OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Wednesday, 26 June 1996
せせるせら琍戳
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.
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 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, O.B.E., J.P.
產不某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
地某
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
璣某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
襖略ビ某
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 PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
綠癡某
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
綠模磁某
DR THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG
眎▆某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
眎簙┚某
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
讲蚌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
Χギ棚某
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
︙玊く某
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
腑瓣辆某
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
糂ホ某
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
糂簙煌某J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
霉不瓣某
THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG
霉璓某
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
币某
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
辩模┚某
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
郭Θ某
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
霉睲某
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
馋莱某
THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
艷祸某
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
肅繟某
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI
虫ヲ昂某
THE HONOURABLE TSANG KIN-SHING
纯胺Θ某
DR THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSE WING-LING
谅ッ闹某
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
独窥ㄤ军某C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAWRENCE YUM SIN-LING
ヴ到圭某
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
CHIEF SECRETARY
︽現Ы某ガ現朝よネC.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
︽現Ы某癩現纯疆舦ネO.B.E., 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 NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
舅ㄆ叭篴ネJ.P.
MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING
┬独琍地ネO.B.E., 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 BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
砏购吏挂現辩腳篴ネJ.P.
MR KWONG KI-CHI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY
畐叭馣ㄤвネJ.P.
MR STEPHEN IP SHU-KWAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
竒蕾腑攫鹖ネJ.P.
MR KWONG HON-SANG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR WORKS
叭馣簙ネネJ.P.
MR PAUL LEUNG SAI-WAH, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
笲块辩地ネ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.
Specification of Arrangements (Government of the
Republic of Korea Concerning Air Services)
(Double Taxation) Order 248/96
Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of
Schedule 2) (No. 2) Notice 1996 257/96
Specification of Public Office 258/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance)
Order (C) 61/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Marine Insurance Ordinance) Order (C) 62/96
Schedule of Routes (New Lantao Bus Company)
Order 1996 259/96
Registration of Persons (Amendment) (No. 2)
Regulation 1996 260/96
Telecommunication (APSTAR-IA) (Exemption from
Licensing) Order 261/96
Road Traffic (Safety Equipment) (Amendment)
Regulation 1996 262/96
Official Languages (Alteration of Text) (Public Officers
(Assignment of Emoluments) Ordinance)
Order 1996 263/96
Sai Kung West Country Park (Wan Tsai Extension)
(Designation) Order 1996 264/96
Antiquities and Monuments (Declaration of
Historical Building) (No. 2) Notice 1996 265/96
Road Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1996
(13 of 1996) (Commencement) Notice 1996 266/96
Employees' Compensation (Amendment) Ordinance 1996
(36 of 1996) (Commencement) Notice 1996 267/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Hang Lung Bank (Acquisition) Ordinance)
Order (C) 63/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Electricity Networks (Statutory Easements)
Ordinance) Order (C) 64/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Public Officers (Assignment of Emoluments)
Ordinance) Order (C) 65/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Overseas Trust Bank (Acquisition) Ordinance)
Order (C) 66/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Basel Evangelical Missionary Society
Incorporation Ordinance) Order (C) 67/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Dominican Missions Ordinance) Order (C) 68/96
Gas Safety (Gasholders Examination) Regulation 268/96
Dangerous Goods (General) (Amendment)
Regulation 1996 269/96
Dangerous Goods (Government Explosives Depots)
(Amendment) Regulation 1996 270/96
Mining (General) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 271/96
Mines (Safety) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 272/96
Public Cemeteries (Urban Council) (Amendment)
Bylaw 1996 273/96
Food Business (Urban Council) (Amendment)
Bylaw 1996 274/96
Abattoirs (Urban Council) (Amendment) Bylaw 1996 275/96
Slaughterhouses (Urban Council) (Amendment)
(No. 2) Bylaw 1996 276/96
Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) Ordinance 1995
(29 of 1995) (Commencement) Notice 1996 277/96
Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) Rules 1996
(L.N. 172 of 1996) (Commencement)
Notice 1996 278/96
Matrimonial Causes (Fees) (Amendment) Rules 1996
(L.N. 251 of 1996) (Commencement)
Notice 1996 279/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Aliens (Rights of Property) Ordinance) Order (C) 69/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Po Leung Kuk Ordinance) Order (C) 70/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Pentecostal Holiness Church Incorporation
Ordinance) Order (C) 71/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Hong Kong Christian Council Incorporation
Ordinance) Order (C) 72/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Director of Social Welfare Incorporation
Ordinance) Order (C) 73/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(The St. Stephen's Girls' College Council
Incorporation Ordinance) Order (C) 74/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Public Order Ordinance) Order (C) 75/96
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
逼龙チ瓣現┎闽チノ狝叭
蛮揭祙 248/96
1996沟蚌癡兵ㄒ璹2
材2腹そ 257/96
そ戮﹚ 258/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
ňゎ摧慌癸笆兵ㄒ (C) 61/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
玂繧兵ㄒ (C) 62/96
1996隔帹穝垃ぺそ 259/96
1996ㄆ祅癘璹材2腹砏ㄒ 260/96
筿癟ㄈび徖琍IA僚烩礟 261/96
1996笵隔ユ硄杆称璹砏ㄒ 262/96
1996猭﹚粂ゅэゅセそ戮
锣羱筍兵ㄒ 263/96
1996﹁癪﹁偿そ堕芖耎场だ
﹚ 264/96
1996の螺菌縱ガ
材2腹そ 265/96
1996笵隔ユ硄璹兵ㄒ1996材13腹
1996ネら戳そ 266/96
1996沟干纕璹兵ㄒ1996材36腹
1996ネら戳そ 267/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
订蝗︽钡Μ兵ㄒ (C) 63/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セㄑ筿呼隔
猭﹚舦兵ㄒ (C) 64/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セそ戮
锣羱筍兵ㄒ (C) 65/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ獺癠蝗︽
钡Μ兵ㄒ (C) 66/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
ぺ︹畉穦猭刮兵ㄒ (C) 67/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
笵穦兵ㄒ (C) 68/96
砰纗躬浪喷砏ㄒ 268/96
1996繧珇璹砏ㄒ 269/96
1996繧珇現┎脄珇畐
璹砏ㄒ 270/96
1996惏叭璹砏ㄒ 271/96
1996惏初璹砏ㄒ 272/96
1996そ渤糥初カ現Ы璹ㄒ 273/96
1996穨カ現Ы璹ㄒ 274/96
1996監初カ現Ы璹ㄒ 275/96
1996監┬カ現Ы璹
材2腹ㄒ 276/96
1995盉禗砠璹兵ㄒ1995材29腹
1996ネら戳そ 277/96
1996盉禗砠璹砏玥
1996材172腹猭そ
1996ネら戳そ 278/96
1996盉禗砠禣ノ璹砏玥
1996材251腹猭そ
1996ネら戳そ 279/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ瓣
癩玻舦兵ㄒ (C) 69/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
玂▆Ы兵ㄒ (C) 70/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
きΟ竊竧间穦猭刮兵ㄒ (C) 71/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
翠膀服毙秈穦猭刮兵ㄒ (C) 72/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
穦褐竝竝猭刮兵ㄒ (C) 73/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
竧矗はい厩赋穦猭刮兵ㄒ (C) 74/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セそ兵ㄒ (C) 75/96
Sessional Papers 1995-96
No. 87 Report of changes to the approved Estimates of
Expenditure approved during the final quarter of 1995-96
Public Finance Ordinance : Section 8
No. 88 Director of Social Welfare Incorporated Statement
of Accounts for the year ended 31 March 1995
No. 89 Report by Commissioner of Correctional Services on the
Administration of the Correctional Services Department
Welfare Fund for the year ended 31 March 1995
No. 90 1995 Annual Report by the Commissioner of the
Independent Commission Against Corruption
No. 91 Report on the Administration of the
Fire Services Welfare Fund for the year ended 31 March 1995
No. 92 1995 Annual Report of the Independent Commission
Against Corruption Complaints Committee
き︓せ穦戳ず矗ユゅン
材87腹 き︓せ程﹗
莉у癸秨や箇衡э厨
そ癩現兵ㄒ材8兵
材88腹 穦褐竝竝猭刮
篒︓きるらゎ
戈玻璽杜
材89腹 胓毙竝竝碞胓毙竝褐膀
篒︓きるらゎ
ず恨瞶薄猵矗ユ厨
材90腹 羆服疭稧現盡
き厨
材91腹 篒︓きるら
ň矪褐膀恨瞶厨
材92腹 稧現そ竝ㄆ﹜щ禗〆穦
き厨
Miscellaneous
Supplementary Report by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of Hong Kong under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
馒兜
ぃ腁の稲焊孽羛瓣沮そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そ矗ユΤ闽翠干厨
Addresses
PRESIDENT: May I remind Members again that under Standing Order 14(5), no debate may arise on the addresses, but I may permit short questions seeking elucidation on matters raised in the addresses.
1995 Annual Report by the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption
MR ARCULLI RONALD: Mr President, as a member of the Advisory Committee on Corruption, I have pleasure in introducing the 1995 Annual Report by the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which is tabled today in this Council.
February 1995 marked the 21st anniversary of the ICAC; the coming of age of an organization which has had such a profound and positive effect on the lives of Hong Kong citizens. During the landmark year, the Commission, supported by the Administration, sought to implement the recommendations of the ICAC Review Committee Report relating to the Commission's structure, powers and accountability. The recommendations that could be implemented administratively have already been incorporated into the Commission's practice. Those that required statutory amendments mainly the transfer of certain powers to the courts were at year's end still being considered by this Council. The Commission is confident that the proposed amendments will further enhance the Commission's transparency and accountability without adversely affecting its investigative effectiveness and efficiency.
The number of corruption reports made to the ICAC reached a peak in 1993 and 1994, but in 1995 there was a levelling off with a 10% decline. There is no ground for complacency and the Commission remains vigilant in its fight against corruption.
In 1995, a survey showed that 98% of Hong Kong people supported the work of the ICAC. This was very reassuring to the Commission. Public confidence is reflected in the willingness of complainants to identify themselves and, as a result, during the past three years, two thirds of the complaints received were capable of investigation.
The Legislative Council election in September 1995 involved each area of the Commission in different ways: advising candidates and electors on the provisions of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Ordinance; participating in the review of the elections after they had been held; and receiving and investigating allegations of offences relating to the elections. 247 reports of alleged breaches were received.
During the year, the ICAC gave full support to the Commissioner of Police and his senior management in their ongoing anti-corruption drive. This was done mainly through the Police/ICAC Operational Liaison Group, the Force Anti-Corruption Strategy Steering Committee and the Police Corruption Prevention Group; on all three bodies, the Commission is represented by senior officers.
Public education on the evils of corruption and enlisting support for the Commission continued their momentum in 1995. The Campaign on Business Ethics, introduced in 1994, seeks to encourage all chambers of commerce, trade associations, listed and major companies, to formulate a code of conduct. By year end, over 60% of these organizations had formulated a code; another 27% were in the process of doing so. As the promotion of business ethics is a long- term commitment, the Hong Kong Ethics Development Centre was set up in May 1995 under the auspices of the ICAC. Its work is guided by an advisory committee, comprising representatives from six major chambers of commerce. Simultaneously, a Support Clean Government programme began, with the support of the Civil Service Branch. In phase one, a practical guide on corruption prevention was distributed to 4 500 senior managers, followed up by seminars.
In tabling this report, the last produced by Mr Bertrand de SPEVILLE, I would like to record our appreciation of his fine leadership during his three years as Commissioner. I would also like to join him in thanking the members of the various ICAC advisory committees for their valuable work and support during the year and all the Commission staff for their loyalty, dedication and efficiency.
1995 Annual Report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Complaints Committee
MR ALLEN LEE: Mr President, on behalf of the ICAC Complaints Committee, I present the 1995 Annual Report of the Committee to this Council.
One of the recommendations of the ICAC Review Committee is that all the committees of the ICAC should submit annual reports to the Governor which should be published. The aim is to keep the community informed of their work.
This is the Committee's first annual report published by itself. Previously, the ICAC annual reports included a brief section on the work of the Committee. With this small booklet, the Committee introduces itself, its operation, and the work carried out in the past year.
Any comments on the report may be directed to the Secretary of the Committee.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT: I have given permission for Dr LEONG Che-hung to ask a question of a notional character and which relates to a matter of public importance. I am satisfied that sufficient private notice has been given to the Government to enable the question to be answered. Dr LEONG Che-hung please ask your question.
Chief Secretary's Visit to North America
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG asked: Will the Chief Secretary give a full account to this Council of her recent visit to North America?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, my recent visit to the United States covered seven cities. I visited Seattle, San Francisco and Boston before launching a major Hong Kong promotion in New York, Dallas and Los Angeles. My last stop was Washington DC.
The objectives of the visit were firstly, to promote business ties between Hong Kong and the United States; secondly, to enhance cultural links; thirdly, to increase understanding of and discuss concerns about, the transitional arrangements and recent developments in Hong Kong; and fourthly, to follow up on the Governor's earlier visit to Washington to lobby for unconditional Most Favoured Nation (MFN) extension for China.
In Seattle, San Francisco and Boston, I met with government leaders, local businessmen, and academics. Specifically, I spoke at Stanford University, Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Hong Kong's transition.
New York was the first leg of the Hong Kong-United States 1996 promotion. This was my fourth major overseas promotion. Since 1993, similar promotions have been organized in Europe, in the United States and in Japan.
The key element in the promotion was the business conference held in New York, Dallas and Los Angeles organized with customary efficiency by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council. Entitled "Hong Kong Strategic Business Partner for the Pacific Century", the conference featured top Hong Kong businessmen and senior government officials as speakers. I also delivered a keynote speech at each of the three conference luncheons. In addition, there were workshops on financial services, high-tech manufacturing and tourism in Hong Kong.
Other promotion-related activities included gala dinners, receptions, fashion shows featuring the work of Hong Kong designers, film festivals, concerts by the Urban Council's Hong Kong Chinese Orchestra, the Hong Kong Tourist Association's "Hong Kong Wonders Never Cease" promotion and a HK TVB variety show featuring some of Hong Kong's top singers at the Universal City Walk in Hollywood, which was broadcast in Hong Kong and through cable network in the United States. I also spoke to academics at the University of California in Los Angeles.
Concluding my United States tour, I visited Washington DC where I held meetings with senior officials of the United States Administration including Secretary of State, Warren CHRISTOPHER, Secretary for the Treasury, Robert RUBIN and the National Security Adviser, Anthony LAKE. I also met with key members of both the House and the Senate including the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, William ROTH, Chairman of the House Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Doug BEREUTER and the newly elected Senate Majority Leader, Trent LOTT. My purpose was to emphasize the importance to Hong Kong of unconditional MFN renewal for China, to discuss the prospects of permanent MFN, to stress our commitment to the protection of intellectual property rights and to explain how we were preparing for the transition and some of the challenges ahead.
Over a period of three weeks, I delivered 26 speeches and held numerous meetings with United States Government officials, local government leaders, politicians, chambers of commerce, business associations and community organizations which have a particular interest in Hong Kong. On the media side, I held six press conferences, and gave eight media interviews and met with seven editorial boards. We also published a special Hong Kong supplement in each of the three cities covered by the promotion. All our promotion events received extensive coverage in the media and were very well attended.
The visit was well worthwhile and, I believe, met all of the objectives which I referred to earlier. The active participation of members from both the public and private sectors in the promotion enabled us to make a far greater impact on our American audiences than either party could achieve on its own. Together, we were able to underline Hong Kong's strategic role in the Asia Pacific region, our economic strength and generally to instil confidence in continued investments in Hong Kong after 1997.
It is clear that there is continuing strong interest in Hong Kong and considerable support for everything that we are doing to secure our future. I stressed the United States's increasing stakes in Hong Kong and therefore the importance to the United States of a smooth transition. All my contacts made it clear that they look forward to full and faithful implementation of the Joint Declaration and Basic Law. Inevitably, I was asked to respond to specific concerns over the transition, including the threat of a provisional legislature, protection of human rights, press freedom, and so on. I dealt frankly with these concerns. At the same time, I drew attention to how much had been achieved in the past twelve years since the signing of the Joint Declaration to turn the promises of a "high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" into a reality. On the whole, I was able to project a reasonably positive picture of Hong Kong's future whilst acknowledging that there were still difficulties which remain to be resolved to ensure that the key elements of Hong Kong's success remain intact after 1997.
PRESIDENT: Dr LEONG, do you wish to raise a supplementary?
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, there is no doubt that the Chief Secretary has gone through a very tiring yet successful trip on behalf of Hong Kong and I am sure all Members of this Council would join me in thanking her for doing this for us.
In her address, especially in the last paragraph, the Chief Secretary mentioned that she dealt frankly on issues concerning the threat of a provisional legislature, protecting human rights and press freedom. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary could expand on this?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, it is perhaps not surprising to this Council that the main concern raised with me during my tour of the United States was the threat of a provisional legislature to replace the current legislature. I took the opportunity to reiterate the Government's very clear stance on this and I will repeat this now.
The Government's position on the provisional legislature is that we remain opposed to the establishment of a provisional legislature. We consider a provisional legislature to be both unnecessary and unjustified. The current legislature was elected in open and fair elections in September of last year. We had a record turnout of voters at that election. The current legislature clearly enjoys the support of the entire community, and in terms of continuity and confidence within the community, it is clearly desirable for the current legislature to transit 1997 and for Members to be able to serve out their full four-year term.
But perhaps not surprising either, the question was put to me that many people have now asserted that it is inevitable that the provisional legislature would be established and what was the Government's stance on this. I took the opportunity again to restate that if the Chinese insisted on proceeding and I said at the same time that we were hoping very much to continue to persuade the Chinese not to proceed with a provisional legislature but if they were determined to do so, then I think it is for the Chinese side to explain to the community in Hong Kong and to the international community exactly how the provisional legislature would conform with the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration and, more importantly, how it would implement the principle of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.
I also made it clear at the same time that this Government is unable to provide any assistance for the establishment of a provisional legislature, nor would this Government do anything to undermine the functioning and credibility of the existing legislature. In this context, we welcomed Mr QIAN Qichen's statement that on this side of 1997, only the Governor, the Privy Council and the current Legislature will exercise power and that there will not be two power centres.
On the question of protection of human rights and press freedom, I went through, in a fair amount of detail, what the Administration has done to ensure that human rights, including press freedom, will be protected after 1997. But at the same time, insofar as press freedom is concerned, I also pointed out that whilst the Government will do its share and remain committed to ensuring that nothing remains on our statute book that in any way inhibits press freedom, and that all our laws are fully consistent with the Bill of Rights Ordinance, I did at the same time point out that of course practitioners in the media, including journalists, reporters and publishers, also have a role to play in defending and upholding the integrity of their profession.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr President, I see that the Chief Secretary told us that she "met with" various people in Washington, instead of "met" various people in Washington. Is it the intention of our Government now to introduce some Americanism into this Chamber to make Hong Kong really an international city?
PRESIDENT: I am not sure if Americanism is allowed in this Chamber. Standing Orders read: only Cantonese and English can be used verbally, orally.
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, I am not quite sure that the question really requires an answer. Nor am I sure that "met with" is in any way very Americanized.
法此某拜畊ネガ現┕㎝さぱ常Τ矗翠┎癸羬ミ猭穦ミ初и-
ㄆ㎝蒥チ常闽猔よ矗翠┎ぃ觅Θ羬ミ猭穦Θミそ叭ぃ穦瓣玱弧狦羬ミ猭穦Θミ碞辨ウ珹よ種ǎガ現и-
現┎穦現獀瞷龟璶蹦ミ初ㄤ龟癸羬ミ猭穦篈竒硁て
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, could I make it clear that the Government's position on the provisional legislature has not changed and remains as I have stated in my reply to an earlier supplementary question. Of course, when I was in the United States, the question was put to me: If the Chinese insisted on proceeding with a provisional legislature, what will be the concerns? And I think I am reflecting the concerns of the people of Hong Kong, and indeed the concerns of the international investing public, in saying that clearly one of the concerns would be to see in what way, if the provisional legislature is established, it would actually implement the principle of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and in what way it would conform with the requirements of the Basic Law.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr President, judging from the Chief Secretary's reply, I think there is still a need to eradicate some confusions over reports and headlines such as "The Chinese Are Disbanding the Current LegCo". I had better ask my question in Cantonese, Mr President.
畊ネガ現砐拜Τ虑诀穦坚睲Τ闽ミ猭Ы硂拜肈の羬ミ猭穦舅睼瞔ぇ矪и-
盽弧ミ猭Ы璶筁寸硂膀セΤ舅拜肈埃獶盢璣虎㎝癡┑尿禬筁ミ猭Ы筁寸ぃ筁狦弧琌辨┮Τミ猭Ы某镑ミ猭诀闽膥尿狝叭┪把籔硂碞琂薄猭瞶磷舅瞷睼瞔叫拜Τ癚阶┪籔Τ闽穦坚睲硂翴
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, the constitutional position of the current Legislative Council is abundantly clear and I do not think requires any further clarification. On the other hand, if questions are asked about the provisional legislature, then I think that is really for the Chinese side to establish its constitutional position. And I repeat what I said in my two replies to the supplementary questions put to me just now.
ッ笷某拜畊ネガ現瓣Τ闽羬ミ猭穦ē阶穦翠蒥チ稰睼睹翠癸羬ミ猭穦篈Τ睲贰ぃ種ミ初瓣玱弧狦い瓣璶Θミ羬ミ猭穦杠辨ウΤよ羘叫拜ガ現硂妓弧猭琌種ㄏパ〆ヴ玻ネΤぃ種ǎ羬ミ猭穦碞镑翠蒥チ羘の钡パ150窾きる匡ミ猭Ыパ硓筁〆ヴΑ玻ネミ猭诀闽
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, could I make it clear that the question of "If there is a provisional legislature" is not a question that I have, as it were, raised on my own. It was a question that was put to me in my numerous contacts with people in the United States and I was attempting to answer that question.
糂紌某拜畊ネ程い瓣翠緿快そヴ緗キネ纯钡ㄢ瓣筿跌砐拜硂稱瓣癸拜肈Τ踞み㎝好納叫拜ガ現瓣琍戳い┮ǎ┪瓣绰偿┪よ琌常癸翠Τ踞み㎝好納疭琌Τ闽︑パ猭獀チ㎝砱γ单拜肈
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, I did indeed encounter the concerns that the Honourable Miss Emily LAU raised just now. I think the chief concern centres broadly around China's commitment to implementing the high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong after 1997. And specifically, the concerns revolve around continuity in our legislature, China's commitment to protecting human rights, press freedom, and so on.
PRESIDENT: Honourable Members, as we have a fairly long agenda today, I will allow around one hour only for the six regular questions for which notice has been given. To enable Members to make more effective use of this one hour and ask as many supplementary questions as possible, Members should keep their supplementary questions short and avoid long preambles and multi-barrelled questions. If Members keep their questions succinct, Public Officers also will find it easier to answer them and provide the information required.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Public Interest Immunity Certificates
1. MISS MARGARET NG asked: Mr President, it is learnt that in a recent criminal court case, the Chief Secretary signed two "public interest immunity certificates" claiming that certain documents should not be disclosed on the ground that it was in the interest of the public to protect the identity of the informant concerned. The presiding Judge dealt with the certificates by ordering some of the documents in question to be disclosed, and it was subsequently held that there was no case to answer. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) who decides that a public interest immunity certificate is necessary in any given case; and what guidelines will be taken into consideration before a decision is made to request the Chief Secretary to sign a public interest immunity certificate;
(b) of the number of public interest immunity certificates signed by the Chief Secretary in the past three years; and
(c) whether the Chief Secretary has ever refused to sign any public interest immunity certificate in the past three years; and if so, in how many cases?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, in the case referred to in the question, the Chief Secretary issued two public interest immunity certificates, the first claiming immunity in relation to 56 documents and the second in relation to 10 documents. After considering the certificates and examining the documents, the Judge ordered disclosure of 14 of the documents covered by the first certificate and one document covered by the second certificate. The Judge's decision that there was no case to answer was unrelated to the content of the documents which were disclosed.
To answer the specific questions:
(a) the decision to issue a public interest immunity certificate is that of the Chief Secretary after taking legal advice from the Crown Solicitor. The categories of document in respect of which public interest immunity may be claimed and the procedures for considering and making claims are governed by the common law and also, in civil cases, by rules of court;
(b) since the beginning of 1993, the Chief Secretary has signed eight public interest immunity certificates (five in criminal proceedings, three in civil proceedings). Two of the cases (one criminal, one civil) have not yet proceeded to trial and the certificates have not therefore been produced;
(c) during the period referred to in the question, the Chief Secretary has not refused to sign any public interest immunity certificate.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, would the Attorney General elaborate on the categories referred to in subparagraph (a), particularly in the case referred to in my question? The certificate was issued for the protection of an informer and I understand that protection of informers is one of the categories. My question is: Whether, when it concerns the protection of an informer, the Chief Secretary will categorically issue such a certificate? And in the case I referred to, the particular informer had actually disclosed his identity as an informer to the Court of Appeal. In that case, why did the Chief Secretary still consider it necessary to protect his identity?
Secondly, with reference to subparagraph (b) ......
PRESIDENT: Miss NG, could we take one supplementary at one time.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, may I just explain simply that my question relating to (b) is also with reference to the categories. I just wonder if the Attorney General would tell us what categories these other certificates relate to?
PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MISS MARGARET NG: That is all, Mr President, just the five criminal proceedings, three civil proceedings and what are the categories under which the certificates are being issued?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think I picked up about four supplementaries in that, Mr President. Public interest immunity, rarely claimed, as the figures show, is claimed when it is considered not to be in the public interests that documents should be produced at trial, whether in civil or criminal proceedings. It is a procedure, as I say, that is very rarely resorted to. The law relating to public interests is, as the Honourable Member knows, developing rapidly. The circumstances giving rise to the issue of a public interest certificate vary enormously from case to case and will have to be considered on the facts of each particular case.
In relation to informers, it is, Mr President, a general principle that it is not in the public interests to disclose documents that reveal the identity of informers, unless to do so would be to prevent a miscarriage of justice. And the reason for that is that disclosure will undermine the confidence of informers in the assurances given to them by the police that their role in the provision of information would be safeguarded.
Let me say, Mr President, a little bit about the circumstances of this case. Before the trial began, prosecuting counsel had disclosed, as was his duty, to defence counsel, copies of the police notebook entries and the file records which revealed that one of the co-conspirators in this case was the informer. Following that disclosure, the defence then requested the prosecution to disclose further information relating to all previous contacts between the informer and the police. The Chief Secretary was advised that if the information contained in the documents was disclosed to the defendants, the safety of the source of information would be put at risk and other potential sources would be discouraged from providing information. Mr President, as you will know, it is an invaluable part of the police operations in the detection and prevention of crime that rely on information provided by informers. The principle to which I have referred is one of very long standing and is part of the common law.
As for the five categories covered in subparagraph (b), as I said, two of the cases have yet to come to trial and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to reveal before trial what is in those public interest immunity certificates. In relation to the remaining six, two of the certificates were produced in relation to this trial. That leaves four. I will consider those certificates and see how much I can properly reveal to the Honourable Member, bearing in mind that in those cases in which the certificates were produced, the Judge in each case upheld the certificate and did not order the disclosure of any of the information or any of the documents contained in them. (Annex I)
PRESIDENT: Miss NG, I will return to you after other Members have raised their supplementaries.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr President, I have two; may I ask one first and join the queue later? Is there a convention in Hong Kong that the Attorney General will automatically sign every public interest immunity certificate put before him or her, or is there any discretion ever exercised by the Chief Secretary in the past?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think Mr LEE was referring to the Chief Secretary in the first part of his supplementary question, not the Attorney General. I should explain, Mr President, that in relation, specifically to criminal proceedings, because the Attorney General is the prosecutor, the Attorney General plays no part in the advice given to the Chief Secretary in relation to public interest immunity certificates, for reasons that will be well understood by the Honourable Member.
The short answer, Mr President, is no. On each occasion, advice is furnished to the Chief Secretary as to what are the documents for which disclosure is sought, advice is furnished as to what is the public interests, the Chief Secretary is invited to read all the documents and to form her own judgment her own judgment as to whether or not in the light of the advice supplied, it would be in the public interests to produce the documents or it would be in the public interests not to produce the documents, in which case the Chief Secretary reads all the documents and considers the advice. So it is not an automatic procedure at all.
襖略ビ某拜畊ネガ現筁┕帽祇硂ㄇそ渤痲僚靡琌纯碞ヴ︙ン吭高筁猭臮拜┪璣瓣羛üのユㄆ叭︒璝礛或琌︙贺薄猵ぇ
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, as I have indicated in my main answer, the Chief Secretary signs public interest immunity certificates having taken the advice of the Crown Solicitor. It is the Crown Solicitor who provides legal advice to the Chief Secretary. I am not aware of any occasion on which the Crown Solicitor has felt it necessary to approach the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office or any other government official, but I can certainly ask him. As I have explained in relation to an earlier supplementary in relation to criminal proceedings, I play no part in the issue of public interest immunity certificates, but I will certainly double-check with the Crown Solicitor and furnish a written reply. (Annex II)
MISS MARGARET NG: As to the answer under (b), I am content to wait for the Attorney General's further information, but for the moment, I wonder if the Attorney General could tell us which categories these certificates fell under; whether they are all relating to informers or whether they involve other kinds of categories?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, I think it is self-evident that in relation to civil cases, there will be no certificates relating to informers. It is unusual to have informers in civil cases. In relation to the criminal cases, as I have said already, two of the certificates out of the five were produced in this case, and we know what happened there. One case has yet to go to trial. That leaves two. I will have to make enquiries. But I would wish to stress the point that I have made already and, that is, that public interest immunity does not readily lend itself to categorization and I would not want the Honourable Member to think that one can assign particular meanings to particular categories. As I have said, I will endeavour to find out and provide a written reply.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr President, has any Chief Secretary ever in the past refused to sign any public interest immunity certificate, either in civil or criminal cases? And if yes, how many?
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE, I think it is only reasonable to impose a time limit or else there will be no end to the research efforts.
MR MARTIN LEE: Perhaps within the memory of the Attorney General, is he aware of any instance in the past where any Chief Secretary has refused to sign any public interest immunity certificate?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am relieved, Mr President, that Mr LEE has reduced the timeframe from about 150 years to 28; not that that will make the task very much easier. I will have to see what I can come up with. I should add, Mr President, that prior to 1992 when we started keeping central records of public interest immunity certificates, the certificates were placed on file. I will have to see whether the task of going through many hundreds of civil and criminal litigation files will be justified to produce the information sought, but once again, I will do my best.(Annex III)
MR MARTIN LEE: I do not want him to rush to do it, he can have the summer vacation to do it.
PRESIDENT: 1 July 1997.
襖略ビ某拜讽現┎籔砠よ惠璶璶―ガ現帽祇硂ㄇ靡ㄒチㄆンいΤ闽场琌パê糷Ω浪诡﹛矗硂兜璶―τㄆよ琌パㄒㄆ浪北盡糷Ω﹛穦矗硂兜璶―?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, I thought I had made it clear that the legal advice was provided by the Crown Solicitor both in civil and criminal proceedings, and it is the Crown Solicitor personally who considers the documents for which production is sought and furnishes the advice.
Mr President, I do not want to prolong it, but I do want to emphasize one point which I hope comes out from this answer and, that is, that the ultimate arbiter, the ultimate determinant of whether or not documents are properly covered by a public interest immunity does not rest with the Government, does not rest with the Chief Secretary, it rests with the courts. It is for the courts, ultimately, to decide whether or not it is in the public interests for documents to be produced. I thought I would re-emphasize that point, Mr President.
PRESIDENT: Mr TO, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
襖略ビ某拜畊ネи獺現琌粇穦и借高璶氮滦(a)场だ琌弧ガ現......
PRESIDENT: Could you do it succinctly please, you do not need to elaborate your question.
襖略ビ某拜и獺現琌粇穦и借高и借高琌ガ現钮チㄆ浪北盡猭種ǎぇ玡ゲΤ現┎场チㄆン琌チㄆ场τㄆン玥琌ㄆン场τ硂ㄢ场だ矗璶―ガ現帽祇靡琌パ糷Ω﹛盢璶―ユガ現礛ガ現σ納チㄆ浪北盡種ǎτ∕﹚
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, it does not work that way. In relation to criminal proceedings, in the light of the law that has evolved in the last five years, it is the duty of the prosecution to make available to the defence all unused material. And some Honourable Members will know that that encompasses all material the prosecution has available, including material that they do not intend to rely on at the trial. Because it is important that questions of public interest immunity are not taken by those who are prosecuting, there is a Standing Instruction from the Director of Public Prosecutions that if any question arises as to whether or not documents should be made available to the defence, that advice should be sought by the Crown Solicitor. He will then examine the documents and form his own judgment as to whether or not a case for public interest immunity certificate arises. If he does so conclude then he will advise the Chief Secretary, and that is how the procedure works.
In relation to civil proceedings, as I have said in my main answer, the procedure is governed by Rules of the Supreme Court, and also by Standing Instructions, General Regulations, issued to all civil servants about the procedures to be followed when claims for public interest immunity certificates are to be sought in civil proceedings.
Rental and Service Contracts Signed by Persons under 18
2. 霉睲某拜獵ぶ厩担ㄏノ肚㊣诀薄猵ら亥炊筂ま癬厩の產踞紐Τǎの現┎セЫ瞷Τ肚㊣そ祇ま璶―硂摸そ籔ゼ骸18烦帽璹Τ闽割の狝叭斗眔赣单產┪菏臔捌竝種璝穦σ納璹Τ闽ま
竒蕾氮畊ネ筿癟兵ㄒの肚㊣狝叭竒犁礟酚А礚兵ゅ砏﹚肚㊣狝叭犁快坝籔18烦帽璹割┪狝叭斗莉赣单ダ┪菏臔捌竝種礛τ筿癟恨瞶ЫЫ眡そ渤癸ゼΘㄏノ肚㊣诀狝叭稰闽猔程┮Τ肚㊣狝叭犁快坝祇肚綷ㄧン㊣苸犁快坝砏﹚籔ゼΘ帽璹狝叭ゲ斗パ赣单ダ┪菏臔捌竝種ヘ玡肚㊣狝叭犁快坝タ粄痷σ納硂兜某Τㄇ璶犁快坝э跑よ皐皌и-
某ョΤ犁快坝Ν璹捌竝砏﹚
霉睲某拜и蔼砍現┎硂或е碞Τ莱叫拜現┎ら︙秈︽菏恨ㄏま┪某眔辅龟
竒蕾氮畊ネи-
硂ㄧン琌程祇и矗犁快坝竒獶盽и稱硂琌︑拜肈狦蒥初璸硂ㄇ犁快坝弧蒥初だぇи-
讽礛穦膥尿痙種薄猵拜肈Τ锣镣腨の硂ㄇ肚㊣狝叭犁快坝Τ沮ㄧンㄓ暗ㄆ
眎▆某拜畊ネ瘤礛現┎⊿Τ猭ㄒ砏﹚ゼ骸18烦獵ぶゲ斗眔產┪菏臔捌竝Τ闽竒蕾弧竒祇ㄧンи稱拜拜竒蕾沮現┎瞷┮磝搐戈ヘ玡18烦眔肚㊣诀╯澈穦硑Θ或ㄣ砰国矪┪碿狦現┎腢犁快坝ΤΤ闽拜肈
竒蕾氮畊ネ程и-
纯Μㄇミ猭Ы某锣倒и-
щ禗肚碈程Τ厨笵硂よ薄猵璶ㄓ弧產闽猔18烦獵ぶΤㄇ︓琌烦厩ネ帽竝ㄇτ-
帽ぃフ┮盿砫ヴㄒΤㄇ砏﹚ゲ斗煤ユせる禣-
⊿Τσ納︑竒蕾琌璽踞硂ㄇ禣Τㄇぃフ┮盿砫ヴよ肚㊣诀そ籔硂ㄇ獵ぶ帽竝ㄤ龟Τ﹚繧硂ㄇ琌パ炊硄猭砏﹚┮恨跌┦借琘ㄇ薄硂ㄇ猭琌⊿Τ传ēぇ肚㊣诀そ籔18烦獵ぶ帽璹Τ﹚繧┮и-
程硂ㄇ肚㊣诀そ㊣苸и稱癸蛮よㄓ弧獵ぶの肚㊣诀そㄓ弧肚㊣诀そ莱赣σ納籔獵ぶ帽璹硂摸璶―-
ダ┪菏臔捌竝種
讲蚌某拜畊ネ現┎セЫ毙▅竝Τ厩祇ま斗蹦或篈ㄓ癸ゼΘ獵ぶ厩ネㄏノ肚㊣诀拜肈
PRESIDENT: I am afraid this is outside the scope of the original question.
襖略ビ某拜畊ネ筿癟恨瞶Ы祇Τ闽㊣苸ゅンΤσ納厩㎝產ㄇ紐納筿癟恨瞶ЫΤ毙▅参膚ㄆ叭〆穦┪獵ㄆ叭〆穦吭高硂ㄇ︽笆Τゴ衡癸ㄤ肚冀┪硄癟竟ㄏノ妓㊣苸传杠弧惠璶ダ種帽璹㎡
PRESIDENT: I am afraid the first part of the supplementary is outside the scope of the original question. The second part, Secretary.
竒蕾氮埃肚㊣诀и稱某矗の程炊筂硄癟竟琌礚帹筿杠硂よи-
ㄆ龟ぃ惠璶㊣苸硂ㄇ礚帹筿杠犁快坝羙ぃ穦籔18烦獵ぶ帽璹虏虫碞琌-
踞み獵ぶ琌Τ竒蕾や筿杠禣礚帹筿杠筿杠禣禥
Returning Hong Kong Residents with Foreign Nationality
3. 襖略ビ某拜畊ネい瓣瓣チ穦盽叭〆穦硄筁い地チ㎝瓣瓣膟猭るら癬翠疭︽現跋"疭︽現跋"龟琁秆睦ㄤい矗の局Τ瓣瓣膟翠﹡チ咎Τ靡ン疭︽現跋Τ闽讽Ыビ厨瓣瓣膟碞現┎セЫ癸逼ミ初のΤ璶―Τ闽いよ﹛坚睲拜肈
(a) 局Τ瓣瓣膟瑈翠璝狦ぃビ厨ㄤ瓣瓣膟琌穦砆跌い瓣そチ璝Τいよ﹛莱︙
(b) 局Τ瓣瓣膟瑈翠ビ厨ㄤ瓣瓣膟ぇ琌獽︑笆莉眔疭︽現跋ッ﹡チōだ临琌惠璶竒筁琘ㄇビ叫┪ビ厨も尿莉眔ッ﹡チōだ璝Τいよ﹛莱︙
(c) 瑈翠ビ厨ㄤ瓣瓣膟或猭瞶ㄌ沮莉眔疭︽現跋ッ﹡チōだのㄉΤΤ闽舦㎝竡叭珹現獀舦の煤祙兜竡叭单璝Τいよ﹛莱︙の
(d) 瑈翠ビ厨ㄤ瓣瓣膟-
翠ネ瓣膟の疭︽現跋ッ﹡チōだ拜肈盢︙矪瞶璝Τいよ﹛莱︙
玂氮畊ネ沮いよ箋ガゅン珹瓣チ穦盽叭〆穦硄筁い瓣瓣膟猭秆睦ゅンずи-
秆いよミ初
材い瓣烩珹翠ずネ┮Τ地盖翠﹡チ常砆跌い瓣瓣チ狦翠疭︽現跋硂摸局Τ瓣瓣膟ビ厨э瓣膟ビ厨斗疭︽現跋現┎挂ㄆ叭矪矗ユΤゅン
材ビ厨э瓣膟莉翠疭︽現跋挂ㄆ叭矪уぇ┕砆跌い瓣瓣チ盢砆跌瓣そチ硂摸饼眔翠疭︽現跋﹡痙舦ゲ斗才膀セ猭材兵材琿砏﹚琌ゲ斗硄盽翠硈尿︘骸р翠跌ッ﹡痙
材沮膀セ猭材せ兵翠疭︽現跋ッ┦﹡チㄌ猭ㄉΤ匡羭舦㎝砆匡羭舦ッ┦﹡チōだ㎝Τ砫ヴ煤祙兜ㄢぇ丁礚が闽玒膀セ猭材兵砏﹚翠ヴ︙礚阶琌ㄣΤ翠疭︽現跋﹡痙舦常Τ竡叭宽翠疭︽現跋龟︽猭讽い珹宽祙叭よ猭酚祙叭兵ㄒ琘琌惠煤祙兜琌沮ㄤΜ┪柬琌ㄓ︑翠τ﹚ぃ疉の琌局Τッ┦﹡チōだ
иゲ斗眏秸ぃぶ灿竊拜肈珹襖某┮矗拜肈常惠璶︽秆∕礛現┎碞いよ癸獶い瓣膟﹡痙舦┮篶稱逼璹ミ初и-
タ膥尿硓筁羛羛蹈舱籔いよ坝癚τи-
ヘ夹ご礛琌荷Ν垦―蛾骸秆∕硂ㄇ拜肈パ硂ㄇ癚阶羛羘ず玂盞兵ゅ砏恨иぃ┸臩и-
籔いよ﹛癚阶冈薄安蛮よ镑碞硂ㄇ拜肈笷璓骸種挡阶и-
讽礛穦そ秨ユи-
籔いよ┮笷Θ逼灿竊
襖略ビ某拜畊ネミ初拜肈琌Τ闽玂氮材琿弧膀セ猭材兵砏﹚琌狦琌膟ゲ斗硄盽翠硈尿︘骸翠ッ﹡痙眔ッ﹡チōだ
и稱拜翠現┎┪璣瓣現┎癸"硄盽翠硈尿﹡︘"ミ初τ膀セ猭ず泊琌"疭跋Θミ玡┪"叫拜玂ミ初琌"玡┪"传ēぇㄤ龟Τ闽Θ瓣そチぇ玡狦翠﹡︘琌璸衡ず㎡
и拜琌翠現┎の璣瓣現┎ミ初
玂氮畊ネタ襖某┮弧癸硂よ羛羘琌糶"玡┪"иョぃゴ衡硂冈灿癚阶╯澈龟悔龟琁逼︙и-
タ籔いよ坝癚硂拜肈╯澈盢ㄓいよ┮篶逼穦琌妓㎡琌龟︽穦盿ㄓㄤぃ▆紇臫㎡穦琘よ蛤膀セ猭Τ硂ㄇ常琌и-
タ籔いよ坝癚拜肈
PRESIDENT: Mr TO, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
襖略ビ某拜琌玂⊿Τ氮借高ê场だ沮現┎癸硂兜兵ゅ瞶秆疭跋Θミぇ玡琌珹ず㎡
狦現┎稱ぃ氮碞ぃ氮玂氮玱ゼ陪ボ∕﹚氮临琌ぃ氮┪Τ⊿Τミ初
玂氮畊ネ膀セ猭材兵材蹿糶眔睲贰"翠疭︽現跋Θミ玡┪Τ︽靡ン秈翠翠硄盽﹡︘硈尿翠ッ﹡︘獶い瓣膟"硂よ玡┪常珹赣材兵材蹿┮更ず硂ぃ琌и-
琌钡拜肈τ琌羛羘の膀セ猭常琌硂妓更
PRESIDENT: Perhaps next time, Mr TO, you may wish to ask whether or not the Chinese side and the British side have different interpretations of the relevant Article 24(4).
法У地某拜畊ネ玂氮滦程场だボ辨蛮よ竒筁癚阶穦癸硂拜肈Τ骸種挡阶
и稱拜翠現┎酵筁祘い盢ㄓ笷璓┮孔骸種挡阶穦琌ㄇ玥┦挡阶ㄤ龟硂ㄇ挡阶ぃ惠璶び灿稬痙盢ㄓヴ痁┪痙翠現┎ミ猭┪疭跋現┎ミ猭パ翠セō挂矪龟琁瓣膟猭磅︽诀闽τ礚斗ㄆㄆ拜いァ
玂氮畊ネи稱矗ㄢ翴材產常睲贰いよ┮そガゅン珹и矗盽〆穦硄筁い瓣瓣膟猭秆睦ゅン┮更ㄆ薄砛常琌玥┦拜肈硂よ產ョ睲贰穦ま癬硈﹃灿竊拜肈讽и-
璶╯の秆∕Τ闽瓣膟挂﹡痙舦硂ㄇ拜肈螟虫酵玥ぃ酵灿竊–薄猵常ぃ–常稱睲贰笵盢ㄓ逼穦琌妓癸-
紇臫穦琌妓и獺碞筁寸獺みτē狦и-
镑盢硂拜肈珹┮Τ闽灿竊睲捶秆∕ョそガ杠и獺癸紇臫獺み琌穦Τ矪
︓ミ猭拜肈иョ稱虑诀穦弧睲贰Τㄇ厨彻厨笵翠現┎ぃ種腊いよ硂よミ猭и稱弧睲贰安и-
籔いよΤ闽ッ﹡痙舦拜肈秈︽癚阶镑ΤЧ骸挡狦杠и-
荡癸腀種э蹦︽笆璹チ挂ㄆ叭兵ㄒ獽籔瞷︽猭ㄒの膀セ猭Τ闽兵蹿璓碞硂よτēи稱睲捶秆睦碞琌и-
眖ㄓ⊿Τ钩厨彻厨笵┮弧ぃミ猭琌и谋眔⊿Τ硂贺惠璶狦и-
镑箇Ν秆∕碞⊿Τ惠璶痙ミ猭矪琌禫Νミ猭碞镑禫Ν琵紇臫常睲贰盢ㄓ癸-
Τ︙紇臫
糂紌某氮タ玂┮弧硂ンㄆ狡馒庇稰琌闽猔ョ琌ㄤ瓣現┎闽猔и稱拜玂ㄤ龟瞷秈︽酵Τ⊿Τ丁㎡矗ミ猭ヘ夹琌辨るら碞Τ俱甅逼ㄓ翠碞皑笵璶妓暗临琌Τ穦暗ぃ狦暗ぃ穦瞷睼睹の穦玻ネ拜肈㎡
畊ネи稱拜玂ㄤ龟硂ヘ夹琌妓璹ㄓ琌い瓣現┎㎝翠現┎常辨るらぇ玡猭ㄒ暗よ逼ㄏ瓣現┎┪ヴ︙翠皑笵璶妓暗τΤ闽﹛ョ笵莱妓矪瞶よビ叫㎡
PRESIDENT: Whether or not there is a timetable, Secretary?
玂氮畊ネи-
ヘ夹虏虫и-
辨镑るらぇ玡┪ゑ赣ら戳Ν丁荷ΝЧ骸秆∕硂闽猔拜肈镑ノミ猭Αр盢ㄓ秆∕ㄆ薄家Α砏﹚ㄓ琵產睲贰笵盢ㄓ逼穦癸-
Τ或紇臫
и-
眖籔いよ秈︽Ω癚阶い笵いよ癸秆∕硂拜肈ち┦琌Τ┮粄醚и獺狦и-
镑ゼㄓら荷е秈︽癚阶㎝и-
獽るらぇ玡秆∕硂拜肈︓秈︽ミ猭硂琌莱赣暗眔
Western Corridor Railway Consultancy Contracts
4. 糂簙煌某拜闽某い阁禫﹁场ǐ碮臟隔祘璸购現┎セЫ
(a) 埃約臟隔そùさу羆4.34货じ兜臮拜临ゴ衡уぶ臮拜讽い疉の兜ヘの禣ノ︙讽Ыу硂ㄇ臮拜玡穦紉高いよ種ǎの
(b) 瞷俱兜祘いΤㄇ箇称┪˙臮拜╯の砞璸祘竒ЧΘの約臟隔そ秈︽硂ㄇ╯の砞璸祘玡Τ穦翠現┎┪眔翠現┎種
笲块氮畊ネ約臟隔そ璸购秈︽顶琿臮拜琌у硈﹃м砃╯ㄤい珹20禣ノ7.5货じ赣そùさ碞11羆5.6货じ秈︽┷夹︓さゼуヴ︙м砃╯絛瞅疉の俱兵臟隔パ﹁纒︓べい场辅皑瑆の霉打帹Τ闽冈薄更氮滦ン
挪﹁场ǐ碮臟隔砞璸ご篶顶琿ゲ斗秈︽м砃╯璹﹚冈灿璸购獽﹚絋龟隔帹秆∕璶祘のㄤ拜肈の非絋︳璸祘禣ノ传杠弧м砃╯盢穦矗ㄑ┮惠戈獽現┎瞏╯㎝∕郸
沮約臟隔ヘ玡︳璸硂兜璸购┮惠400そ臣讽い珹斗睲╊270そ臣現┎の斗Μ130そ臣╬硂ㄇ琌︘笰穨坝穨の秏跋Τ禬筁1 000褂マ沮現羆竝程ЧΘ˙蝶︳硂兜Μの睲╊惠きЧΘ硂種笆ら戳璶筐約臟隔某┮箇戳丁斗рヘ夹丹ら戳莱璹︓箂箂
パ瓃約臟隔砛礚斗﹚璸购丁秈︽┮Τм砃╯現┎璶―約臟隔σ納瞷顶琿盢╯絛瞅罽Ы璹﹁场ǐ碮臟隔絋龟隔帹┮ゲ惠秈︽╯獽搭Μの睲╊よ惠―
м砃╯ЧΘτ現┎∕﹚崩甶硂兜璸购約臟隔獽斗уㄤ臮拜獽秈︽冈灿砞璸の菏服硑祘
︓糂某矗Τ闽吭高いよ拜肈現┎ぃ羛羛蹈舱いよ蹲厨﹁臟璸购秈甶薄猵安и-
∕﹚穦ゼㄓ疭跋現┎┯踞砫ヴи-
﹚穦ㄆ紉高いよ種ǎи稱眏秸м砃╯琌﹁臟璸购俱砰砏购いぃ┪吏硂ㄇ╯ぃ筁琌ㄇ箇称翠現┎┪ゼㄓ疭跋現┎常礚斗秈︽硂ㄇ╯τ叭ゲ崩甶硂兜璸购
︓借高(b)场だ約臟隔琌沮ùさЧΘ臮拜╯挡狦τ現┎矗ユ﹁臟璸购冈灿某硂某ず甧
(a) 更瓃﹁臟璸购乎˙Θセ箇衡㎝癩叭だ猂
(b) ˙蝶︳ㄇ斗矪瞶拜肈ㄒ疉の猭笲块祘㎝吏挂璶拜肈
(c) 哪瓃約臟隔癸﹁臟璸购祘㎝癩現よ琌︽種ǎの
(d) 矗ㄑ┮惠戈琵赣そ籔現┎甶秨絉坝ら秈︽ㄤм砃╯ㄌ沮
約臟隔︑矗ユ某獽м砃╯秈︽膚称┷夹┯щ11兜臮拜瘤礛赣そ˙匡ㄇщ夹セ玡┮瓃︓さごゼタΑу
羆珹ㄓ弧約臟隔︑癬獽秈︽籔﹁场ǐ碮臟隔璸购Τ闽╯硂ㄇ╯常琌Чㄌ沮約臟隔そ兵ㄒ┮璹砫ヴ㎝舦τ秈︽赣そ秈︽臮拜╯㎝砞璸祘玡礚斗疭穦現┎┪眔現┎種ぃ筁現┎籔赣そ竒盽玂盞ち羛么坝癚某ず┮瓃兜拜肈現┎眡硂ㄇ╯
ン
м砃╯絛--
隔帹浪癚
óの挡篶よ
ぃ臟隔╰参巨璶―珹óó北の獺腹瞣ま筿癟╰参の砯笲恨瞶
吏挂〓ユ硄〓措叭紇臫蝶︳
硄╰参╯
の綼祘╯
籔淮臟╰参皌
籔瞷Τ臟隔の約臟隔╰参羛么
祘吧代
览﹚耕非絋のΘセ箇衡の
冈灿﹚惠―
糂簙煌某拜畊ネ笲块璶氮滦材琿矗の現┎璶―約臟隔σ納瞷顶琿盢╯絛瞅罽叫拜狦臟ぃ瞶穦現┎璶―現┎Τ快猭ňゎ臟種﹖︽秈︽硂ㄇ╯禣祙窥
笲块氮畊ネ讽ぱи約臟隔赋ㄆЫ盢現┎硂種锣笷臟赋ㄆЫ-
常癸硂兜某ボ舧и獺-
穦膥尿籔現┎絉坝︙м砃╯よ盢絛瞅ΜΜ㎝睲╊惠璶搭︓程
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, according to the Secretary's reply, the exercise of resumption of land and clearance will take about five years to complete. Can he please advise this Council when resumption is scheduled to start and also whether it means that the construction of the railway could not start until all the land resumption and clearances have been done?
PRESIDENT: I think the supplementary could be more usefully tackled at a motion debate next week. You are asking for a timetable for land resumption which is not within the scope or the main purpose of the original question.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, I merely wanted to ask for clarification of the statement because the Secretary in his main reply said it takes five years to complete. I just want to ask whether that means that the railway could not start until the completion of the resumption exercise?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the land resumption exercise cannot start until a number of things have been achieved, including the determination of the alignment. This is precisely why we want to do further technical studies in order to enable us to make a decision on the alignment of the railway. And secondly, we need to ascertain the extent of the problem of the land resumption. I should mention for this Council's information that a planning team within the Lands Department has been set up precisely to look into the resources required. Until the information is to hand, I am afraid I cannot ......
PRESIDENT: Secretary, your answer is outside the scope of the original question.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: I beg your pardon, Mr President?
PRESIDENT: I allowed that question simply because it is seeking a very simple answer to a very simple question. Can the project proceed before all land have been resumed?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: I am afraid not, Mr President.
