚碞ㄆ癚阶瞷Τ某矗硂拜肈璝某や硂兜某種莱ρの摧痚痜Μ耕禣ノゲ斗胺眃洛臔狝叭そ秨やキ玥笷Μやキ颗-
ョ斗觅Τ璽踞ㄤ痜Μ耕蔼禣ノ
さぱ秈︽某臛阶孔ち﹜硂Ω臛阶ㄏそ渤猔種и-
╯胺眃洛臔戈硂璶揭肈ぃ莱泊ρ㎝摧痚痜τゲ斗碞摸痜矗ㄑ戈浪癚癸ぃ耞ρての洛励Θセぃ耞ど单拜肈カチ戳辨現┎矗ㄑㄎそ狝叭и-
ョ斗痜㎝カチ┮莱だ踞洛励Θセよ眔キ颗
谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: Mr Fred LI, you are entitled to reply and you have five minutes 19 seconds, out of your original 15 minutes.
地某璓勉畊ネ祇ē某常吏露洛励拜肈ぷㄤ琌ρ摧痚よ矗-
種ǎи癑み谅-
癸ㄓ弧и玱癸現┎莱稰ア辨徖ネ褐琌Ω朝瓃瞷現┎矗ㄑ狝叭睝礚好拜現┎瞷矗ㄑ約獂洛励狝叭拜肈琌徖ネ褐まノㄇ计ㄒ弧禘よ琌Τ10%ビ叫僚┮獽靡场だ常Τや硂或獽﹜34じτ︘皘よΤ13%ビ叫僚┮獽靡痜镑やê60じ痜洛皘禣ノи谋眔硂琌盢狦竚︙硂或ぶビ叫㎡現┎Τ浪癚и-
ョΜρ產戳痜眞㎝瞅砰種ǎ弧ビ叫も尿羉狡ョΤぃ夹非Ω徖ネㄆ叭〆穦и-
ョ纯竒碞êㄇ膀ビ叫夹非矗у蝶︗ρ產炊硄禘璶34じ狦璶–Ωㄆビ叫僚ê34じ禘龟琌羉狡璶箇ビ叫︑︙ネ痜㎡и谋眔拜肈碞硂搭も尿虏て﹛贡琜篶莱赣ぉρ產禣纔磃瞷硂或ぶビ叫ぃ琌Τやは琌ビ叫も尿羉狡τи-
⊿Τ臮のΤ闽肚琌睲捶笵︙ビ叫沮跋舱麓穦秸琩常ぃ笵ビ叫僚ぃビ叫搭禣ρ產琌ぃ笵龟70%琌ぃ笵硂琌-
Τや㎡ぃ琌и谋眔現┎痷璶浪癚
临矗の厩ネ產畑包单и谋眔さぱ癚阶琌60烦ρ㎝摧痚ぃ琌產畑包㎝厩ネиぃ笵或璶р-
矗阶礚好現┎矗ㄑ秖戈瞷拜肈琌и-
辨現┎玡ǐ˙弧硂и辨莱法У地某さぱ矗碭兜拜肈辨笵某某穦疉の現┎ぶ戈方硂琌и-
螟笵瘤礛иョ纯沽刚高拜洛恨Ы徖ネ竝-
玱⊿Τ计⊿Τ摧痚参璸计⊿Τ60烦计-
Τ65烦⊿Τ60烦计-
Τ僚计ョ琌弧筁10%ぃ筁僚磃场だ琌侯穿Τぶ场だぃ琌Μ侯穿ㄤい珹ぶρ摧痚㎝獶ρи-
ョぃ笵и-
琌笵炊硄禘きや5货5窾じ俱ㄓ弧60禘禘┮酚臮κ窾Ωやき货じΜ琌货κ窾じ狦硂某莉眔龟琁杠琌疉の挤碭窾じ炊硄禘戈方龟悔耕瞷戈琌︽玡翴翴瞷戈琌笷κ货じ┮瞷и矗龟悔琌ぶ计ヘ
闽60烦︙璶琌60烦τぃ琌65烦单拜肈法У地某ョボ闽猔借好或琌50%戈τぃ琌30%┪70%硂拜肈琌讽甧氮瞷и-
穦癸ρ產纔磃Τㄇ或㎡カ現Ы纔磃穎ぺ臟纔磃и-
粄硂琌夹非把σиぃ觅Θ法У地某種ǎ璶盢翴纔磃ゑ瞯и稱ぃ莱赣磅κだゑぶ硂琌玥拜肈┕60烦琌砏购夹非堡ρ厨崩獽"ち"盢砏购夹非膀セ┑︓65烦龟悔惠璶ㄓ弧и-
ゲ斗﹚砏购夹非τ60烦琌夹ρ產ョ矗硂璶―辨碭翴莱法У地某好拜丁畉ぃи弧и辨и-
Ыずㄆ荷秖ぃ璶щ斌舦布辨и-
璓羘や陪ボи-
癸現┎溃龟悔瞣疉戈方ぃ琌び霉璓某˙璸衡筁琌ぃ禬筁2货じヘ玡场κ货じ洛励やノㄓ弧膀セ┮κだ瞯琌讽ぇぶ硂ョ搭ぶ矪瞶僚ビ叫︽現戈方辨︗ㄆ璓やョ谅祇ēㄆ谅谅
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT SITTING
PRESIDENT: In accordance with Standing Orders, I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 29 May 1996.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Ten o'clock.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 22 May 1996
4
ミ猭Ы せきるら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 22 May 1996
1
ミ猭Ы せきるら