虫ヲ昂某拜畊ネ翠猭ㄒ材372彻約臟隔そ兵ㄒ结舦約臟隔そ砍べ︓じ淮臟㎝約臟隔⊿Τ珹瞷┮弧﹁臟隔τ約臟隔货じ秈︽╯Τ禬禫猭ㄒ┮结ぉ舦
笲块氮約臟隔矗ユ某倒現┎琌翠現┎ㄌ眖︽現Ы璶―-
и-
某矗某-
稱膥尿秈︽ㄇм砃╯琌さるи-
硓筁ミ猭Ы粄-
祇約臟隔そ粄笆ㄏ-
膥尿Τ猭ㄌ沮ㄓ秈︽╯
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Thank you, Mr President, on the question of land resumption, could the Secretary tell us when the Mass Transit Railway was built, whether the commencement of the project started before all the land that was required were resumed?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I am afraid I do not have the information at hand. Can I provide it in writing? (Annex IV)
独岸藉某拜畊ネ笲块璶氮滦材场だ矗硂ㄇм砃╯琌箇称翠現┎┪ゼㄓ疭跋現┎常礚斗秈︽硂ㄇ╯τ叭ゲ崩甶硂兜璸购и稱叫笲块秆睦硂弧杠琌ボ暗Ч硂ㄇ╯ぃ砍﹁场ǐ碮臟隔璝琌硂妓┮挤计货じ癦獶щ秈
笲块氮畊ネ腨ㄓ弧琌ぃ瞶穦ê挡狦τぃ秈︽硂兜璸购ぃ筁и璶眏秸翴現┎種常琌獶盽跌﹁臟隔и-
琌Τ種砍﹁臟隔
糂胺祸某拜畊ネ璶氮滦材琿矗の現┎惠璶м砃╯┮矗ㄑ戈∕郸ミ猭Ы癩叭〆穦у挤4,500窾じ倒現┎竨叫臮拜ㄓ蝶︳﹁臟场︽┦╯叫拜現┎硂4,500窾じ竨叫臮拜Τ砫ヴㄓ臮м砃よ╯璝Τ杠︙讽ビ叫у挤4,500窾じゅンЧ⊿Τ矗のм砃╯ミ猭Ыユ硄ㄆ叭〆穦る穦某Ч⊿Τ矗の硂ㄇм砃╯τ現┎ョ粇旧某弧硂ㄇ臮拜蝶糵︽┦╯現┎碞碞﹁臟∕﹚
笲块氮畊ネ現┎癩叭〆穦ビ叫挤蹿琌盢臮拜祘絛瞅璓ミ猭Ы癩叭〆穦и獺и-
⊿Τ盢–灿竊常弧ㄓ讽礛狦某拜のи-
﹚穦冈灿氮滦
KCR's Dividend Payment to the Government
5. 產不某拜畊ネ約臟隔そのき祙犯だ11货じの9货じ現┎АゼΤ沮約臟隔そ兵ㄒ材9(1)兵璶―赣そ眖Τ闽いだ蹿兜ぉ現┎碞現┎セЫ
(a) 現┎⊿Τ璶―赣そだΤ闽蹿兜ぉ現┎ㄌ沮のσ納︙現┎∕﹚琌籔赣そ惠璶ノ﹁场ǐ碮臟隔臮拜╯禣ノΤ闽
(b) 琌眡赣そ穦禪よΑや瓃臮拜禣ノの
(c) 現┎Τ籔赣そ赋ㄆЫ癚阶Τ闽せ┪だ蹿兜ぉ現┎ㄆ﹜璝Τ挡狦︙
笲块氮畊ネ
(a) 現┎∕﹚ぃ璶―約臟隔だ蹿兜硂璶琌パ赣そ璸购き笆ノ30货じ秈︽膀セэ到祘ㄤい珹笆ノ1.2货じ秈︽籔﹁场ǐ碮臟隔某Τ闽˙╯
き現┎Ω∕﹚ぃ璶―約臟隔だ蹿兜瞶パ璓赣そ璸购せだ笆ノ25货じэ到砞琁㎝狝叭15货じ秈︽籔﹁场ǐ碮臟隔某Τ闽秈˙╯の5货じ奴ず戳ぃ癘杜ㄩ
現┎∕﹚ぃ璶―約臟隔だ蹿兜ヘ琌琵赣そр寥眔柬ノ莱ㄤ戈惠―眔矗琌箂︓ず現┎璶―そだ蹿兜キА–1.44货じ
(b) 沮и-
┮約臟隔Τ種セ祔丁羭杜30货じ场だ犁笲戈ノ莱赣そ俱砰犁笲惠―珹セ拜肈(a)场氮滦ず羭や兜ヘи-
粄ぃ﹜р犁笲戈琘场だ跌ノや秨や兜ヘ挤蹿
(c) 現┎–穦沮約臟隔癩現猵㎝穨叭璸购σ納莱赣璶―約臟隔だ蹿兜現┎σ納筁祘い穦钮約臟隔赋ㄆЫ種ǎ現┎⊿Τ疭碞だΤ闽蹿兜拜肈︽籔赋ㄆЫ絉坝
︓さの琌璶―約臟隔だ蹿兜現┎︓さごゼΤ∕﹚
產冈某拜畊ネи獶盽冈灿╯筁臟硂眀ヘ睲贰笵臟璶Μㄓ方琌犁笲瞷臟隔㎝祇甶玻ぶぶΜ痲斑禪琌るら筁5货じぃ癘杜ㄩ传ēぇ︓き┮ΤΜ场琌犁笲瞷臟隔Μτㄓ現┎セЫ秆睦現┎Τ琂﹚現郸瞷щ戈ㄓ弧ゲ﹚璶倒現┎疭﹚厨︙︓きぃΜ硂兜厨τ盢戈щ﹁臟き沧临璶禪30货じ﹚琌Τ璸购禪–犁笲瞷臟隔10货じオΜ盢穦Τ40货じ瞷璸购い硂40货じ瞷╯澈Τぶノ﹁臟╯τノ﹁臟╯戈╯澈ㄓ︑禪临琌犁笲瞷臟隔Μ
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, may I ask the Secretary for the Treasury to give an answer to this question.
畐叭氮畊ネ某借高材翴琌現┎Τ砏﹚約臟隔–眖緇挤ぶ倒現┎氮琌⊿Τタ笲块ョ氮眔睲贰и-
–∕﹚琌璶約臟隔俱砰癩現猵の犁笲璸购и-
∕﹚и-
莱赣璶―約臟隔眖ㄤ柬挤ぶ倒現┎
材场だ借高琌闽約臟隔さ璸购羭杜拜肈讽礛ョタ笲块┮弧羭杜琌約臟隔俱砰犁笲秨や硂薄猵龟螟弧犁笲戈场だ琌や秨や兜ヘ瘤礛約臟隔Τ璸购笆ノ15货じ秈︽籔﹁臟Τ闽╯琌タ笲块氮材兜借高┮弧瞷約臟隔琌Τ惠璶穝蝶︳硂ㄇ╯籔現┎絉坝∕﹚約臟隔セ癩現ず龟悔穦やぶ﹁臟╯ョ璶穝蝶︳
虫ヲ昂某拜畊ネи稱蛤秈產不某借高臟璶Μㄓ︑布叭Μ瞷盢场だΜ緇┪ノ砍﹁臟現┎現郸琌硓筁瞷犁笲戈﹁臟砍临琌パ現┎钡猔戈﹁臟砍
笲块氮畊ネ沮и-
眖臟眔戈-
⊿Τ種┪惠璶盢瞷犁笲瑉禟盢ㄓ﹁臟砍︓猔戈拜肈現┎タ灿み╯ゼΤ﹚阶
眎簙┚某拜畊ネ沮現┎氮滦и-
現┎羆璶笆ノ16.2货じ﹁场ǐ碮臟隔╯琌钡ㄓ獽穦羭杜30货じ犁笲戈硂贺暗猭穦谋眔臟琌ノ約臟隔ㄏノ瑉禟砍﹁场臟隔㎡琌笻讽弧約臟隔瞷ㄏノ礚斗瑉禟﹁场臟隔┯空㎡
笲块氮畊ネи璶狡и氮滦碞琌臟⊿Τ種┪惠璶盢瞷犁笲┮眔Μ瑉禟﹁臟硑
㏄辩睶┥某拜畊ネ約臟隔秈︽﹁臟臮拜厨τ挤ㄓ15货じ琌掸胑蹿兜τ現┎約臟隔そ赋ㄆЫずΤㄢ︗﹛ヴΘ叫拜硂ㄢ︗﹛赋ㄆЫず㎝現┎ず场琌Τㄇ或祘㎝菏诡惫琁絋玂硂15货じ眔程竒蕾㎝程Τ莱ノ琌或祘ㄓ笷程蔼硓そ渤ユ
笲块氮畊ネ約臟隔そ赋ㄆЫずΤ㏕﹚祘–箇衡﹚璶矗ユ倒赋ㄆЫ糵讽礛ㄤいΤず甧琌瞣疉╯㎝ㄤ蹿兜ㄏノ赋ㄆЫ琌穦笵︓ㄤ祘珹安–兜禬筁2,000窾じ﹚璶ㄆ眔赋ㄆЫу臟秈︽︓硓拜肈и弧臟現┎戈竒犁诀篶讽礛璶現┎璽砫τ現┎ョミ猭Ы璽砫ㄤい珹–и-
璶―臟ユ厨盢穦糵厨礛ユ癩現癩現ョ穦盢硂ㄇ厨㎝糵计沮ユ倒ミ猭Ыσ納
PRESIDENT: Mrs CHOW, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
㏄辩睶┥某拜笲块氮и借高场だ琌弧┦拜肈и琌借高闽﹁臟臮拜╯拜肈玱⊿Τ矗の﹁臟臮拜╯╯澈琌︙笷程蔼硓㎝そ渤ユ祘
PRESIDENT: Secretary, the $1.5 billion?
笲块氮畊ネ-
璶―蹿兜琌﹟ゼ笆ノ讽礛и-
Τ矗のи-
璶―盢╯絛瞅罽τиョ弧筁現┎﹚籔臟絉坝盢絛瞅︙Μ秈︽硂ㄇ╯
產不某拜畊ネ笲块氮滦ㄤい琿癹磷秨Τ籔臟赋ㄆ癚阶弧Τ钮種ǎи稱笵臟赋ㄆЫず祇ネ或ㄆ龟薄琌︙╯澈臟現┎矗ㄑ或種ǎ琌現┎沮硂ㄇ種ǎ∕﹚ぃ临琌現┎笆ボぃ㎡窥琌龟龟奔琌現┎弧ぃ琌ぃ琌狥臟眔ㄓぃ琌跑猔戈╯澈臟籔臟赋ㄆЫぃ笵硂ㄇ窥琌パ︙矪ㄓ㎡
PRESIDENT: I regard that to be highly argumentative.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, may I ask the Secretary for the Treasury to provide an answer to this question.
畐叭氮畊ネ闽現┎∕﹚きぃ惠璶臟や璶琌莱臟畊現┎矗ユ某σ納臟畊現┎矗ユ某は琈臟赋ㄆ穦種ǎ闽籔﹁臟Τ闽╯臟眀ヘずョΤ矗の琌妮ㄇ秨や讽礛硂秨や琌眖臟俱砰戈方や螟弧琌眖场だ
Housing Authority Expenditure on Publicity Programmes
6. 毒浪膀某拜畊ネ沮眡き︓せ┬〆穦"┬〆穦"ノ272窾じ肚"蝴臔そ戈方瞶だ皌"現郸ㄤい130窾じノ厨彻筿跌の筿肚よ︑︓┬竝龟琁"穿璸购"ㄓノ硂よ仓縩肚禣ノΤ58窾じキА–145,000じΤǎの現┎セЫ
(a) ︙ノㄢ兜┬現郸肚禣ノΤ畉禯の
(b) 穦糤ノ肚"穿璸购"挤蹿獽厨彻筿跌の筿﹚戳秈︽肚笆璝礛︙糤挤蹿兜璝︙
┬氮畊ネи-
ぃ莱р"蝴臔そ戈方瞶だ皌"吭高ゅンの肚笆┮惠璶禣ノ㎝"穿璸购"肚禣ノ钡ゑ耕膀セ硂ㄢ兜笆礚阶┦借砏家肚癸禜㎝も猭单よ常Τだ
"蝴臔そ戈方瞶だ皌"吭高ゅンヘ琌璶矗穝現郸秆∕そ"碔め"拜肈パゅンず某盢穦钡紇臫翠┮Τそめ㎝非め疉の穦戈方だ皌㎝笲ノ单玥┦拜肈┮и-
ゲ斗だ略稸矪瞶Τ闽吭高и-
戳辨るそ渤吭高戳丁穦镑碞ゅンい某裤臘莱и-
吭高㎝肚笆ゲ斗硓筁贺硚畖ま祇穦顶糷約獂癚阶┮秨やよ斗は琈硂┦借
は"穿璸购"ぃ琌穝現郸┪某硂現郸︑竒秨﹍龟琁τ穿癸禜琌êㄇ癩現既綝笿螟そ︘めヘ玡ゎ┬〆穦竒禬筁1 400產畑矗ㄑ穿硂璸购肚禣ノ璶琌ノ祇眎禟厨㎝筿約冀单笆琌埃硂ㄇ惠璶窥肚笆и-
ョ穦硓筁ㄤ硚畖崩約Τ闽璸购拇┬竝恨瞶㎝恏羛蹈ヴ籔︘めら盽钡牟и-
秸俱硄の–ㄢるΩ┬〆穦硄癟ずョ穦矗眶Τ惠璶︘め矗ビ叫穿瞷"穿璸购"肚禣ノㄤ龟ゼΤ珹硂ㄇ钡崩約笆┮惠Θセ┪禣ノ
さ癩現и-
箇衡碞硂璸购挤蹿緇窾じ肚ぇノи-
盢穦糤厨彻肚の筿約冀の穝籹肚厨㎝单
PRESIDENT: For clarification, Secretary, when you used the words in the last paragraph "we have budgeted for some $200,000 in connection with publicity of the Rent Assistance Scheme", does that "we" refer to the Government or to the Housing Authority?
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING: Mr President, "we" here stands for the Housing Authority.
PRESIDENT: But, Secretary, you are not here to answer for the Housing Authority.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING: Mr President, I am simply here stating the position of the Housing Authority in relation to a question presented by a Member of the Legislative Council.
毒浪膀某拜畊ネ┬〆穦瞷3窾"蝴臔そ現郸戈方瞶だ皌"現郸紇臫┮孔"禬碔め"祇虫眎璶-
恶糶┬〆穦玱⊿Τ癸窾︳璸"螟め"硋め暗ヴ︙┬穦σ納硂よ暗ㄇ单㎡
┬氮畊ネ癸êㄇ癩現既瞷螟そ︘め┬竝讽礛穦痙種-
拜肈タи璶氮滦い竒秆睦и-
穦ノ贺ぃよ猭钡钡牟︘め穦蹦ㄤ肚よ猭蛮恨霍辨钡琵硂ㄇΤ惠璶笵硂璸购ビ叫
PRESIDENT: I have the names of three Members on my list, I propose to draw a line there.
郭Θ某拜畊ネ叫拜讽Ы穦碔め現郸い┮眔肂Μ癸"穿璸购"螟め矗龟悔腊ㄒ秈˙糴-
ビ叫螟め戈ㄇ痲硂よ猭ㄓ肚┬〆穦琌痷タ稱腊êㄇ螟め
PRESIDENT: I am afraid this is outside the scope of the original question although you have been able to include the word "publicity" in your supplementary question.
辩模┚某拜畊ネパ︓さΤ1 400產畑莉眔┬〆穦矗ㄑ穿は琈穦絋龟Τ硂肩惠璶叫拜現┎︙せ︓癩現ず挤蹿窾じ肚τぃ琌窾┪窾┪蹿兜ㄓ秈︽約獂τΤ肚Τ惠璶︘め秆硂璸购叫拜硂兜挤蹿Τ︙络璹非玥
PRESIDENT: Is the Secretary aware of the rationale of the $200,000 in the Housing Authority's budget for 1996-97?
┬氮畊ネ硂拜肈ㄤ龟琌砏家耕拜肈そ︘めい瞷羬癩現拜肈ㄤ龟ぃびㄆ龟и-
恏ず钡钡牟-
の硓筁筿筿跌㎝祇虫眎秈︽肚竒讽ì镑и-
粄瞷Τ硚畖笷硂ヘ︓挤窾じㄓ肚硂ㄤ龟琌箇璸计讽礛さи-
穦暗ㄇ肚ㄒ厨彻祅約矗眶Τ闽︘め程璶よ猭琌钡钡牟硂ㄇ︘めのノ虫眎矗眶-
PRESIDENT: Mr LEUNG, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
辩模┚某拜琌
PRESIDENT: Which part?
辩模┚某拜и拜琌络璹挤蹿非玥⊿Τ氮非玥︙
┬氮20窾じ硂计ヘㄤ龟ぃ琌ㄣ厩┦络璹非玥и-
粄肚璸购璸衡20窾じ挤蹿竒琌讽瞶计沮и-
︳璸窾じì秈︽籹虫眎の厨彻約肚
朝胞糭某拜畊ネи辨現┎镑и-
讽Ы非玥"蝴臔そ戈方瞶だ皌"現郸ノκ窾じ肚"穿璸购"眖︓さノき窾じи-
稰現┎琌Τ現┎┪現┎Μ禣ノ現郸碞穦ノ耕肚禣叫拜現┎琌非玥㎡現┎Μㄇ窥碞ノㄇ肚禣穦現┎籯セ碞ぶノㄇ肚禣現┎琌非玥㎡и璶―┬и-
╯澈非玥︙
┬氮畊ネи-
ぃ穦ㄇ現郸┪現┎ㄇΜ碞耕肚и-
非玥程璶琌跌ㄆン┪穝現郸┪某琌疭璶┪琌材Ω矗ㄓ璶翠カチ癚阶狦琌硂妓杠и-
肚よ┮ノや﹚穦耕狦琌絋ミ璸购璓癸硂璸购Τ┮粄醚и-
筁┕纯肚и-
瞷斗膥尿秈︽竒盽┦肚碞笷狦┬〆穦箇痙ㄓ蹿兜ぃ筁琌ノㄓ莱┮惠秈︽肚
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Kennedy Town Redevelopment
7. MR EDWARD HO asked: The sites surrounded by Kennedy Town New Praya, Catchick Street, Davis Street, Cadogan Street and Belcher's Street in Western District have been zoned as a Comprehensive Development Area for more than seven years, and there have not been plans by any public or private agencies to develop the sites comprehensively. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council whether it has any definite plan for a comprehensive development of these sites and if not, whether it will apply to the Town Planning Board to re-zone these sites for residential or commercial uses so that the private property owners concerned can develop the properties on their own?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) obtained approval from the Town Planning Board in 1992 to carry out the Comprehensive Development Area (CDA) project in question. HKHS subsequently found that if all the demands for compensation and rehousing by the owners and residents were to be fully met, the project would not be financially viable. HKHS then considered a number of options for discussion with the Government on how the project could be taken forward. In January 1996, the Government invited the Land Development Corporation (LDC) to study, on a "no commitment" basis, the feasibility of taking over the project from HKHS. LDC put forward an initial proposal in March 1996 for discussion with HKHS and the Government. We will conclude our consideration of the project as soon as possible, and hope to work out a feasible way forward on the implementation of the project before the Town Planning Board's approval to HKHS expires on 25 September 1996. We have no plan at this stage to re-zone the area for other uses.
Post-registration Installation of Crashproof Headframes on Vehicles
8. 眎簙┚某拜瞷═ó珹畒︗╬產ó砯ó砯ó祅癘Аó繷杆ň疾琜沮厨彻ま瓃瓣╯厨杆砞赣单ň疾琜═ó疾︽穦硑Θ腨端Τǎの現┎セЫó进祅癘杆ň疾琜琌猭璝穦矗浪北
笲块氮畊ネセ翠⊿Τ靡沮陪ボó进杆竚ň疾琜穦甡ㄤ笵隔ㄏノ
沮笵隔ユ硄兵ㄒ砏﹚ó进杆ň疾琜ぃ笻猭ぃ筁沮笵隔ユ隔ó进篶硑の玂緄砏ㄒ┪笵隔ユ硄ó进祅癘の烩礟砏ㄒ砏﹚狦ň疾琜咀ó縊┪祅癘ó礟┪Τ綰场だ甡ㄤ笵隔ㄏノ玥ó砆浪北笻猭竒﹚竜程蔼砆籃蹿1窾じ㎝菏窽せる
Mortgage Corporation
9. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI asked: Regarding the proposal to set up a Mortgage Corporation, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) why, in addition to playing the role of an agency or a regulatory body in assessing the quality of mortgage pool, the Mortgage Corporation should take up the intermediary role which can be played by the private sector;
(b) of the benchmark which will be adopted by the Mortgage Corporation in setting the price of the mortgage-backed securities (MBS);
(c) of the difference in status between the MBS issued by the Mortgage Corporation and the Exchange Fund Notes issued by Hong Kong Monetary Authority;
(d) whether it knows of any government-owned mortgage corporation in other countries which is incorporated as a private limited company; and
(e) whether it knows of any central bank in other countries which runs profit-making businesses such as a mortgage corporation?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) A mortgage corporation is a financial intermediary operating on a commercial basis. It typically purchases residential mortgage loans from loan originators and funds such purchase through the issue of debt securities. It assesses the quality of the mortgage loan pool for the purpose of managing the credit risk of the mortgage loans it purchases. It does not perform the credit assessment function for regulatory purposes.
While the banking system has been playing a predominant role in the intermediation of mortgage funds, there is a major difference between intermediation by the banking system and that by a mortgage corporation. Banks rely mostly on short-term funding (for example, short-term customer deposits and interbank deposits) to finance long-term mortgages. A mortgage corporation, on the other hand, raises long-term funds to fund mortgage purchase, thus avoiding the maturity mismatch between its liabilities and assets. A mortgage corporation thus helps to improve the robustness of the home financing system.
As evidenced by the experience of mortgage corporations overseas, government support is essential for the successful operation of the corporation, especially at the initial stage, as this will greatly facilitate the acceptance of the corporation by the market. This view is shared by the banking sector and capital market participants.
(d) The price of the debt securities issued by the mortgage corporation will be determined by the market.
(c) Under the proposal, the mortgage corporation will issue unsecured debt paper in the first phase, followed by the introduction of the mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The unsecured paper will constitute the general obligations of the Mortgage Corporation, The MBS will be backed by a pool of mortgages. The revenue generated by the mortgage pool (that is, payment of principal and interest by Mortgagors) will be passed onto the MBS holders. Both the unsecured paper and the MBS issued by the Mortgage Corporation will not be guaranteed by the Government.
The Exchange Fund Notes constitute the direct, unsecured, unconditional and general obligations of the Hong Kong Government for the account of the Exchange Fund.
(d) As far as we are aware, Cagamas Berhad, the national mortgage corporation in Malaysia, is 20% owned by the Bank Negara Malaysia (central bank of Malaysia). The remaining equity is owned by other financial institutions. It is registered as a company under the Companies Act. FANMAC Limited of Australia is 25% owned by the State of New South Wales and the remaining equity is owned by financial institutions. It has been incorporated as a private company since its inception in 1986. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the largest mortgage corporation in the United States, was set up and initially wholly owned by the United States Federal Government. It was partitioned into two separate entities in 1968. Fannie Mae became a listed company whereas the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) remains a government agency.
(e) We do not have complete information on the various types of business undertaken by central banks/monetary authorities in other economies. As far as we are aware, many central banks/monetary authorities conduct a wide range of activities, some of which may generate profits. Notable examples include the management of official reserves, currency issue and the provision of securities clearing and settlement service. Specifically in relation to mortgage corporations, we understand that Cagamas Berhad, the national mortgage corporation in Malaysia, is 20% owned by Bank Negara Malaysia, the country's central bank. It is a profit-making institution earning RM61.8 million in 1994.
Road Construction at Tai Tam Area
10. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: There has been an increase in population in Tai Tam and its nearby areas as a result of the completion of a number of new residential projects in the area. This has led to an increase in traffic volume which will increase the risk of traffic accidents occurring along the narrow road on the Tai Tam Reservoir dam connecting the eastern and south-eastern parts of Hong Kong Island. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council whether it has any plan to widen the roads in the areas adjacent to Tai Tam, particularly the narrow road on the dam; if so, what the plans are; if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, there is a plan to widen the section of Tai Tam Road adjacent to the reservoir from a 5.0 m carriageway to a standard 7.3 m two-lane carriageway to provide a capacity compatible with the rest of Tai Tam Road. The scope of the project comprises:
(i) widening the section of Tai Tam Road over Tai Tam Tuk Reservoir Dam to a standard 7.3 m wide two-lane carriageway;
(ii) improving the alignment with widening of the southern approach to the dam;
(iii) construction of a 1.6 m wide pedestrian footpath alongside the carriageway;
(iv) associated landscaping work; and
(v) stabilization works to the dam, if necessary.
Subject to the allocation of the necessary resources, consultants will be appointed to undertake the site investigation and detailed design. We expect work to commence towards the end of 2000 for completion in 2002.
Imprisonment of Persons under 18
11. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: Before the abolition of capital punishment, persons who were under 18 years old convicted of murder were sentenced to be detained subject to Her Majesty's pleasure. Will the Government inform this Council whether any thought has been given to the arrangements which would be made concerning the status of such prisoners in Hong Kong after 1997, when Her Majesty will no longer be able to signify her pleasure through the Governor in respect of Hong Kong prisoners?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, under section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), which was repealed in 1993, the court could order a young offender who was under 18 when the offence was committed to be detained until Her Majesty' pleasure (HMP) shall be known. There are now 24 persons serving such sentences.
At present, the Governor may pardon or remit the sentence of any offender (including offenders detained under HMP) pursuant to Article XV of the Letters Patent. After 30 June 1997, the Chief Executive will be similarly empowered under Article 48(12) of the Basic Law.
Control of Amusement Games Centres
12. 眎ゅ某拜︑る龟琁笴栏诀いみ兵ㄒㄓご盽祇瞷Τ笴栏诀いみ矗ㄑΤ︹薄戒痴┪忌Θだ笴栏甧砛担单笴栏笻は笴栏诀いみ祇礟兵ン碞現┎セЫ
(a) のき紇跌の甌贾ㄆ叭恨瞶矪ǖ琩笴栏诀いみΩ计のǖ琩筁ぶ丁笴栏诀いみ
(b) 紇跌の甌贾ㄆ叭恨瞶矪矗ㄑΤ︹薄戒痴┪忌Θだ笴栏笴栏诀いみ祇筁ぶ牡のΤぶ丁笴栏诀いみ瓃薄猵砆篗綪礟酚┪綝浪北の
(c) Τぶ丁骸16烦秈笴栏诀いみ甧砛ゼ骸16烦┪ō狝担秈笴栏诀いみτ綝牡氨礟┪浪北
ゅ眃約冀氮畊ネ癸借高┮矗翴略氮滦
(a) 紇跌の甌贾ㄆ恨瞶矪纯566丁笴栏诀いみǖ琩Ω计1 363Ωきǖ琩Ω计1 345Ω┮ǖ琩笴栏诀いみ计ヘΤ511丁
(b) る︓せきる戳丁紇跌の甌贾ㄆ叭恨瞶矪纯矗ㄑΤ︹薄戒痴┪忌Θだ笴栏笴栏诀いみ祇700牡獺瘤礚笴栏诀いみ矗ㄑ赣摸笴栏τ綝篗綪礟酚Τ丁いみ綝既綪礟酚矗ㄑ赣摸笴栏τ砆牡よ浪北笴栏いみΤ15丁の
(c) る︓せきる戳丁Τ155丁骸16烦秈礟笴栏诀いみ甧砛ゼ骸16烦┪ō狝ㄠ担秈いみτ牡妓瞶パτ砆牡よ浪侏笴栏诀いみΤ177丁礚笴栏诀いみ綝篗綪┪既綪礟酚
Access for Emergency Vehicles in Village Clusters
13. 眎▆某拜瞷穝琘ㄇ跋の盞栋Θ竤ㄏ闽猔赣单跋瞷候ㄆ珿矪瞶拜肈Τǎの現┎セЫ
(a) 赣单跋砍┪琌惠矗ㄑì镑丁ㄑ候狝叭ó进ㄒňóの毕臔ó秈穦莉眔у
(b) 璝(a)兜氮﹚︙絋玂赣单跋祇ネ候薄猵Τì镑丁甧砛候狝叭ó进秈の
(c) 筁Τ闽讽Ы纯笿瓃拜肈璓毕穿瞷螟の┑粇薄猵璝ΤΤ闽计ヘ︙
砏购吏挂現氮畊ネ
(a) 瘤礛現┎у砍礚猭ㄒ砏﹚ゲ斗綫砞候ó进硄隔沮у砏┯уゲ斗︑禣綫砞続讽硄隔琵ňóのň笷Τ闽琿ずヴ︙砍┪盢穦砍縱硂ㄇ硄隔ョ斗ň矪┮稰骸種┯уゲ斗ぃ秈︽蝴絋玂硄隔篫硄礚
(b) 籹璹/祇甶瓜玥┪矪瞶Τ闽砏购ビ叫候ó进硄隔ョ穦沮ň矪矪砏﹚τ砏购砞璸絛瞅︓秏耎甶跋俱甅祇甶璸购硄盽ョ珹綫砞候ó进硄隔の
(c) 筁ň矪硂ㄇ跋磅︽毕穿ゼ笿ヴ︙螟┪ヴ︙┑粇
Air Quality inside Road Tunnels
14. 讲蚌某拜現┎セЫ吏挂玂臔竝琌Τ砫ヴ代刚瞷セ翠┮Τ︽ó繥笵ず借琌才赣竝┮﹚夹非璝礛赣竝ヘ玡Τ︙惫琁菏诡赣单繥笵ず借絋玂カチ胺眃
砏购吏挂現氮畊ネ吏挂玂臔竝戮砫琌笲块竝糵琩繥笵そ矗ユ借菏诡挡狦ョ某続讽惫琁絋玂借蝴钡キ羭ㄒㄓ弧吏玂竝纯繥笵そ祇"︽ó繥笵借菏诡玥"璹て阂て瘁のて哺硂贺γ琕程夹非ま
瞷Τ︽ó繥笵笲珹盢ㄓ﹁跋┏繥笵А猭ㄒ┪Τ闽恨瞶兵ゅ砏恨猭ㄒ㎝恨瞶常Τ砏﹚繥笵そ斗ぃ耞菏诡繥笵ずて阂秖絋玂秖ぃ禬砏﹚笲块竝–琍戳А穦秈︽菏诡浪琩絋玂繥笵そ⊿Τ笻は砏﹚︓さ浪琩挡狦陪ボ繥笵ずて阂秖璓蝴猭ㄒ砏﹚ず
現┎ョ穦皐癸ㄤγ琕紀恨夹非╯э到玂毁繥笵借逼現┎穦荷е籔繥笵そ坝癚╯秈˙惫琁ㄒ杆て瘁菏诡竟絋玂繥笵借蝴钡キ
On-staircase Drug Abuse in Private Buildings
15. 朝岸穨某拜セるㄓΩ钡莉芖跋﹡チщ禗瑀╬加辫丁猔甮瑀珇框痙ぃぶ皐旦セ纯Ω盢щ禗锣ユ牡よ矪瞶щ禗玱嘿拜肈ゼǎэ到碞現┎セЫ
(a) カチ辫丁ヘ窣瑀猔甮瑀珇璝璓筿"999"荐帹腹絏厨牡よ穦瞶
(b) Τ︙璸购の惫琁ゴ阑瑀╬加辫丁猔甮瑀珇拜肈の
(c) 牡よ纯︗竜碿堵翴稨ず秈︽"蔼ǖ呸"璸购赣璸购Τ︙Θ瞷琌膥尿龟琁赣璸购璝礛穦σ納耎赣璸购絛瞅
玂氮畊ネ
(a) 蒥チ璓筿"999"羭厨竜ぃ阶┦借︙牡よ常穦莱
(b) 牡よ﹚ǖ呸穦盎瘆瑀╬加辫丁猔甮瑀珇牡よ癸堵翴穦疭猔種癸Τ闽硂ㄇ竜︽羭厨莱︓Τ瑀纯辫丁猔甮瑀珇╬加芖現叭矪躬纘Τ闽穨ミ猭刮┪が〆穦眏稨恨瞶惫琁珹躬纘-
э到稨そ渤よㄒ辫丁酚砞称
(c) "蔼ǖ呸"琌牡よㄓら盽场だ蝶﹚獶盽Τ闽硂贺ǖ呸惠璶跌ぃ跋τ﹚τ秸もよ玥パ赣跋牡よ揣﹛穜皍跋ずㄣ砰薄猵珹竜碿堵翴礛∕﹚キАㄓ弧芖跋–ぱ秈︽40Ω蔼ǖ呸ㄤい珹ǖ呸êㄇ纯Τ竜祇ネの〓┪蒥チщ禗瑀逮耑╬加
Control on Contents and Pricing of Textbooks
16. 產不某拜Τ闽セ翠毙現┎セЫ
(a) Τ︙惫琁菏诡毙ず甧
(b) 穦σ納恨毙綪扳基の
(c) 現┎琌眡厩沮或非玥ㄓ匡ノ毙
毙▅参膚氮畊ネ
(a) Τ闽菏诡揭セ借パ毙▅竝璽砫毙▅竝Θミ揭セ〆穦璽砫ギ竂堕のい厩絪璹㎝祇"続ノヘ"赣〆穦パ毙▅竝烈揭祘祇甶矪捌羆菏踞ヴ畊Θ珹Τ揭セ糵琩舱硂ㄇ舱Θ璶琌ㄓ︑﹛ミの戈厩Τ闽ヘ瞷戮毙畍の毙▅竝だ盡砫
坝辨┮揭セ"続ノヘ"ず-
р揭セ览絑癳ユ揭セ〆穦糵琩Τ闽糵琩舱穦揭祘祇甶某穦某揭祘乎璶の硄筁ま糵琩揭セ览絑琌宽酚砏﹚絋玂揭セ才赣某穦璶―τ揭ゅず甧のΑョ琌钡
(b) 荷ぶ箇カ初笲琌現┎琂﹚現郸現┎琂ぃ恨揭セ基ョ礚種硂妓暗
ぃ筁毙▅竝–厩祇硄某厩莱荷秖搭淮產潦禦揭セ竒蕾璽踞毙▅竝某珹
(i) 厩厩ネ匡﹚揭セ莱σ納揭セ基厩ヘ基ㄑ產把σ
(ii) 厩莱ㄤヘ穝厩戳┮惠场揭セ冈灿戈獽產︑パ匡拒潦禦穝揭セ┪侣揭セ
(iii) 厩ネ局Τ妮耕Ν戳セ揭セ毙畍ごㄏノ玥厩ぃ莱砏﹚-
潦禦ヘ程穝揭セの
(iv) 埃獶Τだ毙厩瞶パ玥厩ぃ莱某潦禦干毙策代喷穨单
沮兜︽現砏玥坝览璹揭セ斗р览某璹セユパ毙▅竝糵綷毙▅竝硄盽硄筁璶┪秖э毙▅竝ョ﹚戳羛蹈坝穦坝癚㎝糵綷揭セㄆ﹜
(c) 毙▅竝某厩匡ノ"続ノヘ"揭セ莱ぃ厩厩ネ毙▅よ惠―匡拒璶非玥毙▅竝烈徊旧跌厩矪Τ闽ヘ舱穦Τ惠璶单碞匡ノ続揭セ厩某毙▅竝ぃ钡厩籔琘坝ぇ丁戳某τ匡ノ琘揭セ瞶
Student In-take of Engineering Faculty of Tertiary Institutions
17. 独篿某拜現┎セЫ
(a) き︓せ厩盡皘魁祘厩╰珹筿福穝ネ计ヘの
(b) 瓃盡皘–丁┮魁穝ネいΤぶ竒局Τ祘厩╰蔼祘ゅ咎┪靡のㄤいΤぶ穝ネ莉眔钡秈材弄
毙▅参膚氮畊ネ
(a) 厩毙▅戈〆穦戈丁蔼单毙▅皘ㄤ祘厩皘厩╰珹筿福厩╰き︓せ厩魁厩ネ计戈更ン⑾
(b) ンA┮厩ネ讽いΤ祘厩蔼ゅ咎┪靡厩ネ计の钡弄揭祘厩ネ计更ンB
ンA
き︓せ厩祘の筿福厩Μネ计
厩ネ计
皘ヘ祘い瞶翠
筿福厩の戈癟м
筿福厩の戈癟м SD907--112-- UG1 076399368505606220 TPG1424673742430 RPG32255187036 璸2 1574474301009700286皘ヘ祘い瞶翠
祘厩のм
て厩祘のм砃 UG----162 TPG----7 RPG----7 璸----176
れ祘 SD---191- UG---335294 TPG---14630 RPG---4030 璸---712354
筿诀の筿祘 SD---484-(珹筿福祘) UG855-788740503 TPG135-2434422 RPG125-905784 璸1 115-9021 625609
穨祘 SD---431- UG115--226150 TPG23---48 RPG10--1623 璸148--673221
诀瘪祘 SD---419- UG192-91312230 TPG11--7927 RPG10-71427 璸213-98824284
代秖厩 SD248--220- UG217--227- TPG---66- RPG2--7- 璸467--520- 皘ヘ祘い瞶翠
ㄤ祘厩 SD277--326- UG380-321328- TPG232--6614 RPG26-2510- 璸915-34673014
ネм UG---58- TPG---1313 RPG----- 璸---7113
麓の狝杆м SD---421- UG---176- RPG---14- 璸---611-
ㄤм SD---11- UG---30- TPG---267 RPG---6- 璸---737
祘のм厩羆璸 SD525--2 503- UG1 759-1 2002 4321 339 1 518 TPG401-24741168454 RPG173-122164171169 祘2 858-1 3465 8401 6782 141
爹
(1) パ翠琌厩皘Μネゼ称Τ–厩ネ计戈
(2) 拉玭厩皘礚秨砞祘厩皘砞Τ筿福厩╰琌坝厩皘厩╰ぇ拉玭厩皘坝恨瞶厩篴臕厩揭祘戈癟╰参厩厩ネΤ118
(3) SD - 厩厩︗祘揭祘
UG - 厩厩︗揭祘
TPG - ╯ネ揭揭祘
RPG - ╯ネ╯揭祘
ンB
Τ祘厩蔼ゅ咎〓靡
┪钡弄揭祘厩ネ计
皘祘厩蔼ゅ咎〓靡钡弄揭祘
礚
礚い礚礚拉玭礚礚 25 ら 1 ら翠 15 ら 6 ら 116 ら
228 弄 87 ら瞶403らの弄53らの弄
Disparity in Penalties for Rape and Incest
18. 地某拜沮瞷︽猭ㄒ眏竜程蔼籃琌沧ō菏窽睹竜程蔼籃琌夯埃獶甡闹13烦玥妮ㄒΤǎの現┎セЫ
(a) 筁–祇ネぶ﹙睹ン
(b) 挪睹︽甡伐承端︙眏竜籔睹竜程蔼籃Τ畉禯の
(c) 穦浪癚眏竜の睹竜籃玥
玂氮畊ネ
(a)筁牡よ钡厨睹计ヘ
睹计ヘ
77き6
(b) 眏竜程蔼籃琌沧ō菏窽硂ョ続ノ砆籔甡Τ睹闽玒妮瓃薄猵
(i) 甡ぃ種┦ユの
(ii) 砆眡甡ぃ種┪ぃ瞶穦ㄆ琌種
狦睹甡闹13烦玥砆ョ砆程蔼籃沧ō菏窽︓睹竜程蔼籃菏窽続ノ甡13烦┪薄猵
(c) и-
粄眏竜程蔼籃琌沧ō菏窽妮讽и-
タ浪癚ㄇ┦竜︽珹睹竜程蔼籃玥
Singapore-Hong Kong Civil Service Exchange Programme
19. DR DAVID LI asked: In view of the report that the Governments of Hong Kong and Singapore are exploring an exchange programme for civil servants of the two Governments, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the objective of this exchange programme;
(b) of the expected commencement date of the programme and its duration;
(c) of the criteria to be adopted in selecting civil servants to participate in the exchange programme; and
(d) whether the Hong Kong Government will consider expanding the exchange programme to include other countries?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, the Hong Kong and Singapore Civil Services have had initial discussions on a proposal for an exchange programme for civil servants. The objective of the programme is to enrich and broaden the exposure of the personnel employed in the respective civil service, and to enable cross fertilization of experience and expertise.
We are continuing discussion with the Singapore Civil Service on the details and the logistics of the exchange programme, including the commencement date, duration and criteria in selecting personnel. We hope that in a few months' time, we would be able to send the first civil servant from Hong Kong to the Singapore Civil Service.
The Hong Kong Civil Service have broadly similar exchange programmes with the Civil Service in Australia and Canada. These programmes bear the same objective as the one being proposed between Hong Kong and Singapore. We may consider exploring similar programmes with other Civil Services should we see merit in so doing.
Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund Payments
20. 辩模┚某拜現┎セЫ
(a) き︓せΤぶ﹙ビ叫眖瘆玻ろ羱玂毁膀挤疭磃蹿兜ビ叫┮妮︽穨だガ︙の
(b) 骋矪︙络﹚赣矪狝叭┯空い﹚矪瞶ビ叫疭磃蹿兜┮惠丁︓琍戳の络﹚赣ヘ夹Τσ納ビ叫龟悔竒蕾薄猵
毙▅参膚氮畊ネ
(a) き︓せ瘆玻ろ羱玂毁膀ビ叫疭磃蹿兜Τ6 730﹙ビ叫┮妮︽穨だ
︽穨 ビ叫计ヘ
籹硑 2 728硑 183у祇〓箂扳秈〓都の皊┍ 2 806磕の坝穨狝叭 213狝叭 552ㄤ 248羆计 6 730
(b) 癸矪瞶瘆玻ろ羱玂毁膀ビ叫骋矪狝叭┯空琌ユ沟睲絃┪瘆玻ㄣ竅ぃ竅叫玥猭穿竝某祇蹿兜︓琍戳ずЧΘ糵琩祘ビ叫祇疭磃蹿兜
糵琩ビ叫骋矪羱筍玂毁舱斗ビ叫のㄤ沟穓栋羱の沟ノ魁ǎΤ闽の琩ビ叫纕瞶パ琌妮龟礛祇疭磃蹿兜ЧΘ˙艼┮惠丁薄猵τ钵狝叭┯空骋矪σ納筁龟悔竒喷ョ臮のΤ惠璶ㄏビ叫荷е眔穿筁ㄢ骋矪虏て祘┾秸も矪瞶ビ叫眖瘆玻ろ羱玂毁膀挤疭磃蹿兜キА┮惠丁︓琌ユㄣ竅せる︓き罽祏︓2.1る瞷ビ叫硄盽るず莉祇疭磃蹿兜硂琌э秈
骋矪ョせる秨﹍砞ミ筿杠荐帹腊ネΤ螟ビ叫︓ヘ玡ゎ骋矪硓筁荐帹钡30﹙ビ叫ㄤい20ビ叫莉瘆玻ろ羱玂毁膀箇や疭磃蹿兜
MOTIONS
BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That with effect from 15 July 1996 the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance be amended -
(a) in section 9(2), by repealing "$110" and substituting "$120";
(b) in section 9(3), by repealing "$540" and substituting "$590";
(c) in section 13(2), by repealing "$110" and substituting "$120";
(d) in section 13(3), by repealing "$340" and substituting "$370";
(e) in section 22(1), by repealing "$110" and "$220" and substituting "$120" and "$240" respectively;
(f) in section 22(2), by repealing "$110" and substituting "$120";
(g) in section 22(3), by repealing "$540" and substituting "$590";
(h) in section 23, by repealing "$55" and substituting "$60";
(i) in section 27(c), by repealing "$340" and substituting "$370"."
He said: Mr President, I move the first motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This motion proposes increases in the fees specified in the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance for the registration of births and related matters.
A recent review of fees and charges conducted by the Immigration Department indicates that there are three areas in the services delivered by the Department for which there is under-recovery of cost. These are: registration of persons services, where the average shortfall is about 12%; registration of births, deaths and marriages, where the average shortfall is about 19%; and issue of travel documents, where the average shortfall is about 43%.
It is government policy that fees should in general be set at levels sufficient to recover the full cost of providing the services to which they relate. However, in order to minimize the impact which such increases may have on the general public, fee increases of 9% to 13% only are proposed for most services in this revision exercise. Details of all the fee increases were already tabled in this Council on 5 June 1996. The current and the two subsequent motions are concerned with fees for the registration of births, deaths and marriages.
The fees payable under the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance were last revised in July 1995. We propose to revise them by 9%. In dollar terms, the actual increases range from $5 to $50. If approved, the new fees will be effective from 15 July this year.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
FOREIGN MARRIAGE ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That with effect from 15 July 1996 the Foreign Marriage Ordinance be amended -
(a) in section 5, by repealing "$55" and substituting "$60";
(b) in section 6, by repealing "$540" and substituting "$590"."
He said: Mr President, I move the second motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It seeks to increase the fees specified in the Foreign Marriage Ordinance.
The Foreign Marriage Ordinance provides a means whereby a Commonwealth citizen can give a notice of marriage in Hong Kong, even though the marriage is to take place at a British Embassy abroad. Fees are payable for the issue of a certificate by the Registrar of Marriages. The fees were last revised in July 1995. It is now proposed to increase them from $55 to $60 for a certificate by the Registrar of Marriages given under section 5, and from $540 to $590 for a Governor's licence given under section 6 of this Ordinance.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
LEGITIMACY ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That with effect from 15 July 1996 the Schedule to the Legitimacy Ordinance be amended -
(a) in paragraph 5, by repealing "$270" and substituting "$295";
(b) in paragraph 6(1), by repealing "$110" and substituting "$120"."
He said: Mr President, I move the third motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It seeks to increase the fees specified in the Schedule to the Legitimacy Ordinance.
The Legitimacy Ordinance provides for the re-registration of the births of legitimated persons. Fees collected relate to the re-registration of births and the issue of certified copies of entries of the birth of legitimated persons. The fees were last revised in July 1995. It is now proposed to revise the fees from $270 to $295 for re-registration of births, and from $110 to $120 for a certified copy of an entry of the birth in the register of births.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
DRUG TRAFFICKING (RECOVERY OF PROCEEDS) ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1996, made by the Governor in Council on 4 June 1996, be approved."
He said: Mr President, I move the fourth motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance has strengthened our ability to combat domestic and international drug trafficking, by providing us with the means to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. Section 28(1) of the Ordinance provides for the Governor in Council, with the approval of the Legislative Council, to designate countries and territories outside Hong Kong, so as to enable their confiscation and related orders to be enforced here; it also allows assistance to be provided in relation to their drug trafficking investigations.
Drug trafficking is an international problem and co-operation among governments in confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking acts as a major deterrent. Hong Kong has already concluded agreements and arrangements with 11 other jurisdictions, which have all been designated under the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance. As a result of such bilateral co-operation, about $208 million worth of assets related to drug trafficking have been seized in Hong Kong.
We have recently initialled a similar agreement with the Kingdom of Thailand, concerning mutual assistance in the suppression of drug trafficking. The agreement will come into effect when it is signed by both Governments after they have notified each other that all the requirements for its entry into force have been completed. One of these requirements for Hong Kong is the designation of the Kingdom of Thailand under the Ordinance.
This resolution seeks this Council's approval of the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1996, made by the Governor in Council on 4 June 1996. The amendment Order will add the Kingdom of Thailand to the list of designated territories, and so apply the provisions of the Ordinance to confiscation orders made by the courts in Thailand. Confiscation orders made by the Hong Kong courts will similarly be enforceable in Thailand on a reciprocal basis.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notice No. 191 of 1996 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 22 May 1996, be amended in section 4, by adding -
"(d) by adding -
"(8) It is a defence for a person charged with committing an offence under paragraph (7) in relation to paragraph (1) to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence."."."
He said: Mr President, I move the fifth motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
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 for monitoring purpose. As part of the Administration's efforts to tackle the problem of illicit sale of dangerous drugs, we have proposed to tighten the record-keeping requirements through the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Regulation 1996 which was tabled in this Council on 22 May 1996. One of the tightening measures proposed is to require the entering of the identity card number of the patient to whom dangerous drugs are supplied.
The proposal to include the patient's identity card number in the register is intended to provide a more reliable means of identifying the true identity of the patient to whom the dangerous drugs have been supplied, so as to facilitate investigations and law enforcement actions. It also serves to deter the patients from purposely providing false particulars and therefore offers better protection to doctors. It represents an improvement over the present arrangements whereby only the name and the address of the patient are required to be recorded.
However, concern has been expressed in the House Committee that there may be emergency situations or exceptional circumstances which make it impracticable for the authorized person to comply with the Regulation through no fault of his own. To address this concern, we propose to add a statutory defence provision to the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Regulation 1996, to the effect that it will be a defence for an authorized person to satisfy the court that he has done everything reasonable and has exercised due diligence in the circumstances to comply with the law. We should also assure Members that the Government does not initiate prosecutions lightly. Not every technical breach of the record-keeping requirements will automatically result in a prosecution. The situation where innocent authorized persons are prosecuted for minor breaches through no fault of their own should not occur.
The motion before Members seeks this Council's approval by resolution of the proposed amendment to the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Regulation 1996. With the proposed amendment, authorized persons are accorded better protection in complying with the record-keeping requirements introduced in the Amendment Regulation.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I rise to support the motion moved by the Secretary for Security for the proposed addition of a statutory defence provision on behalf of the medical and dental professions.
We all see the merits of proper record-keeping as a means to facilitate investigation and law enforcement action. Yet, it cannot be over-stressed that we have not addressed the problem of illicit drug-trafficking head-on. There are still too many incidents of a handful of despicable members of the medical profession who are peddling drugs under the good name of bona fide medical treatment which I am afraid this motion alone today can do little to condemn. The Administration must work hard to get to the root. There has to be a way to convict illicit drug-trafficking by those medical practitioners who act as drug peddlers and to properly punish them.
With those words, I support the motion.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
TRADING FUNDS ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR WORKS to move the following motion:
"That with effect from 1 August 1996 -
(a) on the recommendation of the Financial Secretary, the Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund ("the trading fund") shall be established to manage and account for the operation of certain government services of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department;
(b) the services to be provided under the trading fund shall be those specified in Schedule 1;
(c) the assets set out in column 2 of Schedule 2 shall, subject to any term specified opposite an asset in column 3 of that Schedule, be appropriated to the trading fund;
(d) the net value of fixed assets of $1,009.4 million appropriated to the trading fund shall be shown in the Capital Investment Fund -
(i) as to $302.8 million, as a loan;
(ii) as to the balance, as a contribution of trading fund capital;
(e) the loan referred to in paragraph (d)(i) -
(i) shall be repayable in 10 equal annual instalments of $30.28 million each, the first such instalment to become due on 1 July 1997 and subsequent instalments being due on the anniversaries of that date;
(ii) shall, as to any balance unpaid, bear interest at a rate equal to the average of the best lending rate quoted by the continuing members of the Committee of The Hong Kong Association of Banks, such interest to be payable annually in arrears.
SCHEDULE 1 [para. (b)]
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE TRADING FUND
1. Operation and maintenance of electrical, mechanical, electronic and building services systems and equipment at major installations, such as office buildings, hospitals, airports and civic venues.
2. Maintenance of other electrical, mechanical, electronic and building services systems and equipment.
3. Maintenance of vehicle fleets.
4. Design, procurement, project management and other technical consultancy services in relation to electrical, mechanical and electronic systems and vehicle fleets.
5. Operation and maintenance of a refuse incineration plant.
SCHEDULE 2 [para. (c)]
ASSETS
ItemDescriptionTerms1.Office and depot buildings listed in Schedule 3.Not to be disposed of without the prior approval of the Financial Secretary.2.All furniture and fixtures, equipment, computer systems and motor vehicles under the control of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department and deployed towards the trading services as at 1 July 1996, as set out in the document marked "Inventory of Furniture Equipment and Motor Vehicles of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund" kept by the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services.
SCHEDULE 3 [item 1, Sch. 2]
OFFICE AND DEPOT BUILDINGS APPROPRIATED TO
THE TRADING FUND
Name of Office
and Depot Buildings
Location1.Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund Offices98 Caroline Hill Road (excluding 6/F, 7/F and 10/F)2.Caroline Hill Depot, Workshop and ATC BuildingRear of 98 Caroline Hill Road3.Sung Wong Toi Depot and Workshop120 Ma Tau Kok Road, Kowloon4.Fan Garden Depot, FanlingJockey Club Road, Fan Garden, Fanling
5.Mui Wo, Lantau Depot3 Wan Chai, Mui Wo, Lantau Island6.Kowloon Bay DepotCheung Yip Street, Kowloon7.Land for depot at Tin Sui WaiTin Tan Street, Tin Sui Wai."
叭璓勉畊ネи略ㄌ酚某ㄆ祘矗и某
セЫ硄筁犁笲膀兵ㄒㄏ現┎琘ㄇ狝叭虑疭逼τ膚栋竒禣㎝秈︽恨瞶砞ミ犁笲膀絋玂矗ㄑㄣΘ㎝Τ瞯狝叭の斗碞硂ㄇ狝叭そ渤ユτ眖い┮眔Μ痲ョì莱狝叭セō秨やのΤ闽杜叭
и瞷酚犁笲膀兵ㄒ材31兵砏﹚笆某诀筿祘竝砞ミ诀筿祘犁笲膀
某砞ミ犁笲膀斗癸诀筿祘竝笲秈︽恨瞶の衡磅︽砏恨τ矗ㄑ狝叭玥ぃ珹ず赣竝沮犁笲膀矗ㄑ狝叭璸Τ筿筿诀瘪の杆称巨菏诡の蝴玂緄硂ㄇ狝叭矗ㄑ砞璸蹦潦璸购恨瞶のм砃よ臮拜狝叭の矗ㄑó进蝴紀礗て㎝矪瞶杆竚巨の蝴单狝叭
砞ミ硂犁笲膀诀筿祘竝穦璹﹚ヘ夹辨臮矗ㄑ纔借狝叭ㄏ狝叭琂ㄣΘセ痲ョ綼赣竝ョ穦ぃ耞浪癚犁笲膀狝叭カ初薄猵秨┹祇甶穨叭诀穦穦矗ㄑ続讽吏挂琵诀筿祘竝ぃ耞э到狝叭瞯ㄏ臮癸狝叭稰骸種
畊ネ︗某┪眡诀筿祘犁笲膀砞ミ現┎场㎝猭﹚诀篶ご斗膥尿ㄏノ诀筿祘竝狝叭硂贺狝叭本恥逼穦ㄤ硋˙耕Ν玡癩竒ㄆ叭〆穦㎝盡砫╯セ某舱〆穦穦某畊场だΘ癸硂兜逼Τэ到诀筿祘竝狝叭瞯ボ闽猔畊ネ︑眖る癸兜狝叭龟琁犁笲狝叭眀ヘ逼赣竝狝叭瞯陪帝矗蔼瓃筁寸戳琌倒ぉ诀筿祘竝┮惠丁膥尿э到ㄤ狝叭㎝笲よΑ非称瞷狝叭本敞砏﹚钡籔╬犁诀篶膙癸诀筿祘犁笲膀臮猭﹚诀篶τē羭┮矗ㄑ狝叭┪诀篶セō笲び紇臫硂琿筁寸戳ず诀筿祘竝穦ぃ居荷е┮惠э到絋玂瞷Τ臮骸種诀筿祘犁笲膀狝叭羇ㄏ硂兜本恥逼ご穦膥尿ㄏノㄤ狝叭
搭淮癸ま秈诀筿祘犁笲膀ま璓瞷ぞ紐納и-
竒玂靡-
ぃ穦砞ミ诀筿祘犁笲膀τ钡跑Θぞま璓砆癶ヰ硂兜玂靡竒莉眔钡のや
诀筿祘犁笲膀羆竒瞶㎝セ穦璽砫絋玂犁笲膀矗ㄑΤ瞯㎝ㄣΘ狝叭才┮惠狝叭非и瞏獺诀筿祘犁笲膀ゲ瓃惠―畊ネи瞷沮犁笲膀兵ㄒ材31)兵砏﹚某酚矗ユセЫ糵某∕某┮兵蹿砞ミ诀筿祘犁笲膀
畊ネи略笆某某
Question on the motion proposed.
DR SAMUEL WONG: Mr President, I rise to speak in my capacity as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the resolution under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Trading Funds Ordinance, Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund (EMSTF).
In the last few weeks, the Subcommittee had held four meetings including three with the Administration to examine the resolution. The Subcommittee has also received seven staff unions and associations who are concerned about the subject. In the course of deliberation, members of the Subcommittee have examined several issues. I shall touch upon the major ones in my following speech.
Members of the Subcommittee have queried the reasons for setting up the EMSTF. Unlike the current five trading funds which provide monopolistic services to members of the public, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) acts as a service provider to government departments and to agencies, and the majority of its services are easily available in the private sector. The Administration has explained that EMSD in fact starts charging other government agencies for its services under the Operating Services Account (OSA) set up in 1992 and the system has operated with satisfactory results. However, under the OSA, MESD remains fully tied to all government procedures including the need to bid for resources under the resources allocation system. OSA, hence, does not have the flexibility to quickly meet customers' needs like the commercial sector. The Administration has emphasized that only by setting up the EMSTF, EMSD will be in the best position to provide customer-led, efficient and cost-effective services. Members of the Subcommittee, however, are not convinced that the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of EMSD can only be optimized under the trading fund arrangement.
The second issue considered by the Subcommittee is the proposal to introduce a three-year protection period upon the establishment of the EMSTF during which government departments are required to continue to use EMSD's services. After this period, departments will be gradually permitted to choose alternative suppliers under a phased "untying" programme which will take a further three years to complete. Some members of the Subcommittee have doubted the reasons for a protection period. Unless EMSD is operating below the standard comparable to the commercial sector, there should not be any need to shield it from direct competition straightaway. The Administration had explained that there is already pressure from some EMSD customers to untie, but it is not yet the right time for direct competition. EMSD should be allowed some time to adjust to the changes in the system of operation and culture under the trading fund arrangement and to make necessary productivity improvements. Without the protection period, client departments, which are not yet equipped with the necessary skills to choose service suppliers, may use unregulated services. Safety standards and service reliability could be causes for concern. Notwithstanding the Administration's explanations, members of the Subcommittee are of the view that the necessity for a three-year protection period is an indirect admission of EMSD's inability to compete favourably now with the private sector service providers. However, members note EMSD's current programme of initiative to improve services to match the private sector.
The financial viability of the EMSTF has also been considered by the Subcommittee. Although the Administration repeatedly assures members that projected financial performance of the EMSTF is good and that there are different measures to ease any short-term cashflow problem such as using accumulated surplus, rescheduling the loan repayments to the Government and not distributing dividends to the Government, in members' view, the Administration has been over-optimistic in its business projections. Once government departments are not obliged to use EMSFT's services, EMSD will inevitably lose some of its businesses. It is unrealistic to assume that its businesses will not be significantly affected upon untying. As a matter of fact, the findings of surveys on clients' feedback conducted by outside consultancy firms on behalf of EMSD indicate that EMSD's services need improvement in "value for money".
Last but not least, the Subcommittee has carefully considered the concerns raised by the staff associations and unions. The staff associations are gravely concerned about the possibility of redundancy. I understand that the Administration has already assured staff that they will not be made redundant or to accept compulsory retirement under the trading fund. This assurance was reconfirmed yesterday and was considered acceptable by staff.
Having carefully examined the Administration's information and the views of staff associations and unions, the Subcommittee considers that the Administration should review the operation of the existing trading funds before introducing a new one. Hence, the Subcommittee at its last meeting, arrived at the decision that the resolution could be supported. Thank you.
朝挪狶某璓勉畊ネチ羛琌は癸現┎瞷顶琿Θミ诀筿祘犁笲膀ㄤい诀筿祘竝穦の癸玡春踞紐㏕礛琌и-
σ納ぇ璶琌現┎セ碞礚猭瞷睲贰弧Θミ犁笲膀痷タヘの睦埃セЫ某の穦癸犁笲膀玡春好納セ瘤礛莉眡現┎籔Τ闽戮穦秈︽坝癚┯空碞穨拜肈ぃ穦犁笲膀玡春紇臫沮и-
秆荡场だ戮穦ご礛癸Τ好納
и-
粄翠┎莱赣ミ浪癚瞷︽き犁笲膀竒犁㎝笲薄猵τ浪癚挡狦ЧΘ玡氨ゎΘミ穝犁笲膀
翠┎桂Ω眏秸"沮ヘ玡癸穝糤笆の穝糤穨叭箇代诀筿祘犁笲膀ぃ瞷癩現ぃ︽薄猵"︓甧犁笲膀玡春琌礚好琌翠┎某の穦玡甶瞷笵膤眒璱и粄硂笵眒璱ぃち龟悔の繦穦ほ防
翠┎よ膀贾芠篈の碵薄腀箇代の安砞眏秸诀筿祘犁笲膀ぃ穦瞷癩現ぃ︽薄猵よ┶荡┯空ス靡龟犁笲膀ぃ︽穦確瞷︽ビ叫挤蹿よΑ笲箇璸秆埃盡玂臔狦犁笲膀ア20%穨叭盢斗瑈ア900τ穝穨叭糤ョの瞷Τ秖1%穦の踞紐琌ЧΤ瞶パ诀筿祘犁笲膀穨叭璸购い矗–А龟琁兜穝Μ禣現郸緇羆犁穨肂4.5%Μ禣現郸ㄓ笷﹚肂ヘ夹穦玠畓诀筿祘竝膙τ穨叭秈˙瑈ア挡狦Τ膥尿碩基硑Θ碿┦碻吏
現┎粄Θミ诀筿祘犁笲膀ヘ琌璶э到诀筿祘竝狝叭借矗蔼ㄤネ玻のΘセ痲и粄硂ぃ莱琌诀筿祘竝ヘ夹τ莱赣琌┮Τ現┎场ヘ夹璶э到現┎场狝叭の矗蔼ネ玻琌﹚璶坝犁て螟笵ㄤゼΤ璸购Θミ犁笲膀現┎场碞礚斗矗蔼狝叭借┪礚猭矗蔼狝叭借
ㄆ龟诀筿祘竝︑秨﹍盢场だ狝叭硓筁犁笲狝叭眀ヘ逼Μ禣τ沮現┎┮弧赣笲Θ罿瞶稱ネ玻の瞯А陪帝矗蔼琂礛現┎膥尿蹦ノ瞷逼矗蔼ㄤ场瞯現┎粄Θミ犁笲膀诀筿祘竝礚斗ㄌ碻現┎祘珹礚斗沮戈方だ皌戈方斗–癩現蹲厨のミ猭Ыユ眀ヘΤ艶┦
и獶盽借好現┎┮孔艶┦ㄤ龟琌ㄏ犁笲膀挤蹿礚斗竒ミ猭Ы癩叭〆穦硄筁τ琌露筁セЫ菏诡瘤礛犁笲膀斗–盢眀ヘユセЫ讽и-
祇瞷Τ拜肈┕┕竒琌ㄆ筁挂綞μΘ
璽砫ヴ現┎ㄤ砫ヴ碞琌璶酚穦惠璶瞶そキだ皌癩現戈方カチ矗ㄑ纔▆狝叭玥癦獶┮Τカチ矗ㄑ狝叭現┎场狦ぃэ犁笲膀笲碞ぃ镑矗蔼狝叭借硂翴и-
琌ぃ镑種и-
常跌そ叭恨瞶穦ㄆ叭蔼瞯㎝癪膍堡翠┎玱タэ跑硂贺
翠┎︑怇沮犁笲膀兵ㄒΘミき犁笲膀ㄒ珹爹そ爹γ矪瞶筿癟恨瞶の秎現Ы瘤礛ご礛妮矗ㄑ盡狝叭场硂ㄇ犁笲膀ぃゼ笷ㄓヘ夹τ琌拜肈翺ネぷㄤ琌γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀の秎現竝犁笲膀
琂礛翠┎粄诀筿祘竝Θミ犁笲膀琌眏膙玥礚斗倒ぉ盡玂臔羭礚好琌丁钡┯粄诀筿祘犁笲膀礚籔ㄤ╬犁狝叭诀篶膙τ讽诀筿祘犁笲膀秨﹍癸カ初膙ㄤ玡春琌Τ翠┎磞瓃""龟借好
诀筿祘犁笲膀礚好碞钩璸紆и-
粄ぇ硂璸紆獽穦﹚脄
畊ネセ略朝勉
眎▆某璓勉畊ネ诀筿祘犁笲膀Θミ続琌ㄤ犁笲膀留瞷拜肈叭さぱ矗Τ闽某綝よ眏疨は莱瞷絋Τゲ璶碞犁笲膀硂拜肈ゑ耕癚阶
Θミ犁笲膀弘琌蹦カ初竒犁よΑ珹硄筁ま膙矗蔼琘ㄇ現┎场犁笲瞯ㄏウ-
カ初碝―Θセ痲讽礛龟︽犁笲膀現┎场ョ莱皐癸ㄣ坝穨犁笲┦借笆の狝叭场瞷現┎场Θミ犁笲膀羆珹τēだΘㄢ摸
(1 胋耞┦犁笲膀硂摸犁笲膀穨叭セōカ初⊿Τ膙癸も嘿ぇ縒カネ種讽いㄒ珹Τそ爹矪爹矪のγ狝叭犁笲膀
(2) 膙┦犁笲膀硂摸犁笲膀穨叭琌籔カ初摸狝叭が膙砞ミヘ琌璶硓筁ま膙ㄏΤ闽场镑钡カ初硄筁カ初膙溃ㄓ矗蔼瞯
妓硂ㄇ犁笲膀硄筁ㄇ诀笷矗蔼瞯ヘㄓ現┎琌ノㄢよ猭
(1) 厨瞯硂暗猭琌莱场坝穨┦借砞﹚厨瞯璶―赣场硓筁﹚夹笷璓矗蔼痲ノパ犁笲膀场璶笷璓硂ㄇ夹碞璶穨叭㎝Θセ挡篶秸俱
(2) 倒ぉΤ闽场恨瞶︑┦硂犁笲膀セō戈方笲ノ癸耕Τ紆┦ㄏ场镑ㄌ沮セō穨叭┦借の祇甶惠璶τ秸俱珹┾秸も潦竚続戈セノ珇单笷厨瞯砞夹㎝耎犁穨肂
碞胋耞┦犁笲膀ㄓ弧現┎砞﹚厨瞯の倒ぉ恨瞶︑┦瞶阶秸笆场縩伐┦矗蔼瞯癸禣ㄓ弧硂犁笲膀穦硑Θ筁だ發硋厨瞯ㄏ场硄筁基も琿ㄓ笷ヘ硂妓碞癸禣ぃ
癸ㄓ弧胋耞┦犁笲膀パ⊿Τ膙⊿Τ癸カ初膙⊿Τ璶"搭絊"玠搭も溃琌膙┦犁笲膀薄猵玥ぃウ琌硄筁カ初膙ㄓ笷矗蔼瞯ヘ夹琌硄筁禣匡拒ㄓ∕﹚犁笲膀犁笲パΤ厨瞯溃狦硂摸犁笲膀膙杠琂礛秨ぃ方碞璶竊瑈珹搭も
瞷某诀筿祘犁笲膀碞琌妮膙┦犁笲膀诀筿祘竝癸硂犁笲膀砞ミ玻ネ紐納琌Ч瞶秆紐納琌踞み秨膙Θ"竊瑈"癸禜踞み盢ㄓ诀筿祘竝膙ぃ痷タ癸カ初
癸材よ紐納竒筁礷某и-
現┎よ程ㄇ┯空叭琎ぱ獺ぉΤ闽穦┯空ぃ穦砞ミ犁笲膀τ眏矗Ν癶ヰ┪缓床τよи-
诀筿祘犁笲膀Θミ繷現┎场籔猭﹚诀篶ㄒカ現Ы跋办カ現Ыの洛皘恨瞶Ыご穦膥尿蹦ノ诀筿祘竝狝叭穨叭よ穦眔玂靡覸絯カ初膙溃硄筁硂穨叭玂毁辨诀筿祘竝讽穨叭郸菠㎝戈方秸俱絋玂硂ㄇ玂毁硋˙ア镑Τì镑カ初膙硂ㄢ翴璶好納眔現┎﹚玂靡ぇチ囊琌腀種や硂Ω诀筿祘犁笲膀砞ミ祔иㄆ虫ヲ昂某穦碞干
琌眖さΩそ渤㎝癸诀筿祘竝Θミ犁笲膀┮笷ぃ㎝闽猔は琈-
癸俱犁笲膀家Α玂痙カチ癸犁笲膀场踞みぃ虫ゎ琌犁笲瞯拜肈┪琌カ初拜肈τ琌︙絋玂ㄇ胋耞┦犁笲膀︙ぃ穦發硋現┎┮﹚蔼厨瞯τ笆怀基┪︙璹瞶厨瞯⊿Τ甅ㄒ基恨┪琌柬恨单家Ατ硂ㄇ琌縒カネ種╯澈癸禣痲玂毁︙㎡よи-
常硂ㄇ犁笲膀璹厨瞯竒盽穦瞷э薄猵基碞そ渤眏疨у蝶ㄒγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀盢吏挂玂臔阀├"γ琕︑"虏て硓筁硂犁笲膀虫"ΜΘセ"穦璸阀├カ初ぃ虫ゎぃ镑硓筁硂犁笲膀瞶秆讽い吏玂阀├はτ琌現┎璶笆怀基-
ネ璽踞
カ初┕┕癸現┎Θミ犁笲膀ゼǎㄤǎㄤ甡-
稰ぃ現┎璉龟琁犁笲膀矗蔼瞯狝叭カチ弘穦稰現┎场稱ノㄇも猭ㄓ笷碩基┪掉搭秨やヘ
и-
粄诀筿祘犁笲膀某まㄓ眏疨紐納タ陪ボ現┎ㄆ场竝惫琁㏄冈ㄇ瓣瓣產р瓣犁穨╬Τて玡穦俱箉Τ闽瓣犁穨ず场犁笲㎝Θセ挡篶ㄏウ-
ㄣΤ膙盢ウ-
カまщ戈讽礛砞ミ犁笲膀ぃ单╬Τて讽い笵瞶琌妓辨現┎らΘミ犁笲膀玡璶暗Τ俱箉惫琁蝶︳龟琁犁笲膀︽┦
ㄆ龟現┎砞ミ诀筿祘犁笲膀のㄤ犁笲膀┕┕à︹舼拜肈現┎琂琌沟琌犁笲膀щ戈琌狝叭恨瞶à︹臮ア┘-
甧胔好現┎σ納场琌続Θミ犁笲膀穦荷е"叉も"τ筁だ蔼︳ㄤカ初膙㎝厨瞯τ厨尺ぃ厨紐㎡
и-
粄ら現┎矗Θミ犁笲膀﹚璶矗ㄑの非絋阶沮磷現┎à︹舼程ㄎよ猭琌パ縒ミ癩叭臮拜そ碞辨Θミ犁笲膀场そタの芠蝶︳絋玂赣场Τì镑坝穨膙ΜΘセ┪兵ン璶龟琁犁笲膀ぇ玡続讽筁寸逼絋玂戈方の恨瞶よ镑眔だ瞶抖ㄏΤì非称钡穝逼狦瓃よ暗眔ぃìら現┎崩︽犁笲膀獺螟穦眔カ初のそ渤約獂や
セ略朝勉
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I wish to offer several comments on the proposal to establish the Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund. I was the Liberal Party's representative on the Subcommittee established by the House Committee to examine the proposal.
The Electrical and Mechanical Services Department(EMSD) provided the Subcommittee with extensive material on the justification for the establishment of a trading fund for its continued operation. Staff of the department was most concerned about their employment, which is quite understandable. They sought the assurance of the Government that they would not be made redundant. From explanations given to me both in and outside of the Subcommittee, the assurance sought by staff has been given by the Secretary for Works. We believe that the staff's concern has been satisfactorily addressed.
Secondly, the Liberal Party has re-examined the trading fund concept and one disturbing factor has surfaced. We notice that in setting up a trading fund, the Administration, has actually established their terms upon which they ought to do so, which include firstly a predetermined rate of return based on the assets of the fund; secondly, charging the relevant fund interest on the loan advanced at prime rate. We are concerned that in established trading funds, the Administration should avoid creating another way for the Administration to rake funds into the public purse. Thus, setting a predetermined rate of return and charging an interest rate far in excess of what the Treasury is able to earn on our fiscal reserves, the Administration may thus be creating a profit centre rather than encouraging efficiency.
In this connection, the lower the cost of borrowings, obviously the lower would be the cost of the services provided, and I have been advised by EMSD that it will be permitted by the Finance Branch to actually borrow money from the commercial banking sector instead of from the Government, which I am sure would be at a lower and therefore cheaper cost to the fund.
Mr President, whilst the Liberal Party supports the proposal before this Council today, we want to put down a very clear marker as to our concerns about the continued operation of existing, or indeed, the future, establishment of any trading fund. Thank you.
綠模磁某璓勉畊ネΘ崩︽犁笲膀∕兵ンぇ琌把籔常Τ獺み縩伐щぃ礛杠鲸恨崩︽弧︙Τ獺み玡春︙︙玡硚繟常ぃ埃把籔紐納碞さΩ犁笲膀紇臫4 080诀筿祘竝ㄒ-
Τκ羛眏疨璶―現┎既絯-
场崩︽犁笲膀-
踞み琌诀筿祘竝セㄓ琌現┎对や穿ㄤ场矗ㄑ═ó蝴砞称╰参祸竟蝴珹洛皘诀初单诀筿祘琌诀筿祘犁笲膀笲㎝ㄤ現┎场"秆埃硈么"碞琌弧セㄓ"腊浓"诀筿祘竝現┎场︑パ珼匡矗ㄑㄑ莱诀筿狝叭そ-
ぃ﹚璶"腊浓"诀筿祘竝戳タ┮弧ぃ筁琌"芉"絵诀筿祘竝璶㎝ㄤ╬犁そ癬膙τ膙琌璶量龟量龟诀筿祘竝犁笲膀碞ぃのㄤ緇犁笲膀ㄤ緇犁笲膀常ㄣ称縒カネ種龟ㄒ秎現竝そ爹矪单诀筿祘竝碞⊿Τ硂贺动玴龟玡き犁笲膀厨瞯よョゼ笷︓ヘ夹ㄒそ爹矪ヘ夹厨瞯琌10%龟悔厨瞯Τ6.2%き8.1%ゼ笷ヘ夹秎現竝犁笲膀ヘ夹厨瞯セ12%璹10.5%︳璸Τ7.6%龟悔厨瞯︓γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀ヘ夹厨㎝龟借厨畉钵ぃノ硂弧產常睲贰き犁笲膀いΤ厨瞯ぃ笷ヘ夹硂ㄇ眔ぱ縒玴犁笲膀﹟刚拜诀筿祘犁笲膀"Θ︽Θカ"诀筿祘︽い︙龟瞷現┎┮璹15%ヘ夹厨瞯㎡
踞みスΘミ犁笲膀膙ぃì璓穨叭罽搭ぃカ初ネ程沧旧璓犁笲膀Ч锣╬犁┪琌璶秖猔戈ㄓ蝴┪琌現┎蹦ぃ縩伐ぃ箇現郸琵诀筿祘犁笲膀︑ネ︑防礚阶︙程沧甡琌琵-
︑礛瑈ア碞单︑礛瑈ア穨カ初
膀瓃薄猵セ辨現┎莱盢ㄤ緇き犁笲膀Τ╰参浪癚既絯崩︽诀筿祘犁笲膀獽Τ耕丁籔紇臫秈︽贝癚崩︽犁笲膀︽┦虑ミ獺み搭ぶ癸戮穨玡春ぃ紐納
畊ネセ略朝勉は癸某
某璓勉畊ネиは癸現┎硂兜某獶好納τ琌癸俱現┎场狝叭借Τ好納朝挪狶某弧ぃ睲贰現┎痷タヘи谋眔セ陪叭馣簙ネネ矗筁ㄤ龟琌碞穦現┎场㎝猭﹚诀篶ご斗膥尿ㄏノ诀筿祘竝矗ㄑ狝叭硂兜本恥狝叭盢穦砆本恥狝叭ぇ琌弧盢穦ヴパ诀筿祘竝︑ネ︑防狦琌硂妓杠現┎场ら獽繦種""拜肈產琌獺硂ㄇ""繷借耕現┎诀筿祘竝ㄎиぃ琌ヘ獺現┎琌ッ环暗眔程и獺翴碞琌現┎ゲ斗そ渤ユ┮穦暗眔耕Т讽の铆讽硂琌現┎ぃ穦琘﹙ネ種τ盢砯碞基琌狦╬诀篶璶﹙ネ種ウ碞穦盢砯碞基ㄒ現┎ら盢""倒ㄤそщ夹ㄇ繷ネ種穦盢ㄇ侣箂ン蠢セㄓ莱赣蹦ノ耕禥箂ンêㄇ侣箂ン讽礛耕獽﹜現┎穦硂妓暗㎡現┎ネ種穦璸衡基蹦ノㄇ侣箂ン現┎琌ぃ穦蹦ノ硂贺よ猭и程踞み琌τ耕Ν玡某矗翴借好碞琌""穦紇臫現┎狝叭借""╬诀篶穦ㄏノㄇ稧基м砃耕骋τㄏΤ闽狝叭借и-
粄硂拜肈獶琌Τ好納τ琌""俱現┎场ら蝴借穦跑Θ妓
硂""ら璶诀筿祘竝籔╬诀篶膙и粄琌ぃち龟悔硂碞Τ猜禜籔曹ο膙禲瞷诀筿祘竝弧琌"盢瓁"琌唉"猜禜"ウ糷︽現琜篶ゲ礛耕丁╬犁そ勘等刚拜诀筿祘竝妓籔êㄇそ膙現┎耕Ν玡弧璶诀筿祘竝Τ﹚厨瞯и粄硂虏琌冠杠诀筿祘竝妓镑籔╬繷膙瞷诀筿祘竝琌唉"猜禜"
耕Ν玡Τ某硂琌ㄣ膙┦カ初Τㄤ场犁笲膀ㄒ秎現Ы膀セ竒胋耞秎布カ初讽礛籷よ疭琌DHLよ穦Τ膙カ初膀セ硂琌耕玂臔カ初礛τ诀筿祘竝┮癸玱﹚ぃ琌硂贺薄猵诀筿祘竝ゲ斗丁カ初籔╬诀篶粿疨膙狦崩︽硂犁笲膀崩︽硂贺""и︳璸程沧琌ら現┎场┮钡蝴狝叭借盢穦ぃ玂硂иだ踞み羭ㄒㄓ弧狦らΤ洛皘氨筿篊翴ㄠ秈︽蝴琌ぃ狦パ現┎场矪瞶и粄穦耕铆讽ㄒ狦诀初Τㄆ珿祇ネ篊矪瞶┪м砃耕畉ê或快㎡и-
莱眖""穦紇臫現┎场セō笲の癸カチ狝叭借硂àㄓσ納
""ゲ礛眔挡狦琌诀筿祘竝﹚穦典罽︓程穦"磅擦"瘤礛叭瞷癸玂靡弧礚斗踞みΤ掉薄猵瞷и獺穦踞み穦砆锣戮硂拜肈-
弧"逗窲"玂и粄埃"逗窲"临Τ碙腨拜肈и-
瞷钩﹚诀筿祘竝┮Τ筁┕ㄓ癸翠狝叭┪粄-
羱筍筁蔼и辨產σ納硂拜肈
チ囊耕Ν玡矗好納莉秆∕и﹍沧粄临Τ好納ぃ妓秆∕︙и-
ぃ借好硂""癸現┎ㄓ弧琌程狦""琌癸現┎杠碞莱赣Θミ犁笲膀︓盢诀筿祘竝╬犁て狦и-
秨獽借好現┎场蝴莱""硂拜肈玥俱ンㄆ惠璶眖穝癚阶и粄и-
﹜碞現┎莱盢ㄤ蝴㎝玂緄场""硂拜肈癚阶
и璶矗翴碞琌瞷犁笲膀钩Θ贺镣墩и粄翠現┎のセЫ莱浪癚┮Τ犁笲膀薄猵現┎莱某瞷璸购临Τぶ场盢穦锣犁笲膀笲и-
辨莉眔硂ㄇ戈非称
程и辨и-
ぃ莱ヘ盧╬犁てи粄﹍沧Τㄇ狝叭琌パ現┎璽砫矗ㄑ穦耕
谅谅畊ネ
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, a trading fund can only be implemented successfully if it has the full support of the staff involved. Whilst recognizing that the Government has done a lot to explain to the staff side the necessity to introduce the trading fund concept to the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department(EMSD), it does appear to me that not enough has been done to alleviate the many staff concerns that still remain.
Without wishing to add to the points already made by Honourable Members in this Council, I can say with a great deal of sincerity that, from the representations received by me from some 11 staff unions, it would appear that whilst they are not opposed to the principle of the trading fund concept as such, they have many concerns that have yet to be addressed. They would like to go with the management together to implement the trading fund with confidence to ensure successful implementation and maintaining safety and good standards.
It is relevant to point out that over 80% of EMSD staff have supported a signature campaign organized by the unions objecting to the haste with which the Government has decided to implement the Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund. The unions are not demanding more pay. They are not demanding better conditions. But they are genuinely concerned about upholding standards, upholding safety standards, about long-term viability and certainty in the successful implementation of this trading fund.
They pointed out to me that, although about 35% of the EMSD's operations had been tried under the Operational Services Account (OSA), it would be desirable to continue a little longer with OSA practices to test and assess and adopt the remaining 65% of the operations which are not comparable to the former.
The unions are also concerned that client departments have not been adequately consulted to assess fully their needs and thus their future relationship with EMSD after turning into trading fund operations.
The union representatives have advised me that it will be important to have an inter-departmental confidence-building consultation committee with Finance Branch representatives. I think the formation of such a consultation committee would enable all sides to come together to study and resolve the various concerns already expressed and fully understood.
I therefore support the staff-side position and appeal to the management for a little more time to be accorded to this issue to deal with the outstanding staff concerns. I think if we were to introduce the resolution today, it would be peremptory and therefore I do not support the resolution at this juncture.
ヴ到圭某璓勉畊ネ诀筿祘犁笲膀瞶阶獶盽︽痷タ龟︽穦羬拜肈诀筿祘竝瞷Τ穨叭ス秨穦Τㄢ摸そノ碿┦膙Αㄓ穖ネ種摸琌いそ腀種"籯繷猔"よΑ盢め穖もい礛Θセτ非耕畉狝叭借篊篊寥材掸ネ種┮莲籯窥安硂ㄇ借狝叭紇臫そ渤獽狦臭阜ㄒ"砯"═ó箂ン杆毕臔ó┪耕畉筿帹钡婚ňЫ筿牧摸玥琌蒥そ―綪扳肂糤τ基膙挡狦ョ妓耕Θセ耕借狝叭ユ砯硂贺坝穨オ笵よΑぃ穦現┎︳璸ぇず┮诀筿祘犁笲膀スΘミ獽穦皑瑈アネ種︙猵パ現┎﹚埃祙の璶Τ13.5%厨瞯瞷Τ狝叭盢ㄓ常璶糤Μ禣穝膀孔"ㄢ寄"τ現┎蝶︳诀筿祘竝瞷︽35%穨叭粄坝穨家ΑΜ禣ㄤ65%﹟ゼ蝶︳獽Θミ膀硂琌筁礢﹟ゼ厩穦村猘現┎毙厩穦村猘м砃だぇō妮筣遏獽崩稱ぃ睺⊿螟╫
よ讽瓃╬犁そ砯碞基矗ㄑ狝叭ㄏ砞琁珿毁瞯糤蔼安珿毁祇ネ洛皘も砃┬诀初北娥单璶よ穦癸蒥チ硑Θ紇臫硂ㄇ璶よ诀筿狝叭莱赣琵诀筿祘竝局Τ盡絋玂そ渤ぃ紇臫ㄤ龟Θミき犁笲膀А局Τ盡┦借穨叭诀筿祘犁笲膀玥⊿Τ硂贺盡τㄆ龟そ渤┪戮現┎莱结ぉ诀筿祘犁笲膀贺盡舦硂﹟惠璶琿丁蝶︳の﹚珿瞷Θミ膀﹟Ν
セ略朝勉は癸某
谅谅畊ネ
朝胞糭某璓勉畊ネиㄆ綠模磁某竒矗筁紐納и瞷栋い莱Τ闽膙拜肈
и-
羛穦粄瞷诀筿祘竝Θミ犁笲膀琌笲ノ熬籠笵瞶σ納ぃ㏄и-
獺盢ㄓ俱笲い穦瞷拜肈タ糵某舱〆穦畊弧и-
癚阶現┎矗のいみ拜肈碞琌現┎粄瞷诀筿祘竝セō瞷瞯のΘセ痲拜肈и-
矗拜肈琌狦現┎璶秆∕硂拜肈琌虫綼龟︽犁笲膀獽秆∕ㄆ龟狦現┎痷璶э俱恨瞶笷Θセ痲杠ㄤ龟临Τよ猭暗癚阶筁祘い現┎硂拜肈⊿Τタ氮и-
琌盢Ы场瞶パ┪瞷禜禗и-
ㄆ龟ヘ玡诀筿祘竝璶矗蔼瞯竒龟︽犁笲眀ヘ玡現┎蠢秈︽蝴⊿Τ计璸瞷竒癸現┎场Μ禣ノ眖瞷龟︽犁笲眀ヘ35%穨叭薄猵ㄓパ硂暗猭-
ゲ斗籔癸狝叭诀篶量―Θセ拜肈┮ネ種︑礛搭ぶ玃ㄏ恨よ癸ネ種肂Μ罽跑て
и谋眔硂盿獺碞琌硄筁硂よ猭矗蔼瞯硂琌拜肈и-
拜肈琌琂礛現┎竒龟琁犁笲眀ヘ︙緇65%穨叭ぃ膥尿龟︽︙龟︽璶э跑暗猭㎡現┎秆睦弧硂暗猭玡春琌タи┮弧ぇㄤ龟Τ留紐現┎︙癸êㄇ留紐㎡-
ぃ氮и-
琂礛瞷タ龟琁犁笲眀ヘ︙現┎ぃ膥尿暗㎡и-
ョ借好矗蔼瞯よ埃┮弧快猭琌临Τㄤ快猭矗種ǎ某盢瞷︽琜篶э跑и-
籔ㄇ坝酵癚阶狦俱琜篶ず現┎腀種恨瞶顶糷暗ㄇひи-
獺﹚穦矗蔼瞷瞯и-
ぃ現┎Τ︙だ瞶パ禗и-
﹚璶Θミ犁笲膀ㄆ龟Θミ犁笲膀タЫずㄆ弧ぃ单э到瞯ぃ单穦艶硂ㄇ拜肈и-
Τ┮借好
и-
籔钡牟い拜肈狦酚現┎┮弧Θミ犁笲膀琌艶┦и-
眖現┎矗ㄑ计ǎ現┎砏盢ㄓ犁笲膀惠璶–倒ぉ4,000窾じ禪蹿の倒現┎硂杜琌弧礚阶犁笲膀︙龟︽璶﹚戳倒現┎安現┎璶躬纘ㄤ祇甶硂ㄇ薄猵︑蛾ㄤ弧弧ㄏ俱诀筿祘竝盢ㄓΤ艶┦㎡讽硂贺ㄣ砰薄猵陪瞷ㄓи碞ぃ獺龟︽犁笲膀诀筿祘竝盢ㄓ穦盢ㄓ獽眔毕盢ㄓ瞯穦讽и-
拜現┎ㄇㄣ砰拜肈ウ玱⊿Τ氮
畊ネ瘤礛程糵某舱〆穦矗╰拜肈現┎常⊿Τ氮滦и-
и-
矗拜肈盢種ǎ-
琎ぱ叭┯空""谋眔""琌璶拜肈讽礛癸ㄓ弧硂琌璶瘤礛硂拜肈竒秆∕現┎ごぃ莱и-
妓矗蔼瞯妓ㄏウ艶︙ウΤ膙иぃ︙暗眔и硂㊣苸Ыずㄆ莱赣既ぃや現┎硂兜Θミ犁笲膀某璶钩チ囊┮弧ウ场笲Θ剪暗и辨チ囊ㄆ酚-
瞶├さぱは癸現┎硂兜Θミ犁笲膀某ウΤЧ到よ猭龟琁
畊ネиは癸現┎さぱ某
虫ヲ昂某璓勉畊ネ犁笲膀Θミヘ琌矗蔼场瞯戈方笲ノ秸皌艶のΤ紆┦よ虑硂よ猭э到狝叭借臮よ狝叭キ眔э到Μ禣よ盢ㄣ膙诀筿祘竝Θミ犁笲膀阀├チ囊琌や辨ウΘ暗眔
诀筿祘竝常眏疨は癸诀筿祘竝锣犁笲膀笲琌-
Τ碭紐納材-
踞み穦砆掉搭筁琍戳и纯籔11穦叭癩叭㎝そ叭ㄆ叭坝癚Τ闽穦紐納琎ぱ叭籔穦秈︽皑┰猀Α癚阶穦眔叭ㄇ˙縩伐玂靡癸碞穨よョ玂靡叭纯祇獺玂靡诀筿祘竝犁笲膀щ笲瞷ヴ盢ぃ穦砆癶ヰ┪缓床讽Τゲ璶惠璶钡穝秸皌┪蚌癡硂玂靡埃场だ紐納セ辨やのэ到诀筿祘竝ら笲ㄏ現┎ㄤ场㎝カチ渤Τ狝叭借
ぃ筁и-
ゲ斗タ跌㎝穦よ临Τ獶盽紐納㎝闽猔ぇ矪材琌確獺み材絋﹚戳铆﹚┦穨叭璹蝴夹非㎝絋玂狝叭借チ囊獶盽や穦┮笷闽猔ぇ矪ㄆ龟獺み铆﹚㎝戳┦穨叭のㄇ蝴夹非㎝狝叭借琵ㄤ场Τ┮宽碻и-
谋眔琌Τ惠璶硂诀筿祘犁笲膀环τēΤ祇甶玡春
瘤礛チ囊や诀筿祘竝Θミ犁笲膀и-
谋眔現┎俱穨叭璸购┪癩叭逼瞷耕贾芠薄猵材-
盢ヘ夹厨瞯璹13.5%и-
粄び蔼ㄆ龟Θミ犁笲膀程沧ヘ琌э到场瞯艶笲ノΤ戈方ヘぃ琌诀筿祘竝寥窥狦璶寥窥τ诀筿祘竝Μ禣筁蔼穦玠畓ㄤ膙и-
辨現┎穝σ納硂厨瞯
材現┎璶―诀筿祘犁笲膀秨﹍やの纕临禪蹿箇璸ㄢ掸秨や翠刽6,430窾じи-
龟踞み诀筿祘竝锣犁笲膀笲穨叭蝶︳筁贾芠舓诀筿祘竝Θミ犁笲膀獽寥窥琌ㄆ龟玱獶贾芠诀筿祘竝璶癸カ初膙┮и-
粄盢ㄓ璶癸膙薄猵诀筿祘竝龟璶Τ玂臔场Τì镑丁э到笲矗蔼狝叭借㎝瞯の璹ミㄣ膙┦基現┎场"秆埃"诀筿祘竝璶癸ネ種綰搭薄猵и-
粄诀筿祘竝ゼㄓ癩現猵ゼゲ穨叭阀璶硂或贾芠┮и-
矗碭翴璶―
材и-
璶―現┎盢ヘ夹厨瞯秸犁笲膀Θミ戳礚斗現┎や叭ㄏ诀筿祘竝Τ㎝玂痙ノ戈セщ戈矗蔼膙ら诀筿祘竝ㄣ膙浪癚琌惠璶煤ユ
材現┎莱σ納纕临禪蹿㎝临琌┑筐チ囊粄狦硓筁秸厨瞯ぃ斗ぃ惠临临セ诀筿祘竝碞耕糴肞癩現吏挂玂痙ㄏウ癸膙薄猵Τ兵ン籔カ初膙
и稱莱ㄆ矗Τ闽""拜肈ㄤ龟瞷現┎ぃぶ祘竒琌""Α秈︽ㄒカ現羆竝跋办カ現羆竝㎝ㄇㄤ诀篶常Τ硂薄猵瞷硂贺""Τㄇ琌絋現┎竊窥
程и稱矗翴и-
筁碭ぱ籔穦钡牟フの薄穦癸硂犁笲膀紐納и谋眔硂紐納ぃ锚犁笲膀Θミи粄現┎璶癸紐納Θミ犁笲膀璶穦籔и某現┎Θミ犁笲膀膥尿﹚戳籔穦钡钡牟秆ウ-
種ǎ﹚戳浪癚
畊ネセ略朝勉や某
︙┯ぱ某璓勉畊ネи⊿Τ把籔╯犁笲膀舱〆穦┮иセㄓぃゴ衡祇ēи钮ㄆさぱ祇ē稱碭翴莱
и谋眔狦現┎倒ぉ蒥チ┪ㄤ场ㄇ狝叭и-
莱赣璶笵ㄤ狝叭琌程のΘセ痲琌程蔼狦現┎场ずи-
獽ぃ笵╯澈琌笷夹非拇и-
い瓣瓣瞷谋眔Τ拜肈い瓣辨秆∕︑瓣產穨拜肈辨╬Τて单
さぱ某常矗紐納拜肈︑パ囊讽礛癸硂拜肈だ闽猔叭12穦玂靡ぃノ踞み拜肈
硂膀セ薄猵и谋眔и-
莱赣やΘミ犁笲膀и谋眔狦и-
硂狝叭场ぃノ籔蒥初膙и-
ッ环常ぃ笷程蔼瞯и-
⊿Τへ秖ㄤ琌笷硂瞯
ㄇ某弧踞み借穦Τ拜肈ㄤ龟硂琌ぃ莱赣Τ拜肈瞷и-
筿辫单蝴常琌そ璽砫產═ó蝴琌そ璽砫螟笵﹚璶現┎场ó︽猵現┎场盢ㄓ∕﹚臮丁そ狦現┎场臮禲皑琘丁ó︽祇瞷狦ぃ瞶稱┪ㄇ某弧-
ノ"砯"獽ぃ臮現┎场ぃ穦ê或稭镍
и谋眔硂琌筁だ紐納и粄某莱Τ砫ヴ現┎暗ㄆ蒥チユτ程よ猭琌镑笵ㄤ狝叭非琌笷程蔼Θセ痲单のΤ诀镑菏诡ウㄏウ籔蒥初膙
畊ネиやΘミ硂犁笲膀
霉不瓣某璓勉畊ネ現┎ま秈犁笲膀琌秈˙癩現現郸チ琌や硂よ琌現┎さΩ崩Θミ诀筿祘犁笲膀チ玥粄诀﹟ゼΘ剪非称ぃì現┎瞷︽き龟琁い犁笲膀瞷拜肈τ現┎临ゼ浪癚チ粄︓現┎腀種癸瞷Τ犁笲膀浪癚矗ㄑэ到よ玡現┎ぃ続﹜瞷崩穝犁笲膀
某矗诀筿祘竝穨叭竒Τ35%琌犁笲眀ヘΑ笲и-
粄現┎ㄤ龟Τ惠璶緇65%穨叭家览Α矪瞶ノ琿丁芠诡狦诀筿祘犁笲膀籔瞷︽计膀程ぃぇ矪-
穨叭盢穦痷癸カ初膙и-
粄現┎惠璶丁ㄓ蝶︳硂龟悔膙狦∕﹚崩︽丁
チは癸現┎瞷崩Θミ诀筿祘犁笲膀狦ぃ┋硂兜某さぱ莉眔硄筁и-
临辨現┎镑ㄇ酚臮よ紐納盢硂犁笲膀龟悔崩︽薄猵竒盽ミ猭Ы蹲厨
谅谅畊ネ
币某璓勉畊ネセは癸硂兜∕某Τ翴
材硂诀筿祘犁笲膀ネぃ硔璶硂続逼γ禣犁笲膀笿腨螟拜肈渤崩诀筿祘竝35%穨叭龟︽犁笲眀ヘτ硂眀ヘ琌ゼ纯籔╬诀篶Τ膙琌ウ︑﹚ㄓ礛τㄏ硂35%穨叭ぃミㄨㄓ籔カ初膙硂妓ぃΘ剪兵ン崩犁笲膀и粄琌ぃ钡
材產闽猔現┎そ叭借癸カチ琌Τ癪膍и-
诀筿祘竝︑礛瑈ア薄猵筁礚糤もウネ玻瞯玱糤5%ǎウタぃ耞э到э笲τ钡牟и-
ボや诀筿祘竝秈︽э㎝э到もぃ糤はτ薄猵ネ玻瞯ごど5%珿琌﹚璶龟︽犁笲膀э到场笲㎡硂琌眔產σ納
材и舧叭癸穦┯空ㄏ-
Τ"礟"钡弧穦璶―钡秸笆㎝蚌癡и粄蚌癡琌莱赣-
セō琌м砃莱ぃ耞э秈м砃カチ狝叭秸笆よ-
м砃ōだ刚拜現┎Τ或ㄤ场甧-
㎡秈︽秸笆琌弧-
"︑笆ア"и粄紐納琌ゼЧ眔秆埃
セ膀瓃翴瞶パは癸硂兜某
谅谅畊ネ
叭璓勉钮某祇ぃ種ǎи璶谅︗某癸硂璸购矗腳禥種ǎи瞏獺種璶硂璸购Θ惠璶癸硂璸购獺み㎝や琎ぱи籔渤坝酵硂璸购ビ硂拜肈
讽礛Τ闽琌Τ獺み癸硂璸购琌やの癸硂璸购玡春猭︗某矗盢ㄓ惠璶膙拜肈瘤礛瞷诀筿祘竝┮矗ㄑ狝叭ぃ琌贺盡Τ盡穨м砃狝叭ぃ琌甧刁繦種т獽矗ㄑタи琎ぱ癸┮Τ秆睦и瞏獺璶玂瞷狝叭非ぃ穦ゼㄓ碭穦Τ穝洛皘厩㎝贺現┎縱︓現┎ó进糤硂犁笲膀ネ種肂穦禫ㄓ禫ぃ穦禫ㄓ禫讽礛膙┮ぃΘミ犁笲膀ヘ碞琌辨虑硂诀耕Τ紆┦矗ㄑ狝叭ョ耕Τ紆┦蝴膙犁笲膀讽礛ぃ琌э到и-
癸そ渤狝叭斑硚畖и-
獺硂诀е硉㎝Τ瞯矗蔼и-
狝叭瞯キ
產纯竒矗の"本恥"琌ボ癸硂璸购獺みぃìи粄璶琌碞礚阶ヴ︙妓ㄆ薄τē秨﹍ぃ惠璶筁寸戳続讽秸俱"本恥"琌倒и-
诀穦礚阶и-
秨﹍Τ或螟┪惠璶或э到и-
常穦Τだ丁続讽秸俱┮璶ヘ琌辨盢ㄓ硂犁笲膀綫砞兵耕隔礛膥尿笲и-
⊿Τ瞶パ弧瞷┮Τ犁笲膀常琌ア毖и獺礚阶ヴ︙妓ネ種┪ヴ︙ンㄆ薄常璶ぃ氨浪癚㎝э到и獺程璶琌瞷Τ犁笲膀诀琌惠璶Τ┮э到ㄏ犁笲膀眔Τ瞯笲
и笵︗某癸и-
瞷┮璹兵ンㄒ厨瞯┪犯㎝临蹿Τ┮踞みи獺繦犁笲膀笲и-
穦癸┮Τ硂ㄇ拜肈耕紆┦矪瞶㎝坝癚и-
–穦ユ犁笲膀璸购矗︙膥尿竒犁笲硂犁笲膀и獺璶Τヘ㎝獺みиセΤ獺み硂犁笲膀玡硚﹚穦
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the motion put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr CHAN Wing-chan claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a divison.
PRESIDENT: Mr CHAN Wing-chan, you should stand up after I have said either I think the "ayes" have it "or" the "noes" have it, not before I have said those words.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the motion moved by the Secretary for Works under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Trading Funds Ordinance in relation to the Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund.
Would Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. I think we are still three short of the head count. Are there any queries?
眎簙┚某畊ネи磜礚は莱
PRESIDENT: Please try again, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung. (Laughter)
PRESIDENT: The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr Henry TANG, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Dr Philip WONG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, 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 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
LEGAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1996
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BILL
CHILD CARE CENTRES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (1995-96) 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
LEGAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1996
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Legal Services Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1996 be read a Second time.
The main purpose of this Bill is to implement most of the proposals in the Report on Legal Services that involve legislative amendments. Before describing the proposed amendments, I would like to sketch in for Members the background to this Bill.
The background
In January 1993, the Law Society published a paper on "The Future of the Legal Profession". The paper was very critical of the existing system, (Let me quote):
"We believe that the rules which regulate the two branches of the profession and the relationships between them, and between them and their clients in general, increase cost, inhibit access to advice and representation and, frequently, protract proceedings. These outcomes arise, on average, without commensurate benefits in the quality of the product delivered. The current system has many in-built inefficiencies which would be avoided by alternative approaches."
The main proposal in the Law Society's paper was that there should be a unified legal profession.
A year after the Law Society's paper was published, the Bar Association published its Position Paper, which rejected the Law Society's proposals. We therefore had conflicting views from the two branches of the legal profession in respect of the unification of the legal profession. At the same time there were and remain other important issues relating to legal services that needed to be addressed issues such as cost, access and the responsiveness of the legal profession to client needs.
The Administration decided that it should take the lead in bringing together all these issues and in reflecting the views of the community on them.
I need hardly restate the importance of the rule of law, the continuity of our legal system, and the vital role played by the legal profession. We need a strong and independent legal profession in Hong Kong. But the legal profession exists to serve the community. If legal services do not meet the needs of the consumer, or if they are too expensive, or inefficient, the community may lose faith not only in the legal profession but in our legal system itself. That is not a development that any of us wishes to see.
As Hong Kong prepares to enter the 21st century, we must be sure that the legal services available are the best that can be provided in this dynamic, international city. We must not be complacent about the present quality and standard of professional services. There are many aspects of professional practice that are obsolete or obsolescent and have been abandoned elsewhere; many restrictions on the ways in which legal services may be offered; and many practices that are anti-competitive and are not in the public interests.
The Consultation Paper on Legal Services
In order to seek the views of the community on a wide range of issues relating to legal services, in March 1995 the Administration published the Consultation Paper on Legal Services. That paper contained 40 provisional recommendations.
Response to the Consultation Paper was good. 87 submissions were received, of which:
37 came from institutions, including the Bar Association and the Law Society
29 came from lawyers
21 came from individual members of the public.
Additional feedback in respect of some of the provisional recommendations was obtained through a Public Opinion Survey of 1 000 households, conducted by the Department of Applied Statistics and Operational Research of the City University of Hong Kong; and from the views reported in the media.
Of the 40 provisional recommendations there was clear public support for 34; there was clear public opposition to one; and public views were evenly divided in respect of five. Details of the feedback received from the consultation exercise, and the Administration's proposals for the way forward, were set out in the Report on Legal Services, published in February this year.
The Report on Legal Services
Many of the proposals set out in the Report can be implemented by the legal profession without legislation. For example, there are proposals in respect of improvements to client care and complaints-handling procedures, and in respect of the elimination of touting and commission-taking. The Administration is following-up these proposals with the two professional bodies. With regard to touting and commission-taking in respect of criminal defence work, the Law Society has had an opportunity, over the past year, to tackle this problem by using its audit trail procedures and inspector's powers. The Independent Commission Against Corruption is now making an assessment of the extent of the problem. By the end of the year, the Administration should be in a position to decide whether there is a need to criminalize this type of behaviour.
So far as legislative proposals are concerned, the Report on Legal Services proposed that a Bill should be introduced into this Council in the current Session to implement six of the proposals. The Bill that I am introducing today contains provisions in respect of five of those proposals, together with certain other amendments that I will describe in a moment. The one legislative amendment that was proposed in the Report but is not included in the Bill relates to the criteria for admission as a barrister.
The Report proposed that the criteria should be amended so that they are objective, reasonable, non-discriminatory and standards-based. This is necessary for Hong Kong to fulfil its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization. The Administration has for some time been pressing the Bar Association for its suggestions for new criteria, but these were received only after the Bill was Gazetted. The Administration is now studying the Bar Association's suggestions, with a view to introducing appropriate Committee stage amendments to the Bill.
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
The Bill
Mr Deputy, I would now like to outline the main provisions in the Bill.
Clause 2 adds a new Part IIAA to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance relating to solicitor corporations. This new Part will implement the proposal in the Report on Legal Services that, subject to rules, solicitors should be permitted to incorporate their practices with either limited or unlimited liability. Given this proposed development, it is logical to permit foreign lawyers also to incorporate their practices, and clause 5 so provides. These two proposals follow recent changes to the law that permit accountants similarly to incorporate their practices.
Clause 7 of the Bill deals with interest on solicitors' clients' accounts. This provision implements the proposal in the Report on Legal Services that solicitors should be required to pay interest to clients, where it is reasonable to do so, in respect of clients' money held by the solicitor. The circumstances in which there will be such a requirement will be set out in rules to be made by the
Council of the Law Society.
Clause 8 of the Bill relates to the proposed new status of Senior Counsel, which will, with effect from 1 July 1997, replace the title of Queen's Counsel. This provision will implement the proposal in the Report on Legal Services that the status of Queen's Counsel should (under a different name) be retained. I would add that the new section will not affect the existing system of appointing Queen's Counsel, which will continue until 30 June 1997. It will therefore be possible for one last batch of Queen's Counsel to be appointed before that date.
Clauses 9 to 13 of the Bill contain minor amendments to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance in the respect of the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal. These amendments have been included to deal with practical problems that have emerged since the relevant provisions were enacted in 1992.
Clauses 14 and 15 add new sections to the Ordinance, providing for notaries public and solicitors to enter into multi-disciplinary practices. The Report on Legal Services proposed that solicitors should be permitted to enter into such practices, and it is consistent with this approach to permit notaries public to do likewise. Multi-disciplinary practices offer several advantages: they offer clients the convenience of "one-stop shopping" for a broad range of services; they may reduce costs for the consumer and provide a quicker and more effective service; and they may enable lawyers to operate more efficiently, and to be in a better position to compete with other suppliers of professional services.
Clause 16 adds a new section 56A to the Ordinance, which invalidates any non-statutory scale of charges prescribed by the Law Society that must be charged by solicitors for undertaking non-contentious business. This follows from the Administration's belief that mandatory scale fees are wrong in principle, as being unfair to consumers and anti-competitive.
Clause 17 of the Bill amends section 74 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance to broaden the composition of the Costs Committee, and to prohibit it from setting scale fees for conveyancing work. The Costs Committee is currently empowered to make rules, with the prior approval of the Chief Justice, to provide for the remuneration of solicitors in respect of non-contentious business. At present, the Committee consists of a High Court judge (who is chairman); the Registrar or a deputy registrar of the Supreme Court; the Director of Lands or the Director of Intellectual Property (or either their representatives); and the President and one Vice-President of the Law Society, and one member of the Law Society. The Bill will amend the constitution of the Committee so that, in addition to the current membership, it will include four to six other persons. At least one of these must be someone who represents the interests of consumers of legal services, and the others must have substantial experience in banking, accounting or some other commercial activity. The effect will be that some members will represent the solicitors profession or consumer interests, and others (including the representatives of the Judiciary) will act as independent arbiters.
Clause 18 of the Bill adds a new section 34A to the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, which invalidates any contractual provisions that require a purchaser to pay the vendor's legal costs, if the sale is of a unit in an uncompleted development, or if the sale is by the developer of a completed development. This implements another of the proposals in the Report on Legal Services.
Abolition of scale fees
I turn now, Mr Deputy, to the abolition of scale fees. Clause 20 and Schedule 2 of the Bill repeal the scale fees prescribed for conveyancing work. The main arguments for and against the abolition of scale fees for conveyancing were set out in the Consultation Paper on Legal Services. The feedback received during the consultation exercise indicated that there was public support for abolition. Apart from the submissions from the Law Society and some individual solicitors, there were only four written submissions that opposed abolition. Nearly half of the respondents to the Public Opinion Survey who had previously consulted lawyers were dissatisfied with the scale fees system.
The Report on Legal Services set out the Law Society's reasons for opposing the abolition of scale fees, and also set out the counter-arguments. The Report proposed that legislation should be prepared to abolish scale fees in respect of conveyancing work but if, before the legislation was introduced into this Council, the Law Society were to make alternative proposals in respect of fees for conveyancing that were fair to consumers, the Administration would give them careful consideration before deciding on the way forward.
On 17 May 1996, the Law Society submitted its proposals to the Administration in the form of a Position Paper. The Law Society recognized that, since the last revision of scale fees in 1983, "an escalating property market may have caused the scale structure to become somewhat out of balance." It suggested that the appropriate way in which to address the problem would be for the Costs Committee to be reconvened to determine the acceptable level and structure of the fee system.
In view of the Law Society's response to the Consultation Paper on Legal Services and subsequent correspondence and discussions with us, the Administration had expected that the paper that the Law Society would eventually put forward would contain specific proposals in respect of the fees for various types of transactions, such as project conveyancing, and conveyances where a solicitor acts in the purchase and mortgage of the property. It had also expected that those specific proposals would be supported by detailed empirical data, including the report prepared by consultants commissioned by the Law Society.
But, Mr Deputy, this was not the case. The Law Society merely recommended that the Costs Committee should determine the level of fees, without producing any specific proposals. Although the Law Society's Position Paper suggested that "it would be appropriate in general terms for an "across the board" reduction of 20% of the existing scale in respect of purchaser's costs," it did not give any reason for this.
The Law Society failed to put forward specific proposals, supported by empirical data. It cannot therefore be said that the Law Society's proposals are fair to consumers and are not anti-competitive. There is nothing for the Administration to evaluate except a proposal that the Costs Committee should decide the level and structure of the fee system. The Administration does not believe this proposal meets community aspirations and has therefore included in the Bill the provisions to abolish scale fees for conveyancing work, a move which has wide community support.
Since the Report on Legal Services was published, the Law Society and some individual solicitors have argued strongly against the abolition of scale fees. Let me respond to some of the arguments they have raised.
One point that is repeatedly asserted is that the abolition of conveyancing scale fees in England has been a "disaster", in that it led to a price war, which resulted in shoddy work, increased claims for negligence, and cause the bankruptcies of many solicitors. I would like to set the record straight.
Scale fees were abolished in England in 1973. Six years later a Royal Commission undertook a comprehensive study of conveyancing throughout the country. There is no reference in the report to any of the problems I have just mentioned.
In recent years, England has suffered its worst recession this century and this has inevitably affected solicitors in many areas of their work. The volume of domestic conveyancing halved between 1988 and 1992. Prices fell in real terms between 1986 and 1993 by 45%.
An equally profound change occurred in the financial services industry, where keen competition developed for the sale of a wide range of complex financial products. This development gave financial institutions a considerably enhanced influence over all aspects of the housing market.
It is clear that solicitors in England have been faced with serious difficulties in recent years, and many have become bankrupt. But there is no basis for linking those difficulties with the abolition of scale fees in 1973. Nor is there any basis for assuming that things would have been different had scale fees still been in place. On the contrary, in March 1994, a report of the English Law Society's special working party on conveyancing services included the following statement -
"We have concluded that compulsory and recommended fee scales would be unworkable and ineffective."
Those in favour of retaining scale fees have said that the abolition of scale fees will lead to a vicious price war, in which fees will drop below an unprofitable level and solicitors will produce shoddy work. There is no empirical evidence to support this assertion. I would just analyse what is being said. It is that solicitors, whose professional training and discipline are said to justify their monopoly over conveyancing work, cannot provide proper and professional conveyancing services unless their fees are artificially fixed by reference to the price of the property conveyed. That is, Mr Deputy, an astonishing argument for a profession to put forward and, I suggest, is untenable.
Some have pointed to the fact that Singapore has decided to retain a modified form of scale fees for conveyancing. They argue that Singapore's background is similar to that of Hong Kong. However, in Singapore only a relatively small segment of the population own or intend to acquire private housing. 87% of the population live in flats provided by the Housing Development Board, which provides legal services for sales, purchases and mortgages of those flats. The two places are not therefore comparable in respect of their housing markets.
The Law Society has also referred to the abolition of scale fees as "the English experiment". This is misleading. Scale fees have been abolished not only in England, but also in New Zealand, Canada and most parts of Australia. Moreover, the Administration is not aware of any place that has abolished scale fees and has subsequently re-introduced them.
If scale fees are abolished, solicitors will be required to charge conveyancing fees that are fair and reasonable "having regard to all the circumstances of the case". Consumers will therefore be charged on the basis of the work done, not on the value of the property concerned. This will improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of conveyancing services. The quality of the services provided depends on the expertise and professionalism of the solicitor concerned. Scale fees do not guarantee quality, and the abolition of scale fees will be no excuse for poor quality. The solicitors are members of a profession and must observe professional standards. The Law Society has a duty to discipline any of its members who fail in this respect. Other professions, trades and industries can provide quality services without price fixing, and there is no reason why solicitors cannot do so as well.
It has recently been suggested that the abolition of scale fees would undermine the independence of the legal profession. This Bill does not do that. No one is seeking to interfere with the way in which legal practitioners do their work. But it is quite legitimate for the legislature to step in and remove a pricing arrangement that is anti-competitive and unfair to consumers. Moreover, the monopoly that solicitors have in respect of conveyancing is conferred by legislation. The legislature is entitled to amend that legislation to prevent price-fixing in respect of conveyancing.
Public support
Mr Deputy, as I have explained earlier, this Bill is the product of several years of debate, a debate that involves all sections of the community. This is only right. Members of the community are the consumers of legal services and they have every right to express their views on legal services in Hong Kong. The reforms contained in this Bill reflect those views and have wide public support.
Most of the proposed reforms are also supported by the two branches of the legal profession. This is not surprising, given that the Bill offers new opportunities for those who supply legal services. Solicitors and foreign lawyers will be permitted to operate from within new business structures incorporated and multi-disciplinary practices. These structures will offer greater flexibility than the present regime, both in terms of raising capital and sharing profits, and in meeting clients' needs for a wide range of services. Similar developments are occurring elsewhere in the common law world. Legal practitioners in Hong Kong must have the ability to compete with other places in respect of the quality and variety of their services. I am pleased that the Law Society supports these reforms.
I assure Members that the Bill is put forward by the Administration in the belief that all its provisions are in the public interest. They will benefit members of the public, who are consumers of legal services, and will offer opportunities for legal practitioners to provide quality legal services in ways that are more cost-effective, competitive and flexible than at present.
Mr Deputy, 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).
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Supreme Court Ordinance to enable certain solicitors to be appointed as recorders and to enable the appointment of temporary deputy registrars and temporary assistant registrars; to amend the Jury Ordinance to repeal the requirement of the Registrar of the Supreme Court to state to the court or the judge his reasons for excusing a person from attending on a jury; to amend the Defences (Firing Areas) Ordinance to update the list of firing areas; to amend the Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance to replace the power of authorized guards to discharge firearms with the power to use reasonable force; and to provide for other miscellaneous and minor amendments to those Ordinances."
He said: Mr Deputy, I move that the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1996 be read a Second time. The Bill aims to amend four ordinances relating to the administration of justice and to security which are obsolete or anomalous and to repeal five ordinances which are no longer needed or do not suit Hong Kong's present circumstances.
The Bill amends the Supreme Court Ordinance to enable solicitors to be appointed as recorders and to give the Chief Justice the power to appoint temporary deputy registrars and temporary assistant registrars.
The Bill also amends the Jury Ordinance to abolish the requirement that the Registrar of the Supreme Court must state to the court or the judge his reasons for excusing a person from attending on a jury.
The opportunity is also taken to amend provisions in two security-related ordinances and to repeal five others. They are obsolete, anomalous, or have long fallen into disuse.
The Bill proposes to repeal the Secretary of State for Defence (Succession to Property) Ordinance. That Ordinance provides for the control and succession of property vested in the Secretary of State for Defence. The building lot covered in the Ordinance was sold in 1969 and the provisions are no longer required.
The Air Armament Practice Ordinance, which permits practice in bombing in Sai Kung is wholly outdated. Such activities ceased in 1966. Since then Sai Kung has been built up and extensively developed for recreational use. Bombing exercises of the sort regulated by the Ordinance cannot practically be undertaken in modern Hong Kong. The Bill proposes to repeal this Ordinance.
It is also for the same reason that the Defence (Firing Areas) Ordinance should be updated. The British garrison have not used the Basalt Island range since approximately 1985. All naval gunfire exercise now take place in international waters south of Hong Kong. No practice has taken place in the torpedo range for at least 30 years, while the three minesweeping ranges have not been used since at least 1984. They are now located across major shipping channels which would preclude their reactivation. The Bill proposes to update the references to firing areas in this Ordinance.
The Defence Works Protection Ordinance is substantially similar to section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which prohibits the sketching of prohibited places for any purposes prejudicial to the safety and interests of the State. The localizing legislation for the 1911 Act is being drafted and discussed in the Joint Liaison Group. The Ordinance is redundant, and the Bill proposes to repeal it.
The Compulsory Service Ordinance and the China Fleet Club Incorporation Ordinance are also obsolete. The former was suspended by the Governor in Council in 1961. At present, service to all our auxiliary forces is entirely on a voluntary basis and we do not envisage that such service will ever be made compulsory again. The China Fleet Club closed down in 1992 and its Trustees wound up by the court in 1993. The Ordinance is therefore no longer needed. The Bill proposes to repeal these two Ordinances.
The Bill also seeks to amend the Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance to provide that an authorized guard may use "reasonable force" in carrying out his duties under this Ordinance to bring the provisions in line with the internal orders of the police and the British forces.
Mr Deputy, the Bill is part of our continuing process of tidying up the statute book by removing anomalies, updating provisions and repealing obsolete ordinances. I commend the Bill to this Council for early passage into law.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
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).
SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to provide for the registration of social workers and disciplinary control of the professional activities of registered social workers, and for related matters."
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
徖ネ褐璓勉畊ネセ略笆某弄穦爹兵ㄒ
ㄓセ翠穦粄竤盡穨龟Τ惠璶璹盡穨玥菏诡盡穨巨Τ挪現┎笶﹚穦爹兵ㄒセ兵ㄒΤㄢ璶ヘ
ミ盡穨穦爹诀
爹穦璹盡穨玥牟玥羬矪だ
盡穨晃ㄏノ
渤┮㏄"穦"┪""硂嘿翠約獂ㄏノΤぃぶ稦τ荐港-
瘤礛ゼ筁盡穨癡絤ㄓ常縩伐把籔穦狝叭把籔单-
砛穦︑嘿┪砆嘿"穦"┪""τ-
炊筂砆甧"穦"览セ兵ㄒ戳丁и-
よ璶絋玂盡穨穦┪盡穨穦晃ぃ砆垒ノよョぃ稱筁だ"穦"┪"穦"硂ㄢ嘿ら盽ネい炊筂ㄏノ玥把籔в腀ゼ盡穨癡絤獽ぃ竒種牟デ猭ㄒ
璶ㄢぇ丁眔キ颗セ兵ㄒ砏﹚ヴ︙稱ㄏノ
(a) "爹穦"晃┪璣ゅ罽糶"R.S.W."┪
(b) "穦""穦幫"┪""磞瓃ㄤ盡穨ōだ
А斗爹
ぃ筁狦Τㄤㄒ臩盝┪舽矗ㄑ玥ご礛︑嘿把籔穦τぃ穦牟セ兵ㄒΤ闽兵ゅぃ︑嘿︗盡穨穦
穦爹Ы
盡穨穦爹戮砫盢パ"穦爹Ы"┯踞赣Ы盢璽砫璹﹚盡穨爹戈恨瞶Τ闽爹诀览璹㎝糵у玥の矪瞶爹盡穨ㄆ﹜
爹Ыパ15Θ舱Θㄤいパ爹穦が匡玻ネㄤ緇埃穦褐竝竝┪ㄤせパ羆服〆ヴㄤいぃぶ獶爹ㄢ玥爹そ戮
赣Ы硄筁爹穦紉Μ禣ノやㄤ竒禣爹Ы︑︽〆ヴ爹ヴの竨ノΤ闽糹︽赣Ы戮の砫ヴ
矪だ祘
爹Ы戮琌璶矪瞶癸爹穦щ禗赣Ы〆ヴ〆穦碞щ禗秈︽╯の碞莱蹦︽笆矗某蝴臔盡穨港獺爹牟デ兵ㄒ2ヴ︙兜竜︽爹Ыゲ斗盢眖祅癘ッ埃妓ヴ︙璝砆掉﹚牟デ硂ㄇㄆ竜︽玥ぃ穦莉爹ヴ︙ぃ狝爹Ы∕﹚禗猭皘矗禗
紉高種ǎ
畊ネ讽Ы览兵ㄒ纯約獂紉高穨ず種ǎ珹穦褐竝戮獶現┎诀篶セЫ褐ㄆ叭〆穦の穦褐吭高〆穦单и虑诀穦谅谅穦盡穨爹Ы览猭筁祘いи-
矗ㄑΤ砞┦種ǎ
畊ネи略某セЫ某硄筁セ兵ㄒ
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
CHILD CARE CENTRES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Child Care Centres Ordinance."
徖ネ褐璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄1996ギㄠいみ璹兵ㄒ兵ㄒ矗兜璹ギㄠいみ兵ㄒ某珹
(a) ﹚兵ゅňゎぃ続踞ヴギㄠ癠恨
(b) ﹚兵ゅ僚がギㄠいみ赣兵ㄒ兜兵ゅ砏恨の
(c) 癸赣兵ㄒм砃璹
и-
常钮筁ギ担㎝捆ㄠ綝癠恨腨波┛酚臮┪環ㄆン讽Ы惠璶癸ギㄠ癠恨蹦続讽恨惫琁璹穝恨惫琁и-
―よ眔キ颗
и-
惠璶ňゎぃ続踞ヴギㄠ癠恨璶磷蹦ノ狡馒┪耑チ恨惫琁Τ種矗ㄑ癠ㄠ狝叭玱˙и-
某甭舦產パ-
︑︽琩┮竨ノギㄠ癠恨琌続匡и-
某琘纯牟デヴ︙腨竜︽τ砆﹚竜τ赣单竜︽┪旧璓酚臮ㄠ担砆環┪沮掉﹛癟挡狦魁琘┮暗ㄆ薄┪波┛︽甡酚臮ㄠ担玥莱窽ゎ踞ヴギㄠ癠恨ギㄠ癠恨璶―穦褐竝竝祇靡靡讽Ы礚窽ゎ踞ヴギㄠ癠恨硂妓產獽璶―览酚臮ㄤボ靡-
蝶︳赣琌続酚臮-
и-
粄產程沧Τ砫ヴ琩┮竨ノ琌続踞ヴギㄠ癠恨τ瓃暗猭タ眏秸硂兜砫ヴ狦硂ㄇ璹莉眔硄筁и-
獽穦甶秨肚絋喘硂獺躬纘產だノ硂ㄇ穝兵ゅτ穝兵ゅヘ琌產琩ㄤ琌莉眔続ギㄠ癠恨酚臮
埃眏恨ギㄠ癠恨ぇи-
某ㄇ璹よ獽がギㄠ舱笲硂ㄇ舱Τ秆∕ㄠ担虫縒痙產い拜肈ウ-
パ穦褐诀篶﹙毙刮砰包いみが〆穦のㄤ獶現┎诀篶砞ミ竡叭の產Τ闽诀篶ノよ近瑈讽酚臮ㄠ担パ硂ㄇ舱才篋盽┪酚臮ギㄠ逼非玥Τ闽よ斗赣兵ㄒ砏恨
躬纘Τ闽诀篶Θミがギㄠ舱兵ㄒ盢僚硂ㄇ舱犁快ギㄠいみ赣兵ㄒ兜兵ゅ砏恨ぃ筁ウ-
斗才璝闽菏恨加挡篶のň惫琁虏て砏﹚
程兵ㄒ某癸赣兵ㄒ璝兜м砃璹ㄒ璹癸┮デ竜︽矪籃蹿肂皌硄等糤碩の瞷羆服矗禗盢ㄓ斗︽現禗〆穦矗
谅谅畊ネ
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).
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (1995-96) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to approve a supplementary appropriation to the service of the financial year which ended on 31 March 1996."
畐叭璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄1996發挤蹿(1995-96)兵ㄒ
そ癩現兵ㄒ材9兵砏﹚"挡衡ヴ︙癩現眀ヘ癘ヴ︙羆ヘ秨や禬筄挤蹿兵ㄒ挤ぉ赣羆ヘ蹿肂禬肂ぇ计斗珹發挤蹿兵ㄒずτ赣兵ㄒ斗瞷赣禬肂秨や癩現沧挡ち龟︽絛瞅ず荷е矗ユミ猭Ы"
畐叭竝竝瞷ЧΘき︓せ癩現眀ヘ挡衡羆92秨や羆ヘい69羆ヘ秨や禬1995挤蹿兵ㄒ挤倒赣单羆ヘ蹿兜羆ヘ┮瞷禬肂秨や珹и祔盢冈哪睦羆ヘ50 現┎ó进恨瞶矪禬肂秨やА竒パ癩叭〆穦у┪赣〆穦甭舦у倒ぉ發挤蹿赣单發挤蹿パㄓ︑羆ヘ┪ㄤ羆ヘ竊蹿肂┪羆ヘ106 馒兜狝叭"肂┯踞"挤蹿┮╄綪1996發挤蹿(1995-96)兵ㄒΞ癸癩叭〆穦у┪赣〆穦甭舦у挤倒秨や羆ヘ發挤蹿计肂倒ぉ程沧猭舦ㄌ沮
赣69秨や羆ヘ┮惠發挤蹿计肂羆74.826货じ籔┕妓ま璓禬肂秨や璶琌そ叭の現┎干诀篶–羱筍秸俱(46.271货じ)ㄤ耕璶珹や侯穦玂毁穿㎝そ褐璸购糤秨や(10.736货じ)の癶ヰ肂秨や(5.895货じ)絪籹き︓せ癩現ㄓ箇衡и-
"肂┯踞"だヘ箇痙挤蹿やき羱筍秸俱侯穦玂毁穿㎝そ褐璸购兜穿硄等秸俱の癶ヰ猭﹚┮惠硄等秸俱τま璓肂蹿
︓и玡矗の羆ヘ50 現┎ó进恨瞶矪兜瞷371,730.58じ禬肂秨や現┎ó进恨瞶矪矪иボ現┎ゲ斗宽Τ闽夹璹蹿兵ンΤ闽禬肂秨や琌候㎝礚磷ぃ筁矪瞶蹿祘いぃ诡礚碞禬筄秨や羆ヘ挤蹿蹿肂眔┮惠箇у現┎ó进恨瞶矪矪и玂靡盢穦畐叭竝竝浪癚ㄤ场祘絋玂腨略恨の菏诡秨や磷瞷摸薄猵и盢穦硄┮Τ恨痙種セōそ癩現兵ㄒ莱糹︽砫ヴ
挪秨や羆ヘいАΤ蹿兜τ箇衡いョΤ碞肂┯踞箇痙挤蹿珿ㄏ璸のセ兵ㄒ┮璶―發挤蹿き︓せ癩現秨や羆肂ごゼ禬筄1995挤蹿兵ㄒ挤蹿肂
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
COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 2 November 1995
︙玊く某璓勉畊ネセ略╯硂兵ㄒ〆穦祇ē
セ兵ㄒ璓璣瓣1995竜︽浪北猭虏嘿"璣瓣猭"屡セΞ埃瞷︽砏恨ㄆンい倒砠禣猭ㄒ㎝暗猭いがベのぃ璓よ璹甅続ノㄆ猭皘絋非玥虑э赣单猭ㄒ㎝暗猭
и-
╯兵ㄒ戳丁癚阶眔程琌店砠禣兵ゅ纔兵ㄒ材18兵甭舦猭皘㏑猭┪ㄤ璽踞ㄆ猭祘琘よ┮┷璓店砠禣材2兵盢店砠禣竡﹚猭祘いよㄤ猭┪ㄤぃタ讽ぃ瞶┪波┛┪ぃ┮┷璓砠禣┪猭祘いよ┮┷璓砠禣τΤ挪赣单┪ぃ赣单砠禣┷璓祇ネ戳辨パ赣よや赣单砠禣琌ぃ瞶
兵ㄒ〆穦诡眡癸翠畍そ穦"畍そ穦"の翠畍穦"畍穦"は癸店砠禣砏﹚ㄆ禗砠ン砠禣舱ゼ矗ヴ︙某兵ㄒ〆穦借好讽Ы膀或瞶沮矗赣单砏﹚
讽Ы秆睦Τ闽兵ゅΞ玂毁砆痲讽Ы粄玥ㄏ兵ㄒ材2兵┮矗瓃ま璓店砠禣薄猵ぶ祇ネョ莱结舦猭畑店砠禣㏑硂琌タ絋㎝そキ暗猭ヘ玡猭い礚ヴ︙兵ゅ砏恨ㄆ猭祘い砠禣ㄆ﹜计ンい店砠禣瘤礛砆セō礚筁岿ョ斗パ┯踞猭Τぃタ讽︽玥礚阶薄猵︙╱ǎョ斗碝―干毕快猭
畍そ穦疭闽猔览某店砠禣兵ゅ穦畍Τ┮臮納τぃ荷〆癠垦―痲┪糹︽ㄤ盡穨戮砫兵ㄒ〆穦の畍穦ョ妓闽猔拜肈瞷蔼魁猭畑ㄣ㏕Τ猭恨烈舦㏑畍セ┯踞砠禣ぃ癸畍︽ㄏ兜舦兵ㄒ┮璹店砠禣兵ゅ莉眔硄筁玥畍ㄆ猭祘いㄉΤ僚舦盢砆篗綪
讽Ы矗阶翴琌タ璣瓣よ┮更瓃ン陪ボ猭盡穨続讽磅︽戮叭礚斗臮納硂よ拜肈癸妮猭皘砠叭畍ㄏ猭皘︽ㄏ㏕Τ猭恨烈舦㏑ㄤ煤店砠禣瞷ョ礚格禜陪ボ-
パ臮納店砠禣よ斗璽猭砫ヴτぃ荷〆癠垦―痲┪磅︽ㄤ盡穨戮叭
癸某紐納猭畑Τ種㏑猭┪ㄤ煤砠禣硂ㄇ痲ゼ莉眔ì镑玂毁硂翴讽Ы眏秸兵ㄒ矗ㄑì镑玂毁材18(2)兵砏﹚埃獶Τ闽猭┪ㄤ莉倒ぉ瞶诀穦猭皘畊玡矗ぃ莱店砠禣㏑パ玥ぃ眔赣兜㏑セ兵ㄒョ矗ㄑ硚畖ㄏは癸猭畑┮店砠禣㏑矗禗
︓18(3)兵兵ㄒ〆穦の畍そ穦借好ㄤ琌そキ現┎┪莉猭穿砆╬磅穨畍斗碞店砠禣㏑璽猭砫ヴτ沟現┎畍玥礚斗璽砫ヴ
讽Ы秆睦ㄤ現郸嘿そ叭磅︽戮叭戳丁ま璓礚禿讽ㄆ籜ヴ︙穕ア┪穕甡玥現┎穦璽砫竭纕兜現郸瞇籠現┎畍磅︽戮叭戳丁ま璓店砠禣現┎畍Τぃㄣだ瞶パ︽讽Ы癸ㄤ秈︽矪だ祘猭皘㏑パ現竝┪猭穿竝〆癠╬磅穨砠叭畍ぃ阶琌畍┪畍煤店砠禣玥赣单㏑斗パΤ闽砠叭畍τ獶現┎璽砫赣畍琌矗ㄑ狝叭τ獶沮沟ノ︽ㄆ璣瓣よョ璹Τ摸兵ゅ
畊ネи-
冈灿の糵稸╯﹚店砠禣兵ゅ纔礛τ兵ㄒ〆穦场だ〆癸赣单兵ゅ伐Τ玂痙и-
σ納
材瘤礛讽Ыボ猭诀篶やセ兵ㄒ礚絋靡沮陪ボゲ斗璹兜砏﹚┪Τ痷タ拜肈斗ぉ秆∕┪﹚赣单兵ゅΤ闽"拜肈"穦τ秆某ぃ钡讽Ыまノ肚碈Τ闽猭у蝶猭Τぃㄣだ瞶パ︽厨笵陪ボ拜肈腨┦虑Τ惠璶ミ猭阶沮
材赣单兵ゅ┪穦猭秈︽к臛磜▂癸砆伐ぃそ渤痲璸砠叭畍莱礚┪溃薄猵矪瞶ン
材╬磅穨畍籔現┎畍┮莉笿ぃτ瞷ぃそキ薄猵
材ン┑戳糵癟硄盽琌パ猭畑逼τ矗τ獶莱臛よ┪北よ璶―
材き讽Ы诡谋拜肈砆斗煤パㄤ猭┷璓店砠禣虑ㄤよ猭ㄒノ矪だ祘ㄓ矪瞶
材せ猭祘い琘よ┪ㄤ猭ぃゲ璶┪ぃ讽┪ぃτ┷璓砠禣玥猭畑沮材17兵结ぉ舦㏑盢砠禣倒よ兵ゅョì瞇籠ヴ︙ㄆ猭祘い琘よぃㄣだ瞶パ︽τよ┮┷璓店砠禣沮瞷︽猭ㄒ埃砠叭畍莉僚砆禗〆癠Τ舦碞ㄤ猭ヴ︙ぃタ讽︽矗猭禗砠の
材砠禣兵ゅ砆垒ノ璶猭ㄒい璹Τ店砠禣兵ゅ毖禗よ虑璶―ㄤ猭竭纕籜穕ア
兵ㄒ〆穦矗某讽Ы埃Τ闽店砠禣兵ゅ讽Ыㄤ某盢璣瓣禗猭皘"Ridehalgh 禗 Horsefield"┮哪砏恨店砠禣玥兵ㄒず羭穦盢Τ闽砏﹚続ノ絛瞅伐陪薄猵畊筐┪波┛τま璓セ磷┑戳测癟薄猵よ秈︽Τ闽店砠禣癟竒秈︽坝某讽Ы程沧種︑Ridehalgh玥い埃"波┛"
兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽冈灿╯粄讽Ы硂兜某钡и-
矗某タ兵ㄒ材2兵┮更店砠禣﹚竡虑р店砠禣竡﹚⊿Τ瞶パτ畊┪筐旧璓セ磷┑戳┮┷璓砠禣讽Ы觅矗某セ兵ㄒ〆穦舧現祔〆穦糵某顶琿笆某┮惠タ
讽Ы種兵ㄒ〆穦某癸兵ㄒ璝タ讽Ы種р掉猭皘猭祘い倒砆┪浪北砠禣矗蔼︓3窾じ砏﹚ら畊猭﹛莉眔ミ猭Ыу虑㏑璹赣蹿肂璣瓣猭┮璹"耕淮胓籃"兵ㄒ材8兵┮璹"Τ畉钵"夹非のま秈筁寸┦兵ゅ砏﹚兵ㄒぃ続ノ碞兵ㄒ龟琁玡┮デ竜︽秈︽ㄆ猭祘
畊ネセ略朝勉叫セЫㄆや現┮笆某タタ兵ㄒ
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to put on record the legal profession's position concerning the provisions on "wasted costs" in the Bill.
Wasted costs orders were introduced in England in recent years allowing the court to make a legal representative of a party to pay costs personally incurred in the course of a court hearing as a result of his negligence or improper conduct. The aim was to discourage wasting the court's time, and to ensure that such costs do not have to be borne by the party. With these aims, the legal profession entirely agrees.
Further, the profession does not object to the principle of wasted costs, although we do not consider it the best way to achieve the aims.
However, the profession did object very strongly to the provisions as originally drafted in the Bill, because the mischief the wide ambit of the terms may cause far out-weighs the possible benefit. Wasted costs orders may be misused with unfairness to the legal representative, but more importantly, it can be oppressive and inhibit the defence. In the context of criminal trials, this is a serious matter.
This was the basis on which the legal profession made its submissions to the Bills Committee, and this, as far as I understand it, was the basis on which the Bills Committee rejected the original proposals.
Following the decision reached by the Bills Committee, the Administration volunteered amendments to restrict the ambit of the definition of "wasted costs", as the Honourable Albert HO, Chairman of the Bills Committee state in his report. With "wasted costs" being limited to costs incurred as a result of failure to appear or lateness without reasonable cause leading to an otherwise avoidable adjournment, the profession does not think it right to continue with its objection, and therefore accepts the Administration's proposed amendments at the Committee stage.
However, Mr President, the fact remains that wasted costs is a dubious instrument. Now that it has been introduced, we would be constantly wary of any attempt to widen its use at some future date.
Thank you, Mr President.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, I am most grateful to the Chairman of the Bills Committee, the Honourable Albert HO, and members of the Bills Committee for their careful study of this important Bill. I would also like to thank the Bar Association and the Law Society for their helpful and thoughtful comments comments which we have taken very seriously indeed.
Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to reform the existing law and practice governing the award of costs in criminal cases. The Bill removes anomalies and inconsistencies by providing a fair and coherent set of principles applicable to both the defence and prosecution at all levels of our criminal courts. It gives the courts the power to ensure that persons who suffer losses and expenses as a result of unjustifiable conduct on the part of their representatives or lawyers in criminal proceedings will be compensated.
As the Honourable Albert HO has pointed out, considerable controversy arose over the wasted costs provisions. Let me briefly re-state the underlying philosophy for those provisions. The idea is to arm the courts with an effective remedy for the protection of the injured, so that any costs incurred by a party to criminal proceedings as a result of unjustifiable conduct on the part of his/her legal or other representative will be borne by that lawyer or representative. And it has been pointed out these wasted costs provisions would apply equally to the prosecution. I should stress, Mr President, that the provisions are not aimed at penalizing lawyers, but to compensate the injured party for the loss where it would be unreasonable to expect him to pay.
Both the Honourable Albert HO and the Honourable Miss Margaret NG have set out in some considerable detail the principal objections put forward by the Bar Association and the strong reservations felt by the Bills Committee over the introduction of wasted costs provisions as originally set out in clause 2 and clause 18 of the Bill. As originally drafted, the Bill proposes to define wasted costs to mean any cost incurred by a party to criminal proceedings as a result of improper unreasonable negligent act or omission on the part of his legal or other representative, or where, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after such costs had been incurred, it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.
Mr President, after careful consideration of the strong objections of the Bar Association already referred to in the reservations of the Bills Committee, and bearing in mind the likely circumstances when the court may wish to make a wasted costs order, the Administration proposed and the Bills Committee agreed that the scope of the definition of wasted costs in clause 2 be limited to circumstances where costs are incurred as a result of any failure to appear or lateness without reasonable cause on the part of any legal or other representative. And I should be pleased to move appropriate amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage.
The scrutiny of the Bill by the Bills Committee had led to some other proposed amendments, which I will also move at the Committee stage. As we have heard, they include an amendment to increase the ceiling on defence and prosecution costs in summary proceedings from $15,000 to $30,000, to reflect current general costs levels. The Bill will also be amended to allow future adjustment to both defence and prosecution costs in summary proceedings to be made by way of subsidiary legislation.
Another amendment proposed by the Bills Committee relates to the award of costs in favour of a defendant in the event of successful appeal against sentence. Clause 8(b) and 9(2)(b) originally provided that if the court substitutes on appeal a sentence "substantially at variance with" that passed by the court below, costs may be awarded to the defendant. The expression of "substantially at variance with" is to be replaced by "less severe punishment than", which is in line with the English legislation.
The Bill will also be amended to include a transitional provision so that it will not apply to criminal proceedings in respect of offences committed before the coming into operation of the enacted Bill. I will move to include a new clause 25 at the Committee stage to so provide.
Finally, Mr President, I shall move a number of amendments to the Chinese text of the Bill to reflect drafting improvements.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 31 January 1996
地某璓勉畊ネ1996ㄆ禗砠祘璹兵ㄒの1996弘胺眃璹兵ㄒセるら矗ユセЫ凝
ㄢ兜兵ㄒヘ琌璹ㄆ禗砠祘兵ㄒの弘胺眃兵ㄒㄏΤ闽兵ゅ籔璣瓣1991ㄆ禗砠祘弘睹のぃ続﹜ビ臛猭镣璓ㄏ抄糵刮∕﹚ぃ続﹜ビ臛砆琌纯砆北┪纯Τ砆北ぃのㄏ猭皘埃矪砆霹痙弘痜皘ずョσ納蹦ノㄤ兜矪瞶よΑ珹祇菏臔菏恨㎝獀励の礚兵ン睦ㄏ掉﹛蹦ノ瓃矪瞶よΑ
現┎讽Ыョ某癸ㄆ禗砠祘兵ㄒ兜璹斗碞睹靡ㄠ担莉眔籔碞"┦獻デ"靡ㄠ担靡妓玂臔瞷"┦獻デ"﹚竡ぃ珹睹竜︽
セ畊兵ㄒ〆穦纯秨Ω穦某ㄤいΩ籔現┎讽Ы穦编纯钡ǎパ翠穦狝叭羛穦烈Τ闽诀篶舱Θ刮
и盢虏瓃兵ㄒ〆穦╯璶ㄆ兜
琌Τ闽1996ㄆ禗砠祘璹兵ㄒ╯ㄆ兜
某闽猔览某猭ㄒゼ癸"畓"の"琌続﹜ユ糵"﹚竡﹚τ璶―現┎讽Ы猭ㄒず赣ㄢ迭﹚竡
現┎讽Ы秆睦览某猭ㄒ琌璣瓣猭ㄒ屡セτ璣瓣猭ㄒ礚癸"畓"の"琌続﹜ユ糵"ㄢ迭﹚讽Ы竒σ納粄沮炊硄猭哪睦拜肈耕刚瓜ゅ砏﹚ㄎ礛τ挪兵ㄒ〆穦癸ㄆ闽猔讽Ы某ㄆ禗砠祘兵ㄒ材75(1)兵ず盢"畓"迭﹚"埃兵ㄒ┮璹薄猵穦癸钡糵癟篶Θ毁锚畓薄猵"﹚竡盢続ノヴ︙摸畓薄猵珹籔矗ㄑ猭種ǎ肪硄
某ョ闽猔瞷︽览某猭ㄒ礚癸畓醇籔弘睹跋だ現┎讽Ыボら盢弘胺眃兵ㄒ璹兵ㄒず碞ㄢ跋だ
沮ㄆ禗砠祘兵ㄒ览某穝璹兵ゅ材75A(1)(a)兵璝抄糵刮掉﹚砆畓糵癟獽ぃ莱秈︽┪膥尿秈︽τ沮穝璹材75A(1)(b)兵抄糵刮斗掉﹚砆琌纯砆北┪纯Τ砆北ぃ秈︽摸"ㄆ龟糵癟"ヘ獶掉﹚砆琌Τ竜τ琌絋玂砆掉﹚ぃ続﹜ビ臛砆Τ诀穦砆掉﹚纯牟デ砆北竜︽礚禿弘ぃ胺τ砆徥痙弘痜皘ず
某ョ高拜砆克ね靡の沮览某兵ゅ材75A(1)(b)兵Τ闽よ盢ㄌ碻︙贺禗砠砏玥︽ㄆ現┎讽Ы莱氮す穝璹ゅ材75A(3)兵坚睲瓃翴
(a) 沮材1(b)(ii)蹿矗靡沮珹靡┮矗靡ㄑの
(b) 続ノㄆ祘猭盢妓続ノ沮材1(b)蹿τ秈︽ヴ︙祘
翠畍穦纯璓ㄧ現┎讽Ы高拜︙穝璹兵ゅ材75(4)兵パ抄糵刮璽砫掉﹚砆琌続﹜ビ臛の琌Τ竜讽Ы竒σ納∕﹚莱玂痙ㄆ禗砠祘兵ㄒ瞷︽兵ゅ材75(4)兵Τ闽抄糵刮砏﹚穦矗兜〆穦糵某顶琿タ
︓Τ闽1996弘胺眃璹兵ㄒ璶╯ㄆ兜Τ兜
琌蝶︳砆琌続﹜ビ臛弘痜洛ネ拜肈某А粄蝶︳砆琌続﹜ビ臛"ㄢ┪爹洛ネ"莱弘痜洛ネ琌炊硄洛ネゼゲㄣ称蝶︳┮惠盡穨醚
現┎讽Ыヘ玡"弘痜洛ネ"迭礚猭﹚﹚竡ョ礚ミ猭砏﹚弘痜洛ネ斗竒уず礛τ讽Ы钡兵ㄒ〆穦某粄莱程ぶΤㄢ︗弘痜洛ネ靡讽Ы穦莱璹Τ闽兵ゅ穦р弘痜洛ネ﹚沮弘胺眃兵ㄒ材2(2)兵璹﹚粄洛ネ虫洛ネ
挪程硄筁猭ㄒ1996洛ネ爹璹兵ㄒ兜砏﹚珹ゲ斗砞ミ盡洛ネ辩醇翬某璶―現┎讽Ы讽玂祔祇ē羘ら砞ミ盡洛ネ斗璹盢"弘痜洛ネ"穝﹚洛叭〆穦盡洛ネ┮洛ネ現┎讽Ы氮す玈砞ミ盡洛ネ獽穦秈˙σ納Τ闽某
〆穦ョ闽みΤ闽み瞶厩產種ǎ拜肈現┎讽Ы纯莱某璶―╯莱盢み瞶厩產ョ珹兵ㄒず獽-
矗ㄑ種ǎ讽Ы盢璹弘胺眃兵ㄒ览某穝璹兵ゅ材44⒁(1)(ii)の44⒄(1)兵"洛ネ""┪ㄤ続Τ戈"獽Τ惠璶璶―み瞶厩產矗ㄑ種ǎ
翠穦狝叭羛穦烈產穦闽猔览某矪瞶よΑ琌続ノ続﹜ビ臛の砆猭皘掉﹚Τ竜畓醇のΤ-
疭逼┪矗ㄑ︑穝狝叭
現┎讽Ыボ览某矪瞶よΑ続ノêㄇぃ続﹜ビ臛τ獶続﹜ビ臛続﹜ビ臛璝砆猭皘掉﹚Τ竜穦ㄤ┮デ竜︽籃砏﹚砆沮竜デ稰て兵ㄒ猭皘癸摸祇稰て砏﹚-
斗琿﹚戳丁ず稰て﹛菏恨続﹜ビ臛の砆﹚竜畓醇砆徥痙菏夯┪毙旧┮璝-
砆夯穦盢-
癳┕êㄇ砞Τみ瞶厩產菏夯獽蛤秈-
璝-
砆徥痙毙旧┮盢逼-
秈疭ヘτ砞毙▅の戮穨蚌癡痁獽Τ竒喷の竒疭癡絤菏诡-
秈甶
產穦ョ闽猔沮弘胺眃兵ㄒ览某穝璹兵ゅ材44⑾(2)の44⒁(2)兵斗莉眔穦褐竝竝の菏恨種盢Τ闽Μ甧菏臔┪秈︽菏恨現┎讽Ы秆睦猭皘祇菏臔┪菏恨㎝獀励玡穦褐竝竝ゲ斗絋玂Τì镑の続讽︑穝砞琁磅︽赣㏑览某穝璹兵ゅ材44⑾(2)兵ヘ琌讽猭皘矗璶―穦褐竝竝猭皘某ぃ┶荡盢Τ闽Μ甧菏臔現┎讽Ы埃刮癸ㄆ紐納盢糤砞材44⑾(1)(c)(iv)兵の材44⒁(1)(c)(iv)兵璹穦褐竝竝斗猭皘某琌続﹜癸Τ闽祇菏臔㎝︹続讽菏臔
現┎讽Ы莱產穦癸獀励畓醇妮ッ猵拜肈闽猔盢穦弘胺眃兵ㄒ览某穝璹兵ゅ材44C兵ず秈˙耎"弘睹"迭﹚竡獽菏恨㎝獀励碞獀励よτē赣迭﹚竡耎︓珹弘睹τま祇︽讽Ыョ穦览某穝璹兵ゅ材44C兵"獀励"迭﹚竡珹毙▅蚌癡の︽恨瞶兜﹚竡菏恨㎝獀励獽続ノ畓醇
現┎讽Ы盢穦〆穦糵某顶琿矗〆穦糵某顶琿タ兵ㄒ〆穦や兜タ
и略朝勉叫某や1996ㄆ禗砠祘璹兵ㄒの1996弘胺眃璹兵ㄒ
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Bill before us, in conjunction with the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill 1996, seeks to give High Court Judges, District Court Judges and Magistrates a wider range of disposal options in dealing with accused persons who are mentally disordered and who did the act or made the omission charged. This Bill also seeks to introduce measures to better protect child witnesses in incest cases from the trauma of testifying in court.
I am grateful to the Honourable Fred LI and members of the Bills Committee for the great care they have taken in scrutinizing the Bill since it was introduced into this Council in January. This process has helped the Administration to fine-tune the Bill in a manner which better protects the interests of those whom the Bill is intended to benefit.
The Honourable Fred LI has just explained the suggestions of the Bills Committee, which the Administration accepts. In addition, we have also received comments from the Law Society of Hong Kong, which recommended that the questions of "fitness to plead" and "guilt" should not be determined by the same jury. We have carefully considered the views of both the Bills Committee and the Law Society, and concluded that the Bill should be revised on the basis of their suggestions.
The principal amendments in respect of this Bill which I will propose at the Committee stage are:
(a) first, to provide a definition of "disability" along the lines of section 4(1) of the United Kingdom Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. That definition has already been judicially interpreted in the United Kingdom and, as such, it is expected that the Hong Kong courts will follow the United Kingdom authorities. It is a very wide definition and will, therefore, include any mental disability which renders a defendant "unfit to be tried".
(b) secondly, to ensure that the proposed legislation remains consistent with the existing law so that, in the High Court, the jury which determines the accused person's fitness to plead should not also then determine whether that person, having been found unfit to plead, is guilty of the offence charged;
(c) thirdly, to specify that the medical practitioners who provide evidence should include at least two specialists in mental disorder;
(d) fourthly, in cases where the accused has been found to be under disability and unfit to plead, to clarify that the purposes of the proceedings then is to determine whether the accused did the act or made the omission charged, rather than to determine whether the accused committed the offence;
(e) fifthly, to make it clear that evidence in such proceedings includes the testimony of witnesses; and
(f) finally, to state explicitly that the criminal standard of proof, that is to say, beyond reasonable doubt, applies to such proceedings. These proceedings constitute essentially a "trial of facts", to ensure that the case against a defendant who is found unfit to plead is tested so as to avoid the detention of innocent persons in hospitals merely because they are mentally unfit.
There is one suggestion from the Law Society which we have not incorporated into the amendments. The Law Society suggested that a distinction should be made between an accused person who is under disability even though he did the act or made the omission charged, on the grounds that insanity should not be treated as disability and vice versa. The Administration does not consider such a distinction necessary. Under the present or the proposed law, insanity is not treated as disability or vice versa. The five disposal options proposed in the Bill will be equally available to accused persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, and to accused persons under disability who did the act or made the omission charged. There appears to be no good reason to restrict the court's ability to determine any of the five disposal options for an accused person falling into either category, as none of the disposal options is, in principle, inappropriate for an accused person falling into either category. The Law Society has accepted our explanation.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the commencement of the new legislation. As Honourable Members would notice, the commencement date is not specified in face of the Bill but will be appointed by me by publication in the Gazette. The Administration shares Honourable Members' concern about the implementation date of the provision on incest in this Bill, and I intend to designate 28 June as the commencement date for that provision. This will facilitate early trial of incest cases, and enable witnesses to testify through a live television link in a room separate from the court room. As regards the provisions dealing with guardianship orders, and supervision and treatment orders, the departments concerned will need about four months to set up the new arrangements for them and to ensure that they will operate smoothly. I, therefore, propose to set 1 November 1996 as the day for commencing the relevant provisions.
Mr President, I recommend the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 1996 to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 31 January 1996
PRESIDENT: Does any Member wish to speak? Although technically no Member has spoken on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill 1996, when Mr Fred LI spoke on the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 1996, he spoke on both Bills. So I have decided to permit the Secretary for Security to speak for the second time if he wishes to.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the main purpose of this Bill, and its evolution through the Bills Committee are similar to the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 1996. I shall not go into the details here, but would again like to thank the Bills Committee for their constructive comments.
The Bills Committee has made suggestions to clarify and improve certain aspects of the Bill. The Administration has accepted the Bills Committee's suggestions and proposes to amend the relevant provisions of the Bill accordingly.
The principal amendments in respect of this Bill which I shall propose at the Committee stage include:
(a) first, to clarify that it would be up to the court or the Magistrate to decide whether an order should be made, and the form of such an order, after considering the Director of Social Welfare's advice on the suitability of the order and the availability of a suitable guardian;
(b) secondly, to add definitions of "mental disorder", "supervision" and "treatment" to make it clear that the definition of "mental disorder" covers mental handicap; and
(c) thirdly, to specify that the medical practitioners who provide evidence should include at least two specialists in mental disorder. This amendment corresponds with a similar amendment which I proposed to the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 1996.
As I explained earlier, it is our intention that the provisions concerning guardianship orders, and supervision and treatment orders will come into effect on 1 November 1996.
Mr President, I recommend the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill 1996 to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
IMPORT AND EXPORT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 3 April 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
CONTROL OF CHEMICALS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 3 April 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
RESERVED COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 3 April 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 3 April 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
TOYS AND CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 3 April 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
CONSUMER GOODS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 3 April 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 14 February 1996
糂胺祸某璓勉畊ネ1996莱揭祙珇璹兵ㄒヘ琌璶莱揭祙珇兵ㄒ続ノ絛瞅絋ョ埃ㄇぃ﹜兵蹿矗籃蹿蠢禗砠璸购眏て崩﹚兵ゅ单ㄏ磅猭诀篶皐癸莱揭祙砯珇よ獽のΤ秈︽磅猭玂毁祙Μ癸ミ猭弘и琌や癸い矗盢埃そユ硄ㄣ﹚竡ぇㄏ砆闽浪︓砆猭畑そ某и琌眏疨は癸
畊ネ猭量―そタそキぃ莱赣Τデ猭ㄉΤぃ砆浪北疭舦ぃ莱赣Τデ猭デ猭τ礚禿材瞣硈и玡矗のずΤ闽璹タタ琌笻は硂膀セ猭玥и祔穦〆穦顶琿矗某埃兵ㄒ材9の材11兵タ玂痙莱揭祙珇兵ㄒ材15(2)の19(2)兵蹿ゅㄏご礛膥尿ㄉΤ砆浪のそ舦
沮莱揭祙珇兵ㄒ材15(2)の19(2)兵砆浪のそó进ぃ珹そユ硄そㄣτのそぺ砆﹚そユ硄ㄣぺのぺАㄉΤ僚舦兵ㄒ材9の材11兵览某盢砆浪のそユ硄ㄣぇ传ēぇ祇瞷更Τ莱揭祙珇诀ぃ穦砆浪北赣穦砆闽浪τ闽猭畑ビ叫そ赣进牟デ莱揭祙珇兵ㄒ
兵ㄒ陪琌皐癸戳ま癬闽猔獶猭ㄏノ猳薄猵и獶盽や現┎ゴ阑獶猭猳︽笆и粄兵ㄒ材9の材11兵璹穦岿炳礚禿Τ笻圭羇礚狿猭玥Τ炳蔓ノ種癸荡场だそ猭ó琌伐ぃそキ
渤┮㏄穨炊筂龟琁óó︑"津"玥倒ョΤó盢ㄢ倒璝兵ㄒ材9の材11兵莉眔硄筁羇ㄏó睝ぃ薄ㄏㄏノ獶猭猳琌ó诀礚禿ó碞Θ竜οㄤ局Τ琌-
斑ネ癩ㄣ穦砆現┎浪︓そ
Τ粄闽そ胔好ㄏノ猳玡猭畑穦そキ糵癟┮ぃ穦ó狿砆そ薄猵и獶ぃ獺猭畑穦そタのそキ糵癟ぃ筁ㄏó程沧镑靡︑礚禿τぃ砆猭畑そタ┮孔"も氨氨"óㄌ礛璶籜砆浪Ι┿┮盿ㄓ穕ア硂妓癸-
荡癸琌ぃそキ
兵ㄒ癸ぃΑ局ΤóΤ玴痢┘ぇ尔沮筁猭畑ㄒ莉蝗︽处ó进ㄏó砆靡龟牟デ莱揭祙珇兵ㄒΤ闽ó进ョぃ穦砆猭畑そ猭畑粄蝗︽琌礚禿材璝Τ闽ó进琌ㄑó穦讽い闽ョぃ穦蹦浪┪そ︽笆礚い硂摸óㄉΤ疭舦狦蝗︽琌礚禿材璝Τ闽ó进τ莉僚砆浪┪そ︙︑戈局Τó碞ぃ琌礚禿材τㄉΤ妓僚㎡硂妓癦ぃ琌癸硂摸óぃそキ螟笵現┎稱┮Τ常"穦"ㄓ発磷礚禿砆浪┪そó进繧
翴и辨產σ納琌琌薄瞶ㄆ龟砆╇北獶猭ㄏノ猳Τ178场翠窾场い伐ぶ计薄猵現┎荡癸⊿Τ瞶パ蹦ノ腨紇臫俱︽穨璙ㄒㄓ癸技甡竤ぇ皑ㄏ癸硂ㄇ甡竤ぇ皑現┎ョゼゲ惠璶ノ"┰弗"腨甿猭ㄏノ猳﹍沧獶碿ぃ砵肥ぱ竜琌Τㄇ诀╆砱獽﹜み篈崆κ碭猳窥τ暗笻猭︽控琌腨竜︽ゴ產琌"┰"τゼ璓""獶猭ㄏノ猳碞琌莱赣璶弗㎡ぷㄤ琌讽笻ㄒ獶﹚琌óτ琌ó诀
ㄤ龟埃ぇ砯笲穨ョ炊筂蹦ノ割砯ó琌倒ㄏノ瞷硂ㄇ砯óぃㄉΤ僚砆浪のそ舦и玡碞览某兵蹿癸ぃそキのぃ瞶у蝶ョ妓続ノ砯ó現┎莱赣浪癚矗続讽璹絋玂猭そキ┦㎝瞶┦
畊ネи瘤礛荡场だそ猭诀のó沮瞶硂ぃボи粄獶猭︽﹉デ猭莱揭祙珇兵ㄒきるら纯砆璹獶猭砪芥┪獶猭ㄏノ猳籃程蔼籃琌籃蹿20窾じの菏窽ㄢ瞷︽猭ㄒ瘤礛弧琌だ腨糉眖筁癸獶猭砪芥のㄏノ猳浪北计ㄓ籃蹿パκじ计窾じぃ单戳程祏琌ぱ程琌せる沮荡场だ砆常琌籃蹿1,500じㄆ現┎莱赣浪癚瞷︽籃琌癸笻ㄒΜì镑纞玥現┎莱赣碝―Τよ猭皐癸痷タデ竜讽礛璶荡垒ノ猳薄猵眏磅猭对苯亢琌ゲ斗ョ琌程ǎиだ辨現┎镑硂よр玪τぃ琌р
畊ネи略朝勉㊣苸︗某やセ祔〆穦顶琿矗タ谅谅
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I wish to report to Honourable Members the deliberations of the Bills Committee on the Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Bill 1996, of which I was elected Chairman.
The Bills Committee had a total of two meetings with the Administration. The Bill seeks to amend the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance by improving the governance of trade operations, enforcement action and revenue protection, as well as to update the Ordinance to bring it in line with recent developments.
Whilst members of the Bills Committee were generally in support of the Bill, in the course of the deliberations, members had concerns about a number of issues. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of those issues which the Administration has agreed to move Committee stage amendments, as these are to remove inconsistencies and ambiguities. I do wish, however, to highlight several points.
My colleague, the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU, has highlighted the point concerning taxis which are of concern to the Committee as well.
One of the changes sought by this Bill is the transfer of the power to determine the conditions to be attached to liquor licences from the Governor-in-Council to the two municipal councils. Members of the Bills Committee were concerned that these two municipal councils might have their own policies and come up with different sets of licence conditions. On this point, the Administration advised the Bills Committee that the municipal councils will only be empowered to prescribe conditions which are necessary for licensing control but are at present not prescribed by the Governor-in-Council under section 6 of the Ordinance. Variation in licensing conditions might be justified if it is to cope with the different situations in the two municipal council regions or to have regard to the particular circumstances of the applicants.
Members also queried whether the amendments to the provision in respect of presumptions as proposed in clause 22 might have the effect of making it more onerous for the person being charged. According to the Administration's explanation, as the law now stands, the onus is on the defendant to prove to the contrary on the balance of probabilities that the presumptions should not apply.
The Bill provides that a quantum requirement be introduced where appropriate, and in parallel with other supporting evidence in triggering a rebuttable presumption about possession of dutiable goods. The quantum requirement is set at a sufficiently high level so that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there should be no doubt that the presumption should apply if the level is exceeded. In such circumstances, a person will then be presumed to be in possession of dutiable goods. The onus on the person charged is, therefore, less than that under the existing presumption provision.
The Administration has also confirmed that the proposed amendments are consistent with the right to presumption of innocence provided in Article 11.1 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
Mr President, with these remarks, I ask Honourable Members to support the Bill and the Committee stage amendment to be moved by the Administration and Mrs LAU.
朝挪狶某璓勉畊ネ讽Ы挪═óㄏノ"獶猭穨猳"薄猵腨眏ゴ阑セЫ某璹莱揭祙珇兵ㄒ讽Ы某璹ㄤい砆闽猔琌р砆"浪"の"そ"そユ硄ㄣぇ狦讽Ы璹莉眔硄筁讽磅猭诀闽祇瞷ㄏノ"獶猭穨猳"猳赣诀盢穦砆"浪北"盢穦砆"浪"磅猭诀闽猭畑ビ叫"そ"赣
セ癸讽Ы∕みゴ阑ㄏノ獶猭猳琌ボやさΩゴ阑絛瞅筁沮讽Ы倒ぉセЫ戈セる–ぱキАΤ1.5﹙砆浪北獶猭ㄏノ猳τヘ玡カ︽ǐ翠穝Τ15 000琜Ωオ传ēぇ獶猭ㄏノ猳τ浪北笻猭俱ó钉ヮ窾だぇи-
粄ぃ琌ㄏノ獶猭猳
セ粄"ㄥ"ㄏノ莱栋いゴ阑獶猭猳ㄑ莱の秖ㄏノ獶猭猳笲更ㄣ讽Ы璹某ゼΤ笷瓃ヘ夹はτㄤ捌ノ玥穦礚禿óΘ竜οセ伐ぃ觅Θ羭
ヘ玡癸獶猭砪芥┪ㄏノ猳程蔼籃蹿20窾じの菏窽ㄢㄤ龟竒獶盽ì镑狦и-
秆犁笲家Α杠獽穦癸硂拜肈Τ睲捶粄醚τē场穦Τ诀óΑ–ぱぃ丁秈︽竒犁珿ó璶璽癬┮Τ诀︽砫ヴ硂妓癸ó琌獶盽ぃそキセ祔穦觅Θ糂胺祸某某埃兵ㄒ材9兵の材11璹玂莱揭珇兵ㄒ材15(2)の19(2)兵蹿ゅㄏご膥尿ㄉΤ砆浪のそ舦
セ略朝勉谅谅畊ネ
虫ヲ昂某璓勉畊ネ現┎碞莱揭祙珇兵ㄒ矗兜璹ㄤい程ㄣ某┦よ琌盢砆浪㎝そユ硄ㄣぇき疉の笻はΤ闽兵ㄒó进い砯ó计程蔼240﹙逼︽材179﹙耕ど钡パǎ獶猭ㄏノ猳薄猵琌陪腨τΤど镣墩チ囊や現┎タ跌垒ノ猳薄猵盢癸╬產ó┪砯óΙ┿惫琁耎甶︓眏纞ノゴ阑摸獶猭笆
ぃ筁糂胺祸某踞み現┎硂兜ㄒ盢穦癸óぃそキ琌炊筂龟琁ó安诀獶猭ㄏノ猳穝兵ㄒㄤ穦Τ诀穦砆現┎浪┪そ挡狦ó獽穦Θ礚禿甡チ囊粄硂阶翴眔猔種莱ま︓ㄤó进传ēぇ瞷︽兵ㄒ砯ó籔砯ó单óΘ竜ο籜ó进砆Ι┿穕アチ囊や現┎璹兵ㄒゴ阑獶猭ㄏノ猳笆よ現┎ョ莱璶浪癚瞷︽诀ㄏó礚禿竜
癸糂胺祸某タ某チ囊穦щ斌舦布糂某阶翴港礛眔σ納琵僚璹絛瞅獶秆∕よ猭Ι┿琌腨糉胓籃Τゴ阑獶猭ㄏノ猳и-
踞みㄏó诀牟デ猭ㄒ膥尿Ι┿ㄏノ猳薄猵ご穦膥尿碿て眖そキàτē莱籔ㄤó进妓妓摸矪だ安踞みó礚禿穕アи-
某現┎莱浪癚瞷Ι┿ó进诀獶硓筁僚琘摸ó进ㄓ秆∕
程и-
チ囊玃叫現┎そキ矪瞶┮Τó进珹ㄤノ笲块︽穨ó进ㄏ硂薄猵そキ莉眔矪瞶┮チ囊癸糂胺祸某タ穦斌舦
眎簙┚某璓勉畊ネ碞1996莱揭祙珇璹兵ㄒи-
ㄆ朝挪狶某竒チ羛ミ初и稱干ㄇ戈癟
癸ゴ阑獶猭ㄏノ猳現┎∕み琌眔и-
や癸現┎┮览兵ㄒチ羛粄斗璶Τ┮玂痙и-
粄Τ闽览兵蹿癸ó筁璙ㄨョぃそキ瞷禜チ羛粄翠猭弘そキのそタ猔"暗ㄆ讽"玥璹兵ㄒ盢穦旧︓"堵敖フ讽╝"薄猵瞷瞷翠︽穨い场だó穦盢ó进ぉ戮穨诀竒犁安瓃硄筁杠ó穦ぃ薄薄猵籜穕ア現┎癸竒犁︹薄︽穨穦まノΤ闽兵ㄒр竒犁︹薄︽穨加琩ョぃ璓盢Τ闽加そゑぇ瓃猭ㄒ琌筁璙ㄨ穦腨ゴ阑︽穨
Τ闽兵ㄒず甧甧砛蝗︽处ㄏó砆靡琌獶猭猭ㄏノ猳ョ僚ぃ砆そó进礚い蠢Τみ笻猭矗ㄑ臔ō才ㄏセ︑戈局Τóョ穦籔蝗︽逼处τㄏ竒犁Θセ传ēぇΤ闽兵ㄒゼ棒峨ゴ阑獶猭ㄏノ猳簗瑌
и-
粄ゴ阑︽穨獶猭ㄏノ猳程虏虫快猭馋ス祇瞷︽ǐ獶猭ㄏノ猳竒猭畑糵癟﹚竜Ιだ┪︓綪緍緋磅酚琿丁Μ纞ノ
畊ネチ羛盢穦祔丁や糂胺祸某タ
谅谅畊ネ
畐叭璓勉畊ネи璶稰谅甃ㄎ瞶某の兵ㄒ〆穦Θ癸セ兵ㄒ秈︽冈灿τǔ硉╯ㄆ龟セ兵ㄒΤ兜м砃┦璹〆穦るず羭︽ㄢΩ穦某獽ЧΘΤ闽╯硂妓Θ罿龟眔古砛︓〆穦癸セ兵ㄒやи-
略瞏谅種
兵ㄒ〆穦и-
矗ㄑ腳禥種ǎи盢穦〆穦糵某顶琿矗计兜竒パ兵ㄒ〆穦種タи穦秆睦矗硂ㄇタ瞶パи穦癸糂胺祸某タ莱
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee Stage of Bills
Council went into Committee.
COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL
Clauses 1, 4 to 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20 to 24 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 19
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 19 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
The amendment to clause 2 limits the scope of the definition of "wasted costs" to instances of failure to appear or lateness, without reasonable cause, leading to an otherwise avoidable adjournment on the part of any legal or other representative.
Clause 3 is amended by increasing the ceiling on defence costs in summary proceedings from $15,000 to $30,000 and by providing for future adjustments to be made by subsidiary legislation.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, by deleting the definition "wasted costs" and substituting
""wasted costs" (店砠禣) means -
(a) any costs incurred by a party to the proceedings as a result of -
(i) any failure to appear; or
(ii) lateness,
without reasonable cause leading to an otherwise avoidable adjournment on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of a legal or other representative; or
(b) any costs incurred by a party to the proceedings which, in the light of such failure or lateness occurring after they were incurred, the court or the judge considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to the proceedings to pay.".
That clause 2 be amended, in paragraph (b) of the definition of "店砠禣"by deleting "赣猭皘" and substituting "猭皘".
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended
(a) in subclause (2), by deleting "$15,000" and substituting "$30,000".
(b) by adding -
"(3) The Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Legislative Council, by order, amend the sum specified in subsection (2).".
That clause 3(1)(b) be amended, by deleting "∕﹚" and substituting "掉﹚".
That clause 3(1) be amended, by deleting "赣砠禣" and substituting "砠禣".
Clause 8
That clause 8(b) be amended, by deleting "passes a sentence substantially at variance with" and substituting
"imposes a less severe punishment than".
Clause 9
That clause 9(2)(b) be amended, by deleting "passes a sentence substantially at variance with that passed" and substituting
"imposes a less severe punishment than that imposed".
Clause 11
That clause 11 be amended
(a) in subclause (2), by deleting "$15,000" and substituting "$30,000".
(b) by adding -
"(3) The Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Legislative Council, by order, amend the sum specified in subsection (2).".
Clause 15
That clause 15(b) be amended, by deleting everything after "よ" and substituting "赣猭皘┪猭﹛τ赣猭皘┪猭﹛矗ユ癸赣よ讽┷璓砠禣计肂┮蝶︳".
That clause 15(c) be amended, by deleting "砆猭皘" and substituting "妮猭皘".
Clause 16
That clause 16(3) be amended, by deleting "珹" and substituting "".
Clause 19
That clause 19(4) be amended, by deleting "崩陆" where it twice occurs and substituting "篗綪".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 19, as amended, put and agreed to.
Heading before PART VII
New clause 25 TRANSITIONAL
New clause 25 Transitional
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that the Heading before new clause 25, and new clause 25 as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
New clause 25 adds a transitional provision to the Bill for the reasons I set out during the Second Reading debate early this afternoon.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause read the Second time.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that the Heading before new clause 25 and new clause 25 be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 25
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"PART VII
TRANSITIONAL
25. Transitional
This Ordinance shall not apply to criminal proceedings in respect of offences committed before the coming into operation of this Ordinance.".
Question on the addition of the Heading before new clause 25 and new clause 25 proposed, put and agreed to.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 were agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 3 and 4 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments contain the principal improvements to the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill which I have already referred to in the Second Reading debate. They have been discussed in detail by the Bills Committee and have received the Committee's endorsement.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended
(a) by deleting "section 75(4), (5) and (6) is repealed and the following substituted -" and substituting -
"Section 75 is amended -
(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting -
"(1) This section applies where on the trial of a person the question arises (at the instigation of the defence or otherwise) whether the accused is under a disability, that is to say, under any disability such that apart from this Ordinance it would constitute a bar to his being tried.";
(b) by repealing subsection (4), (5) and (6) and substituting -".
(b) by deleting the proposed section 75(4)(a) and (b) and substituting -
"(a) where it falls to be determined on the arraignment of the accused person, then if the trial proceeds the accused person shall be tried by -
(i) where paragraph (a) of the definition of "court" is applicable, a jury other than the jury which determined that question;
(ii) in any other case, the same jury which determined that question;
(b) where it falls to be determined at any later time, it shall be determined by -
(i) where paragraph (a) of the definition of "court" is applicable, a separate jury or the jury by whom the accused person is being tried, as the court may direct;
(ii) in any other case, the same jury by whom the accused person is being tried.".
(c) in the proposed section 75(5) by adding "(of whom not less than 2 shall be practitioners approved for the purposes of section 2(2) of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136))" after "practitioners".
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 75A, by deleting the section heading and substituting -
"Determination as to whether accused person
under disability did the act or
made the omission charged".
(b) in the proposed section 75A(1)(a) by adding at the beginning "without prejudice to any proceedings for the purposes of paragraph (b)(ii),".
(c) in the proposed section 75A by adding -
"(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that -
(a) evidence that may be adduced under subsection (1)(b)(ii) includes the testimony of witnesses;
(b) the law applicable in criminal proceedings shall be the law applicable in any proceedings arising under subsection (1)(b).".
(d) in the proposed section 76(2)(a) by adding "(of whom not less than 2 shall be practitioners approved for the purposes of section 2(2) of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136))" after "practitioners".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 3 and 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 were agreed to.
Clause 2
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments contain the principal improvements to the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill which I have already referred to in the Second Reading debate. They have been discussed in detail by the Bills Committee and have received the Bills Committee's endorsement.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 44A(1) -
(i) by deleting "Subject to subsection (2), where" and substituting "Where";
(ii) in paragraph (b), by adding "(of whom not less than 2 shall be practitioners approved for the purposes of section 2(2))" after "practitioners";
(iii) in paragraph (c) -
(A) in subparagraph (ii), by deleting "and" last appearing;
(B) in subparagraph (iii), by deleting "him," and substituting "him; and";
(C) by adding -
"(iv) the advice of the Director of Social Welfare on -
(A) the suitability of an order under this section in the case of the person; and
(B) where applicable the availability of a suitable person to be authorized under paragraph (i) if there is an order under this section in the case of the person,".
(b) by deleting the proposed section 44A(2).
(c) in the proposed section 44C by adding -
""mental disorder", in relation to treatment, includes behaviour manifested by a mental disorder;
"supervision" includes care;
"treatment" includes education, training and behaviour management."."
(d) in the proposed section 44D(1)(b) by adding "(of whom not less than 2 shall be practitioners approved for the purposes of section 2(2))" after "practitioners".
(e) in the proposed section 44D(1)(c) -
(i) in subparagraph (ii), by deleting "and" last appearing;
(ii) in subparagraph (iii), by deleting "him," and substituting "him; and";
(iii) by adding -
"(iv) the advice of the Director of Social Welfare on -
(A) the suitability of an order under this section in the case of the person;
(B) where applicable, the availability of a suitable person acting under the Director of Social Welfare's authority under paragraph (i) if there is an order under this section in the case of the person; and
(C) if there is an order in the case of the person, the arrangements that will need to be made for the treatment intended to be specified in the order,".
(f) in the proposed section 44D(1)(ii) -
(i) by adding "(or other appropriately qualified person)" after "practitioner";
(ii) by deleting "condition" and substituting "disorder".
(g) by deleting the proposed section 44D(2).
(h) in the proposed section 44G(1) -
(i) by adding "(or other appropriately qualified person)" after "practitioner";
(ii) by deleting "condition" and substituting "disorder".
(i) in the proposed section 44I, by adding ", a relative of the supervised person" after "application of the supervised person".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
IMPORT AND EXPORT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
CONTROL OF CHEMICALS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
RESERVED COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
TOYS AND CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
CONSUMER GOODS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1, 4 to 8, 13 to 23 and 25 to 45 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3, 10, 12 and 24
畐叭璓勉畊ネи略笆某ㄌ酚祇癳ぉ某ゅン┮更矗某タ材231012の24兵
兵ㄒ材2(d)兵タΞ埃猭ㄒい筁ノ迭
材3(1)兵タΞ睲贰璹猭ㄒ続ノ絛瞅ず睟猳摸
材10(4)の12(2)兵タΞㄏ瞷"exercise all such diligence荷だ"ぇ矪А"take all reasonable steps蹦ち瞶˙艼"眖τタ絋は琈猭ㄒヘ
材12兵タ珹穝糤材(1A)蹿のタ材(3)蹿Τ闽タΞ兵ゅず"trainó"迭ㄏó穦差唉ó进┪诀单ㄤ笲块ㄣ非玥莱揭祙珇兵ㄒいΤ闽砯珇穐笆恨
材24兵タΞ絋玂Τ闽籃蹿よΑ蠢禗砠兜兵ゅノ迭璓
畊ネи略笆某某
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2(d) be amended, by deleting "and "railway"" and substituting ", "railway" and "by rail"".
Clause 3
That clause 3(1) be amended, by deleting proposed subsection (1)(c) and substituting
"(c) the following types of hydrocarbon oil -
(i) aircraft spirit;
(ii) light diesel oil;
(iii) motor spirit; and
(iv) kerosene; and".
Clause 10
That clause 10(4) be amended, in proposed subsection (11), by deleting "exercised all such diligence" and substituting "took all reasonable steps".
Clause 12
That clause 12 be amended
(a) by adding -
"(1A) The proviso to section 23(1) is repealed and the following substituted -
"(1A) Goods put on board any ship, vehicle, train or aircraft under a permit are not to be relanded except under a permit.
(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply to duty-paid goods after their first removal within Hong Kong from the ship, vehicle, train or aircraft on which they were imported.".".
(b) by deleting subclauses (2) and (3) and substituting -
"(2) Section 23(2) is repealed and the following substituted -
"(2) Where an offence of removing, discharging or delivering any goods from any ship, vehicle or aircraft contrary to subsection (1) is proved to have been committed, every person being an owner, charterer, agent, master or other person in charge or comprador of the ship, vehicle or aircraft is deemed guilty of that offence in the absence of evidence that the goods were removed or discharged without his knowledge and that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such removal or discharge.".
(3) Section 23(3) is amended -
(a) by repealing "Goods" and substituting "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, goods";
(b) by adding ", train" after "vehicle".".
Clause 24
That clause 24 be amended, by deleting proposed section 47B(1)(b) and substituting
"(b) persons whom the Commissioner has reason to believe have committed an offence and the offence has been compounded under section 47A.".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 3, 10, 12 and 24, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 11
〆糂胺祸某璓勉畊ネセ笆某タ材9の11兵タず甧ゅン┮更Τ闽иさΩ矗タ弄臛阶и冈灿阶瓃ぃ狡
畐叭弄臛阶矗穦〆穦顶琿莱и硂兜タи獺現┎畐叭ぃ穦は癸и硂兜タㄤ龟現┎竒╯〆穦睲贰笷-
腀種篗綪材9㎝11兵ぃ筁現┎弧ウぃ稱巨パ某暗τиさぱ矗硂兜タㄤ龟琌┯兵ㄒ〆穦┮㎎τ暗獶и︽
и稱诀穦莱弄臛阶虫ヲ昂某┮矗ㄢ阶翴虫某矗狦Τ浪㎝Ι┿舦杠碞搭ぶ垒ノ猳薄猵и稱拜虫某狦獶猭ㄏノ猳琌诀τ硂诀琌óㄓノêó进琌砆そ琌砆浪ê诀セぃ穦闽みョぃ穦び筁踞みó进砆浪Чぃ穦綝穕ア穕ア琌ó虫某安砞óΤ北诀穨ず诀獶ó沟τ诀琌穦︑︽猳óセ礚猭北诀︽虫某癹磷и弄臛阶┮矗阶翴碞琌現┎览某材9㎝11兵狦籹硑Θぃそキ薄猵鹤の礚禿硂翴某虫某琌Ч⊿Τ莱螟笵虫某谋眔翠莱龟琁"圭狿ゐ羇"и獺虫某琌や"圭羇ゐ狿"琌チ囊莱赣やи辨虫某㎝チ囊み锣種瘤礛虫某㎝チ囊ぃ镑やи硂兜タョ稰谅-
ぃぉは癸щ斌舦布ぃ筁иご礛辨-
镑み锣種やи硂兜タ谅谅
Proposed amendments
Clause 9
That clause 9 be amended, by deleting the clause.
Clause 11
That clause 11 be amended, by deleting the clause.
Question on the amendments proposed.
〆襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネиョチ囊莱糂胺祸某芠翴и-
︙щ斌舦布㎡膀セ膀猭瞶芠翴ㄤい璶琌и-
谋眔狦や糂胺祸某盢僚絛瞅传ēぇ讽ó诀︑緍緋緍緋︑êτ獶猭ㄏノ猳ㄤ龟ョ常穦僚и-
谋眔硂薄猵荡ぃそキぃΤゴ阑ó诀笻ㄒ薄猵硂琌и-
粄璶
и-
ョ糂某芠翴狦ó籔诀琌だ秨杠狦ㄢ常杠ó琌ぃ北诀诀┪︑︽猳獶パó璽砫硂琌︽ず┮и-
ョㄤい螟ぇ矪ㄤ龟現┎瞷矗某盢ㄤ僚┪糂某┮弧Ч盢僚ㄢ常ぃ镑皐癸拜肈み硂琌и-
щ斌舦布
礛τи-
ョビ辨現┎盞ち菏跌硂薄猵ス祇瞷ó诀垒ノ薄猵の笻ㄒ薄猵锣镣腨杠и辨現┎玦矗ㄒョ辨現┎臮のó诀籔ㄤ︽穨ó诀癸ぃそキ薄猵
畐叭璓勉畊ネㄏノ獶猭猳τ牟デ莱揭祙珇兵ㄒ笻猭︽Τ┮糤秆∕硂拜肈и-
糤闽戈方眏ゴ阑摸ぃ猭笆矗蔼Τ闽程蔼籃蹿и-
ョ矗ユ某糵某兵ㄒい兵ゅ獽讽Ы镑沮瞷琁ノ╬產ó┪砯ó非玥盢瞣疉笻猭︽いΙ┿ぃ筁и-
籔兵ㄒ〆穦癚阶眔眡场だ某闽猔某璹癸︽穨のΤ闽だ戳蹿处穨叭篶Θ紇臫и-
粄Τ闽笻猭薄猵龟腨τ膀セョ⊿Τ瞶パぃр籔ㄤó进购矪瞶τ瞷⊿Μó进兵ゅずョ癸Τ闽Τì镑玂毁ぃ筁σ納筁┮Τи-
種场だ某┮ボ闽猔ョぃ礚笵瞶и-
ゴ衡既ぃ蹦某い︽笆τ癸糂胺某矗〆穦糵某顶琿タョぃボは癸
鲸恨и-
穦盞ち菏诡Τ闽薄猵Τ惠璶Ω矗赣某┪ㄤ︽よ猭
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 9 and 11, as amended, put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996 and
MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to.
Bills read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY reported that the
IMPORT AND EXPORT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
CONTROL OF CHEMICALS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
RESERVED COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
TOYS AND CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996 and
CONSUMER GOODS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee without amendment. She moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to.
Bills read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY reported that the
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
MEMBER'S MOTIONS
HONG KONG ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS 1917 TO 1993 (NOS. 1 AND 2)
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG to move the following motion:
"That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong be amended in Standing Order No. 19 -
(a) by repealing paragraph (6) and substituting -
"(6) If a Member is not present to ask his question when his name is called the question may with his consent be asked by another Member, but otherwise shall be treated as a question for which a written answer has been sought.";
(b) by repealing paragraph (8) and substituting -
"(8) A Member who has given notice of a question may withdraw the question by giving notice to the Clerk before 1.00 p.m. on the day of the sitting at which the question is to be asked."."
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I move the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of the resolution is to amend Standing Order 19(6) and (8) concerning arrangements for handling questions requiring an oral reply at the Legislative Council sitting.
The proposals have been considered by the Subcommittee on Procedural Matters and endorsed by the House Committee. Under the existing Standing Order 19(6), if the Member is not present to ask his question when his name is called and if the Member has not made prior arrangements either for another Member to ask the question or to treat the question as a written question, that question shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
However, this arrangement is considered to be impracticable because at the time when it is known that the Member is not present to ask his question, the Administration's reply to the question has already been placed at Members' seats and distributed to the press. It is therefore proposed to amend the Standing Order to the effect that unless the absent Member has made prior arrangement for another Member to ask the question, that question shall be treated as a question seeking a written reply.
Under the existing Standing Order 19(8), a Member who has given notice of a question may withdraw the question by giving notice in writing to the Clerk at any time before the relevant sitting or by informing the President orally during Question Time. To allow Members greater flexibility in the manner in giving the withdrawal notice, it is proposed to amend the Standing Order to the effect that an oral question may be withdrawn on notice given either in writing or orally by the absent Member to the Clerk to the Legislative Council before 1 pm on the day of the relevant sitting.
With these remarks, Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MR FRED LI to move the following motion:
"That the Waterworks (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notice No. 176 of 1996 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 15 May 1996, be amended in section 4, in new Part III -
(a) in item 1(a), by repealing "$7.77" and substituting "$7.11";
(b) in item 1(e), by repealing "$5.01" and substituting "$4.58";
(c) in item 1(f), by repealing "$5.01" and substituting "$4.58";
(d) in item 1(g), by repealing "$5.01" and substituting "$4.58"."
地某璓勉畊ネи略ㄌ酚某ㄆ祘笆某и某
1996叭砞琁璹砏ㄒΞ盢禣恨钡婚禣のㄤ狝叭禣だ糤9%の12%パせるら癬ネ
ず叭〆穦╯兵砏ㄒτΘミ舱パセヴ畊舱羭︽ㄢΩ穦某ㄤいΩ琌籔讽Ы秈︽舱〆穦〆癸ゼㄓ计叭砞琁竒犁禣ノ–箇璸糤碩禬筄10%の癸箇璸㏕﹚戈玻キА瞓–糤碩Аボだ闽猔パ叭砞琁瞷犁笲琌Τ緇〆借好琌Τ惠璶秈˙糤禣
現┎秆睦赣兜緇度兜安﹚计ㄤい计26货じㄓ︑眖畉昏┮眔Μのパ現┎┮Τ︘ノめ矗ㄑ兜禣ノ瑉禟12禣ノ狦⊿Τ硂ㄇパ現┎矗ㄑ瑉禟叭砞琁犁笲ㄤ龟琌Τ莲穕現┎秆睦膀セ祘糤のч侣竒犁禣ノ–糤碩いノゑㄒい瓣嘲潦禦や竒犁禣ノ35%讽Ы眏秸某禣糤碩放㎝κだゑョきる︓せる戳丁箇璸硄等瞯10.6%ㄏ龟琁某穝Μ禣叭砞琁せ︓㏕﹚戈玻キА瞓龟悔厨瞯度穦4.2%耕ヘ夹厨瞯6.5%讽Ы秈˙龟琁穝Μ禣–┮眔2.24货じ肂Μ程沧穦ぃΑノカチō
ぃ筁舱〆穦〆玱ぃ钡讽Ы秆睦〆粄眖畉昏┮眔Μぃ虫砆跌パ現┎矗ㄑ瑉禟カチセōタ琌煤畉昏ㄏ琌Ω某糤Μ禣ぃ莉硄筁叭砞琁犁笲ご穦Τ5.892货じ緇τㄤ㏕﹚戈玻キА瞓箇璸厨瞯せ︓玥笷3.3%
さぱ翠タ羬竒蕾癐癶ア穨瞯蔼膀糷カチネ螟┮舱〆穦∕﹚笆某某∕現┎さΩ矗糤禣иさぱㄓ秨穦玡ョΜぃ囊某戮穦┪ㄤ刮砰患ユ獺ン璶―и-
∕禣糤и临Μチ囊24 000カチ帽硂ㄇ帽碞硂硂タは琈チ丁刮砰現獀刮砰現囊㎝刮砰常璓は琈カチ螟常璶―セЫ∕さΩ糤禣
σ納讽Ы秆睦㎝某糤禣癸ノめぷㄤ琌都穨紇臫ぇ舱〆穦璓粄埃笲穨ノ禣莱蝴ヘ玡キ︓钡婚恨のㄤ狝叭禣ノパ单禣ノ癸禣ㄓ弧獶竒盽┦秨や┮舱〆穦〆粄硂摸禣钡
┮畊ネи穦碞ㄢよ笆某某材场だ琌挡坝穨ノ縱ノ硚ノの差獃ノ禣ノ硂场だΤ兜禣ノ挡и矗挡穨ノ禣ノ材场だ玥琌︘ノ禣ノ挡
и略朝勉辨︗某镑や硂兜某
PRESIDENT: Mr Fred LI, you are moving two motions?
某畊ネи琌Ω笆某ㄢ兜某㎡
PRESIDENT: You have given notice to move two motions. I am not sure which is your first one.
地某畊ネ琵и弧и某い某盾и矗材兜某琌秈︽兜タ材兜琌1A紀埃7.77じτぇ7.11じ材兜琌1E紀埃5.01じτぇ4.58じ材兜琌1F紀埃5.01じτぇ4.58じ材兜琌1G紀埃5.01じτぇ4.58じ硂摸常琌坝穨㎝縱ノ硚ノ硂碞琌и材兜某
Question on the motion proposed.
眎簙┚某璓勉畊ネ琌и-
ネいぃぶ狥﹁禣糤ゲ礛紇臫チネ現┎讽Ы癸禣秈︽秸俱Τゲ璶糵稸∕﹚チ羛竒筁瞏剪納㎝糵稸╯∕﹚や懒竚︘めの坝め糤禣某
程璶琌и-
粄現┎矗糤禣瞶沮琌ぃ钡竒筁だ猂и-
祇谋筁计ㄏ現┎ぃ糤禣叭竝ご礛Τ计货じ緇現┎讽Ы玥硂ㄇ緇琌ノэ到ㄑ狝叭のㄑ膀秨や疭琌ノ穝カ马祇甶ぇ穝カ马祇甶現┎ノ禣緇┯踞矗ㄑㄑ╰参秨や╃芥Τ计货じΜ現┎玥盢硂ㄇΜ痲挤┦ΜЧ⊿Τ挤蹿膥尿ノ秨祇のэ到ㄑ╰参ぇ硂妓暗琌そキ㎡
よ現┎瞷ネ玻块癳–禣ノじτ︘めΜ禣ノ–4.5じ璹ぇ玥4.9じ传ēぇ現┎倒ぉ︘め–じ瑉禟ㄓ現┎獶盽築磏龟悔硂琌呸胯岿粇眀ヘΤ15%畉昏Μ挤耴叭竝眀ヘτ現┎玥硂15%畉昏Μや–ネ玻禣ノぃ寂ぇ计ㄏ︘め坝めぃ煤禣ョ璶煤畉昏ㄤ龟︘め琌ノ︑煤畉昏ㄓや禣┮現┎弧瑉禟カチ禣呸胯琌弧ぃ硄
σ納翠俱砰カ笵竒蕾絯㎝カチ癸禣┯チ羛穦や懒竚糤︘坝めノΜ禣某
セ略朝勉
朝篴篱某璓勉畊ネ現┎碩糤禣ま癬カチ伐は莱さぱ竒蕾ぃ春ア穨钡紇臫チネカチκょぷㄤ癸ノ秖︽穨ㄒ皊┍都穨簘琕穨紇臫腨
琎ぱ边и畊都穨穦刮砰穦紋笆Τ竤紁畍の恨瞶瞅и-
戳い瑀繵ネ埃贺"ㄨ種"竊ノ琌旧璓い瑀ㄤいиЧ種硂竤紁畍猭埃猔徖ネìノㄓ矪瞶瑍擂ノㄣ產ㄣの≧瑍初琌镑搭ぶい瑀祇ネ诀穦
и矗"ㄨ種"竊ノ產常笵禣糤临Τ逼γ禣逼γ禣单都穨タ㊣毕㏑硂戳沟常腢抠搭ぶノ搭Θセ刚稱稱紁畍Τ螟い瑀诀穦痷穦糤τ耕玡
畊ネミ猭Ы獶盽荐緓Τу刮砰ㄓミ猭Ы叫腀は癸現┎碩糤禣逼γ禣の逼γ禣иもΤ1窾帽琌ミ猭Ыパ14都穨穦刮砰ユ倒и
硂ㄇ琌14都穨穦ㄢ琍戳ずぱぱ丁皊加竩眔帽-
帽ゅンず甧珹は癸現┎糤禣逼γ禣の逼γ禣硂14穦盢硂1窾帽ユ倒и琌辨иミ猭Ы蠢-
弧碭杠硂帽Τ1窾み羘㎝種ǎ-
常辨さぱ︗某щ布∕禣糤τ琍戳るら碞逼γ禣の逼γ禣щ布ョ辨︗某は癸現┎禣
硂1窾帽场ㄓ︑皊加竩讽礛珹恨瞶顶糷㎝场だ沟-
裤臘帽タ弧-
癸現┎暗猭览笷眏疨ぃ骸
畊ネセ㎝羛穦の眎簙┚某チ羛常やタは癸現┎糤禣某и-
ョ辨ミ猭Ыず︗ㄆや硂Ωは癸現┎糤禣某
セ略朝勉谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: I can see the pile of signatures which may be rather heavy.
朝篴篱某絋琌畊ネㄤ薄種ぇ瞏ㄏи盢ぇもいぃ斌辨︗某や
PRESIDENT: I wish you would put the signatures away now and the same goes for Mr Fred LI, now that you have made your points.
バ玊某璓勉畊ネиも琌さぱ某祘帽⊿Τ畊ネи-
瞷タ酵阶禣拜肈и猋洁地某璣烩旧璶―挡┮Τ禣基┮孔基珹┮Τカチら盽ノ禣ノ㎝朝篴篱某程闽猔皊加ρ馏の沟璶禣挡┮Τ穨ノ禣硂瞶パ︑パ囊㎝坝や硂∕﹚谅谅畊ネ
叭璓勉畊ネ琌ら盽ネゲ惠珇и-
–ぱ常惠璶秖ノ︘㎝獶︘ノ硚癸玃秈セ翠竒蕾糤穦ㄓ弧琌ぃ┪セ翠せκ窾いΤ99.7%莉眔ㄑ莱き羆秖9.4货ミよμ
鲸恨и-
Τ"胑"栋の皌╰参珹ㄢ┾爱よ猭Θ俄15俄18耾紅礚计恨笵㎝筹恨のセ翠だ栋跋и-
ノご礚猭︑倒︑ì
︑せ癬и-
獽い瓣潦禦ノ辣干ぃìよ獽だ皌の禞ㄓ︑い瓣ㄑ現┎硑╰ㄑ繥笵恨笵筹恨の┾ㄓ現┎潦禦ノ皌のㄑよщ戈
埃惠璶秖戈方の戈ㄓ犁笲ㄑ╰参矗ㄑ耾のノめ狝叭現┎ョ斗﹚戳蝴のэ到ㄑ╰参矗ㄑ綼の蔼瞯狝叭碞ら惠―秈︽砏购
璹禣現郸и-
睲贰笵ㄑぃ琌兜ぃ┪狝叭琌贺惠璶現┎ヘ夹琌璶糵稸笲ノ祙窥ぇ緇絋玂ノめ矗ㄑ綼τ蔼瞯狝叭笷璓硂ヘ夹現┎璹ミ続讽穨叭璸购珹戈セщ戈砞琁蝴のノめ狝叭单兜ヘ
琌ㄤい贺ネゲ惠珇и-
璹穨叭璸购瞏瞶и-
蹦ノだΜ禣獽ノめ禣矗ㄑ琘ノ秖Τㄇノめ秖禬筁ネ膀セ惠璶蝶︳ノ秖-
斗煤ユΘセ┪Θセ璸衡禣ノㄆ龟Τ80%︘ノめЧ礚斗煤ユ禣┪斗煤ユΘセ┪Θセ璸衡禣Τ秖ノめ禣璹蔼Θセキ硂兜現郸琌璶ぃ来堡ノノめ┪⊿Τ堡ノめ煤ユ耕禣搭ぶノめ禣┪憨礚竊ノ
矪瞶㎝块癳ノ倒︘ノめ–ノ禣ノヘ玡じ硂计肂ゼр厨瞯戈Θセ璸衡ずㄏ璸衡ΘセΙ埃ч侣–ノ秨やご惠7.4じオぃ筁瞷︘ノめ紉Μ禣キА–琌4.5じ龟琁秸俱禣某–盢糤︓4.9じ硂计肂ㄤ龟ご环环瓃Θセ
ㄓΜΘセよ瞷碩畉肂膀セ琌パ現┎Μ㎝畉昏挤蹿や禣僚肂禣ノ獽琌パ現┎Μやせ︓現┎Μの畉昏硂よ挤蹿だ4货じの24货じ
ヘ玡︘ノめ璝祘琌干禟獶︘ノめ現┎ミ初琌︘ノめ┪ㄤΜ痲ㄓ方ぃ莱戈θ诀篶τ某秸俱Μ禣埃瞷硂贺干禟瞷禜タは琈現┎硂ミ初硂ぃ琌坝穨拜肈τ琌癸祙煤畉昏の︘ノめ琌そキ拜肈ㄆ龟き╯浪癚禣1995叭砞琁璹砏ㄒ舱〆穦ミ猭Ы某纯璶―現┎荷Ν埃硂贺干禟瞷禜
讽Ы璸衡某禣秸俱肂纯だσ納璝龟悔珹ノめ璽踞某糤碩癸顶糷ノめ惠煤禣ノ紇臫ㄤ龟稬
и-
︳璸︘ノめよ
16%ノめご礛礚斗煤ユ禣
Τ40%ノめ–る斗煤ユ35じ┪ぶ禣ゑ瞷煤じキАΤΘ產畑ㄓ弧–Θ–る斗ぃìじ禣
Τ20%ノめ–る煤ぶ68じ禣ゑ瞷煤きじ癸產畑ㄓ弧–Θ–る斗菠蔼じ禣
某糤碩癸獶︘ノめョΤ淮稬紇臫禣︳璸秖穨珹簘琕穨の皊加竩犁笲禣ノ穦菠ど糤碩だ羆犁笲Θセ0.28%の0.07%
硂放㎝糤碩才и-
┮︽キΜ禣現郸璶琌砮过и-
┯空絋玂ノめ矗ㄑ綼の蔼瞯狝叭現┎某秸俱㎝ㄤΤ闽狝叭Μ禣硋˙埃︘ノめ干禟獶︘ノめ瞷禜ㄏΜ禣镣Ч到竒蕾耕畉ご禣莉ㄑ莱ì镑莱膀セ惠璶糤Μ禣и-
癸畉昏の祙Μㄢよ┮惠挤蹿ョ莱搭ぶ┮Τ钡ㄏノぃ阶︘ノめ┪獶︘ノめ常惠璶┯踞龟悔莱煤禣ノ硂妓才"ノ︑"玥τ硂玥ョ莉眔某のカチ钡㎝や
и-
沮キА㏕﹚戈玻瞓現┎叭砞琁よщ㎝穦膥尿щ戈ㄓ颗秖笷璓┮璹ヘ夹キА㏕﹚戈玻瞓厨妮戈Θセ獶柬碩璹瞶厨瞯琌Ч到瞶癩よ猭τ6.5%厨瞯膀セ続讽は琈硂摸戈玻カ初薄猵
地某矗タ旧璓薄猵碞琌埃环瑅差岔ノ硚禣ち獶︘ノ硚禣А礚猭糤硂妓穦腨锚и-
笷璓穨叭璸购の辨キ颗よ痲ヘ夹硂ヘ夹ゅΤ哪瓃︘ノめ盢斗膥尿干禟獶︘ノめ瞷︽Μ禣籔矪瞶の块癳龟悔┮惠Θセㄢぇ丁瞷胑畉肂ぃ酚現┎某癸禣伐Τゲ璶秸俱獽礚猭э到瞷Τ薄猵τ現┎叭よ莲籯盢穦
и-
Ω秸俱禣琌きる︓さΤ17るぃ糤禣и-
︓礚猭秸俱硂琿戳丁ずパ硄等盿ㄓ紇臫罽搭戈方ぃ度癸и-
狝叭疭琌蝴璹购硑Θぃ▆紇臫穦锚ㄤ狝叭э到惫琁莱ら惠―現┎斗秈︽э到祘眖狝叭┮眔竒禣盢ぃì莱硂よ秨や挡狦斗パ煤畉昏の祙肂干禟и-
粄硂贺逼癸-
伐ぃそキ讽礛硂妓暗ぃ砮过磅︽"ノ︑"玥
畊ネ現┎璹Τ闽現郸㎝某蹦叭龟τ糵稸篈獺и-
瞷よ琌タ絋и略叫某稸σ納ゅ矗の翴や現┎ㄓ某癸禣だ放㎝伐Τゲ璶秸俱∕地某矗タ
谅谅畊ネ
畐叭璓勉畊ネさぱΤ某碞叭竝秸俱禣某矗ㄢ兜某ぉ∕иぃゴ衡–兜某臛阶祇ēи稱诀穦ビ現┎そノㄆ穨厨瞯ミ初
籔ㄤ╬犁そノㄆ穨妓叭琌戈セ盞栋そノㄆ穨戈セ琌惠璶Θセ現┎そノㄆ穨惠璶ヘ夹厨瞯獽は琈戈ΘセのΤ菏诡Τ闽現┎场癩現の恨瞶瞷現┎络璹ヘ夹厨瞯竒荷秖そ瞶癩㎝穦禗―硂ㄢぇ丁眔キ颗
挪琌ネ膀セ惠璶叭竝ヘ夹厨瞯璹礚繧厨瞯キ瞷琌6.5%龟琌獶盽瞶︙猵秸俱禣ぇ叭竝せ︓厨瞯琌4.2%
某は癸秸俱禣ㄤい瞶パ琌叭竝禣玡竒Τ3.3%厨瞯┪6货じ緇иゲ斗硂厨瞯┪緇琌璸衡現┎矗ㄑ肂禣ノ㎝畉昏瑉禟单兜干禟眀緇
ㄆ龟タ叭┮狦篔埃現┎干禟ㄑ狝叭セ琌莲セせ︓莲穕计ヘ︳璸琌22货じ狦挡禣糤現┎Μ穦–搭ぶ2货じ琌胑计ヘ辣干硂よ穕アи-
璶叭竝狝叭キ竊秨や谅谅畊ネ
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, may I seek your consent to seek an elucidation from the Secretary of Works from something he has just said?
PRESIDENT: I regret you have missed the opportunity. You should have raised it after the Secretary for Works has finished his speech.
地某璓勉畊ネи稱虏虫莱叭の畐叭種ǎи蔼砍畐叭㎝叭膀セ籔иΤ醚碞琌種""琌膀セ惠璶琌ゲ惠珇礚阶碞︘┪獶︘τēи-
Τ硂醚秈︽坝癚
琌иぃ種畐叭ノ現┎щ戈戈セ阀├籔╬そノㄆ穨ㄓゑ耕現┎戈セщ戈﹚穦莉眔厨""琌ゲ惠珇ㄢ︗舅⊿Τ粄硂ㄆ龟現┎Τ砫ヴカチ矗ㄑ硂贺惠璶
現┎弧瑉禟ㄓ︑畉昏τ眎簙┚某ョ畉昏い挤倒""场だ琌"オ砋倒砋"瞷и-
ぃ耞癚阶碩琌0.9%厨瞯у┮Τ現┎矗基穦笷4.2%厨瞯ぃу玥ョΤ3.3%厨瞯и-
璶穜皍琌畉0.9%厨瞯иぃフ或現┎璶硂妓绊
иボ某-
琌疭矗のは琈さぱ穦拜肈現┎阶翴琌硂Ω碩だ放㎝硄等┪度發硄等キ琌и-
ぃ璶а癘炊霉渤ぷㄤ琌顶羱筍碩琌ぃ琌–Ω常蔼硄等┪發眔硄等㎡狦–兜そノㄆ穨基常候禟硄等瞯τカチ戈玱荡癸ぃ穦矗ど︓硄等キ杠ê或-
ネ借碞跑ぃ耞
ㄏ-
戈碩發硄等ョ穦は琈-
ネキ砆挡さぱキ捣睝⊿Τэ到︙猵и-
陪ǎΤㄇねぷㄤ琌籹硑穨ね-
龟借戈琌硂妓-
ぃ虫ゎゼ蛤硄等临贺そノㄆ穨眏秸碩度籔硄等霍┮紇臫兜碩仓縩癬ㄓ縩ぶΘ癸炊霉渤┪膀糷產畑獽硑Θ溃辨現┎镑砰穦硂翴
硂Ω礚阶琌坝穦┪ㄓ︑ぃ囊某常栋い癬碞硂兜某矗и-
璶―иΩ㊣苸︗某や硂兜某и現┎ボだ╆簆и-
璶笆某硂兜某
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MR FRED LI to move the following motion:
"That the Waterworks (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notice No. 176 of 1996 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 15 May 1996, be amended in section 4, in new Part III -
(a) in item 1(b) -
(i) in paragraph (ii) by repealing "$4.51" and substituting "$4.16";
(ii) in paragraph (iii) by repealing "$7.00" and substituting "$6.45";
(iii) in paragraph (iv) by repealing "$9.82" and substituting "$9.05";
(b) in item 1(c)(ii) by repealing "$5.01" and substituting "$4.58"."
地某璓勉畊ネи略ㄌ酚某ㄆ祘矗и材兜某
и碞璽砫╯セ砏ㄒ舱〆穦╯挡狦秆睦弧︙某р禣蝴ヘ玡キи瞷ぃ览秈˙秆睦材兜某琌闽︘ノ硚ノ谅畊ネ
Question on the second motion moved by Mr Fred LI proposed.
叭璓勉畊ネタ地某┮弧и獺и冈灿弧璶阶翴и稱ノぶ丁弧и-
猭
某矗某Ξㄏ︘ノめ禣礚惠糤某ヘ陪礛琌酚臮チネㄏカチ膥尿伐Μ禣ㄉノ竒矪瞶港и耕Ν玡弧筁現┎睲贰笵ㄑ琂琌兜狝叭ョ琌兜惠璶и-
ご穦蝴瞷キΜ禣現郸膥尿︽だΜ禣酚臮ノめぃ惠璶珹ノめ矗ㄑì镑禣僚肂礛τ搭淮叭よ莲籯龟Τゲ璶秸俱瞷︽禣
иビи-
某碩讽放㎝ぃ穦ノめ┯ぃ瞶璽踞秸蔼禣秸俱硄等癸叭竒犁盿ㄓ紇臫硈ㄤ秸俱Μ禣某ㄖ龟琁莱ㄏи-
Μ禣镣Ч到笷璓瞶㎝キ颗Μ禣キ环τē搭淮煤畉昏㎝祙禣よ┯踞程沧ゲ穦渤磃
и癑み玃叫某や現┎淮稬秸俱︘ノめ禣Τ某谅畊ネ
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
DR JOHN TSE to move the following motion:
"That in relation to the Sewage Services (Sewage Charge) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 and Sewage Services (Trade Effluent Surcharge) (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notices Nos. 199 and 200 of 1996 respectively and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 29 May 1996, the period referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance for amending subsidiary legislation be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance until 3 July 1996."
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊ネи略ㄌ酚某ㄆ祘笆某и某
1996γ矪瞶狝叭逼γ禣璹砏ㄒΞр禣斗璹逼γ禣瞯パ–ミよμ秖1.2じ糤︓1.38じ禣加琌钡婚︓現┎局Τの蝴そ肪措┪そγ措琌兜禣А続ノ1996γ矪瞶狝叭坝穨γ禣璹砏ㄒ玥碩糤坝穨紉Μ坝穨γ禣瞯Τ闽Μ禣瞯赣砏ㄒ1い璹ㄢ兵砏ㄒАパせるら癬ネ
ず叭〆穦╯ㄢ兵砏ㄒτΘミ舱〆穦纯籔讽Ы羭︽筁ㄢΩ穦某ㄏ舱〆穦Τだ丁σ納兜览某禣の钮Τ闽刮砰種ǎ舱〆穦某┑甶璹ㄢ兵砏ㄒ戳︓せるら
畊ネи略笆某某
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MRS SELINA CHOW to move the following motion:
"That in relation to the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notice No. 224 of 1996 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 5 June 1996, the period referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) for amending subsidiary legislation be extended under section 34(4) of the Ordinance until 10 July 1996."
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Fees (Amendment) Regulation 1996 involves a change in fee structure and substantial increase for some operators.
Members of the Subcommittee formed to study this Regulation have identified issues which require further consideration. To allow time for the Subcommittee to consider these points in depth, to seek further clarification from the Administration, to report to all Members of this Council and for all Members to consider all the points considered and recommendations made in the report, and adequate time for amendments to be moved if so wished by any Member or Members, it is necessary to extend the time allowed for making these amendments and considerations to the subsidiary legislation until 10 July 1996.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MR JAMES TIEN to move the following motion:
"That the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Chemical Waste) (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notice No. 167 of 1996 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 8 May 1996, be amended by repealing section 2 and substituting:
"2. Charges for disposal of chemical waste other than special chemical waste
Schedule 1 to the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Chemical Waste) Regulation (Cap. 354 sub. leg.) is amended in column 3 by repealing "1,589", "97", "30", "500", "773", "26", "389", "779", "1,391" where it twice appears, "573", "194", "4,051", "11,344" where it twice appears, "581", "4,862" and "430" and substituting "1,907", "116", "36", "600", "928", "31", "467", "935", "1,669", "688", "233", "4,861", "13,613", "697", "5,834" and "516" respectively."."
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Firstly, I would like to report on behalf of the Subcommittee set up by the House Committee to study the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Chemical Waste) (Amendment) Regulation 1996, of which I was the Chairman. The Subcommittee completed its deliberations in one meeting in which it met eight deputations of the affected trade and industries and discussed with the Administration the views presented by these deputations.
This Amendment Regulation proposes a 35% increase in charges for disposal of chemical waste by the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre(CWTC), except for the treatment of certain types of chemical waste, which had all along been charged on the basis of full recovery of the variable operating cost(VOC). The proposed increase is made up of a 5% increase in VOC recovery rate to 25%, and an increase in line with inflation. It is the long-term aim of the Administration to achieve full VOC recovery at the end of the eighth year following the implementation of charging, that is, by the year 2003-4.
The deputations are concerned that the financial burden resulting from the high percentage increase will pose difficulties to the industries, some of which may be forced to cease operation. They are also concerned about the lack of transparency with regard to the assessment of the operation of the CWTC, particularly its efficiency and the calculation of its cost, to which the industries are being asked to contribute.
Furthermore, they have not been involved in discussions with the Administration about its policy on chemical waste disposal and related charges until recently. Seven out of the eight deputations present requested that CWTC charges be frozen.
Nevertheless, the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce considers that the Government should maintain a balance between environmental protection and survival of industries, and proposes that the overall rate of increase for 1996-97 should be about 20%. It further proposes that the VOC recovery rate should be increased by only 10% per annum, that is, a 2% in VOC recovery rate to 22% for 1996-97.
In view of the proposal by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, the Subcommittee requested the Administration to provide the projected figures regarding its effect on public expenditure for the next 10 years for circulation to all Members for reference in due course.
A majority of the members of the Subcommittee supported the Amendment Regulation as proposed by the Administration.
Mr President, now I would like to turn to a motion which I intend to move in my personal capacity.
Mr President, three years ago when we were consulted on a bill to regulate chemical waste disposal, our business leaders were for it but with caution and discretion: caution in that we did not want an idea to become too dogmatic, that it might stifle industry; discretion in that we had to wait for the Environmental Protection Department to describe what exactly the scheme entails. Not once throughout the consultation exercise did we reject the "userpays" principle as long as the costs we were to bear were transparent and be phased in over a sensible timeframe to lessen the impact.
The Government had tendered the work and operation of the CWTC to a private consortium. The consequence is the centre in Tsing Yi on which the investors have been promised guaranteed substantial return on their venture. We were told, too, at the time the centre would not be a monopoly. Companies would contract an assignment out to smaller firms or install in-house scrubber equipment, but ultimately the centre has developed into a virtual monopoly having captured 90% of the market.
At the beginning, the Government provided an environmental subsidy by shouldering 80% of the chemical waste disposal cost. The user paid 20%. The notion was that companies should be coerced, not forced, to comply with environmental requirements. The emphasis on carrot rather than on stick is the better option. By spring this year, the rate equation was, however, changed to 75% on the Government and 25% on user. A meeting with the Administration took place in late May and the result was disappointing. With inflation factored in, and the Government is determined to factor this in, the actual increase for the year is a shocking 35%. If, for example, a company which last year paid $100,000 to dispose of its waste, this year it will shell out $135,000 for the same quantity of work.
The Government argues that the centre's operating costs are skyrocketing. Between 1993 and the last fiscal year, the variable operating costs have risen more than threefold to $337 million, and the fixed operating cost has shot up from $135 million to $175 million. There has been no offer to establish a special committee comprising industrialists, other users, EPD to monitor the centre.
Mr President, over the past couple of weeks, we have received comments from seven major commercial organizations and each has recounted the same moves. One of them contended that a medium bleaching and dyeing factory generally has about 10 to 20 tonnes of waste alkaline a day. At a current rate of about $600 a tonne, such a factory must pay between $6,000 to $10,000 a day for chemical waste disposal. The alkaline is also not toxic and has commercial applications if recycled. However, this is not permissible because of rigid EPD guidelines.
These factories are not only concerned about the present but about the future if the Government sticks to its full cost recovery plan by 2004. There has already been a spate of dyeing and textile factories closures triggered by the escalating costs of doing business in Hong Kong. More on the edge and everyone will suffer, including some of those 386 000 of our workers still in the manufacturing sector.
To illustrate more pointedly, let me cite an examplethe South China Dyeing Factory which shut down last year. They were producing 100 tonnes of chemical waste in 1995 and paid to the centre on average $42,000 a day or between $1.2 million to $1.8 million a month. The factory managers then added in the trade effluent surcharge and a total environmental bill came out to more than $2 million a month. The charges became so crushing and, together with other reasons, South China decided to close the business altogether.
The Democratic Party is backing the campaign to suspend increases on trade effluent surcharge which will otherwise rise by 15%. They are also likewise supporting a freeze on sewage charges for domestic users who might otherwise have to pay 18% more this year. At the same time, the Democratic Party has told the Subcommittee of this Council that it is opposed to my resolution today. The Democratic Party's inconsistent approach suggests to me that there is a lack of policy coherence about environmental protection amongst them.
Factory owners are like restaurants and the average family with escalating expenses and obligations to meet. Those forced out of business must sack their workers whose interests the Democratic Party and the unionists claim to represent. The absence of logic here baffles me. The Government cannot create jobs. Only the private sector can.
Mr President, I do not accept the crude choice between business versus the environment. The two are not mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction. When we deal with jobs and cleaner air as well as water we really can have the cake and eat it too. My constituents are far from the stereotype of heartless corporations dumping refuse and pumping untreated effluents in far away countries. I think I have done my bit by persuading my constituents to accept the 20% increase, not 35% increase on their chemical waste disposal fee for this year.
Many of my constituents have pushed for a freeze and rightly so, because I repeat, their conditions are no different from caterers and home users of water. They are now willing to make that sacrifice and make do with a heavier cost burden because they are willing to assume responsibility for the environment. As far as I can ascertain, the submission to 20% increase is recently unprecedented in this Council where a cap on rates and fees is the standard demand.
Let me emphasize that we are for "user pays", but as long as the principle is flexibly applied and the period for cost recovery can be prolonged to a reasonable period. I have also convinced them that, in politics, we sometimes have to sue for the obtainable rather than cry for the impossible, that is, zero percent increase.
With these words, Mr President, I appeal to the Council to support the resolution under my name.
Question on the motion proposed.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, there are two proposals before us today; one from the Administration and the other which the Honourable James TIEN has just spoken about. The issue is not really about the principles of polluting a place any more, but only how the charges should be adjusted for the coming year.
It is agreed by all that chemical waste treatment charges are a part of the costs of doing business for the trade. Thus there is no justification for using public funds to subsidize private business. Mr TIEN's amendment would extend the variable operating cost recovery period from nine to 17 years at a public cost of about $810 million.
Having said that, the Administration must return to this Council next year, of course, for approval of next year's increases. It is held that the Administration will continue to liaise closely with the trade in order to increase transparency of the charging scheme and also to consider how to better provide assistance to smaller business to reduce pollution, thereby reducing their treatment costs overall.
With these words, Mr President, I will support the Administration's proposal today.
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネチ羛ミ初琌や"γ琕︑"硂兜玥現┎Μて厩紀矪瞶いみ笲Θセのぃ璓祙干禟"γ琕"τ盢Μ禣硋˙矗蔼琌眔や
琌チ羛胔好"ΜΘセ"硉莱﹚璶疭﹚琿ず發癸筁祘いぃ臮のㄤ芠兵ンτ碩糤矪瞶て厩紀Μ禣35%チ羛玥玂痙篈現┎璶ず發Θセ臮瞷翠竒蕾タ炒奸︽穨―ネ礚ぃ稱荷快猭秨方竊瑈戳そ紅掉超Θ瞷翠竒蕾糶酚瞷現┎―﹚丁ずΜΘセ盢Μ禣糤眔硂或蔼螟ゼ臮の翠瞷坝穨龟猵疭琌盢瞷矪锭顶琿稰谋ㄤ玡螟翠穨秈˙崩瞏瞁
チ羛粄璽砫ヴ現┎瞶莱臮の俱砰穦痲キ颗よ痲狦泊ΜΘセτ碩禣礚好穦硂ㄇ穨刮砰瞷竒蕾ぃ春薄猵"撤流"さぱ現┎竒蕾ぃ春の穨典罽薄猵ご礛ノ篋盽"ぃ箇現郸"ㄓ崩毕翠穨砫ヴ硂暗猭穦秈˙玠畓セ穨膙ゲ礛癸セ翠俱砰祇甶玻ネぃ▆紇臫┮チ羛粄現┎癸нセ穨祇甶琌砫礚禪現┎瞶莱縩伐や㎝躬纘翠穨祇甶
チ羛粄さΩバ玊某矗20%碩耕放㎝耕瞶坝穨刮砰ョ睲贰-
钡┮チ羛癸バ玊某タボや谅谅畊ネ
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊ネㄓチ囊常琌や吏挂玂臔現囊觅Θ現┎"γ琕︑"玥γ琕Μ矪瞶禣ノи-
粄ネ玻て厩紀紅坝寥柬ョ莱赣猔種玂臔吏挂琂礛て厩紀琌紅坝秈︽竒蕾笆薄猵玻ネ硂ㄇ紀矪瞶禣ノョ莱砆跌紅坝笲Θセ场だΜ禣Τ盢硂ㄇΘセずは琈Μ禣て厩紀ネ玻搭ぶ紀护
よ現┎盢て厩紀矪瞶いみΘセΜ瞯パ20%糤︓25%﹚箂箂Μ场跑笆笲Θセチ囊粄琌放㎝の钡逼は狦盢ΘセΜ戳┑︓17炊霉渤獽惠璶肂璽踞9货じ癸カチㄓ弧琌荡癸ぃそキチ囊盢ぃ穦やバ玊某タ
畊ネチ囊闽猔Τ闽场⊿Τ紅坝矗ㄑだм砃穿腊紅坝钡搭ぶて厩紀
瞷て厩紀矪瞶いみ笲ろ硓そ渤の紅坝А礚猭癸いみ笲の竒犁瞯菏恨チ囊玃叫現┎Τ菏恨て厩紀矪瞶いみ笲眏いみ膙
バ玊某у蝶チ囊現郸ぃ璓や挡禣の逼γ禣τぃやて厩紀矪瞶禣ノ糤ㄤ龟ㄢ摸Μ禣琌ぃ禣㎝逼γ禣琌Μ100%Θセτて厩紀矪瞶禣ΜΘセ25%┮畊ネи-
穦や現┎矗某
砏购吏挂現璓勉畊ネ1996紀矪竚て厩紀矪竚Μ禣璹砏ㄒ哪て厩紀矪瞶いみ矪竚て厩紀璹Μ禣Τ闽硂兜璹砏ㄒ舱〆穦ョ癸砏ㄒ秈︽冈灿╯и略赣舱〆穦璓谅
て厩紀矪瞶いみ币ノㄢ禣紀玻ネ矗ㄑ狝叭琵-
Τ丁続莱紀矪瞶穝阀├р紀矪瞶禣ノ璸衡笲Θセ癸穨よΑ┮惠秸俱沮γ琕︑玥のノ竒蕾躬纘紀玻ネ荷秖搭ぶ玻ネ紀р紀滦ㄏノの碻吏ノ現┎きる崩︽兜だ戳龟琁钡Μ禣璸购て厩紀矪瞶いみ矪竚て厩紀А斗煤禣ノ畊ネиゲ斗眏秸硂兜Μ禣璸购琌約獂紉高Τ闽︽穨種ǎの籔ミ猭Ы癚阶眔セЫ種崩︽
戳Μ禣络﹚Μて厩紀矪瞶跑笆竒犁Θセ20%キ㏕﹚竒犁Θセき︓せ1.67货じの膀セ禣ノ13货じ盢场パ現┎┯踞ミ猭Ыョ種現┎某рΤ闽Μ禣硋˙矗蔼戳程筐箂箂︓箂Μ场跑笆竒犁Θセ赣Ω癚阶いΤぃぶ某粄Μ场跑笆竒犁Θセら戳莱荷秖矗玡
皌程筐箂箂︓箂Μ场跑笆竒犁Θセ璸购現┎せきるら矗ユセЫ凝璹砏ㄒ某璹Τ闽Μ禣р跑笆竒犁ΘセΜ瞯パ20%秸蔼︓25%琌и-
ョ璶臮硄等瞯よτр8%硄等秸俱瞯璸衡ず某Μ禣耕瞷︽Μ禣糤35%
バ玊某某Ξ璹瓃璹砏ㄒр某跑笆竒犁ΘセΜ瞯パ25%搭︓22%オョ辨跑笆竒犁ΘセΜ瞯ㄤ–糤10%硄等秸俱Τ闽禣ノ︓Μ场跑笆竒犁Θセゎ現┎だ闽猔硂兜某┮盿ㄓ紇臫
材秸せ︓跑笆竒犁ΘセΜ瞯ㄤ计Μ瞯糤碩耕盢ㄏ硋˙矗蔼Μ瞯︓Μ场禣ノ戳┑パ┑︓17
材紀玻ネ莱璓搭ぶ玻ネ紀竒蕾笆诀盢穦旧璓て厩紀矪瞶いみ斗矪瞶紀癸Μ禣璸购┮辨笷璓吏玂ヘ夹螟Τ┮紇臫沮︑崩︽Μ禣璸购ㄓ┮眔竒喷紀玻ネ絋Τσ納矪竚て厩禣ノΤㄤ紀玻ネ碝―ㄤ耕﹜よ猭ㄒ紅ず矪瞶て厩紀の蹦ノ玻ネ耕ぶ紀м砃单虑搭硂ㄇ禣ノ狦崩┑蹦ノ硋˙矗蔼跑笆竒犁ΘセΜ瞯硂ㄇ紀玻ネぃ穦ê妓縩伐秈︽搭ぶ紀
材рΜ场跑笆竒犁Θセ戳┑現┎獽惠矗ㄑ肂戈τ硂掸蹿兜惠璶パ祙┯踞и-
獺硂掸肂現┎戈せ︓盢笷1,200窾じτ笷17俱琿戳丁ㄓ弧穦蔼笷9.05货じㄏノて厩紀矪瞶いみ︽穨矗ㄑ胑戈龟螟祙ユ
現┎粄礚阶癸紀玻ネ紇臫癸ㄏノて厩紀矪瞶いみ┮玻ネыノの癸γ琕︑玥璶―現┎某眔瞶キ颗璹Μ禣瞶莱ぃ穦癸Τ闽︽穨篶Θ↖璽踞瞷︽て厩紀矪竚Μ禣肂硂ㄇ︽穨竒犁Θセ伐ぶ场だ┪砛и-
ㄇㄆ龟吏挂玂臔竝眀虫魁陪ボ︑硂兜Μ禣璸购きる秨﹍龟琁ㄓ┮祇眀虫讽い禬筁70%眀虫┮疉のΜ禣肂ぶ1,000じΤ20%眀虫┮疉のΜ禣肂玥ぶ5,000じτ⊿Τ笷10窾じ瞷禜и-
ぃ璶а癘現┎穦碻亥秈よΑΤ闽︽穨糤Μ禣ノ辣干て厩紀矪瞶いみ跑笆竒犁Θセ︓㏕﹚竒犁Θセの膀セ禣ノ玥穦膥尿パ現┎场┯踞
畊ネ程и稱Ω矗ミ猭Ы纯某現┎痙種рΜ场跑笆竒犁Θセら戳崩玡癩叭〆穦纯る矗硂兜種ǎτ現┎眀ヘ〆穦きる糵某计竝竝Τ闽て厩紀Μ禣璸购厨ョ矗種ǎ現┎ヘ玡┮某タ琌рセЫ矗種ǎ窖龟︽よи-
ョだ谅︗某癸て厩紀矪瞶いみ笲┮祇種ǎㄒ現┎莱眏菏恨糤紀矪瞶いみ硓иだ谅硂ㄇ種ǎτ現┎ョ穦膥尿蛤秈硂ㄆ
畊ネи略朝勉㊣苸︗某は癸硂兜某谅谅
畐叭璓勉畊ネ砏购吏挂現竒睲贰秆睦さΩΜ禣秸俱癸Τ闽︽穨穦盿ㄓ淮稬紇臫иゲ斗眏秸さΩ碩瘤礛琌35%穝Μ禣ì镑琵現┎Μ矪瞶て厩紀25%跑笆竒犁Θセ传ēぇㄤ緇75%跑笆竒犁Θセの场㏕﹚竒犁Θセご礛璶パ現┎干禟ㄣ砰ㄓ弧き︓せ祙蠢籹硑て厩紀矗ㄑ1.2货じ干禟
и瞏獺某砰や"γ琕︑"玥"γ琕︑"玥現┎瞶莱荷е眡计ΜΘセ疭琌跑笆竒犁Θセぃ筁現┎ョ瞶秆Τ惠璶艶矪瞶ΜΘセ硉搭癸Τ闽︽穨硑Θ紇臫┮и-
璸购眖︓き癬丁箂箂︓箂ぇ玡硋场Μ场跑笆竒犁Θセ
タ砏购吏挂現┮る癩叭〆穦碞現┎某癸矪瞶て厩紀肂挤蹿癚阶纯璶―現┎еΜ矪瞶て厩紀场跑笆竒犁Θセきる現┎眀ヘ〆穦ョ窗玃現┎荷еだ戳Μ矪瞶紀跑笆竒犁Θセē礢φи-
礚猭ぃさぱ某稰種
羆珹ㄓ弧さΩ某ぃ才某筁┕癸現┎璶―癸祙ぃそキョ癸現┎玂臔吏挂Τ┮穕甡и赖叫︗某や現┎ミ初∕某
バ玊某璓勉Τ闽︽穨癸現┎┮某ΜΘセ現郸眖ㄓ⊿Τ钵某┮孔"ΜΘセ"Τ街笵或琌Θセ㎡ヘ玡CWTC竒犁琌⊿Τ菏恨現┎氮莱倒ウ盡厨瞯瞷90%ネ種琌ウ
и-
ぃびフ玡秨﹍犁笲Θセ琌1.1货じさ糤︓3.3货じ硂ㄇΘセセ琌硓伐璶坝蹿-
琌ぃ狝現┎弧–丁紅斗煤じ琌ぶ计ヘ現┎Τ⊿Τ痙種玡Τめ煤硂禣ノτさぱ禴︓せ竒ぶ丁現┎弧躬纘紅產搭て厩紀ㄆ龟硂穦ぃ穦Θㄆ㎡
硂ㄇ紅场だ砞糷加⊿Τ︑紅ず砞ミ硂ㄇ砞琁砆钡硂丁CWTCそ狝叭︳璸瞷-
贾種やじ盢ㄓ糤Μ禣杠-
獽穦рγ秈肪措
現┎ㄢ丁禣琵硂ㄇて厩紅场だ琌き紅㎝筿玲紅ㄏノ砞琁ㄤ龟ぃ筁稱笵硂ㄇそ嘿璝材ぱ獽秨﹍Μ禣丁紅""ぃ瞷硂ㄇそ嘲尿超現┎硂璸衡よ猭獽瞷ベ糤Μ禣穦ㄏそΝㄇ超そ超逞ㄓそ獽璶煤禣ノㄒ瞷Μ禣琌600じ痉Τそ超Μ禣獽璶糤︓1,200じぃノ璸衡硄等璸衡┮穦糤20%︓100%
地玭琕紅挡竒犁タ煤200窾じ狦煤ì100%杠獽璶煤1,000窾じ璝┮Τ紅產硂镣墩獽穦"ǐ眔е"ぃ虫ゎさ糤35%現┎璶笷璓箂箂ヘ夹獽璶糤35%硂妓箂箂Μ场Θセ
硂薄猵и-
谋眔Τ惠璶硂ㄇ紅踞み程碿薄猵碞琌挡犁穨瞷临Τ碭窾硂ㄇ紅碞穨-
穦妓㎡τ穦╈仓村籹︾︽穨êㄇ穦アêㄇ场だ常き烦и谋眔蚌癡癸-
⊿Τ或ノ硂ㄇ场常穦ア穨︽
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the motion put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr James TIEN claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall now proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: Members may wish to be reminded that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the motion moved by Mr James TIEN to amend the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Chemical Waste) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 be approved.
PRESIDENT: 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: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. The result will now be displayed.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the motion.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, 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, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, 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 18 votes in favour of the motion and 35 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE Cheuk-yan had originally given notice to move a motion to amend the District Court Equal Opportunities Rules published as Legal Notice No. 236 of 1996 and laid on the table of this Council on 5 June 1996. He gave instructions to the Clerk yesterday to withdraw the notice. We will proceed to deal with motion debates.
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 24 June. The movers of the motions will each have 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies, and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendments, where applicable. Other Members, including the movers of the amendments, 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.
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
MR TSANG KIN-SHING to move the following motion:
"セЫ伐ぇ闽猔ら翠﹙ま璓端腨穨種玃叫現┎
(a) 蹦候︽笆ňゎ腨穨種Ω祇ネ
(b) 癸穨種端產妮矗ㄑ贺┮惠の
(c) 眏磅猭㎝腨胓笻は穨猭ㄒΜ纞ノ"
纯胺Θ某璓勉畊ネセ沮某ㄆ祘笆某某谅Ыず︗ㄆ倒ぉ硂诀穦癚阶穨拜肈
畊ネさぱぱ獶盽荐放蔼笷尼ん30辨⊿Τ穨種祇ネ
и稱虑硂诀穦癸現┎ㄓ穨現郸よ腨ア粇笷и极
计琍戳ㄓ钡硈祇ネ穨種端ㄆンま祇穦林阶癸戮穨の胺眃拜肈闽猔砛みヘい埃硂堵︹せるら盽の胺眃拜肈獶び佩の獶腨τ現┎ョΤ迭诀"ぱ荐琌Τ硂或種"单琌τ獶膟瓜被φヘ
ㄆ龟穨種端计会佩キА–Τ80端Τき窾﹙端ㄆン硂计絋龟は琈"現┎礚礚"現┎⊿Τ林阶溃澈礛癸フ堵参璸计沮ぃ甴臮祑璶產"ǎ疵瑈泊瞈"硂或端计琌┦放莱τ祇ネ㎡
–Ω絃瞷㏑端種讽и筿跌┪琌瞷初洛皘端產妮礹瑈磀礹饼荡碞钩Τ遏ホ繷懒иみず丁ㄏи稰ぃ滴狝琌現┎﹛┕┕林阶溃酚ㄒ暗近╭(show)磷筁穦у蝶и稱拜︗﹛-
常Τヾㄠ叫拜癸現┎戳皌甅穨現郸τま璓ね端ㄆン-
み穦盾
玡纒芖紈褐絃泞祇ネ種せ挡狦祇ネà泞濖種ま璓現┎﹚菏恨猭ㄒ硂碞琌и-
現┎穨夹非篈 Τ㏑穕ア镑传現┎今˙癩現┕┕–箇衡い模翠竒蕾羉篴翠キАセネ玻羆今﹁よ秈穨瓣キи-
穨魁玱ッ环氨痙祇甶い瓣產キ碞穝诀初祘ㄒ筁ずΤ12ねネ㏑ㄓ传基и翠癸稰槽穃︗﹛ご钩礚笆癑
癸さぱ臛肈チ囊穦矗ㄇ龟悔現郸某辨︗﹛粄痷钮ぃ璶钮筁璶单祇ネ種獽篋┦秨或阁场穦某穌ㄇ蔓を籟ブ某ㄓ莱穦溃
セさぱ祇ē穦栋い箇ň穨種惫琁よら﹙穨種祇ネセ籔硑穨恨瞶厩穦穦秈︽そ秨癚碞眏硑穨穨垦―癸郸セ羆挡碭翴よ
材絃籔瞣疉よ
1. 癸┯坝τē虫咎肚琌礚干ㄆ柬本發―秈璶ヘ夹薄猵パ秨﹍ぱ硑糷加瞷ぱ硑糷加秈穨Τ綼娩現┎璶眖胓籃菏服àㄓ砏恨┯坝
2. 癸τē現┎璶结ぉ-
ì镑盡穨舦磅︽現郸
3. 癸ねτē戮種醚蚌癡︓璶
4. 玂毁ねщ禗琁祘舦
琌иㄣ砰某
癸┯坝眏菏恨
ヘ玡瘤礛現┎穦癸笻は穨兵ㄒ┯坝胓籃籃玥び筁糴肞璶笻ㄒ┯坝せるず砆Θ浪北せΩ窽ゎщ夹る硂暗猭Μ稬礚猭ㄏ┯坝矗蔼種醚и粄莱蹦Ιだ牟デ猭ㄒ獽腨祘Ιだス骸だ玥窽ゎщ夹窽ゎщ夹筁┕计︓计窾じ籃蹿Ч⊿Τ纞癸┯坝ㄓ弧兜祘疉の筁货じ┪10货じ肂窾计琌计ヘ"穔膐"螟┣礚猭荡穨種繵ネ
眏竨ノヴ
禬筁100絃惠眏竨ノヴ砞患糤ゑ瞯酚ヘ玡诀初み祘家Αヴ计ゑㄒ患糤羭ㄒ弧–100竨ノヴ300ㄢヴ500ヴ摸崩
挪ヘ玡ヴもゼゲì镑莱翠Τ5 000戈ヴ眔κτ眔400戮セ某現┎硋˙龟琁ミ猭絋ミ硂ヘ夹礛だ顶琿磅︽硑穨癡絤Ы莱糤瞶ヴ蚌癡计ヘ
ヴ縒ミ笲
ヘ玡ヴ竨沟埃⊿Τ龟悔猭﹚舦沟ョぃ惠璶蛤眖ヴ盡穨某ヴ礚舦礚砫ヴタō"Τ礚""Τ筁礚""礚ョ礚┮孔"矪挂и某把σ穝℡家Αヴごパ絃沟竨ノㄤ笲舦砫玥骋笆芔ユ穝℡絃ヴ︓Τ舦沟笻は穨τ祇氨翠硋˙蹦家Α盢ヴ縒ミ沟ぇ笲骋矪﹚戳蹲厨羭Τヴ莱ノ癸絃醚ぃノ沟τ莱ミㄒ玂毁ねщ禗琁祘の夹非ぃ砆礚瞶秆沟
畊ネ环τē現┎莱σ納矗どヴ盡穨︗皌糤ヴ舦籔砫ヴ現郸
服旧戮て
ヘ玡猭ㄒ砏﹚沟ノ20絃璶竨叫服旧玱ぃ惠璶戮竨ノセ粄現┎璶盢服旧戮てㄏ服旧ぃヴㄤ絃镑み種絃磅︽
и辨現┎盢骋矪瞷崩約厚崩約︓╬祘よヘ玡叭瑉禟翠┎祘┯坝躬纘┯坝把戮穨癡絤璸购崩︽ㄓΤ15 000癡硑穨计ㄢΘ
и粄現┎ぃ虫ゎ莱現┎祘崩約厚莱σ納盢ぇ崩約︓╬祘よ
畊ネ瓃场だ某膀セぃ現┎彻㎝琍戳┮孔蔼畃穦阁场舱12兜э到兜ヘぇずи辨ッキネ镑現┎场続讽莱
畊ネセ略朝勉笆某某
Question on the motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: Miss CHAN Yuen-han has given notice to move an amendment to this motion. Her 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 Miss CHAN Yuen-han to speak and to move her amendment. After I have proposed the question on Miss CHAN's amendment, Members may express their views on the motion and the amendment.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN's amendment to MR TSANG KIN-SHING's motion:
"埃"腨穨種"ぇ┮Τゅ
"硂贺薄猵陪琌パ翠┎ňゎ穨種よ⊿Τ甅Τ╰参㎝菏恨現郸ョ⊿Τ猭﹚诀篶参膚ち戮穨胺眃ㄆ﹜玃叫翠┎眖环ㄓ弧莱ΘミΤ龟舦猭﹚诀篶の瞷顶琿蹦惫琁э到ヘ玡薄猵
(a) рら玡碞穨ㄆ﹜秨阁场穦某э﹚戳┦穦某
(b) ┾秸戮穨Ыの骋矪もǖ琩翠初┮
(c) 荷е辅龟翠穨浪癚吭高ゅン┮Τ某珹荷еЧΘちΤ闽璹穨
(d) 碩糤癸笻はΤ闽穨兵ㄒ籃玥の
(e) ま┯坝Ιだの氨礟㎝砏﹚┯坝﹚戳矗ユ魁
の癸穨種端產妮矗ㄑ贺┮惠""
朝胞糭某璓勉畊ネи笆某タ纯胺Θ某某タず甧某ㄆ祘ずи┮更
畊ネさぱиタず甧穦だ碭场だиㄆ朝篴篱某穦酵酵Τ闽穨兵ㄒ籃玥朝挪狶某穦酵の癸┯坝磅︽Ιだ腑瓣辆某穦酵の"穨"浪癚某и玥穦栋い酵の癸瞷翠竒蕾祇甶и-
穨俱砰暗ぶ㎡и非称栋い硂よ
畊ネ筁碭琍戳–边產п秨筿跌肞琁︑穝籇厨笵玱传ㄓ辊辊﹀睴睴薄春ㄏ眔牟ヘ佩みи-
硂辊辊﹀毙癡弧琌パ現┎も硑Θ
畊ネи筁计琍戳ㄓセ钡硈祇ネΤ穨種端ㄆンτΤ瓃稰牟и-
稱拜╯澈硂瞷て翠︙ご硂贺碭ぃゅㄆ薄祇ネ㎡セ籔羛穦のチ羛ㄆ常粄現┎筁碭ㄓňゎ穨種よ┮暗だぃ縩伐﹍沧發ぃ竒蕾のм砃祇甶翠┎⊿Τ甅Τ╰参の菏恨初┮诀ョ⊿Τパ蔼糷ΩΤ∕郸舦いァ猭﹚诀篶参膚ち戮穨胺眃ㄆ﹜の矪瞶摸穨種の菏诡τ琌パ场︑現"や瞒瘆窰"Α矪瞶Τ闽ㄆ﹜
畊ネ狦璶и甧и穦弧瞷現┎场︑現Τ︑縒ミ瓣が管戈方酚ヘ玡薄猵嘲穨パ骋矪璽砫玥パㄆ矪璽砫┬〆穦玥璽砫ㄤ絛瞅ずぇ絃穨诀恨Ы玥璽砫穝诀初絃ずぇ穨单硂贺薄猵场Τ场暗猭秸ぃì甧瞷"η︹盿"贺薄猵и-
Аぃ現┎Τ甅快猭ㄓ秆∕拜肈┮и祇谋筁ぃ耞祇ネ穨種龟琌狡瞷筁и纯у蝶現┎硂よ⊿Τ参诀
畊ネセ粄現┎璶Τ戮穨胺眃いァ∕郸诀篶环ㄓ弧и-
辨現┎莱砞ミ硂妓诀篶る璣瓣穨臮拜胿ネ碞セ穨秈︽秸琩厨粄セ翠环穨祇甶郸菠莱琌Θミいァ诀盢ぇ祇喘現┎讽癸硂拜肈⊿Τタσ納の钡厨某玡ぱ毙▅参膚ッキ舅玡ぱミ猭Ыㄆ叭〆穦ボ穦σ納Τ闽某и讽钮Τ翴ㄠ蔼砍и繦腢︑ぃ璶蔼砍眔ê或е硂琌現┎ヘ玡俱穦闽猔ぇ寂璴и絵┮и辨現┎痷σ納瞷薄猵
畊ネセ粄环ㄓ弧現┎Θミ瓃いァ诀篶ぃ莱参膚ち"穨"ㄆ﹜и癘眔筁碭ㄓミ猭ЫずΤぃㄆ矗の翠俱甅穨拜肈讽ㄆ粄莱ぃ虫ゎ穨τ莱赣σ納参膚俱碞穨拜肈и-
粄惠璶硂贺参膚诀ㄓ参膚ち"戮穨胺眃ㄆ﹜"翠竒蕾パ材玻穨篈锣材玻穨狝叭穨篈惠璶現┎ぃの秆∕拜肈
畊ネ繦セ翠竒蕾锣翠ネ戮穨单篈蛤矗どи-
辨翠┎ぃ璶"戈方Τ"虑и癘眔ΤΩ讽糜模┚某矗のΤ闽穨よ讽辩ゅ舅ボ種ぃ筁現┎ぃゴ衡硂妓暗и辨さΩ薄猵ぃ穦硂妓и-
璶―現┎猔戮穨の胺眃祇甶
ㄈ瑆纒い穝℡ㄒ糷戮穨現郸家Α眔翠猭硂糷Ωだ眔睲贰材眏穨材眏戮穨材э到醚穨の戮穨胺眃畊ネ癸硂某и谋眔現┎さぱ莱璶σ納辨钩玡ぱ舅┮弧妓現┎膚舱硂ンㄆи-
ゼ硂妓暗ぇ玡и辨筁寸戳丁現┎盢瞷竒羭︽いㄇ阁场穦某て癬ㄓи粄癸瞷ぱ癸瞷や瞒瘆窰Ы癸瞷よ拜肈現┎常Τ砫ヴゼ龟琁いァ参膚ぇ玡莱盢瞷Τ竝ㄢ現郸㎝ㄢ舅舱Θ盽砞舱麓
畊ネ癸瞷穨種薄猵Τㄇ矗у蝶讽肚碈闽猔端и-
谋眔現┎穦候眎讽⊿Τ闽猔現┎碞穦稲瞶ぃ瞶и辨現┎碞倒ぉ穨種端產妮笿璹夹非ぃ阶肚碈闽猔临琌ぃ闽猔現┎常莱赣Τ秆∕ヘ玡拜肈畊ネセ略朝勉タ纯胺Θ某某谅谅
Question on the amendment proposed.
辩醇翬某璓勉るㄓ翠祇ネ﹙ぃ摸妓綺佩腨穨種產畑礛礹ア竒蕾や琖絋龟み荒纯胺Θ某さぱ矗某弧獶盽ち﹜
ㄤ龟碭現┎ョΤ癸э到穨籔戮穨胺眃秈︽浪癚ぃ筁и-
ㄌ礛盽腨穨端ㄆン祇ネ–Ω腨ㄆ珿祇ネΤ闽﹛︓羆服羆穦獺粆ススボ穦眏菏恨ぃ筁硂ㄇ狡┯空跑Θ讽Ы"ㄒ礟"莱
钡硈祇ネ穨種籔讽Ы菏恨のǖ琩ぃì籃筁淮の沟沟癸穨の戮穨胺眃粄醚㎝牡谋┦ぃì常Τ馋闽硈传ēぇ璶痷タ崩笆㎝玂毁籔胺眃現┎沟沟よ常Τ砫ヴ
и癸朝胞糭某矗タ泊Τ玂痙タ陪盢ňゎ種砫ヴ現┎の┯坝ō現┎㏕礛Τ礚崩砫ヴ沟の沟砫ヴ︙-
琌⊿Τ砫ヴ㎡タ弧璶玃叫翠┎"┾秸戮穨Ыの骋矪もǖ琩翠初┮"玱⊿Τ玃叫讽Ы糤戈方のも硂礚好璶戮Ы瞷Τ戈方ш簍肂à︹硂穦癸ㄤ肚の毙▅篶Θ紇臫
戮穨胺眃┛跌
ㄇ纀钮籇疉の㏑穨種瞶┮讽礛產闽猔ぃ筁癸τē翠κ窾"ゴ"–ぱ癸籔胺眃拜肈獽耕ぶ穦現┎︓沟の沟セō闽猔硂ぃボ拜肈ぃ腨┪ぃ翠獽Τ59 400﹙戮穨端ㄆン疉の247硂ㄇ计いΘ琌祇ネ獶穨竒犁沟ō安и-
рêㄇ璶竒仓る疊瞷戮穨痜ㄒ剐甁↖痜┪τア羙痜常璸衡ず翠"ㄢ繺"τ璶胺眃㎝┦㏑基〆龟び
現┎絋碞Τ闽拜肈秈︽ぃぶ浪癚矗ぃぶ某礛τ辅龟秈絯篊τぶì镑戈方のも皌胔好現┎琌╆"ぶ闽猔ぶ肚碈厨笵拜肈獽篊も竲"硂贺み篈
ㄒ現┎戮穨胺眃盡產舱矗39兜某Τ闽﹛程ミ猭Ы徖ネㄆ叭〆穦蹲厨ボΤ11兜﹟ゼЧΘ艼φ钮ㄓΘ罿ぃ岿灿╯獽穦祇瞷ゼ辅龟А妮耕璶某τㄇ闽э猭ㄒ玥﹡礛ご吭高顶琿龟毙ア辨╯澈и-
現┎瞯琌Τ拜肈临琌ろ崩笆∕み㎡
ㄒ厨某舱戮穨胺眃ミㄒ砏﹚沟ぷㄤ琌繧︽穨沟矗ㄑ戮玡の﹚戳戮ō砰浪琩璹斗パ纯戮穨洛厩盡癡絤洛ネ秈︽厨粄讽Ы莱縩伐矗ㄑ硂摸蚌癡絋玂翠Τì镑盡も酚臮胺眃
ぃ筁さぱи-
ㄌ礛ゼǎΤ闽猭ㄒ璹ミ戮穨胺眃ㄌ礛ゼэ舱τㄌ礛Τぶ洛ネτ徖ネ竝︓程羭快Τ闽戮穨洛厩蚌癡揭祘
ミ猭玂毁獶穨竒犁沟胺眃某╯︓さㄌ侣吭高顶琿徖ネ竝秨砞胺眃禘┮ㄌ礛眔丁ゼǎΤヴ︙耎甶狝叭格禜刚拜丁禘┮ê酚臮翠280窾骋笆㎡
讽礛и-
ゲ斗蹦︽笆ňゎ腨穨種祇ネи-
璶挡現┎沟沟よ秖︽笆箇ňの胺眃贺繧
и-
ゲ斗略癘赤アネ㏑㎝胺眃琌ヴ︙窥竭纕の眃確狝叭常礚猭辣干
畊ネ略朝勉や某
糂ホ某璓勉畊ネ璶э到穨┮Τ把籔ㄤい虫︗の常ゲ斗璽砫ヴ竒Τぃぶㄆ碞現┎の┯坝砫ヴ矗種ǎ獺祔ョ穦Τㄆ祇ēτи玥辨酵酵耕ぶ闽猔祇甶坝砫ヴ
и-
弧絃羆┯坝璶璽璶砫ヴ羆┯坝璶舦璽砫俱祘τㄤΩ┯坝常琌パ羆┯坝竨ノぃ筁產ぃぃ縱絃痷タ"ρ馏"ㄤ龟琌祇甶坝τ絃Ч"寥程"ョ琌祇甶坝堡瞷︽穨祇甶坝癸絃玱碭Чぃノ璽砫ㄤ龟絃祘砏购の砞璸┕┕癸篶Θ璶紇臫祇甶坝癸祘秈е篊璶―ョ穦紇臫┯坝跌穨祘珿狦祇甶坝よョ跌祘穨и獺穨盢穦眔碩э到
現┎のㄤそ犁诀篶ㄒ┬〆穦单セ翠祇甶坝セōョΤ癸-
璽砫祘秈︽菏服τ叭场非称崩︽璸だ狦┯坝魁畉盢ぃ莉眔現┎祘拜肈琌╬祇甶坝玱Ч⊿Τ硂よ菏恨惫琁祇甶坝琌闽猔祘借の祘秈镑ぃ镑еぃ瞶穦ネ㏑硂龟琌翠穨獶盽簗瑌
畊ネиョ辨硂诀穦蠢ね量碭弧杠
诀臟祘糧篏粿祇ネи讽边筁洛皘贝辨端產妮讽Τ產妮だ磀礹τ瞷眔疭縀笆и玡饥弧и-
﹚穦荷"腊-
も"ぃ筁ê產妮玱↖礹弧"腊и腊иê碞иひ眶筁ㄓ蛤и弧杠暗ぃ"畊ネ讽и稰獶盽獶盽螟筁и讽礛礚猭端璓ね確ㄆи拜êㄇ產妮癸現┎Τ或璶―-
А睝ぃ礢好氮"辨э到穨玂毁ネ㏑"
琌寥窥緄產セ膀娄τ–Ω讽и端ヾㄠ↖礹礚ー泊и常稱钩―-
ひ克キキㄓ-
腀種ヴ︙狥﹁ㄓユ传產妮癸-
ひ克璶―ㄤ龟虏虫碞琌"ее贾贾痁キキ產ㄓ"и獺–暗ひ暗克常莱赣莱硂妓璶―荷и-
セ暗穨ぃ璶┛跌ぃ璶種ぃ璶淮跌ぃ璶框аぃ璶"莜㏑ㄓ穒"璶暗ぃ璓產端礹ひ籔克玥и-
ゲ斗眏穨硂よ種醚㎝牡谋
畊ネセ略朝勉
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
バ玊某璓勉瞶畊ネ穨よ程戳拜肈常琌Τ闽縱穨讽礛瞷и-
ョр縱穨だㄢ摸摸琌翠セ縱┮孔"癬加"τ摸琌闽膀砞琁縱爵㎝そ隔单硂よ疉の阁瓣そㄤいΤㄇ疉の蔼мㄏиΤㄇ踞み翠沟┪繷㎝硂よ醚常ぃびì镑┮碞硂よ祘現┎埃竨叫臮拜そ菏诡硂ㄇエ兜ヘョσ納竨叫ㄇ阁瓣臮拜そ穨よ矗ㄑ種ǎ
ㄆ龟硂ㄇ蔼м縱琌翠繷┪縱坝⊿Τ竒喷磅︽Τ闽さΩ20痉ホ眖爵奔ㄓㄆンêㄇ猭瓣そ莱赣Τ矗ㄑㄇ種ǎ闽さぱㄢ兜某㎝タ┮矗の眏磅猭㎝胓籃よиΤㄇ種ǎㄆ龟籃蹿琌痷秆∕拜肈㎡瞷程蔼籃竒琌20窾じ菏窽現┎ョ弧ヘ玡ゎゼ纯籃筁菏窽场だ琌籃蹿窾じ狦痷盢籃ㄆ龟┯坝產闽猔窥よ-
潦禦玂繧ㄏ盢籃矗蔼︓50窾┪100窾じ-
常潦禦玂繧妓ぃ穦タ跌拜肈Τ某琌闽Ιだ氨礟и谋眔σ納
Ιだよ吏露穨竒盽瞷畉玪獽Ιだ洁籃よ眖"洁"硂よも狦-
ず⊿Τ種琌ㄇだ计㎡硂妓獽だ侩ㄇ耕┯坝︓耕畉┯坝玥躬纘-
穨よ暗眔ㄇ
讽礛┯坝琵┯щ現┎祘玥ぃ琵ㄤ┯щ硂琌ち快猭┪砛稱よ猭蝶︳硂薄
瞶畊ネㄢ兜某いи-
耕や纯胺Θ某某и-
やabc兜иぃ冈灿狡瓃朝胞糭某矗璶砞ミ猭﹚诀篶参膚ち戮穨胺眃ㄆ﹜ㄏぇΘΤ龟舦猭﹚诀篶硂よиΤ翴ㄠ踞みㄆ龟и-
璶闽猔ㄆ薄龟悔Τㄒ弊℡薄狦琌硂妓杠馋獶璶Θミ猭﹚诀篶
現┎戈方琌Τи-
讽礛猔穨琌Τ惠璶Θミ猭﹚诀篶ㄓ闽猔妓ㄆ薄㎡硂妓暗秆∕拜肈㎡и-
谋眔瞷程璶琌躬纘沟и┯粄よぇい沟砫ヴ材︗現┎材︗材︗妓躬纘沟稱稱穨拜肈ㄤ龟蛤ㄤ拜肈珇借丁妓璶иΤ某碞琌瞷よ竒ΤISO9000珇借恨瞶琌Τ闽穨ISO9000璸だ硂妓躬纘沟タ跌穨拜肈
瞶畊ネ︑パ囊や纯胺Θ某某︓朝胞糭某タи-
猭﹚诀篶硂よΤ┮玂痙┮и-
穦щ斌舦布谅瞶畊ネ
朝挪狶某璓勉瞶畊ネさせる弧琌翠戮穨"堵︹せる"祏祏ㄢ琍戳ぇ丁钡20穨種τ端澈礛Τ骋矪﹛粄琌ぱび荐┮璓иぃ睲贰させる琌疭荐獺⊿Τê甃ぱ钩さΤê或穨種硑Θ㏑端
渤┮㏄翠穨拜肈ぃ琌現┎菏恨ǖ琩ぃì籃筁淮の沟㎝種醚辅翠┎癸そ渤某㎝穦溃羭︽Ω莱筍┦借阁场蔼糷穦某穦某挡狦ぃ⊿Τ癸痝媚はτ矗12兜琌"搓计"惫琁и-
弧琌"穝瞺侣皊"竒衡""弧琌"侣瞺侣皊"禟ちㄤいΤㄇ┮孔穝惫琁︓弛獶
ㄒ翠┎某骋矪糤秸紅服诡阑ǖ琩癸翠初┮硂祇揣ノ琂礛翠┎Τみ蹦阑︽笆︙ぃ镑筽糉︽┾秸も︓パ骋矪蔼糷戮克︑皑痷タΜ纞ノ︓┮孔砞ミ24щ禗荐帹碞纞胊沮и┮硂荐帹筿杠ㄏ⊿ΤΤ菌ㄤ惫琁场だ琌琂Τ現郸场だ玥琌る穨吭高ゅン某
ㄤΩ翠┎﹛Ω眏秸祇ネ穨種琌パぃ跌拜肈沟┪絃┯坝臮琌┯坝Τ砫ヴ沟Τ砫ヴΤ砫ヴ暴縒琌"穨現┎礚砫"
チ羛粄皐癸ヘ玡薄猵翠┎莱荷е辅龟翠穨浪癚吭高ゅン兜某タиさるミ猭Ы某臛阶ョ矗Τ闽吭高ゅン筁だ帝︑и砏恨τ┛菠現┎砫ヴи-
粄璶Τ秆∕穨拜肈ゲ斗︑и砏恨籔ミ猭蛮恨霍ち龟σ納某矗蔼穨キ
1. ま氨礟┪Ιだ砏﹚┯坝﹚戳矗ユ癘魁珹穨種计の砆Θ浪北计狦┯坝琘疭﹚戳丁ず綝Θ浪北﹚Ω计┪砆Ι璝だ计獽穦砆氨礟┪窽ゎ膙щ祘笿Τ疭腨薄猵┯坝砆籃ッ氨礟
2. 盢瞷パ┯坝竨叫ヴ暗猭эパ骋矪ヴぃ妮┯坝沟┯坝礚舦盢ㄤ秆沟
3. まヴ戈菌龟ㄏヴ竒喷の戈菌琿丁眔穝龟Τ闽膥尿瞷爹ヴ夹非
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy, before I offer my comments on the motion and the amendment, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to extend our deepest sympathy to the families who have lost their loved ones. We would also wish those injured a speedy recovery.
We support the call for assistance to these families, but we would have thought that it would be wholly unnecessary for this Council to discuss and debate this point as we are sure that the assistance would be available within our system of public assistance.
Mr Deputy, no one in their right mind wants accidents, let alone those that cause injury or death. The movers of the motion and the amendment are well-known supporters for the cause of workers, and I suspect I am an equally well-known advocate for the cause of my constituents. But that does not mean that we cannot put our heads together to see whether we can arrive at a consensus on new ideas, new initiatives and speedy action. But I can say one thing: constantly demanding heavier penalties will not achieve the objective of making the workplace safer. I will therefore use today's debate to ask them for help.
Mr Deputy, the construction industry has continuously advocated for more training in safety. Indeed, Honourable Members may recall that the Hong Kong Construction Association(HKCA) had a year-long campaign last year called "Construction Site Safety is the Duty of All Training for Results". This campaign resulted in the HKCA introducing the Green Card Training System. The Occupational Health and Safety Council, the Construction Industry Training Authority and the HKCA devised a safety induction course for construction workers. The HKCA also devised a course for trainers who would, on completion, be able to train workers on the safety induction course that I have referred to earlier. Mr Deputy, I am happy to report that the HKCA has trained some 300 trainers and, since the beginning of this year, has issued over 10 000 green cards to workers who have passed the test after completing the safety induction course.
Mr Deputy, I am also happy to report that the Works Branch endorsed the Green Card system at the end of 1995 by making it a contract condition that workers on Works Branch projects are required to hold a Green Card. The Housing Authority also endorsed the Green Card system at the beginning of 1996, but this is only a beginning as it is undertaken by contractors and workers voluntarily. I believe we need much more. And therefore I welcome the Honourable TSANG Kin-shing's endorsement of the Green Card system.
Mr Deputy, yesterday because of our concern for safety, office-bearers of the HKCA including its president, Mr Peter LAM, and I met with the Secretary for Education and Manpower. We put a number of points to him including one which I would particularly like to highlight. After all, safety at work is the responsibility of all, and by this I mean, in the case of the construction industry, the developer, the contractor, all the professionals and all the workers on the one hand, and the Government on the other.
Mr Deputy, my views on the role of those involved in the industry is well known, but for the record, my constituents are constantly trying to improve safety. In fact we pursued yet again with the Secretary for Education and Manpower the HKCA's proposal for a compulsory safety induction course for all workers, trade testing as well as registration of workers. The rationale is simple and clear: compulsory safety induction training will better equip the workers to look after themselves as well as their fellow workers. We need to instil a safety culture into workers and contractors alike. This will go a long way to reducing industrial accidents.
Mr Deputy, the cost for introducing a system of registration of workers or the safety induction training course is not high compared to the cost in emotional and financial terms to the families involved. Indeed, I am sure the property sector will be prepared to play its part and take on this responsibility, including the financial responsibility, if the Administration and the workers are prepared to endorse the scheme. A lot of work will have to be done as quickly as possible to test its feasibility and acceptability, and I call on union leaders, some of whom are Members of this Council, to react to this positively. From the remarks of the Honourable LAU Chin-shek, I shall assume that he will react positively to the HKCA proposal which I have just outlined.
Mr Deputy, I am as concerned as any Member in this Council about safety. However, I believe the motion and the amendment do not have the right or indeed a fair balance from my constituents, point of view, and I will therefore abstain on both.
眎ゅ某璓勉瞶畊ネせせる癸縱絃ㄓ弧琌堵︹せるぃìるぇず管15腳禥ネ㏑翠穨睰堵︹
種祇ネ林阶糓礛現┎祇12兜候惫琁弧常琌"穝瞺侣皊"ㄤ龟琌"穝瞺侣"セ⊿Τ癸痝媚苯亢Α候ǖ琩摸嘲"腨ゴ"癬ぇ毙▅㎝癚惠璶肩簿纐て环ぃ毕Τ浪北㎝皐癸簔跌┯坝堡現┎ㄌ礛硁も竲蓝畓礚
˙秸琩祇瞷程碭﹙穨種А疉のτ沟波┛︓闽龄釜疐诀臟加厄と杆┯坝ゼ竒浪喷㎝уと獽秨Θ跑炳も
猳俄差鄂篏-
⊿Τ筁穨癡絤⊿Τ盡穨緉菏服⊿Τ村梅⊿Τ㊣竟ㄣ薄秈繧盞康┏挡狦竭︑┦㏑琌沟逼波┛
纀穨種い疉の沟ぃ琌砏家闺ρ馏τ琌竒喷伦碔┯坝êㄇ癩动玴阁瓣そ澈礛硈尿计るずΤΩ穨種砆浪北魁孔罿琇裹-
话祘寥窥ぃ臮ョぃ腀矗蔼Θセ程沧碾┦㏑
场だ沟坝穨泊穨㎝寥窥┕︘琌がベΤㄣ纞┦浪北㎝籃玥Τ┯坝竒蕾痲ㄏ┯坝粄痷璽癬砫ヴ琌瞷籃玥硁畓礚睝礚纞┦
材猭ㄒ籃蹿琌20窾じの︹薄40窾じ籃蹿螟笵ㄢ﹙璓㏑種╄眔セ︹薄ぃ懂珇兵ㄒ癸デ籃蹿糤︓80窾じ穨兵ㄒ玥簔跌┯坝仓縩︽癸笆怀货じ璸衡祘跋跋20窾じ琌を︙猵籃蹿キА–﹙ぃ筁12,000じ┯坝セぃ穦泊ず
材瘤礛猭ㄒ璹Τ菏窽籃玥癸そ竡爹┯坝玱睝ぃいノㄒà泞濖種旧璓12赤ネ猭畑矪Τ闽そ粇炳竜Θミ挡狦籃300窾じそ赋ㄆ玥硃换猭舱穝そ膥尿┯钡祘
材沮砏﹚┯坝璝せるず砆猭畑せΩ籃笻は穨叭Τ舦氨ゎㄤщ夹現┎祘Τ戳る︓ぃ单琌硂琿丁ず赣┯坝膥尿琁ョ╬祘щ夹硂贺┮孔胓籃龟ㄠ栏稰㏑解罷
瞶畊ネ兜╬祘菏恨璸Τ骋矪竝诀筿祘矪ň矪┪ㄆ矪τ現┎祘疉の场ぃ穝诀初祘参膚竝縱竝れ祘矪诀筿祘矪措叭竝┹甶竝叭竝現羆竝隔現竝┬竝寒笰矪单-
︑祘︑Τ甅祘"㎝﹟礚"︙猵瞷琌11场11㎝﹟
场戮舦だ床がぃ参妮﹛贡澄吊笿ㄆが崩積穨種祇ネ荡ぃ穦綞碞场だろ参膚㎝秸琜篶硑Θ猭ㄒ簗瑌磅猭澄吊ぃ臮┯坝籹硑猭磲繧巨籹硑"礚恨"盿礚阶琌毙参ы┪穝Θミ猭﹚舱麓ㄤ龟и-
惠璶Τ舦Τ窥Τ瞯Τ┯踞琜篶参膚穨㎝戮穨胺眃磅猭ㄆ﹜
き︓ぇ丁穨璓㏑種–キА计琌78﹙き玥Τ77﹙ǎ穨拜肈ず常⊿Τヴ︙э到硑穨琌╝跋さ竒Τ31絃種現┎魁ョ獶盽畉き現┎祘種Τ23﹙翠计Θㄤい琌穝诀初み祘い祇ネ現┎ㄤōぃタ︙タ
穨拜肈荡ぃ琌硂せるㄆミ猭Ы骋㎝穦林阶τ尿眏疨у蝶現┎╯澈暗或–ΩΤ穝猭ㄒ瞷ㄤ龟ゲ﹚琌ぇ玡Τ腨種祇ネ畊ネ腨甿拜肈╯澈临璶ぶи-
眖﹀毙癡い眶谋㎡
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉や某
币某璓勉瞶畊ネせる硈尿祇ネ﹙璓㏑穨種旧璓產畑產瘆辊辊丁磀粿篏ぃг窣硂摸穨種ㄏセ穨種计ど︓穨ま癬穦そ渤闽猔-
磀礹の綺佩ぇ緇ぃ窽借好︙翠崩︽穨竒玱ゼǎ㎡︙現┎琌螟勉ㄤ㏒㎡
獺產常ぃ穦а癘る琁現厨い現┎┯粄"翠初魁疭琌硑穨よご礛ゼ瞶稱и-
∕種э到硂薄猵"┯空"せ祇初彻璹ㄉΤ吏挂舦の沟Τ砫ヴ荷秖搭妮沟祇ネ種诀穦眏秸Τ砫ヴ宽眖ボ斗籔Τ闽讽Ы羭厨ヴ︙笻は猭ㄒ砏﹚薄猵現┎穦躬纘沟㎝沟┯踞恨瞶初ㄆ叭砫ヴの璹現郸㎝惫琁菏诡ㄤ磅︽穦硓筁毙▅癡絤の琵-
秆種Θ糤眏種醚"璸购龟琁㎡蝶︳ㄆン闽龄琌ㄤ挡狦框狙琌現┎碞翠穨浪癚瘤礛そガ45兜ㄣ砰某龟悔琌そゅ︽酵ヘ玡セ翠祇笷竒蕾跋︽局Τ腹嘿蔼瞯そ叭钉ヮ玱Τ伐碿穨魁硂ㄇ螟笵ぃ眔Τ闽场粄痷は浪癚盾癸辊辊磀篏春禜Τ闽ぃ稰肅盾
瞶畊ネ戳﹙穨種陪ボ穨硋˙ア北╯ㄤ琌現┎╯崩︽恨瞶玱ゼΤ眏磅猭のǖ琩皌現┎癸硂ㄇ穨種琌螟勉ㄤ㏒玌杠弧"ο干╟ゼ边"現┎莱玦┯踞ミ猭磅猭毙▅よ砫ヴ絋购だ戮砫洁籃だちづが崩接セ粄現┎沟沟莱ミ︽笆羆挡ㄆ珿毙癡т種蹦莱箇ň惫琁よ磷種Ω祇ネ讽叭ぇ琌耎肚毙▅眏菏恨のЧ到穨糵τぃ琌鸟發╯街ぇ筁
瞶畊ネ現┎莱荷硉﹚腨糉籃玥舱麓疭ǖ琩钉阑ǖ琩の菏恨琁菏诡繧薄猵﹚Τ惫琁北肩繧㎝蹦干毕︽笆ヘ玡翠爹ヴκτ计瞷獶眖ㄆヴΤ闽场莱荷е崩︽恨瞶糤挤戈方や穿ヴヴ镑糹︽ㄤ戮砫癸笻は穨猭ㄒ沟猭诀闽莱琁籃Μ纞ノパ┦㏑я闽┮沟ゲ斗睲贰ゑ瞯璶讽吏挂種獽穦搭ぶ瞯︑穦矗蔼穨龟琁ぃ虫綼︑и砏恨斗Ч到猭ㄒ眏磅猭縩伐崩約種醚ㄏ沟粄醚Τ砫ヴ矗ㄑ穨玂毁Τ癸穨秈︽菏恨砫ヴ安恨よ箇ň暗腨惫琁獺计穨種琌磷
瞶畊ネ眖砛種ㄆ珿籉ㄓ常琌パセō波┛種醚痢畓⊿Τ腨酚玥穨礛τ龟悔琌種ㄆ珿钡甡狦-
ㄆΤì镑醚穨Τì镑惫琁玂毁刚稱街穦︑ネ㏑玙繧㎡Τ眏肚毙▅ㄏㄣ称Ч到種醚沟饼皑ㄆ常筁ぃ闽穨礚倍畖ǐΤ讽籔沟常粄痷宽穨玥癸セ翠穨種搭ぶよΤ龟借┦腊戳辨現┎沟沟よ秸璓跌穨承硑吏挂
現┎Τ闽场莱癸セ翠穨種螟產妮矗ㄑのや穿ㄤ秆∕弘㎝竒蕾挂
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉や朝胞糭㎝纯胺Θ某某谅谅瞶畊ネ
讲蚌某璓勉瞶畊ネ20セ翠穨ǔ硉祇甶翠Θ瞷て穨カ琌セ翠穨魁絋龟и-
稰篏ぃг窣ぷㄤ硑穨よㄤ穨魁ご琌竒蕾耕碔肝跋ぇい魁程畉ぇヘ玡ㄤ穨端瞯ゑ玡临蔼
或穦Τ硂贺薄猵㎡碞琌現┎癸穨畉ぃ蹦ヴ篈現┎菏恨ぃ現郸祏跌繷礹洛繷現┎ら暗猭弧硂贺薄猵セる钡硈祇ネ﹙端ㄆ珿るず澈旧︓ぃ┋赤ネ現┎碞彻秨阁场舱癚阶ㄢ穦某璹12翴眏穨惫琁灿12翴惫琁孔礚穝種ㄤい场だ竒龟琁┪盢穦秈︽硂Ω穦某琌暗"╭"(show)磐磐肚莱筍莱筍穦溃τ
セ翠穨み拜肈翠秈羛粄Τ碭翴
猭ㄒ胓籃ぃ腨猭筁淮
沮瞷︽猭ㄒ笻は砏﹚程蔼籃蹿20窾じの夯キА籃蹿17,000じ癸┯坝┪沟τē硂籃蹿肂孔"楞楞窰"璸竒犁Θセい
現┎菏恨ぃ
現┎膀セр穨糵砫ヴ崩沟┪┯坝ōΤ闽磅猭の菏恨场菏恨畉ぃ炒ア北薄猵
パ糵膀セパ沟┪┯坝ず场秈︽硂よ琌ぃ沟疉τ糵粄痷キΤ拜肈
ㄓぃぶ祇ネ種端┯坝纯ΤΩぃ▆魁パヘ玡セ翠⊿Τ癸┯坝蹦Ιだ氨礟-
睼篘辰淮瞯"筁癌"
Ч到恨瞶
膀ㄆ叭眖穨もぃìの沟㎝┯坝Τ闽痲刮砰は癸ヘ玡Τ闽猭ㄒ皐癸砏家初ぃぶ砏家初┪絃ㄤ薄猵Τ拜肈τ沟┕┕Ч称糵厨の浪癚ㄆ珿甧祇ネ
ì镑计秖眖穨
現┎筁┕┛跌硂よ蚌癡ぷセ翠ヘ玡ヴ筁计獶眖ㄆㄆ叭硂琌パ吏挂の笿拜肈┮ま璓
き穨種醚
パセ翠現┎の沟肚ぃ镑菏恨ぃ腨ǖ琩ぃìセ翠種醚痢畓
瞶畊ネ祇ネ穨種翠秈羛粄到㏕礛璶程璶临琌︙ňゎ種祇ネ穨種钡硈祇ネぇ蹦ㄇ候︽笆讽礛册秤礚环獀セよ猭琌玃叫現┎荷еミТ到糵
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉
朝篴篱某璓勉瞶畊ネ瞷セ祇ēや朝胞糭某タ
ら钡硈祇ネ﹙腨穨種硑Θね薄猵礹み穦ョ盿硈﹃癚阶珹さぱ某臛阶╫翠临Τ计窾璸–ら眖ㄆぃ戮穨獺и-
癚阶ヘ莱琌环玂毁硂痁ゴ戮穨胺眃τ秈︽硂陪眔Τ種竡
碩糤癸笻はΤ闽穨兵ㄒぇ籃玥
タい翠┎莱碩糤癸笻はΤ闽穨兵ㄒ籃玥セ瞏觅瞷︽紅の穨竒犁兵ㄒ砰猭ㄒ材6A兵癸笻は砏﹚狥籃蹿翠刽20窾じ︓礚瞶臛秆τ笻は玥籃蹿翠刽20窾じの菏窽せる琌兜祘┕┕计碭货︓10货じ璸ㄏ矪程蔼籃蹿20窾じョ琌をτタ┮孔"楞楞窰"礚闽礹膐ぃ矗
羛穦粄ち龟Μ纞ノ現┎莱盢瓃程蔼籃だэ翠刽100窾じの翠刽100窾じ㎝菏窽き瞷穨種繵ネ璶膒挡碞琌籃玥び淮┯坝┕┕泊祘崩甶痲㎝话ЧΘр拜肈だΩ璶︗竚穦ョ炊筂巩み瞶礚阶琌現┎沟︓セō常╆帝硂贺巩み瞶眔筁筁︓祇ネ腨穨種﹀毙癡眔眶谋基エ
糤癸笻はΤ闽穨兵ㄒ籃玥莱は琈穨璶┦ョ钡矗蔼┯坝種醚眖τщ戈方砞璸琁祘单よ癸種醚㎝砞琁σ納
瞷癸穨種籃玥籃蹿耕淮癸笻ㄒ沟籃蹿计┪计窾じ狦矗蔼籃玥ㄏ猭畑糵癟艶矪瞶笿Τ腨ㄆ珿矪癸耕蔼籃玥
埃璹砰猭ㄒヘ玡紅の穨竒犁兵ㄒ兵Τ闽︽穨妮猭ㄒ現┎莱浪癚ㄤ籃玥ㄒ縱絃砏ㄒい程蔼籃玥籃蹿翠刽20窾じの菏窽兵ゅョぃ才瞷龟薄猵ョ斗ㄒ碩糤ㄤ籃玥
┾秸戮穨Ыの骋矪もǖ琩初┮
瞶畊ネ讽礛и-
產常ぃ稱Τ種祇ネ莱︙箇ň㎡硂琌伐ㄤ璶拜肈セ粄瞷讽叭ぇ現┎莱眏骋矪もǖ琩翠初┮紅服诡玥璶眏癸笻ㄒ沟浪北ň絛ゼ礛辨糤挤戈方倒戮穨胺眃Ы眖τ┾秸戮穨胺眃Ы盡穨皌骋矪眏ǖ琩絃㎝初┮ョ璶戮穨胺眃Ы皌眏初┮戮穨胺眃肚毙▅玃秈穨胺眃Τ闽ǖ琩も借э到眏ㄤ蚌癡
瞶畊ネ筁Τу蝶璽砫ǖ琩よ砞琁紅服诡盡穨мの醚ぃì珿セの羛穦粄┾秸もぇ緇莱眏Τ闽疭盡穨蚌癡
讽礛环ㄓ弧現┎﹚璶ΘミΤ瞯いァ猭﹚诀篶参膚ち戮穨胺眃ㄆ﹜琌獀セ獀よ猭
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉やタ
谅谅瞶畊ネ
綠癡某璓勉瞶畊ネ穨琌骋戈現┎よ常莱猔種㎝莱赣縩伐э到某肈ぇ瘤礛骋戈蛮よ戈褐㎝块骋現郸单拜肈常Τぃ種ǎи獺產絛氓常Τ▆種腀э到ヘ玡薄猵Τ端﹍沧琌и-
ぃ稱祇ネ磀粿琂礛矗蔼穨琌產Τ醚兜ヘ獽莱荷ㄤ砫搭ぶ磀粿祇ネ沟莱赣矗ㄑì镑㎝続讽砞琁倒沟沟ョ莱赣宽硂ㄇ現郸笷璓ヘ夹
瞷猭ㄒ砏﹚絃叫禬筁20獽璶沟ノ服旧叫禬筁100玥璶沟ノ戮㎝爹ヴ沟矗杆ㄇ砞称㎝惫琁玂毁Τ闽㎝胺眃のǖ跌初тΤ肩繧よň絛璝沟ぃ酚暗τ旧璓種祇ネ碞穦癸ㄆ㎝チㄆ浪北
ぃ筁и稱沟Τ砫ヴぇ緇沟Τ砫ヴ瞷︽猭ㄒ┕┕皐癸沟礚い┛菠沟讽礛Τㄇ沟淮跌穨旧璓端琌и-
ぃ璶а癘ㄇΤ▆み沟矗ㄑ惫琁ぃ筁⊿Τ宽┮ま璓穨種畊ネи羘獶某北笿種獶辅かホ琌稱癚阶矗布北ぃ宽猭ㄒ皌肚Μ纞ぇノ
埃篶и㊣苸現┎骋戈よ崩︽穨毙▅疭穨い厩戮穨厩硑穨癡絤Ы戮穨癡絤Ы㎝盡皘揭祘ず穨竊矗眶-
硂璶┦㎝毙旧-
︙巨玂毁ㄣ沮穨癡絤いみ计陪ボきΤ16 463钡穨醚揭祘15 000畊籔︑︽穨Τ闽盡肈穨量畒临ゼ酚臮场だ沟現┎莱羭快摸揭肈┪量畒沟肞碭琵ㄇ畊沟ョ璶セō稱ㄇ把籔硂摸笆
瞶畊ネ癸纯胺Θ某㎝朝胞糭某矗某и场だ常觅Θ琌癸朝胞糭某璶―Θミ"猭﹚诀篶参膚ち戮穨胺眃ㄆ﹜"Τ┮玂痙踞みミ诀篶Τ"琜舼"狦蛤瞷︽诀Τ狡㎝Τぶ侥ボ坝┪沟港種и穦や某㎝タ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
辩模┚某璓勉畊ネи-
ら盽ネい骸诀籔炒ɡ摸穦ぃ耞泵ゃ―ヘ碞琌镣磷た镑ネ硂莱赣琌穦砫ヴの腀辨琌虫琌筁翠沟端计弧琌计ぃ秤计ㄤい痙倒產琌礚絘端礹τ端玥︑キ睰ネ磀玸㎝磀礹
ネ㏑セ礚だ禥解癸璓ねㄓ弧玱Τ顶ぇだ癘眔玡帝贾钉Beyond簈も独產緎らセτ疾常瞏稰礹堡贾癵磀礹ぃ荡独產緎耹窾セの贾癵盽糥玡璓步琌﹎ぃǎ竒肚奔秈↖絚┪眖蔼禴埃克ね-
蓟窥種瞷初步ぇ俱翠穦临Τぶ礹堡-
ネ㏑㎡
筁Τ璓活碭窾端沟硂掸﹀杜╯澈琌街莱赣璽砫и-
穦琌荷程翠骋眎秨呼-
ネ㏑ōみ程ㄎ玂毁㎡
⊿Τи﹚弧⊿Τ
材現┎⊿Τ荷材ρ馏⊿Τ荷材恨沟⊿Τ荷
現┎┯空盢紅服诡计糤︓250挡狦16笷硂计ヘ程琌現┎箂耎溜紅篬穨竒犁兵ㄒ︓都穨だ皌服诡璽砫窾都初┮ヘ玡薄猵︙琍戳硈尿Τ︗ね穨種翠現┎Γ眖紅服诡い┾秸猠‵计絃ǖ琩Τ盾ì镑盾"繷礹洛繷竲礹洛竲""ǎ˙︽˙"硂贺篈ボ現┎ㄓ礚み荷玂毁ネ㏑硂ㄆ龟琌礚猭被耿
癸ぃ臮穨ρ馏τēи-
籔ㄤ甀現┎羇甧┯坝弧現┎浪北ぃ腨籃蹿び淮ぃ钡宁砫ρ馏竊竒犁Θセ嫡㏑讽礛現┎璝籃礚好玻ネ纞ノи粄程沧Τρ馏痷み跌沟ネ㏑沟ネ㏑眔程玂毁
琘ㄇねぷㄤ琌穝簿チ┪骋-
计ゼ筁癡絤狦恨瞶顶糷倒ぉ続讽徊旧腨服旧癸玡帹τē獺﹚Τ耕玂毁よパ瞷⊿Τ猭ㄒ菏恨穨砞称狦沟蹦ノ珇借Τ拜肈玻珇癸獽ぃ癬玂臔ノτ戮穨胺眃玃秈Ы代刚靡场だカ扳ň臔ノ珇蔼盿ň疾泊竛单Τゼ才夹非ぃ┋琌Τㄇㄏノ砞称獽窾礚ア牡谋┦薄猵祇ネ種
皐癸現┎寂璴篈紅の穨竒犁ρ馏礚▆の猭ㄒ玂毁ぃìи略矗某
э紅篬穨竒犁兵ㄒэ戮穨胺眃兵ㄒ盢ㄤ菏诡絛瞅耎︓翠︽穨ま穝砏ㄒ恨诀瘪┪祘临璶菏恨砞称ネ玻借
盢紅服诡縒ミ骋矪ぇэ戮穨胺眃竝盡砫戮穨ユ倒パ骋戈﹛舱Θ﹛よ舱麓 戮穨胺眃恨瞶Ы璽砫菏诡ㄤ磅︽の璹現郸玃ㄏэ硉秈︽
砞ミパ骋戈蛮よ舱Θ初〆穦砏﹚50初ゲ斗砞ミ〆穦虑络﹚初現郸の服旧現郸磅︽ㄤいパ匡羭玻ネパ猭ㄒ结ぉ磅︽ヴ叭Τ舦ǖ琩秸琩種瞷诀扒氨单
癸笻猭沟籃珹氨礟の菏窽
き ミ猭砏﹚祇甶坝璽砫絋玂祘〆快の砞璸顶琿だ猔
セ略朝勉
ヴ到圭某璓勉程硈尿祇ネ﹙種ㄆン螟竚獺Τ﹛崩代荐ぱ耕波┛τま璓種琌и-
崩代ぱ荐骋矪服诡耕波胕τǐ簗繧┦絃砞琁㎡玡現┎矗眏穨惫琁龟悔蹦Τぶ㎡ΘΤ㎡セるら独篿某纯セЫ穦某矗"翠穨浪癚"某ま癬產闽猔穨ち┦τきる祇穨吭高ゅンい45兜э到某ùさ禬筁兜ヘごゼ辅龟︙ㄤ絯篊㎡ǎ現┎矪瞶穨拜肈腨ア砫
ら玡現┎э到穨阁场穦某い矗12兜э到惫琁ㄤい兜琌"骋矪ゼㄓ计琍戳┾秸も眏ǖ琩蔼繧骋矪ǖ跌絃㎝紅服诡だ妮ぃ钉ヮǖ跌絃服诡Τ98程眖紅服诡┾秸ㄓэǖ琩絃69服诡踞ヴや穿赣羬┾秸ㄓ紅服诡-
戳琌︓る┏祇ネ﹙絃㏑種度度る丁ず糤10%ǖ琩硂﹚琌ぃì镑
セ癩現箇衡い骋矪箇衡穦糤砞72戮︗龟琁э到穨浪癚ゅン┮矗兜某の眏诀初み璸购祘穨ǖ琩讽い璽砫紅の絃ǖ琩服诡肂惠璶49τ瞷竨叫Τǎ糤も琌伐絯篊セ某現┎ゼ竨叫ì镑ǖ琩服诡玡﹚璶蝴瞷┪紅服诡秸ǖ跌絃盢紅籔絃ǖ琩ち┦ゑ耕ǖ琩絃琌耕ちτ癸紅種ぃ钩絃ê或腨ョ耕ぶ瞣疉㏑瞷セ翠场だ紅璶簿–丁紅蝴ぶ计暗獶み牟デ┦ョゑ耕珿ǖ琩服诡ぃ惠璶ê或┮俱砰服诡ゼΤì镑も莱蝴程ぶパ紅服诡ǖ琩絃︓もだ氨ゎ秸皌搭淮ǖ琩絃もぃì薄猵
τ12兜惫琁いョ矗砞ミщ禗穨薄猵荐絬筿杠セ獶盽觅Θ粄莱–絃捷ミ碭ボ礟р荐絬筿杠腹絏眎禟讽泊よ琵环环ǎㄓ琵-
笵Τщ禗荐絬玂毁┦㏑羭厨ㄓよ獽-
痁いヰ丁璓筿щ禗
セョ某糤砞兵祏腹絏筿杠荐帹ㄑ祇ネ穨種盡ノ纯Τカチщ禗厨盡絬ョΤ钡ぃ硄薄猵瞷穝砞盡帹パ戮穨Ы恨瞶程讽ㄓㄏ戮穨Ыパ繰篈肚の癡絤跑Θ笆篈矪瞶ㄆ珿ㄏㄤ祇揣ノㄓパ戮穨Ы参膚候薄猵羛蹈骋矪牡钉ňЫ洛臔のΤ闽场辨程祏丁ずǔ硉矪瞶ㄆン祇ネㄏ端计搭︓程
朝胞糭某矗┾秸戮穨Ыもǖ琩翠初┮┤戮穨Ы戮⊿Τ踞ヴめǖ琩戈菌┮既ぃ矗ㄑもセ某戮穨Ы皑秨快癡絤ǖ琩揭祘礛Θミ穨徊钉安骋矪服诡踞ヴ"牡诡"玥戮穨Ы穨徊钉踞ヴ""干骋矪服诡ぃìΤ崩︽┮孔そず场恨瞶穝郸菠玥セ觅Θ﹚戳秨阁场穦某坝癚穨ㄆ﹜结ぉ戮Ы舦辨Τ┦э到穨惫琁搭端计眖纯Θ某某の朝胞糭某タㄓㄢ畉琌凹祏戳ち惫琁の砰端產妮耕跌戳э到璸购ㄢ常伐璶タ盢某兜某惫琁琌ぃゲ璶┮セや某谅谅畊ネ
霉璓某璓勉畊ネиさぱ癚阶璶琌栋い穨ア粇τ旧璓穨種端穿拜肈秈癚阶ぇ玡иゲ斗羘и-
ぃ辨穨種祇ネи-
ョ莱荷ち︽のよ猭ňゎ穨種祇ネぃ筁荷ň絛ぇ緇и-
ョぃ逼埃ヴ︙波┛┪獶箇ň種祇ネ┪砛иま瓃ㄇ计琵產笵穨種Τ287Τ263きΤ247τ端计だ佩59 128硂琌き计珿и-
璶σ納琌Ч到そキτǔ硉穨種端穿硂琌ゲ惠
ら穨種端ㄆンい厨笵は琈現┎场穿ぃ秸のョΤ砆ㄆンそ秨祘ぃτΤ玴痢┘ぇ尔陪琌現┎莱碞Τ闽穿秈︽浪癚眏场丁秸の璹いみ穿郸菠倒ぉǔ硉τì镑穿
硂и辨矗穿よ猭阀├辨ミ猭Ыㄆ現┎の穦渤σ納の癚阶ㄤの︽┦沟瘆玻沟Τ竭纕膀秆∕ネ拜肈パユ硄種┮ま璓端ョΤ膀惠璶穿ㄢ硄翴常琌Τ惠璶常璶单琿耕丁莉眔竭纕膀砞ミ穿獽秆∕の膀セ惠璶
パ端干纕常惠ぃぶΤ惠璶璶单︓ㄢ眔┮惠璶端干纕┮チ囊某現┎σ納挤掸蹿兜Θミ膀端アセ┪產妮А眔膀穿ビ烩ら碻ㄤ硚畖眔竭纕玥舥临ぉ赣膀瓃種ǎ妮阀├灿竊临惠癚阶㎝╯さぱи矗琌辨ミ猭Ыㄆの現┎σ納硂膀︽┦
セ略朝勉
毒浪膀某璓勉畊ネ筁せるだず穨種繵ご虫せるせら︓ら硂琍戳ぇず碞Τ14穨種τ赤ネㄤ龟钡硈穨種祇ネ獶案礛ㄆㄓ翠穨種计琌尿蔼硑穨ㄒせ︓箂Τ290硑穨種τ赤ネキА–Τ58﹙︓き玥Τ296﹙璓㏑キА–Τ59穨種硂ㄇ计禗и-
翠穨種よ薄猵ゼΤヴ︙陪帝э到硂籔セ翠穨Τ闽硈и稱碞ǖ琩菏恨の笻ㄒ籃よ癚阶
材ǖ琩菏恨よ沮骋矪计瞷璽砫ǖ琩紅の絃紅服诡絪Τ258Ι埃癡龟悔把籔ǖ琩服诡Τ227τ硂у服诡だǖ琩絃のǖ琩紅ㄢ摸瞷翠Τ6 787絃τǖ琩絃紅服诡玥Τ136璝璶ǖ琩┮Τ絃Ω玥–璶璽砫50絃–らョ璶琍戳ЧΘ︓紅薄猵踞み翠瞷Τ9窾丁紅ǖ琩紅服诡Τ91传ēぇ–キА癬絏璶璽砫1 000丁紅穨拜肈
眖瓃计睲贰讽Ыǖ琩も琌腨ぃì璝Τ猭ㄒτろも崩︽ê或羇ㄏΤ或Ч到猭ㄒョ琌礚ノи玃叫讽Ы莱糤挤戈方糤竨も眏癸絃の紅菏诡
材よ琌Τ闽笻ㄒ籃拜肈埃ǖ琩もぃì磅猭ぃ腨ョ琌拜肈方ぇ沮骋矪计陪ボ癸笻は穨兵ㄒ┯坝猭畑常琌獶盽淮稬ㄒ笻ㄒキА籃蹿琌12,000じ硂掸籃蹿癸计货じ璸祘ㄓ弧琌を癸┯坝琌稬ぃì笵現┎莱赣璹猭ㄒ碩矗蔼癸笻ㄒ籃Μ纞ノ
畊ネиョ稱酵酵癸穨種產妮穿拜肈らΤ厨笵竝矪瞶產妮涝府穿蛮夹非癸称肚碈闽猔竝穦矗ㄑ穿荡ぃ篊︓耕ぶ闽猔竝玥筐筐ぃ瞶︓璶ㄤ產妮狥゜﹁禲莉眔戈のΤ闽涝府禣沮Τ闽刮砰戈陪ボ綤皊芖蔼糦穝籞盺╊加糧加硂ㄇㄆンい產妮琌ㄆ祇ぱ莉眔竝涝府瑉禟ㄤ種ㄆン產妮-
玥ㄆ祇碭ぱ︓碭琍戳眔Τ闽瑉禟иぃフ矪瞶硂ㄇ穦瞷硂或畉钵иョ礚種ヴ︙瞦代ㄤ龟и-
常笵硂ㄇ產妮礹ア產ぇ挂猵琌讽锈ぃぶ琌產畑竒蕾や琖硂ㄇ產妮穦稰窾だ稫碼τ腊癸-
ㄓ弧琌だ璶и觅耕Ν玡霉璓某┮矗の碞琌ΤΘミ膀獽矪瞶產妮竒蕾拜肈硂ㄇ產妮ら莉眔ㄤよ戈┪竭纕盢Τ闽肂耴临硂膀и粄硂阀├琌眔и-
σ納и玃叫Τ闽よ癸┮Τ穨種端產妮跌く程祏丁-
矗ㄑ穿琵-
镑寸筁螟闽
畊ネиや某のタ
某璓勉畊ネ某弧闽拜肈種ǎ瞷и稱栋い酵酵癸端產妮酚臮拜肈
и材琌贝砐㎝腊產妮ㄓ硂ㄇ產妮┮笿拜肈и稱禗產ㄤ龟琌⊿Τ或だ–Ω祇ネ種ぇ產妮┮笿拜肈ㄤ龟常琌狡い眖ㄓ⊿Τэ跑膀セ琌Τ"堵瑌簗瑌"拜肈"堵瑌"琌或硂"堵瑌"琌硈程膀セ涝府禣㎝產禣常⊿Τ猭ㄒ弧狦⊿Τ產妮碞パ現┎ㄓ璽砫и稱拜或沟礚斗璽砫–Ωㄆ珿祇ネи常璶籔產妮籔┯坝癚涝府禣㎝產禣Τи谋眔⊿Τ或種竡產妮程端礹临璶–ぱ矪゜禲―êㄇ祇產禣┮Τ某弧辨砞ミ膀и粄硂琌ぃ莱赣或ぃ钡璶―沟璽砫或–Ω發癚產禣常钩"量基"妓程иΤ︗ㄆパ5,000じ癚基临基20窾じ癚基临基Τ或種產妮临Τ或碙腨
碭る玡иΩ┰绢肂㎝┯坝瞶阶程临琌腀種產禣瞷и临癘眔玡Τ丁┯坝и弧-
產禣そ基琌5,000じ禗и或琌5,000じら穦Τ璶―-
產禣或ぃэ到ㄏ產妮ぃ惠璶硋―┯坝и粄現┎璶產妮暗琌睲贰璹猭ㄒ狦祇ネㄆ珿パ┯坝璽砫涝府禣礛–るや单羱筍產禣倒產妮︓產妮Μ竭纕ゎㄤ丁丁︓ㄢㄏ-
程端礹ぃ惠璶狥゜﹁禲硂琌и程辨現┎暗ㄆ
иョ弧筁Τ簗瑌材簗瑌琌瞷璸衡竭纕琌璸衡"ㄌ綼祘"或琌"璸衡ㄌ綼祘"и羭ㄒ"泞擦"ㄆンいΤ︗ダΤτㄠㄓ暗ㄆ璸衡ㄌ綼祘パダΤτぃㄌ綼ㄠ戈┮ダ程眔竭纕琌10窾じ兵ネ㏑10窾じ或硂琌ㄌ綼祘ㄓ璸衡薄猵產綼ㄓ蝴產畑秨や倒ぉ產畑窥ぶ璝スㄌ綼祘ぶ┮程竭纕琌ぶ┮и某璸衡よ猭琌沮戈ㄓ璸衡ぃノㄌ綼祘ㄓ璸衡ㄒ戈璸衡玥
︓材簗瑌ㄤ龟瞷璸衡よ猭琌40烦程蔼莉竭纕戈40︓55烦竭纕き55烦竭硂癸﹖硅獶盽ぃㄒ程ぱ爵厄ㄆン產常笵框妮Τ眔烦ㄠ㎝ヾ胔ゥτ程莉竭纕戈ㄠ烦せ烦临Τ羮螟ネ毙-
︙减筁或и-
ぃミㄒゼΘ產妮ゼ骸18烦玡常礚斗踞みネぃ璶癸и弧-
烩そ穿硂琌猭ㄒ暗ㄆ薄–Τκ或и-
ぃ框妮ネ耕贾ㄏㄠ18烦玡常ぃノ踞み
材程拜肈琌瞷程蔼る羱肂琌18,000じゑ沟赌兵ㄒ┮玂毁22,500じ临璶畉龟ぃフ現┎︙临ぃ璹硂兜猭ㄒㄤ龟莱籔戈本恥τぃ莱Τ18,000じи辨現┎穦э到硂兜猭ㄒ
瞷и稱癚阶ㄇ闽拜肈и谋眔瞷端種薄猵Τ初監炳產粄и弧"監炳"琌筁腨ㄤ龟獶и瞯蹦ノ泊и癘眔せ玡羆服纯竒弧筁璶氨ゎ硂初"監炳"弧Чせ監炳ご⊿Τ氨ゎи粄み拜肈琌"窥┣"Τ某弧籃窥⊿Τノ琌寥窥籃蹿稬ぃì笵┮程临琌"窥┣"и粄斑よ猭琌"耞μ隔"и蔼砍バ玊某常や硂よ碞琌骋戈蛮よ常やΙだ钩笻ㄒ緍緋Ιだ妓氨ㄤ礟"耞ㄤμ隔"-
獽穦タ跌
ㄤΩи笵現┎е穦崩〆穦某ㄤいΤи程ぃ骸场だ琌⊿Τ龟舦и辨現┎ミㄒ莱结ぉ龟舦ㄏ–絃Τ睲贰磅︽猭ㄒ笿Τ種祇ネ現┎厨
谅谅畊ネ
︙庇古某璓勉畊ネ硂Ω竒琌セミ猭材ΩΤ闽穨某臛阶ìǎ翠穨拜肈よ闽猔
硑穨穨種矪獶盽蔼キ翠┮Τ穨種だぇ硂ㄇ计ㄤ龟陪ボㄇ耕腨穨種薄猵淮稬種パЧ到魁╰参竒盽琌ゼ璸衡ず┮絋龟计莱琌环禬筁現┎┮そガ
チ囊獶盽闽猔穨拜肈Ω穦戳и-
纯矗闽某τさる纯胺Θ某癸独篿某Τ闽穨某矗タ
Ω某臛阶いチ囊睲贰癸現┎穨浪癚吭高ゅンい矗┮孔"︑и砏恨"郸菠讽玂痙篈и-
ǎ琌Ч⊿Τ˙璹ミ猭┪˙磅猭э到┮孔躬纘"︑и菏恨"ぃ筁琌酵ぃ穦痷タэ到穨
せるい現┎钡硈祇ネ穨種琌矗12兜┮孔眏穨惫琁ㄤい琌瞷Τ磅︽τㄤョ琌ㄇ祏戳㎝璸购い惫琁琌盢┮Τ穝侣惫琁癬垒计и-
ごゼ現┎痷タΤ港種セ翠穨疭琌硑穨穨矗环㎝ㄣ砰э到よ猭
瞷セ翠穨猭ㄒセぃ皌俱砰砞˙ワ竒蕾祇甶瘤ㄌ苦膀娄砞祇甶ョぃτ碾┦硑穨腳禥ネ㏑
瞷ㄇΤ穨惫琁Ιだ続ノ現┎祘癸荡场だ╬诀篶秈︽祘兜ヘ現┎弧琌ヴパㄤ︑ネ︑防琌讽Τ腨穨種祇ネ發╯砫ヴの矗浪北硂贺"皑"Α郸菠Ч琌ヴ篈
и-
ぃ璶―現┎–ぱ常絃ǖ跌и-
璶―琌ミ甅Ч俱菏诡の箇ňㄒ纯胺Θ某矗Τ闽э到ヴ某Ιだ单
程祇ネ﹙穨種ㄆン忌臩讽腨穨種祇ネ端┪ね產妮┮眔穿琌腨ぃì硂ㄤ龟琌癸翠俱砰そ穿控ㄓ褐竝琌ㄌ綼肚碈厨笵硅︙癸端產穿夹霉璓某矗ㄇ篶и-
辨穨種祇ネ荷е腊ㄇ端㎝ね產妮
畊ネи疭矗琌毙▅参膚Θミ阁场舱せるら玡ぱㄆ叭〆穦疭穦某毙▅参膚砆借高Τ闽阁场舱琌盽砞弧"盽砞獽璶Τㄣ砰絛瞅㎝ヘ夹"и癸硂氮滦瞶秆琌硂阁场舱ぃ琌盽砞ョ⊿Τㄣ砰ヘ夹朝胞糭某矗タㄤい兜琌璶―盽砞〆穦盽砞㎝阁场㏕礛璶и-
谋眔璶琌現┎璶璹﹚睲贰ヘ夹獶度琌阁场穦某獽暗阁场穦某膥尿秨–ぱ癚阶琌⊿Τ挡狦и-
璶―琌璶璹﹚睲贰ヘ夹竒筁癚阶琿丁璶ユΘ罿ㄓ禗翠カチ笵硂舱璶暗或ぃ琌倒カチ岿谋粇Τ硂阁场舱獽单現┎縩伐э到拜肈и讽借高眔ぃ睲贰氮滦さぱ臛阶ㄓ眔タи璶㎝現┎臛筁フ辨祔Τ睲贰莱иぃ璶琌"暗╭"舱安杆縩伐и璶―毙▅参膚ㄣ砰禗и烩旧阁场舱穦暗或穦妓э到瞷ぃ场︑だ恨薄猵禗翠カチ笵硂舱︙矗э到穨某狦ぃ┯空э到某иョ辨毙▅参膚秆睦︙阁场舱常穦暗ぃ
The digital timer showed 0710
PRESIDENT: Mr HO, two more sentences to complete your speech.
︙庇古某畊ネи辨硂阁场舱ΝらЧΘэ穨ユΘ罿谅谅畊ネ
綠模磁某璓勉畊ネ翠┎筁矪瞶穨拜肈琌蹦"繷礹洛繷竲礹洛竲"よΑ獶Τ瑈﹀毙癡琌ぃ穦暗ヴ︙現郸ア干毕ㄏそガ翠穨浪癚吭高ゅンㄤ某發ぃセ竒蕾祇甶厨ご琌礚穝種琌盢筁┕"穨"甅篶侣秸紆癸ヘ玡竒蕾锣︽穨疭琌材玻穨玂毁礚矗の羛穦癸瞏ぃ骸
畊ネΤ挪筁计琍戳ㄓ初初﹀毙癡羛穦Ωビ現┎莱癸瞷龟薄猵の竒蕾ぃ耞祇甶τр筁だ澄や瞒瘆窰⊿Τ╰参侣穨現郸э跑传甅Τ╰参戮穨現郸
畊ネ朝胞糭某┮ē穨吭高ゅン某и-
瘤ゼ絃粄荷Ν辅龟琌ㄆ某いΤ骋矪矪Τ舦繧祇氨┪э到硄セ粄祏戳ㄓ弧パΤ闽某糶ΘセЫ糵某珿荷Ν硄筁琌筁蹦╈┑現郸癸硂拜肈は種ǎ某龟莱︑иは
セ辨硄筁ぇ穨Τよ秈甶绰э秈よ邻秈程沧ㄏ玡帹骋矪紅服诡Τ舦Τ闽繧初祇氨硄┪э到硄τぃ璶ㄒ戈方ぃì崩積ぃ暗
硑Θ︓さ穨種繵ネㄤい㏕礛琌セ穨╰参碞琌セ癸笻は穨猭砏籃玥ぃ镑猭畑┕┕锚珹猭м砃┦拜肈τぃΤ闽祘羆璽砫"ρ灿"發╯程沧砫ヴ琌籃蹿窾碭じㄆ诀穦Г╟弧︓さゎ临ゼ暗箂瘆祏戳ㄓ弧セ某翠┎σ納ヘ玡紅の穨竒犁兵ㄒ材6A兵Τ闽狥┦砫ヴい"ρ灿"Τㄆ砫ヴ
程瘤礛羛穦粄璶э到ヘ玡薄猵程璶碞琌現┎璶Θミㄣ龟舦猭﹚诀篶参膚ち戮穨胺眃ㄆ﹜畊ネセ略朝勉谅谅
PRESIDENT: I now invite Mr TSANG Kin-shing to speak on the amendment to his motion. You have five minutes to speak on the amendment, Mr TSANG.
纯胺Θ某璓勉畊ネи稱碞朝胞糭某┮矗タ某莱
盢阁场穦某﹚戳┦и谋眔琌"琜舼"暗猭膀セ產さΩ毙▅参膚┮参膚┮孔阁场穦某琌"暗╭"瞷琌皐癸せる祇ネ硂或﹙種τ秈︽浪癚⊿Τ玡陇┦环┦浪癚
瞷現┎矪瞶穨拜肈ì靡场睝礚瞯┮孔阁场穦某膀セ琌いァ現┎场籔场ぇ丁秸の肪硄ぃì瞷禜璝璶ňゎ搭穨種场籔场舱麓ぇ丁莱赣磷"琜舼"ぃ莱赣盢夹非㎝琁祘籔癸单穨吏竊だ秨ぃ莱パぃ场矪瞶穨硂琌禣祙戈方и谋眔現┎莱赣パ盡砫场参膚秸の菏诡磅猭ッキネ┮12兜某ぃ单讽"笵礟┄"ê或Τ讽"笵礟┄"碞荡癸Τ羆ぇ┄碞琌璶τさΩ硂12兜某耴挡琸狦⊿Τ龟悔э到杠常穦種τ
畊ネ闽ê┮孔穨種吭高ゅン┮某︑и砏恨и谋眔膀セ瞷⊿ΤЧ到磅猭Τ猭ぃㄌ磅猭もぃì︙ㄓЧ到︑и砏恨㎡┮孔"︑и砏恨"龟悔弧セ琌"礚恨"璶琌"Τ恨"杠碞ぃ穦祇ネ獵︾爵せるせらせ種讽ぱ骋矪纯絃秈︽吭高讽骋矪瞒秨衬边だ獽厄ㄓせ獽硂妓癳㏑ê或骋矪毙▅参膚参膚┮磅︽┮孔"︑и砏恨"砏恨眔︙㎡
畊ネи谋眔さΩ朝胞糭某タ㎝и某礚阶堵窟フ窟┪ㄤウ碔禥窟常琌や穨挪さΩ種挪朝胞糭某盢"阁场"タ"盡砫场"и谋眔Τ闽穨吭高ゅンぃ莱某"︑и砏恨"谅谅畊ネ
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи谅纯胺Θ某碞"穨"矗某の朝胞糭某碞某┮タиョ獶盽谅さ边硂臛阶い祇ē某Τ闽"穨"拜肈某臛阶タ︙庇古某さΩ竒琌セЫせるず材Ω硂㏕礛琌パ某だ闽猔程计琍戳セ翠硈尿祇ネ﹙ま璓端腨穨種ョは琈穦獶盽跌セ翠穨拜肈璶―現┎㎝Τ闽よ霍みэ到
莱某某臛阶い┮矗阶翴の某ぇ玡и稱酵酵筁计現┎э到穨よ┮暗筁虑現┎琌Τ甅Ч俱э到穨現郸ヘ夹㎝ㄣ砰璸购
э到穨現郸㎝惫琁
┪砛и莱眖秨﹍弧癬讽現┎Θミ戮穨胺眃Ы("戮Ы")硂パ現┎沟㎝沟舱Θ縒ミ舱麓弧現┎沟の沟よ常Τ砫ヴ矗蔼穨籔胺眃キ
戮Ы︑Θミㄓ玃秈翠戮穨㎝胺眃よ祇揣縩伐ノτΤΘ祔и穦冈瓃戮Ы︙矗蔼翠戮穨胺眃よ膥尿ш簍璶à︹
埃Θミ戮Ы現┎璓э到セ翠穨Τ惠璶璹Τ闽猭ㄒ紅の穨竒犁兵ㄒ琌砏恨㎝玂毁胺眃璶猭ㄒ現┎璹砏﹚沟㎝沟砫ヴ沮Τ闽砏﹚沟ゲ斗蹦ち瞶︽˙艼絋玂ㄤ场沟胺眃㎝ョゲ斗みの籔沟蹦惫琁
現┎箂盢紅の穨竒犁兵ㄒ続ノ絛瞅耎︓珹都穨и-
ョ沮赣兵ㄒ璹ミ穝砏ㄒ㎝だ砏﹚癬诀㎝腶巨ゲ斗竒筁癡絤㎝莉眔帽祇巨粄靡踞ヴΤ闽
诀初み璸购祘甶秨現┎沟﹚疭兵ン矗蔼祘璸购絃穨キㄒ诀初祘┯坝斗沟ノ耕龟琁璸购Θミ絃〆穦秈︽糵琩の羭︽"虏ざ穦"ㄤ現┎叭璸购㎝┬〆穦┮秈︽祘ョ蹦ノ硂ㄇ疭兵ンэ到Τ闽絃薄猵
龟筋琁現厨い┮┯空㎝縩伐э到セ翠穨キ現┎パ┏秨﹍浪癚翠穨薄猵きるい祇翠穨浪癚吭高ゅン紉高種ǎ
吭高ゅン矗45兜某э到翠穨魁現┎粄絋玂穨㎝胺眃璶砫ヴ沟沟ぃэ到Τ繧吏挂τ琵沟硂ㄇ吏挂い獽穦祇ネ種現┎程沧ヘ夹琌沟㎝沟常穦霍み闽猔セō㎝τ現┎à︹琌矗ㄑ甅ミ猭㎝︽現ㄖ琜篶穨竒犁Θミ恨瞶砰╰眖τ笷璓︑и菏恨ヘ現┎ぃЧㄌ苦沟㎝沟┮︑и菏恨ぇ緇ゲ斗眏磅猭疭琌癸êㄇゼ︑и菏恨穨竒犁現┎沟㎝沟Τ把籔恨瞶瞶├琌穨浪癚程璶某и稱硂甅恨瞶の吭高ゅン矗45兜某いㄤΤ闽э到穨郸菠吭高戳丁琌眔そ渤約獂や
羆服穦︽現Ы╯吭高戳丁祇種ǎきる钡穨吭高ゅン矗45兜某э到セ翠穨屡セ現┎ョパê癬も崩︽吭高ゅン兜某ㄤい竒龟琁珹э舱骋矪紅服诡Θ戮穨の胺眃パ穝砞捌矪烩旧–糤挤4,000窾じ竒盽秨やセ砞72穝戮︗ョ穦ゼㄓ计糤29穝戮︗眏戮穨の胺眃磅猭の沟蹦恨瞶
タи耕Ν玡矗の戮Ы穦穨よ踞讽璶à︹吭高ゅン某戮Ы莱璽砫参膚㎝崩︽籔穨Τ闽珹癡絤毙▅肚崩約の╯и蔼砍硂よ現┎眔戮Ы硄
セ癩現現┎竒у倒ぉ戮Ы兜蔼笷4,750窾じ箇衡璸购ゑ赣Ы龟悔秨や糤禬筁55%ㄤいΤ闽戮穨の胺眃肚璸购や笷1,160窾じ現┎ョ肂挤550窾じ戮Ы翠厩繻砞ミ穨の胺眃甶凝初禣ノ挤310窾じ獽赣Ы秨快ㄢ兜沟矗ㄑ癡絤揭祘毙▅参膚и穦纔矪瞶戮Ы璶―Τ惠璶σ納и北戈方い秸挤场だ戈方倒戮Ы
埃ぇ現┎ョ穦辅龟竒璹猭ㄒ㎝璹穝猭ㄒэ到穨иセきるら盢1996紅の穨竒犁璹兵ㄒ矗ユセЫ糵某τ硂兜兵ㄒ琌Τ闽甭舦骋矪矪祇既氨硄㎝窗玃э到硄現┎ョタ秈︽Τ闽猭ㄒ览箇璸ミ猭セЫ矗ユ兵ㄒ珹紅の穨竒犁璹兵ㄒΤ闽ま恨瞶иョ弧穦σ納Τㄇ某癸恨瞶種ǎ戮穨の胺眃兵ㄒ硂兵ㄒΤ闽獶穨沟矗ㄑ玂毁紅の穨竒犁盞超初砏ㄒの縱絃砏ㄒ硂ㄢ琌Τ闽矗蔼赣单翴惫琁キ
羆珹ㄓ弧穨浪癚吭高ゅン矗45兜某Τ16兜琌Τ闽璹猭ㄒㄤいㄢ兜瞷ЧΘㄤ緇14兜タぃ览顶琿τ骋臮穦竒╯の種ㄤい兜某吭高ゅンΤ兜某琌疉の現┎场︽現惫琁ㄤい兜竒龟琁闽戮Ы┪ㄤ獶現┎舱麓16兜某常嘲尿窖龟︽︓ㄢ兜現郸よ某ㄤい兜のㄢ兜惠璶現┎菏诡某ョ辅龟崩︽
程钡硈ぃ┋祇ネ腨穨種粇翠穨キи璶現┎のΤ闽舱麓ㄒ戮Ыㄓぇセ翠穨キ龟悔タ硋˙э到ㄒ俱砰穨種计ヘパ59,508﹙︓き41,001﹙τ祇ネ種ゑ瞯ョパ–1 000祇ネ58.88﹙種︓き52.10﹙и羭硂ㄇ计ぃ琌璶靡и-
竒п锣碿薄猵現┎龟ㄆ―琌瘤礛程穝魁は琈薄猵Τэ到и-
荡癸ぃ骸種粄翠穨種计ヘ莱赣膥尿璶碩搭ぶи-
筁碭疭琌獽琌绰硂ヘ夹暗
程︽笆よ
現┎┯粄ㄏ翠穨薄猵タэ到籔綟薄猵耕瓣產┪跋ゑ耕セ翠穨薄猵ごろ瞶稱現┎籔穦のセЫ某妓癸程硈﹃腨穨種伐闽猔и-
セるら秨阁场穦某讽琌╆腨德㎝璽砫ヴ篈ヘ琌浪癚Τ闽種絋玂現┎Τ闽场竒蹦莱の続讽︽笆场㎝场ぇ丁Τだ秸╯琌惠璶璹穝惫琁┪眏瞷Τ惫琁秈˙矗蔼穨τㄆ龟セ㎝毙参ㄆ硂穦某穦某玡ㄢぱ安戳暗ぃぶ箇称Τ某㎝林阶у蝶穦某﹚甅︽笆よ砛惫琁琌⊿Τ穝種и粄и礚斗臛阶硂拜肈и谋眔程璶琌現┎琌莱赣蹦琘ㄇ惫琁┪瞷Τ膀娄暗ㄇ㎝暗ㄇΤ闽羭ㄒ骋矪︑琍戳秨﹍竒ǖ琩350縱絃︓さ祇瞷ㄤい79絃Τ笻ㄒ薄猵赣矪癸笻ㄒㄆ兜盢穦祇136眎布骋矪盢穦セ琍戳きそガ程穝の冈灿ǖ琩㎝浪北计戳Μ纞ノ
и羭ㄒ纯胺Θ某ヴ璶┦и-
矗某ㄤい兜惫琁и-
竒辅龟琌骋矪穦羛戮Ыるらセ翠400ヴ羭快癚穦盢穦碞ヴ戮砫竒喷のヴ籔現┎㎝沟闽玒单拜肈約獂ユ瑈㎝瞏癚阶現┎ョ穦るミ猭Ыㄆ叭〆穦穦某吭高舱癸初彻種ǎ虑眏沟㎝沟癸穨粄醚τ彻程璶ヘ琌弧沟㎝沟穨砫ヴ
参膚の秸诀
タ某у蝶現┎ňゎ穨種よ⊿Τ甅Τ╰参㎝菏恨現郸ョ⊿Τ猭﹚诀篶参膚ち籔戮穨胺眃Τ闽ㄆ﹜玃叫現┎环ㄓ弧莱ΘミΤ龟舦猭﹚诀篶и稱癸Τ闽у蝶莱
и璶璽砫穨現┎场Τㄤ睲贰﹚戮舦絛瞅–场沮戮舦絛瞅ずΤ闽猭ㄒ磅︽戮叭场ぇ丁竒盽钡牟俱砰笲▆и荡ぃ種現┎笲╰参㎝┦弧猭猵沮瞷︽场拜砫礚拜肈
иフ某ΘミΤ龟舦の阁场猭﹚诀篶ㄓ矪瞶穨拜肈琌到種某竒筁灿みσ納и璶硂某穦ォは╁笷ぃ某辨ヘ璽砫穨現┎场矪瞶伐約獂盡穨のм砃┦ㄆ兜玧眏ノ诀篶矪瞶硂ㄇ岿羇狡馒拜肈穦硑Θ胑﹛贡琜篶癸龟悔э到瞯の矪瞶穨拜肈捣睝⊿Τ腊狦硂诀篶琌眖ぃ現┎场ㄒ骋矪ㄆ矪竝单┾秸ㄓ舱ΘΤ闽场琜篶㎝ㄆ舱麓穦τや瞒瘆窰ョ穦旧璓硂ㄇ场㎝┮孔参膚诀篶瞷秸拜肈ㄆ龟瞷祇ネ穨種籔現┎瞷Τ︽現琜篶礚闽玒
ぃ筁莱朝胞糭某闽猔и種秈˙眏Τ闽场秸┮и璸购毙参糤砞穨舱盡砫参膚の菏诡現┎穨よ現郸のиョ穦る秨材Ω阁场穦某浪癚场崩︽穨よ秈
ǖ琩
︓Τ闽┾秸戮Ыの骋矪もǖ琩翠初┮某и沮阁场穦某﹚惫琁骋矪竒┾秸もǖ琩┮Τ絃疭皐癸摸繧祘蔼初┮︓戮Ыよи璶坚睲戮Ы礚磅猭舦-
ぃ镑ǖ琩初┮┪矗浪北戮Ы璶琌矗ㄑΤ闽戮穨㎝胺眃癡絤㎝毙▅の秈︽肚㎝╯戮Ы莱程祇ネ硈﹃穨種眏肚繧┦蔼初┮︓骋矪и竒厨赣矪眏ǖ琩и-
穦浪癚俱砰薄猵∕﹚骋矪ゼㄓǖ琩翴
и荡癸種タ某矗材兜某碞琌荷е辅龟翠穨浪癚吭高ゅン┮Τ某タи耕Ν玡矗の現┎竒┪タ辅龟吭高ゅン兜某τи-
ョタ览兜Τ闽璹穨兵ㄒ
и稱虑硂诀穦眏秸ミ猭Ыミ猭э到穨よш簍伐ㄤ璶à︹タ︗某常笵現┎きるセЫ矗ユ1995縱璹材腹兵ㄒ︓さご兵ㄒ〆穦顶琿赣某ま絃菏诡璸购﹚Τ闽盡穨癸縱絃惫琁砫ヴиョきるら矗ユ1996紅の穨竒犁璹兵ㄒ某甭舦骋矪矪祇既氨硄の窗玃э到硄и稱疭眏秸安骋矪矪Τ舦祇既氨硄獽程祏丁窽ゎ沟┪┯坝秈︽甡祘㎝巨ミ猭Ыㄆ叭〆穦耕Ν玡ボや硂兜兵ㄒ某兵ㄒ〆穦莱纔╯ぃ筁Τ闽糵╯︓さごゼΤ龟借秈甶иΤ翴ア辨......
︙庇古某畊ネ......
PRESIDENT: Are you prepared to yield, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: I would like to finish my speech, Mr President.
PRESIDENT: Carry on, Secretary.
毙▅参膚и谅綠模磁某祇ēや硂辨ㄤ某や︽ㄆ龟硂ㄢ兜癸э到穨Τ腊и㊣苸︗某荷Ν硄筁硂ㄢ兜兵ㄒ
и璶ㄆ龟э到穨ㄤい程璶兜琌璹猭ㄒㄒ眏磅猭舦㎝﹚恨瞶и辨ミ猭Ы某現┎矗種ǎ︓腨糉у蝶ぇ緇ぃ璶а癘︗Τ砫ヴ荷е糵瞶㎝硄筁現┎沮き吭高ゅン矗某ㄓ览猭ㄒ埃и矗のㄢ兜兵ㄒ現┎盢穦ミ猭セЫ矗ユΤ闽э到穨兜兵ㄒ現┎㎝カチ常穦盞ち痙種某笲ノミ猭舦琌ē︽璓㎝┯踞砫ヴ
猭畑籃
林阶㎝カチ炊筂粄瞷猭畑癸笻は穨猭ㄒン炊筂籃筁淮и秆の碙猭縒ミ璶┦挪セЫ某の穦硂よ闽猔и獺猭诀篶現叭は琈チ種よ骋矪穦盞ち痙種Τ闽穨浪北挡狦粄琘ㄇ籃び淮獽穦璶―現矗禗
璸だ璸购
Τ闽ま┯坝氨礟㎝Ιだの砏﹚┯坝斗﹚戳矗ユ魁某叭瞷タ╯兜璸だ璸购獽現┎祘┷夹ノㄓ蝶︳┯坝щ夹戈τ┯坝穨魁盢穦琌ㄤい兜璶σ納ㄏ┯坝程基┯щ現┎祘安穨魁畉ョぃ穦щ眔祘叭瞷タ籔Τ闽场╯硂兜璸だ璸购灿竊穦把σㄤ瓣產龟悔竒喷
端矗ㄑ穿
︓程兜某琌穨種端の-
產矗ㄑ┮惠現┎Τ场璽砫矗ㄑよ穿ㄒ穦缒竝硓筁贺措笵┪钡莉端┪端產妮钡ビ叫獽穦笆羛蹈Τ闽穦缒竝硂ㄇ矗ㄑ狝叭珹窥穿そ┬砰竚酚臮狝叭み瞶徊旧のㄤ產畑や穿狝叭穦缒竝Τゼ材丁眔端┪端產妮戈τゼ矗ㄑ穿骋矪㎝穦缒竝笷Θ某骋矪ら穦р穨種ミ硄穦缒竝
埃穦缒竝現叭羆竝ョ穦眖地稯到膀挤程蔼5,000じ蹿兜端┪端產妮矗ㄑ肂穿硂ㄇ临硓筁猭穿竝碞沟干纕の端矗禗砠莱眔竭纕и稱弧и灿み测钮某Τ闽干纕種ǎ
癡絤
и稱莱纯胺Θ某㎝甃ㄎ瞶某Τ闽钡癡絤㎝キ某現┎┯空穦縩伐σ納︙眏癡絤
羆挡
и稱羆挡ビ翴材現┎獶盽跌穨穦膥尿纔矪瞶籔穨Τ闽現┎㎝Τ闽场盢穦┯踞砫ヴ叭―碩搭ぶ穨種祇ネ材璶过┏э到セ翠穨キ惠璶現┎沟㎝沟よ材и-
程沧ヘ夹琌崩笆初┮ゅてㄏ沟︑谋沟矗ㄑ吏挂㎝杆称τ沟ョ贾種ㄘ拦杆称㎝宽砏玥
程иΩ㊣苸ミ猭Ы某癸現┎矗ユΤ闽э到穨兵ㄒ礚阶瞷┪盢ㄓ倒ぉ龟借やㄏ硂ㄇ兵ㄒ镑Νら龟琁
谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: Mr Micheal HO, do you still wish to seek elucidation?
MR MICHAEL HO: Yes, Mr President.
︙庇古某畊ネи璶―毙▅参膚禗и-
︙玡祇ē碭Ω矗и-
╯ㄢ兜Τ闽兵ㄒ琌篊毙▅参膚ぃ琌︙......
PRESIDENT: Mr HO, this is not a debate. If you wish to seek eludication, please seek the elucidation.
︙庇古某畊ネи璶―毙▅参膚秆睦︙弧и-
╯ぃ镑ǔ硉
PRESIDENT: You are raising that point of elucidation but not to make a point that you wish to have an argument with the Secretary, if the Secretary is prepared to answer it. Secretary, not a very long answer though.
毙▅参膚畊ネ虏虫и簍勉⊿Τ硂妓弧
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
PRESIDENT: Mr TSANG Kin-shing, you are now entitled to your final reply and you have five minutes 16 seconds out of your original 15 minutes.
纯胺Θ某璓勉畊ネ蔼畃穦戳丁毙▅参膚弧Τ350絃礛丁ǖ琩Θ浪北79︙ぃ玡ǖ琩㎡硂ǖ琩Τ136眎布だぇ琌Τ拜肈翠Τ5 000絃だぇΤ拜肈薄猵獽痷腨︙干毕㎡矗璶―讽Ы┯空穦辅龟и玱钮ぃΤヴ︙挤蹿璸购钮ぃ戈方穦糤挤螟笵穦跑栏猭盾и痷ぃ穦跑或и谋眔琌吵綤к驹ぇい弧せк驹い瓣獽秤琌и-
翠碞琌ノネ㏑传﹀窥ッ礚ゎ挂ら常⊿Τэ跑ㄆ龟禗и-
碞琌⊿Τэ跑ㄆ龟ョ禗и-
讽Τもǖ琩絃ぇΤ祇布Θ浪北79絃ǖ琩350絃碞Τ79絃瞷拜肈璝ǖ琩3 500絃癦獶Τ790絃Τ拜肈и-
ネ㏑碞も跌も硅τ
畊ネ癸せる祇ネ穨種и场だ常Τ蛤秈琵и弧ゼ莉厨笵讽ㄆ痷Τぃ絇ヘ丁琌とτ厨玥篒絑и笷瞷初獵︾γ矪瞶紅и拜ň"ê端毕癬ㄓ盾"氮弧"竒毕癬癳嚎古疨洛皘"иミㄨ緍ó嚎古疨洛皘ǎ臔獽拜"ê端端墩︙"ê臔氮"ㄓ篒"и拜"ぶ"弧""и膥尿發拜笵êō钵矪砰だ秨き篒籷硂ぃ┋羆服⊿Τ闽猔⊿Τ闽酚⊿Τ闽酚⊿Τ矗のиρ馏發涝府禣и拜琌措叭竝ぃ眔璶烩某弧┕┕璶癚基临基パ5,000じ阶︓20窾じ拜肈琌筁祘い璶癚阶基临基ぃ璶候ρ馏⊿Τ▆みぃ璶候さΩ現┎场ぃく羆服闽猔せê﹙ㄆ珿い┮Τ场讽边ミㄓ钡祇ネ﹙ㄆ珿иも璓筿倒骋竝瞶捌竝禗иも"纯ネ–﹙常琌硂妓磐и-
︙磐㎡и-
瞶ぃê或﹙︑蛤秈罢"ぃΤぃ癸钡иミㄨ璓筿倒拜琌硂妓弧獽弧"ぃ琌⊿Τт捌竝蛤秈"эи︑沟┯坝硂琌或场妓琌骋矪场妓琌ΤΤぃ笿安璝肚碈礘翴栋い硂獺娥ノ硑и稰谅ッキネせるら蔼畃穦ǖ琩350絃Τ79絃発筁螟и稱拜讽Ы琌痷ぃ镑も㎡瞷骋戈蛮よミ猭Ы某常や糤戈方糤も︙ぃ矗㎡ぃ㈱フ㎡
畊ネи璶禤ッキネ或翠琌︽現旧現┎┮Τ﹛礚斗ヴ︙現獀溃ヴ︙砫ヴτ┮ネ滴狝Г快そ蔼蔼砍砍痁キキ耴產ㄓ硂腹┮Τ﹛ō莱喷翠200窾ō琌ゼゲ莱喷癩現箇衡⊿Τ秸挤戈方讽Ы暗或螟笵穦ネ矹盾и辨ㄓ箇衡ゼㄓい糤も糤戈方и-
ゴ┦㏑矗ㄑ玂毁
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the motion as amended by Miss CHAN Yuen-han put and agreed to.
IMPLEMENTATION OF "ONE COUNTRY TWO SYSTEMS"
MR MARTIN LEE to move the following motion:
"セЫ玃叫い瓣現┎辅龟"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠の蔼︑獀"のぃ璶箇翠ず场ㄆ叭セЫ㊣苸翠カチ徖翠チ猭獀舦︑パのネよΑ"
琖皇某璓勉畊ネи稱酵酵さΩ矗某
瞷翠瞒るら舦耴Τ箂ら丁盽瞶翠莱赣睲贰"瓣ㄢ"瓜钩ョ砰喷"瞷︽ネよΑぃ跑"┯空框狙さぱゎи-
ぃ睲贰"瓣ㄢ"辅龟"瓣ㄢ"玡春ぃ虫ゎ家絢ぃ睲τ潮冻盞
緗キネ瓣ǖ癹崩綪"瓣ㄢ"瓣肚碈﹚み硂и癘癬11玡иセЫ材Ω臛阶簍勉ㄤいΤ琿
"⊿Τ腀種ǎ翠現┎跑Θ"禵竲纍"虫咎﹛郴羘痚㊣琌礚干ㄆ程璶琌暗ㄓ倒и⊿Τ腀種ǎい瓣現┎筁寸戳の箇翠虫咎い瓣烩旧郴羘痚㊣琌礚干ㄆ程璶琌暗ㄓ倒и-
"
稱癬硂琿弧杠и谋紐端11玡硂礷杠ぃ┋Чēい
"瓣ㄢ"硋亥跑Θ瑌┯空и-
いよ暗ㄓ琌或
玡箇〆某霫澄舦猭临崔チ碿猭
膚〆穦硄筁Θミ羬ミ猭穦"倔ブ瓜彻"ㄓチ匡某
綡キ讽篶"瓣ㄢ"纯╆盧蔼瞶稱辨瓣镑よ猭ㄓ秆∕堡龟筋и-
ǎい瓣現┎現郸瞒秨硂盧蔼瞶稱禫ㄓ禫环
瓣ㄢ弘
瓣ㄢぃ虫ゎ琌ず穦竡籔翠戈セ竡Τ璉ㄤい璶留種碞琌ず穦Τ"箇"渡玥讽い瓣烩旧礚斗ノ"ㄢ"ㄓ盢翠籔ずだ秨结ぉ翠蔼︑獀τョΤ安砞碞琌翠璶刮挡璓╄縨硂ㄇ箇
虫眖羛羘膀セ猭单舅猭ゅンぃミ瓣ㄢ硂ㄇゅン瓣ㄢ矗ㄑ猭砏絛膀娄璶琌龟筋筁祘いい翠蛮よ璶把籔い瓣現┎璶碙翠硂ぃ璶ヴ︙箇τ翠よ玥璶幢徖и-
硂硂琌и筁┮矗"穘穘狾"ゑ畴い瓣籔翠穘穘狾狠い瓣翠淮璶瓣ㄢ笴栏い瓣璶"碞︘"翠ぃ琵ず甅函翠よ翠硂狠璶み窾窾ぃ甧砛┪︓淋叫い瓣ヴ︙箇и-
穦甧︑痲τ淋叫い瓣現┎箇ㄇи-
ぃ粄現郸и-
ゲ斗ы硂ㄇ侥笆
翠硂""璶┦
讽и-
璶徖翠硂ゲ斗璶羆挡╯澈翠瞷︽よΑΤ或よ琌程璶и粄筁翠苦Θ璶珹碭よ
猭獀弘
ず籔翠程だ猍琌ず琌囊猭⊿Τ猭獀芠├翠璶膥尿祇甶ゲ斗ΤЧ到猭の猭獀弘"蔼﹛暗ㄆカチ妓暗カチぃ暗蔼﹛ョぃ暗"硂琌猭獀弘┮и-
翠ゲ斗蝴臔猭獀琌ち笲膀ホ膀娄ぃ铆俱獽穦厄
舦︑パ
翠カチ瞷ㄉΤ蔼ē阶のㄤ︑パτ硂ㄇ舦ョ眔猭玂毁カチ碻贺猭硚畖笷種ǎ珹叫腀笴︽栋穦ボ硂常琌翠ネよΑ场だ
チ現獀
翠硋˙ミチ現獀瘤礛и-
粄チ˙ワ祇甶び絯篊筁龟筋硋˙ミ翠縒疭現獀ゅて讽い珹и-
某穦ゅて林阶菏服そキ匡羭膙のそ秨蔼硓現┎稧间のΤ瞯そ叭钉ヮ璶チ現獀膥尿祇甶ゲ斗綿㏕瞷Τ膀娄ぃ甧砛いよ彩忌箇橙纖チ種林阶菏服〆ヴよΑ┪ぃそキ匡羭癸ぃ種ǎ現囊の瘆胊そ叭钉ヮ瞯
そキ膙
そキ膙琌翠︑パ戈セ竡祇甶笆и-
ゲ斗ňゎ瞷そキ膙箇現獀ㄓ箇竒蕾紇臫カ初笲璶盞ちň絛砱γ︽獻籯翠竒蕾笆
祔и-
チ囊某穦碞瓃贺瞷箇冈灿猂
眎▆某穦碞ずカ箇の緗キネ穝℡ē阶莱笷癸Χギ棚某タミ初眎ゅ某穦碞腑瓣辆某タ莱癸い瓣玡贺贺箇笷и-
猭︙玊く某穦碞︙蝴臔翠舦猭獀だ猂綠產碔某穦癸緗キネΤ闽翠穝籇︑パ弧杠莱τ独綺笽某玥栋い癚阶竒蕾糷箇
程и稱︗ㄆさΩ臛阶琌辨镑荷秖笷и-
┮瞶秆"瓣ㄢ"の癸笷璓"瓣ㄢ"ぇ笵矗︑猭眖いи-
―钵眔翠癸"瓣ㄢ"程膀セ醚
畊ネ吏臮┮Τ︑パチ瓣產ミチ︑パ筁祘いゲ﹚硄筁チ刮挡璓翠璶ミ瓣ㄢ妓安璝さぱи-
砈も芠―痲㎝舦τぃ拜玥現獀щ诀み篈ㄓㄌ舦瓣ㄢ﹚ぃ穦眖ぱτ盢ㄓи-
甝拜╯澈и-
ミ瓣ㄢ荷或砫ヴи-
盢穦白礚ē程и-
常璶癸菌腨糉糵
畊ネセ略朝勉笆某某辨某稼瑆瓣產非∕辽秈︽いご裤臘祇ē
Question on the motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: As Members have been informed by circular on 21 June, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr David CHU and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung have separately given notices to move amendments to this motion. As there are three amendments to the motion, I propose to have the motion and amendments debated together in a joint debate.
Council shall now debate the motion and the amendments together in a joint debate. I will call upon Mr IP Kwok-him to speak first, to be followed by Mr David CHU and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung; but no amendments are to be moved at this stage. Members may then express their views on the main motion as well as on the proposed amendments listed on the Order Paper.
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネ硊帽竝い璣羛羘︓さΤ12禯舦耴ら﹟緇369ぱ羛羘帽璹睲贰楚﹚秆∕翠筁寸拜肈膀娄絣瓣蛮よ翠┯空ゼㄓΘミ疭︽現跋穦ㄉΤ"蔼︑獀"龟︽"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"瞷︽穦の竒蕾砰╰穦玂ぃ跑阁禫
讽綡キ砞璸"瓣ㄢ"秆∕翠拜肈よぃ琌舦﹜ぇ璸い璣タΑ碞翠玡硚甶秨酵ぇ玡綡キ琌克︑籔翠秈︽Ω癚阶秈︽龟秸琩ㄓ疭チ笲ぃぶ翠癸琌痷タ辅龟現郸╆胔好篈┮-
Τㄇ匡拒瞒秨иゲ斗璶琌︑羛羘帽竝㎝膀セ猭箋ガい瓣烩旧Ω眏秸ぇ翠盢ㄉΤ蔼︑獀舦埃ユ㎝瓣ňㄆ叭パいァ現┎矪瞶ぇ翠猭╰参瞷ΤネよΑ单ち玂ぃ跑疭跋ㄉΤ︑︽現㎝ミ猭舦τ膀セ猭材兵睲贰璹嘲のヴ︙场ぃ眔箇翠疭︽現跋ら盽ㄆ叭︓"瓣ㄢ"玂翠戈セ竡きぃ跑硂ㄇ膀セよ皐現郸Τ12兵ョ更い璣羛羘の膀セ翠い絋砏﹚
畊ネ癸硂ㄇ羛羘㎝膀セ猭ぇい"フ堵"糶玂靡ョぃ獺ㄌ礛╆贺"箈ぃ艶"み篈玡硚杠ê或礚阶い瓣現┎弧或糶或ヴ︙玂靡琌畕礛
畊ネ弧ρ龟杠璶痷タ辅龟盢ㄓ疭跋翠獀翠蔼︑獀翠カチぃ虫よ璶―い瓣現┎τ︑玱"录甀蛮も"ぃぉ瞶穦疭跋現┎膚舱硂妓龟筋"翠獀翠"㎡绰Τら安瞷"ㄊ獀翠"碞ぃ璶琌╆璶邻材˙琌璶и-
カチ翠莱赣縩伐把ぉ㎝やヘ玡疭跋膚称〆穦
渤┮㏄Θミ膚〆穦琌膚称ゼㄓ翠疭︽現跋τ膚〆穦﹙Ξ琌"翠ㄌ綼翠"ゼㄓκぱらи﹚琌膚〆穦盢禫ㄓ禫羉璶ㄏ硂ㄇ抖秈︽ぃ度璶綼ㄓ︑膚〆穦Θ翠カチ把ぉ㎝や琌ぃ┪璽砫匡材疭跋︽現﹛㎝膚舱羬ミ猭穦崩匡〆穦盢さ┏玡玻ネ硂琌闽疭跋現┎笲翠カチぃ阶琌ヴ︙临琌膀糷刮砰㎝舱麓常莱赣縩伐把ぉ眖硉崩匡膚〆穦矗タ┮孔"霍み碞ㄆΘ"安カチ癸膚〆穦ぃぉやぃ膚〆穦は琈硂よ種ǎ膚〆穦碞礚猭約獂カチ種ǎ翠矗獀翠現郸暗"翠獀翠"
畊ネㄆ龟せκ窾翠讽い絋龟Τ琌ネ︑ほ稱ぇい癸穦瞷龟跌璝礚窣膚〆穦琌沮箂るら瓣∕某Θミ璽砫膚舱材疭跋現┎ㄆ﹜и癘癬ら玡舅ㄆ叭〆穦穦某碞Τチ囊某篕羬ミ猭穦琌笻舅盢璽砫膚舱羬ミ猭穦崩匡〆穦ゑ畴"郸购垦炳ゴ"舱麓硂妓螟瞶畴ē阶弧-
セ碞ぃ稱羛羘の膀セ猭膚舱疭跋現┎龟瞷翠舦耴琂礛-
眏秸璶"翠獀翠"璶"蔼︑獀"い瓣現┎矗ㄑ硚畖-
ぃ把ぉ龟筋玱筁繷ㄓ璶―い瓣現┎璶辅龟瓣ㄢ翠獀翠蔼︑獀硂琌妓甅呸絩
畊ネ沮辩模┚某タチ羛粄辩某莱剪弄膀セ猭沮膀セ猭材兵の材κき兵ㄤ龟睲贰弧沧糵猭皘舦沧糵猭皘ぃ局Τ癸膀セ猭┮Τ兵ゅ秆睦舦┮и-
螟瞶秆︙珿辩模┚某穦矗硂妓惫勉
セ略朝勉
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
MR DAVID CHU: Mr Deputy, the Honourable Martin LEE's motion today has already been heard in this Council under several titles and seen in various guises since I became its Member in October. I wish to amend the motion today not because I disagree with the explicit sentiments expressed by Mr LEE. I am ardently for "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy". I am resolutely for the view that China should not interfere in Hong Kong's internal affairs. I am also totally for the safeguarding of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, freedom and our way of life.
Where I differ from Mr LEE and his associates is that I believe these noble aims can only be realized through co-operation, not confrontation, with China. Let us not mince with words. Some in this Council have made a political career out of pandering to the prejudices and paranoia of a certain segment of the public.
We have before us a stark and simple choice. We can, as elected leaders, guide our people forward into the new era in which they have a far greater say in their destiny than they ever had under colonial rule. We can do the opposite and induce them to retreat to the anxiety that was so evident prior to the signing of the Joint Declaration.
I am for the constructive rather than the destructive course. I am for the view of dealing with China based on mutual respect. I am against putting our community against each other and against our brothers and sisters across the border. I am against interference in the internal affairs of China so that the sovereign may reciprocate by not meddling in our business.
Let us not kid ourselves. China has the means to dominate Hong Kong, but it has opted to let us enjoy a high degree of autonomy because of our contribution to the motherland. The day we cease to be an asset and turn ourselves into a liability, there will be no treaty, no promise, no guarantee that can protect us. If you are not yet convinced, then look at the facts and at the striking contrast between the positive results of co-operation and the negative one of confrontation.
Through co-operation, we have managed to achieve:
The Joint Declaration
The Basic Law
The Court of Final Appeal to ensure the rule of law
The New Airport
The stability of the Civil Service
A more secure boundary
Repatriation of criminals
Return of stolen property
All the water we need
Staples at fair prices
Synchronized infrastructure development
Assurances for permanent residency
Legal reform in the Special Economic Zones to suit us
Our separate status in the World Trade Organization
Our right to sign separate aviation agreements
Joint effort to curb pollution
Chinese agreement to our sewage treatment plant
Academic exchanges
Cultural collaboration
Agreement in principle on port development
Military land for our commercial and residential use
Our defence costs covered by China
Agreement on flood control in the Shenzhen River basin
Future road links to Zhuhai
The list goes on and on. What in contrast have we attained through confrontation? The list is short, only one item:
The provisional legislature
What Mr LEE seems to want from you is a vote of confidence in your own future. What I want from you is a vote of confidence in yourself and our community. The constant quarreling and nitpicking with China do not benefit Hong Kong. The tireless striving for a better tomorrow through co-operation, which is in our character, helps our whole society. I ask you not to rally to fighting words, but to overtures for peace and hope. Do not stagger to the barricade, but stride forth, with open minds, heads held high, to create a Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people with autonomy, freedom, rule of law and sanctity for our cherished way of life.
I appeal to you to support the amendments by the Honourable IP Kwok-him and myself. Remember, we have too much to do for our great city than to let fright oppress us and let those exploiters of uncertainty gain from that self-oppression. Peace is stronger than war, and co-operation is more fruitful than confrontation. This is the message of the United Nations, and it is a message pertinent to us in our final year of the transition and beyond.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
辩模┚某璓勉
计耴胔みㄆ
瞶畊ネи璶莱腑瓣辆某┮弧拜肈ㄆ龟и琌ぃ剪醚膀セ猭璶琌иぃ┯粄甅⊿Τ竒筁チ祘τ﹚膀セ猭┮筁のゼㄓи常穦﹚甅竒筁チ祘τ较ネ膀セ猭
瞶畊ネ计耴ら禫ㄓ禫翠癸耴ョ胔みㄆ穦辣憨荡癸ぃ琌瑍叉崔チ参獀幵癲┮莱Τ尺讽礛簈籖狜キ紋耴笆︑礛Τ磐ぃ筁把籔ㄤいョフ硂ㄇぃ筁琌篈ボ┚璼ττ硂ㄇ簈籖狜キ羉篴安禜ㄆ龟琌ぃ镑盿倒翠ぶ癸耴種竡はㄤ龟瞷┮孔克い皚犁埃筁砆翠璣現┎ゴ溃肚参オ临Τぃぶ琌"緋柑"鲤繷-
セぃ觅Θ耴ぃ筁锚瞷龟現獀瞷龟-
斑Τ"オ锣"︓ゑ肚参オオヘ琌稱ㄉノㄇ伦碔禣と繺
パㄓい瓣現┎蔼溃籔盡ぃぶ翠だ甡┤い瓣箇翠ㄆ叭┮-
辨ち荷秖ぃ跑獽ぃ跑τ癸耴稰礚ー
チ耴翠獀翠
и獺耴い瓣痷タ種竡莱赣琌縩伐τタ耴莱赣翠ぃ崔チ参獀チ癬ㄓ讽產耴ョ琌ボ翠癸︑パチ舦单舦絋粄耴翠い瓣绑绑タタ把籔砞い瓣祇甶籔のチ秈祘и粄Τ硂ㄇ玡矗"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠""蔼︑獀"Τㄤ縩伐τ瞷龟種竡τㄣ砰瞷碞琌ㄓи-
"チ耴"耴い瓣莱赣Θ穦э笆τ獶"瓣ㄢ"荡癸ぃ莱赣Θ瑌現獀腹τ莱赣Τ絋τ眔翠醚やず甧Τ種竡τ硂ョ琌и矗癸琖皇某某タ
チ舦ゲ斗
讽礛璶辅龟"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"の"蔼︑獀"ず甧琌礚絘礚荷さぱи矗タ玥珹︽現のミ猭虫︗璶パチよΑ匡羭玻ネ猭诀篶Τ縒ミτ猭秆睦舦の翠舦ぃ穦綝ぃ才瓣悔舦夹非猭ㄒ┪惫琁┮管и粄碭よ琌砰瞷チ︑パ舦猭獀セ
炊のキ单匡羭膀娄
舦ē材21兵材3蹿"チ種в琌現┎舦膀娄硂種в莱﹚戳㎝痷タ匡羭ぉ瞷τ匡羭莱ㄌ沮炊の㎝キ单щ布舦ぃ癘щ布┪讽︑パщ布祘秈︽"炊のτキ单布ぃ单钡匡羭琌舦ē︓瓣悔舦そ┮絋粄瓣チ┮ㄉΤ膀セ舦堡耴硂妓膀セ舦玱綝そ礛管膀セ猭砏﹚︽現﹛パ800匡羭刮匡材ミ猭穦ョ眔だ某パ匡玻ネ匡换换礚戳跑セ糉琌Θミ羬ミ猭穦パいよ窜翴ゼㄓ疭跋ミ猭诀闽Θ刚拜硂︙翠獺痷タ辅龟翠獀翠㎡
ヴ︙ヴ︙現┎АΤ砫ヴ宽瓣悔粄舦夹非珿иビ璶―疭跋︽現﹛の砰ミ猭穦某Аゲ斗パ布炊のτキ单匡羭玻ネは癸〆ヴ現獀は癸稭チ現郸
猭縒ミ舦玂毁
иタョ璶―ら疭跋沧糵猭皘糵瞶ン癸膀セ猭┮Τ兵ゅА莱局Τ秆睦舦τ獶钩瞷膀セ猭┮砏﹚讽秆睦琘ㄇ兵ゅ璶眔盽〆﹛よ秆睦翠炊硄猭猭砰╰猭皘糵局Τ癸猭Τ秆睦舦琌獶盽璶玥獽穦紇臫猭诀篶縒ミ┦ㄆ龟狦沮膀セ猭砏﹚讽沧糵畑糵璶秆睦场だ膀セ猭兵ゅ惠璶眔盽〆﹛よ秆睦盽〆σ納︙秆睦玱⊿Τ箇钮ン禗砠蛮よ種ǎ玥穦紇臫禗砠舦痲
иョだ闽みらま翠瓣┦猭癸翠舦紇臫ㄒ緉瓁猭穦ら緉翠秆瓁ぃノ宽セ翠猭︓秆瓁舦筁τ紇臫翠舦らい瓣現┎穦ぃ穦璶―疭跋現┎患秆ㄇ砆粄デ"は㏑竜"翠瓣糵硂ョ琌﹟ゼ坚睲拜肈
瞶畊ネ璶辅龟痷タ"チ耴""瓣ㄢ""蔼︑獀"の"翠獀翠"埃璶い瓣現┎翠よョゲ斗幢癬ㄓ徖и-
チ猭獀舦︑パ縩伐砞チ翠のチい瓣讽產綼產癬ㄓ
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉
眎▆某璓勉瞶畊ネい瓣瓣叭皘翠緿快そヴ緗キㄢ琍戳玡砐拜穝℡戳丁纯竒ま瓃い瓣いァ烩旧耕Ν玡礷量杠弧い瓣カのいァ场ぃ璶も翠-
もぃ璶眔ê或Χギ棚某粄緗キぇē竒琌瓣ㄢ玂靡и-
粄緗キ┮锣瓃硂礷弧杠玱タタま靡戳ㄓ翠硂よ踞紐瞷硈い瓣蔼糷﹛だ睲贰薄猵腨┦硂荡ぃ琌チ囊紐ぱ
ㄓも癬絏Τ贺
礚ぇ"も"и-
紐納ㄇいァ场矪矪羘ē璶砰瞷瓣ㄢいぇ瓣笆怀︽ㄏいァ舦┪瓣產舦玡矗癸翠ㄆ叭硂妓┪ê妓ボ癸翠ず场琁現篶Θ溃
痲"も"ㄇ瓣產┪瓣Τ戈セ诀篶礚阶琌ㄓ︑いァ┪よカ常辨翠磕︗翠щ戈纔墩祇甶-
痲ノ緼チネ量杠碞琌"话奸荐"и-
踞み璝狦Τㄇず┪诀篶よ獽㎝痲⊿Τㄌ酚翠猭㎝祘ㄓ快ㄆはτノ-
セō瓣產砰ず舦┪紇臫ㄓ笷璓ヘ夹硂妓碞穦硑Θ翠砆よ窖秈︽痲ナだЫ
莜"も"阑硂贺も程┤硂贺もぃ琌虫よパいァ┪カよㄓτ琌ㄇ翠もよрよも┰秈ㄓㄇ翠痲栋刮璶┰ず闽玒翠眔㎝耎痲ぃ堡笆よ┷も┰よもㄓま闽いァも盢ㄓ疭跋現┎
瞶畊ネ硂摸も穦硑Θ翠疭︽現跋"惫もぃの"莱钡ぃ穠程狦琌盢ㄓ翠疭跋現┎ア∕郸︑斑"も"琌陇礚┮続眖瞷恨獀螟緗キヴ┮锣瓃いァ烩旧紐納タ琌は琈い瓣瓣薄琌Τ現郸Τ癸郸ㄤ龟セ翠坝ョだ踞紐ず箇翠ㄒ耕Ν玡綠產ネ程碞ボ緗キヴ蛮もΤ崩秨瓣ず筁ㄓ碭蛮も㎡猵盢ㄓも临ぃゎ蛮㎡
и-
ぃは癸ず籔翠"搐も"は癸"础も"▆┦が笆が干ì琌翠籔ずいァカ現┎场の穨钡牟莱Τぇ笵硂妓ョ穦玃秈翠竒蕾祇甶璝狦が笆跑Θ础も钡牟跑Θ箇杠ê或瓣ㄢい翠硂畓碞穦ぃ臭阑
︙矪瞶硂ㄇㄓも眖よㄓい瓣いァ現┎璶瞯碙疭跋︑┦埃瓣ňユぃ癸疭跋ㄆ叭翴翴ち龟磅︽辅龟瓣ㄢ翠獀翠の蔼︑獀現郸よ皐ㄣ砰いァ現┎璶砫Θよの场ぃ璶も翠ō玥ぃ垒ノいァ現┎膀セ猭舦ㄒ膀セ猭秆睦舦癸疭跋ミ猭糵琩单眖翠ㄓ羆ぃ–Ω常тいァ舦ㄓ"ゴも狾"璶碝―箇痲栋刮罽も璝狦–Ω常璶ㄌ苦いァ"盋盋"ㄓ玂臔疭跋硂程沧碞籔"ㄊ獀翠"⊿Τだ硂ぃ琌セ秆∕よ猭猵安秈ㄓも琌ㄓ︑いァ临Τㄇも咀ウ㎡
瞶畊ネ徖瓣ㄢ蔼︑獀翠獀翠翠砫礚禪璶琌翠盢ㄓ疭跋︽現﹛のミ猭穦ぇ癸ヴ︙箇ぇも璶Τ绊∕弧"ぃ"玦绊ㄆㄆ瓣ㄢ玥快ㄆ铆翠ミ初沮瞶ぃぎぃ硂獶Χギ棚某┮量癸к戳и癘眔ざネ纯竒矗筁"翠獀翠"璶暗"翠猭獀翠"碞琌璶―いァのよカョ珹翠盢ㄓ翠疭跋ちА膀セ猭の翠猭快ㄆ腨猭獀弘ぃ繦獽"ㄏ绢も"┪硄筁ㄇ翠疭跋眅辊暗堵も猭獀スア瓣ㄢ碞穦Ч矹籔翠ョ莱祇揣︑獀弘︑獀絛瞅ず磝搐笆ぃ璶獀闽玒┰溃溃ず︑瘆胊翠""斑Τ硂妓ㄏ瓣ㄢ蔼︑獀㎝翠獀翠镑ㄇ辅龟诀穦
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉や琖皇某某
郭Θ某璓勉瞶畊ネぱ结600窾翠菌"疭诀絫"璶-
ゼㄓ烦るい瓣菌ゼ纯祇ネ筁跋ずネ克ō喷靡"瓣ㄢ翠獀翠"篶稱穦Θい瓣12货ぇいΤ600窾翠い瓣局Τ硂"疭诀絫"12货い瓣и獺场だ常琌跜紏翠Τ硂"疭诀絫"
い瓣㎝翠常戳"瓣ㄢ翠獀翠"穦Θ琌狦и-
氨痙戳篈琌ぃì镑璶"瓣ㄢ翠獀翠"Θи-
璶︽笆眏縩伐驾埃伐
翠チ獀翠
材и-
璶霍み辅龟"翠獀翠"癸"翠獀翠"い瓣㎝翠Τぃ荷瞶秆綡キ弧筁"翠獀翠""翠"琌"稲瓣稲翠翠"硂碞旧璓︙孔"稲瓣稲翠"阶ま癬ㄇ瞷︑琌痷タ"稲瓣稲翠"瞷禜ㄤ龟︙孔"稲瓣稲翠"琌螟﹚琌–ずみ篈螟がゑ耕硂ㄇ阶琌礚孔琌チ獺翠炊筂瞶秆"翠獀翠"琌"翠チ獀翠"琌パи-
翠獺ヴㄓ獀翠璶т翠獺ヴ"翠"程よ猭ぃ琌パㄊ窜翴ぃ琌瞷眔程"稲瓣稲翠"ㄓ夹非τ琌璶ミチ現獀パ翠︑パチよΑ匡羭翠獺ヴ烩砈竒筁チ甭舦ㄓ恨獀翠
珿璝璶ㄏ翠瞶秆"翠チ獀翠"Θㄆ龟и-
﹚璶候癘翴璶Νら翠ミパチ炊匡玻ネ竖チ現
疭跋舦徖
材и-
璶刮挡癬ㄓ徖疭跋現┎ㄉΤ"舦"膀セ猭埃瓣ňユぇ疭跋現┎ㄉΤ"舦"珹縒ミ︽現舦ミ猭舦猭舦の沧糵舦い瓣㎝翠常莱Τ醚ぃ璶籹硑ㄇ玠畓瓃舦毁锚
︽現舦
璶疭跋現┎ㄉΤЧ俱︽現舦碞ぃ莱赣疭跋ぇ砞ミヴ︙"び"癸疭跋ず场︽現翴翴珿チ某ぇ翠穝地ōだの惠璶э跑跑才ㄤ龟矪瞶穝籇硄癟舱麓︓い瓣瓣叭皘翠緿快ョ莱踞ヴ疭跋籔いァ現┎羛蹈à︹璽砫ňゎカΤヴ︙箇疭跋"蔼︑獀"︽
絋玂疭跋ΤЧ俱︽現舦︽現﹛莱荷е布よΑ炊匡玻ネ
ミ猭舦
璶疭跋ミ猭穦ㄉΤЧ俱ミ猭舦疭跋ミ猭穦莱荷еパ炊匡玻ネゼ笷Θ炊匡ミ猭穦玡и-
璶磷Τヴ︙瘆胊疭跋ミ猭穦ミ猭舦逼チ琌は癸箇〆穦某パㄓ箇翠ず场ミ猭ㄒ临莱舦猭τ璹猭ㄒ
猭舦
絋玂疭跋ΤЧ俱猭舦и-
璶蝴翠Τ猭縒ミ珹猭﹛パ縒ミ〆穦┮矗のЧ到猭
沧糵舦
絋ミ才い璣羛羘の膀セ猭沧糵猭皘チ穦э翠沧糵猭皘兵ㄒ甧砛沧糵猭皘Τ舦淋叫炊硄猭瓣產猭﹛Θ沧糵猭皘猭﹛
舦
材и-
璶很荷┮膥尿ㄉΤ瓣悔舦そ┮结ぉ舦玂毁璶笷璓硂ヘ夹и-
璶闽猔翠舦猭㏑笲疭跋ミ猭穦ぃ莱礚瞶э舦猭ぃ莱临êㄇ莱舦猭τэ猭ㄒい瓣現┎瘤礛ぃ琌瓣悔舦そ帽竝瓣琂礛い璣羛羘羛瓣称τ膀セ猭材兵絋粄ㄢ兵瓣悔そ続ノ翠Τ闽砏﹚膥尿Τ穦硄筁疭跋猭ぉ龟琁い瓣現┎莱甧砛の甭舦翠疭跋羛瓣舦〆穦舦厨
ΤネよΑ
材и-
璶ρい獵オいみ︽笆ē阶玂の膥尿翠ΤネよΑ珹現獀ミ初じて丁が甧г現獀糴甧ゅて︑パ翠疭跋舦ㄉΤ瓣︑パ礚阶玡┪い瓣常ぃ莱赣Τ┶荡翠い瓣璏瓣ぃ瞶瞷禜
獺ヴ翠
程и璶眏秸璝璶"瓣ㄢ"Θい瓣現┎璶獺ヴ翠璶痷タ酚膀セ猭逼舦倒翠疭跋現┎ぃ璶獻管膀セ猭竒结ぉ翠現獀舦パ翠龟瞷"翠チ獀翠"
ゼㄓ琌い瓣Μ翠舦玡程闽龄и-
璶暗非称ミ猭Ы某и-
璶︽笆眏"瓣ㄢ翠獀翠"ΘΤ
闽腑瓣辆某タパウ琌闽膚〆穦チ玥琌や┮やタ
セ略朝勉や某の腑瓣辆某タ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
眎ゅ某璓勉畊ネи稱莱腑瓣辆某碭借高材腑瓣辆某弧и-
チ囊箈ぃ艶ぃ獺フ堵い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭
畊ネи-
纯竒Ч局臔羛羘и-
︓癸膀セ猭纯竒╆捣辨ㄆ龟ㄓ羛羘㎝膀セ猭┮倒ぉ翠琌フ堵ぃ耞て疩Τフ堵┮す空狥﹁竒科︹и-
さぱ┮い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭琌セぃ耞癶羛羘㎝膀セ猭硂薄猵ぇ毙︙獺㎡硂拜肈и稱い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭程癶
材癶琌チ癶и癘眔い璣羛羘纯弧筁ミ猭诀闽琌穦パ匡羭玻ネ琌盢璶и-
ミ猭诀闽琌盢穦钡も羬ミ猭穦ぃ筁パ〆ヴ┪跑〆ヴ400秈︽伴匡羭玻ネ┮Τ匡羭竒亢礛礚ヴ︙港龟ヴ︙港龟い璣羛羘常穦獺㎝絋讽┮す空匡羭さ竒苯τ逞琌橙纖匡羭τ
材癶琌猭獀癶羛羘㎝膀セ猭い┮弧沧糵畑Τ闽"瓣產︽"秆睦竒盿倒翠猭穦竡堵瑌硂堵瑌≧阑翠猭≧阑翠程苦禥猭ぃ琌翠猭獀翠τ琌"瓣產︽"硂拜肈い瓣穦竡猭獀翠硂"瓣產︽"拜肈临硓筁膀セ猭材兵倒ぉ翠"腁滦"单竜и-
猭≧阑ヴ︙港龟羛羘㎝膀セ猭常穦硂癶
材癶琌︑パ癶膀セ猭材兵Ν竒ノ"腁滦"竡︑パ购﹚ぃ禬禫ㄏ緗キ纯竒弧翠盢ㄓ穝籇ぃ镑躬跌ㄢ瓣狥﹁硂妓竒秨﹍盢и-
︑パ丁禫罽禫
材癶碞琌舦癶箇〆穦︓膚〆穦獺粆スス璶盢翠纯竒局Τ筁舦猭篟反璶临崔チ碿猭琵翠穝ǐ崔チいア舦烦る┪⊿Τ舦烦るヴ︙港龟常莱硂春и-
チ︑パ舦猭獀琌癶或バ硂琌玡硂ㄓ盿倒翠瞏瞏ぃ縤防潮紇薄猵ぇ翠沮-
纯竒獺筁い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭秈︽Τ玥硂ㄇ砆禨ジ箈ぃ艶㎡タи-
纯竒獺筁硂ㄇフ堵┮и-
舦к┮砆跌箈ぃ艶硂癸翠τē琌ぃ琌そ笵弧猭硂癸ㄓ菌琌ぃ琌そ笵糶猭–常莱赣拜拜︑ぷㄤ琌讽硂妓北
腑瓣辆某弧翠ぃ璶砈も芠琌癸翠タぃ砈も芠璶蝴臔︑纯竒局Τ筁┪辨局Τチ︑パ㎝舦猭獀挡狦︙㎡挡狦碞钩Χギ棚某┮弧硂ㄇ碞琌糓渤胐┪珼挤捍笆糓渤眔或胐㎡и-
ぃ筁琌辨膥尿绊膀セ猭㎝羛羘す空倒и-
狥﹁硂跌糓渤盾跌胐盾跌珼挤盾跌捍笆盾硂癸纯竒癸翠癸い瓣Τí港戳辨ョ琌妓ぃそ笵弧猭
︗狟ね翠セㄓぃ稱砈も芠翠セㄓ稱ノもщ布и-
布ê㎡き100窾布ê讽и-
布砆卑管瞷澈礛и-
砈も芠琌ぃ癸狦倒ищ布и獺翠荡癸穦ノもщ竧布匡拒︓弧и-
璶霍み霍み碞ㄆΘ硂琌癸琌狦璶產籔膚〆穦霍みτ膚〆穦玥ぃ耞ノ贺よ猭管翠チ︑パ舦㎝猭獀︙刮挡癬ㄓ︙霍み癬ㄓ㎡Τ街腀種霍み霫澄︑舦㎡Τ街腀種霍みやㄇそ獺禴︓翴硈箇〆ぃ膚〆㎡そ笵莱赣翠∕﹚琌睲贰τフ谅谅畊ネ
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I once believed, and believed very sincerely, in the concept of "one country, two systems". To me, at the time the concept of "one country, two systems" as defined by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and as stated in the Basic Law refers to a principle that, when China resumes the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from July 1997, the socialist system or socialistic system with Chinese characteristics and the Chinese associated policies will not be practised in Hong Kong.
Yet, I think to me, it is very sad to note that with only 369 days to go, I am less sure of the definition. I think this is because the term "one country" is understood by everybody, but the "two systems" has been stood on its head. Many people now say that the "two systems" actually refer to one political system, which was the system of 1985, before the 1995 reform. So, it is an old political system acceptable to China.
An economic system really should be separate from the political system. That is to say, you make as much money as you like provided you leave politics alone. And all this bickering, this taunting, this deliberate distortion and all these political antics like the introduction of a provisional legislature, all these things do not assure me that the promises of yesteryear will happen tomorrow, in fact, next year. It would not even happen today, let alone next year.
So, I feel with a touch of sadness in fact I did not even want to get up to speak for I was so emotionally upset I think it is really with a touch of despair that I am saying that it is ironic that with these promises of "one country, two systems", patriotism, going back to the motherland, that we are beginning to talk like goose to ducks, chicken to ducks, if you like, but I think it is Hong Kong goose and the Beijing duck.
Now, I do not have the eloquence of many friends who spoke before me, but I think I want to have it put on record that we have seen over the last couple of years the gentle chipping away at the foundation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and also at the concept of "one country, two systems". I still have a residual hope that by this time next year, I can stand up and say, "Look, things are not that bad. We might have some hope." But I am not very sure.
With that, I think I support the original motion because that, at least, has the clarity of interpretation to bring us back to the original understanding of the "one country, two systems" that I understood at the time of the ratification of the Joint Declaration. Thank you, Mr President.
︙玊く某璓勉畊ネい瓣現┎讽翠蒥チ矗"瓣ㄢ蔼︑獀きぃ跑"よ皐ウノ種琌铆﹚穦季みさぱ硂"きぃ跑"腹澈礛Θр翠"崔チて"猭瞶膀娄硂ㄇ常琌稰框狙㎝极磏
ㄤ龟筁寸戳э珹ミチ某現Θミ沧糵畑﹚舦猭璹翠猭ㄏぇ才舦そ硂ㄇ常琌辅龟い璣羛羘い瓣現┎︓翠いよē玱硂ㄇэ琌笻はい璣羛羘临硑Θ"跑きぃ跑"いよ璶Θミ羬ミ猭穦安ㄤもэ猭р翠猭临︓┪玡崔チ家Αヘ琌璶皌︽現﹛盢ㄓ┮璶龟︽縒掉㎝盡舦参獀砆確崔チ碿猭珹そガそ兵ㄒ刮兵ㄒ候薄猵砏ㄒ兵ㄒ筿跌筿癟約冀单せ兵㎝ㄤ璸购い盢穦砆э兵ㄒ盢ぃ穦赤ア玂毁翠蒥チ膀セ︑パ舦穦Θ筀㎝玠管舦︑パㄣ
畊ネㄏ踞紐碞琌砮ㄓ癸翠現┎玻ネΤ颗ノ猭诀闽縒ミ糵舦㎝縒ミ笲ョ穦膀セ猭ㄇぃ瞶㎝ぃ紇臫
疭︽現跋猭畑糵瞶ン秆睦膀セ猭兵ゅ舦沮膀セ猭材κき兵疉のいァ恨瞶ㄆ叭┪いァ疭跋兵蹿秆睦猭畑沧糵Ы∕玡璶叫ボ盽〆
疭跋猭畑癸"瓣產︽"礚恨烈舦︙孔"瓣產︽"玥パいァ現┎舦∕﹚沮膀セ猭材兵"瓣產︽"ぃ虫珹瓣ňユ单︽兵ゅい"单"硂"单"琌礚耎甶"瓣產︽"竡ㄏ"瓣產︽"跑Θ笷膀セ猭材兵ヘτ马溃钵︓琌そ╬玻单︽ㄏ硂ㄇぃ猭┮孔"瓣產︽"禬禫猭畑恨烈㎝掉
疭跋猭畑琌ㄉΤ癸ミ猭诀闽┮﹚猭Τ猭滦舦(power of judicial review)ョ盢Θ好拜いよ癸舦猭龟琁睲贰ボぃ骸篕ㄤ癸セ翠猭硑Θ≧阑㎝ぃ▆紇臫Τ膀セ猭材彻┮更膀セ舦㎝竡叭ぃ琌ノ猭滦ミ猭沮
畊ネи矗碭翴拜肈ㄏ翠猭㎝穦癸翠猭縒ミ笲㎝猭獀玻ネ紐納ㄤ龟胺㎝瞶猭縒ミ㎝Τ猭癸翠蒥チ舦玂毁癸瓣悔щ戈獺み蝴么琌ぃ┪
ㄤ龟翠Ν莱龟︽硂ㄇэㄆ龟璣瓣せΝ帽竝ㄢ兜舦そㄏぇ続ノ翠筐筐常⊿Τ莱э瞷い瓣現┎癸и-
筁寸戳ず┮莱赣э澈礛Ч临癶硂琌穦耴硂兜脖ㄆ籜程γ翴㎡
畊ネ瓣ㄢΘи-
港種璶―い瓣現┎浪癚癸翠┮龟琁現郸璶﹚㎝港種碙辅龟蔼︑獀ミチ蝴臔舦猭獀癸膀セ猭荷е続讽㎝瞶璹
璹珹材璶碙猭畑︽ㄏ猭糵舦舦ㄣΤЧ俱┦笲縒ミ┦蝴臔и┮Ч俱┦琌и-
璶―猭畑ㄣΤ秆睦场膀セ猭兵ゅ舦τ礚惠糵癟筁祘い钮盽〆種ǎτ┿眖τ猭祘ぃゲ璶箇и-
ョ璶―"瓣產︽"﹚竡莱赣睲贰﹚琌瓣ň㎝ユ絛瞅璶睲贰﹚琌Τ猭滦舦
и-
璶―い瓣現┎睲贰﹚舦猭猭︗の筁寸戳丁ち┮瞶猭эи-
璶―い瓣現┎ゲ斗┯空帽竝┪程続ノ翠兵ゅτ帽竝ㄢ兜舦そ┯空膥尿舦〆穦患ユ厨и-
璶―い瓣現┎ゲ斗碙羛羘斌Θミ羬ミ猭穦斌癸翠龟︽現獀北璶ミ甅いァ籔よぇ丁镑玻ネ颗τが闽玒τ獶ㄆ闽玒ㄢぇ丁斗猭㎝砏痻快ㄆτ獶綼ㄆ㎝闽玒快ㄆ斑Τ硂妓и-
搭ぶ㎝磷いァぃゲ璶ぃ瞶のヴ種癸翠箇
畊ネи略朝勉や琖皇某某
腜某璓勉畊ネиさぱ灿み测钮セЫ︗某祇ēΤ闽硂肈ヘセЫ竒ぃ琌材Ω秈︽臛阶
и稱酵酵"瓣ㄢ"篶稱讽酵いい瓣セ礚惠籔璣瓣酵闽Μ翠ㄆ薄い瓣单单るら璣瓣獽璶︑笆篗癶ê︙穦酵︙璶矗"瓣ㄢ"琌い瓣現┎笵い瓣籔翠戈セ竡Τだウ┯空翠穦龟︽"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"㎝"蔼︑獀""蔼︑獀"獶縒ミい瓣現┎盢穦Θ翠舦瓣瞷临Τオ獽舦簿ユ临Τ翠癸盢ㄓ⊿Τ獺み癸膀セ猭⊿Τ獺み癸翠猭獀Θ猭獀穦⊿Τ獺み癸翠玂ち︑パ舦⊿Τ獺み癸翠チ現祇甶ㄤ龟膀セ猭Τ矗の⊿Τ獺み︙穦獺み㎡讽礛ㄤい菌琌程⊿Τ獺み碞琌紆羬ミ猭穦Θミ礛τ-
玱⊿Τ矗の︙穦Τ羬ミ猭穦瞷︙⊿Τ"硄ó"膀セ猭砞璸琌辨Τ"硄ó"琌璣瓣現┎17近酵篗癶ぃ膥尿酵璣瓣現┎琌材ボ"︑穌︑甅""穌甅"讽"穌︑甅"璣瓣現┎玱ボぃ觅Θ
弧"フ堵"и獺セЫ某常纯筁讽らい璣ㄢ瓣竒筁礷某览膀セ猭癬〆穦約单单琌璣瓣程硄妓砞璸Τ"硄ó"Τ闽ê獺蝶﹚街眏勉管瞶琌⊿Τノ程и-
眔さぱ吏挂
Τ某弧ぃは癸莱赣籔い瓣搐も獶も箇-
Τ搐も㎡-
琌Τ港種港み籔い瓣現┎渡酵临琌弧い瓣現┎Τ瑇瞨脋盢穦窘翠もㄓ箇翠ㄆ叭и粄程沧常琌獺┪ぃ獺拜肈狦-
ぃ獺翠盢ㄓΤ猭獀ㄉΤ膀セ猭ㄓち︑パ㎝舦ㄤ龟膀セ猭Τ矗のチ現筁祘硂妓и-
弧或⊿Τノ-
セぃ獺狦-
粄翠硂600窾盢ㄓ穦ㄉΤ猭獀穦碞莱赣沮膀セ猭ㄓ︽ㄆ莱赣粄膀セ猭碞琌翠舅猭琌ぃ繦獽э琍戳獽Τ某矗某璶э膀セ猭︙ぃ莱繦獽э膀セ猭㎡Τㄇ矗某э硂よㄆτㄇ矗某эよㄆ礛τ膀セ猭琌竒筁畉ぃき丁パ翠把籔﹚ごゼ龟︽玡碞弧璶э
畊ネи粄俱拜肈臛阶琌-
癸翠盢ㄓΤ獺み癸い瓣現┎Τ獺みΤㄇ矗い瓣琘ㄇカ穦ㄓ翠も箇┪碝т痲礚阶琌竒蕾┪ㄤよ痲и粄瞷硂薄猵┦だ蔼翠琌ぃ穦琌竒蕾羉篴穦Τㄇ﹛翠碝т痲獶ン┣ㄆ-
ぃ璶а癘翠琌猭獀穦ら翠疭跋現┎琌甧砛硂ㄇ﹛碝т痲㎡翠ら疭跋琌蝴臔翠痲и粄┮┯踞砫ヴ琌獶盽街弧硂贺薄猵ぃ穦祇ネи粄ら疭跋現┎癸翠ゲ斗Τ┮┯踞-
Τ砫ヴ蝴臔翠痲
翠穦龟︽"瓣ㄢ"ы┪龟︽い瓣ê甅穦竡璝琌碞礚斗竒菌硂丁が渡酵が酵笷Θㄇ產常钡醚い瓣現┎琌翠官︸ぃ琌籔翠癸ミ癸禜狦い瓣現┎琌籔翠癸ミ癸禜杠翠碞穦ッ礚圭ら
谅谅畊ネ
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I would like to begin with the words of Andrei SAKHAROV, "Father" of the Soviet hydrogen bomb and Nobel Peace Price winner. He said, in an interview in 1973:
"...... there is a need to create ideals even when you cannot see any way to achieve them, because if there are no ideals, then there can be no hope, and then one would be left completely in the dark, in a hopeless blind alley."
These words came to my mind as I pondered on today's motion proposed by the Honourable Martin LEE.
Mr President, in the 12 years since the Joint Declaration, people have divided speakers on Hong Kong into two categories: those who paint a rosy picture of the future, citing edifying parts of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, pledging faith in China and buttressing it with arguments on economic self-interest; and those who cast doubts on such a picture pointing out the cracks in the edifice, the breaches, the betrayals, the back-paddling and the shadows ahead.
The Honourable Martin LEE has been firmly put in the second category. By name or by description, he has been attacked for spreading "doom and gloom", and undermining the confidence in Hong Kong. I have no wish to defend him. It would be presumptuous of me to do so. Yet, looking at today's motion, I cannot help wondering, how can anyone other than an utter optimist propose such a thing? For, if we look back on those 12 years and sum up for today, can we say that our doubts on the implementation of "one country, two system" have diminished through the test of time? Or do we have to admit that our doubts have, instead, grown with every incident? Can we say that our conviction that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy has been strengthened by China's consistent attitude? Or do we have to admit that it is paling fast in the light of the common day? Do we see those institutions erected and reinforced for a true system of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong? Or do we see, more and more, that there are strings attached everywhere?
I fear the answer is all too obvious not only to me and to many others, but must be so to Mr LEE. Yet, instead of declaring despair and defect, he, in his motion, urges the Chinese Government to fully adhere to the principles of "one country, two system" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy". If this does not show indomitable optimism, I do not know what does.
Mr President, Mr LEE invites this Council to appeal to Hong Kong people to safeguard democracy, the rule of law, human rights, freedom and our way of life. I join him in his appeal. This is a lot to ask of a community which is tiny and which, up till almost yesterday, was supposed to have remained politically apathetic under a paternalist system of government. But I believe in the people of Hong Kong and indeed we have turned out to be the most reliable of the people we have turned to.
We may not have been saints or heroes, but in the past 12 years, we have time and again risen to the occasion, surprising not only the world but also ourselves. In the face of threats, millions of us had marched in support of the democratic movement in China; annual vigils have persisted to commemorate 4 June; millions of us have voted at elections, and so by action supported our developing democracy. A majority have voted for democratic candidates and for people who are not afraid to speak out. When the Bill of Rights was attacked, instantly and in overwhelming numbers, the people of Hong Kong hit back in defence.
The people of Hong Kong have proved the one factor for which our faith have grown with ample justification. We appeal to them because there is no one else we can appeal to with greater confidence.
Yet, Mr President, I would be less than honest if I were to claim that the courage and resolution of the people of Hong Kong is sufficient for Hong Kong's way of life to be assured. I agree that pitching the strength of the Hong Kong people against the determination of China is, as the proverb goes, "raising a grasshopper's arm against a wagon". The one thing which can truly guarantee Hong Kong's future is China's self-restraint.
In the concept of the self-restraint of the executive lies the foundation of the rule of law. The self-restraint of the Chinese authorities is the key to making "one country, two systems" possible. That is why, Mr President, I support the motion wholeheartedly in urging the Chinese Government to refrain from interfering in Hong Kong's internal affairs. The provisions are all there, in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. What we want to see is the commitment, the resolution to refrain from interfering, even out of good intention, and to hold back anyone who may try to interfere.
Of course, I support the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung's emphasis on the integrity of the court's power of constitutional interpretation, and his call for a totally elected government, executive and legislature. But these will be the natural consequences if the aspirations in the original motion are achieved.
Mr President, things may not look terribly rosy; the odds may be against us, but having assessed the situation as realists, we may yet keep our ideals. SAKHAROV insisted that we need ideals even when we cannot see any way to achieve them. Our situation is far less bleak than his. There is even more reason for us to be tenacious about our ideals, and to have stronger hopes of achieving them.
Thank you, Mr President.
独綺笽某璓勉畊ネ︗﹛よ筹︕篋ㄒ琌厨尺ぃ厨紐さ边腑瓣辆某㎝腜某"瓣"︽˙и-
獺みㄓ綛籠蛮泊獽阁筁ち螟㎝繧堡Τ"臘秈"杠い穦т硂妓挡狦
翠竒蕾纔翴琌そキ膙稧间の╬犁诀篶カ初诀戳い瓣籔瓣ユ碞セ翠籔щ戈踞紐翠そキ膙吏挂秨﹍科︹и穦碞翠竒蕾拜肈ㄓ癚阶"瓣ㄢ"璶癸螟
и碞び籔いユ矗翴好納翠カ初琌パ璣戈穨┮胋耞堡菏恨ㄆ叭い瓣チЫ獶⊿Τ玃秈そキ膙はτ"簀耚ó皑"秈˙綿㏕︽穨胋耞︗眖いだㄉ伦玴柬ㄤΩチЫ妮いカ基肂潦翠纒舦踞みい瓣﹛琌現獀溃眔纔磃τカ初穦琌繷ㄤそㄆ穨筿癟膀ョ穦琌-
聐材いΘ程狥ê或翠纒蛤瓣Τそ礚だ眖э跑翠カ初パ╬诀篶犁快Ы翠穨穦硋˙砆い瓣瓣犁穨┮腍︑パ膙籔╬犁穨カ初诀穦硋˙ア砆瓣竒蕾┮癸硂ㄇ┦и-
荡癸ぃ奔淮み
畊ネ稧间坝穨巨琌翠腳禥戈玻τ疭舦琌砱γ放⊿Τチ堵い"ぃ醚叭"碞琌稧间腹砱γ籊て糤穨竒犁Θセ穦莱糤坝穨龟ョ獶秤ぇ笵ゲ斗綼ǐ┰闽玒︓胳革单м―ネㄓ盢穦过┏篟反翠琂Τそキ膙纔墩翠瓣悔坝穨いみ︗ョ穦反ス翠ゲ斗みチ蝴臔翠そキ膙籔稧间坝穨吏挂
畊ネ翠竒蕾祇甶琌ず現ㄆ叭莱パ瞷現┎籔ゼㄓ疭跋現┎矪瞶龟瞷"翠獀翠蔼︑獀"┯空堡い瓣いァ現┎﹛瞷笻璉キв┯空础も箇翠竒蕾ㄆ叭程陪ぃ筁ㄒ獽琌︓癩現箇衡絪籔膀砞琁い璣蛮よセ㏄笷Θ醚碞琌蛮よ–る羭︽Ω穦某碞癩現箇衡璶Μやのㄤ璶拜肈笷Θ璓種ǎ秈莱絪祘チ囊眏秸硂贺暗猭琌笻璉い璣羛羘籔膀セ猭и-
粄瞷現┎籔疭跋現┎ヴ痁┏莱璹戳12るЧ俱筁寸戳癩現箇衡τい璣羛羛蹈舱妮盡產舱–る秨穦某いΤ吭高舦τ獶局Τ∕郸舦τ赣穦某荡ぃ莱琌璹癩現箇衡诀ョぃゲ–兜ヘ莉眔醚秨甶兜ヘ癚阶狦さΩ癩現箇衡璹常ゲ斗莉眔いァ現┎盡產舱種ê或畊ネ翠ら癩現箇衡罽Θい瓣癩現箇衡琿辅竒琌ら盡產舱Θ珹翠坝赣单Θ玱礚惠ビ厨痲⊿Τ菏诡诀把籔璹紇臫翠竒蕾环祇甶癩現箇衡痲侥ぷ陪ョ翠そキ膙吏挂ゴчΙ
妓砍腹砯耫絏繷琌翠挂ずゲ惠砞莱パ瞷現┎∕﹚籔糵у籔い瓣いァ現┎礚闽礛τい瓣現┎玱礷几╈┑砯耫絏繷ぃ砍癩刮いよ竬ぇ筐筐ぃ腀㎝癑Νら笆翠現┎ョ纞瘆義ぃ砞戳ヴパ絏繷祘礚戳╈┑いァ﹛硂贺彩忌箇翠竒蕾ㄆ叭も猭ぃ虫ゎゴ阑翠獺みョ腨锚翠砯笲穨祇甶翠竒蕾祇甶籜潮紇
程и稱眏秸翴碞琌翠竒蕾祇甶惠璶籔竒犁吏挂琌ЧЧず场ㄆ叭瞷現┎籔ゼㄓ疭跋現┎莱"蔼︑獀"玥秈︽恨瞶籔現郸璹いァ現┎ぃゲ璶ョ荡癸ぃ莱赣筁拜籔箇璝獶翠ゼㄓ竒蕾祇甶穦瞋い瓣竒蕾璸购采囱翠ヘ玡癸纔墩㎝疭翴盢穦て疩Τ"瓣ㄢ"ョ龟礚猭龟瞷
ヴ到圭某璓勉畊ネ"瓣ㄢ"琌現獀瞶稱ウ留跋籔﹙瓣参兵ン﹟ゼΘ剪舦﹜も猭現獀瞶稱籔舦﹜も猭ㄤ龟琌ㄢ伐狠┮"瓣ㄢ"琌痷タ厩ノ玻竡"ベ参"阶"瓣ㄢ"留畴ゑ纔禫玥﹙瓣Ν碞莱赣緍跋┮硂琌ベτ硂ベ程琌璶参硂贺"参礛て秆ベ"暗猭芖琌ぃ钡翠砆璶钡τи-
安砞"瓣ㄢ"瞶阶琌︽τ璶―いよ辅龟暗堡いよ獺粆スス弧璶龟琁"瓣ㄢ"玡ウ瞷"瓣"暗ㄆよΑ程陪碞琌"ē绑"临Τ"搐も"∕﹚程ㄎ︽現匡┮翠踞み瞷ΤネよΑ螟玂狦翠Чぃ羘玥いよ獽穦ぃ︑谋盢ず甅翠翠ぃ種ǎ禫玥いよ浪癚诀穦禫τタよ禫┮翠﹚璶徖ヘ玡ネよΑΤ┮孔"搂竡稧幵"瓣ぇ蝴さぱ跑翠ぇ蝴琌"チ猭獀舦︑パ"礚蝴翠ぃ琌翠"瓣ㄢ"獽穦Θア毖龟喷
腑瓣辆某盢"辅龟瓣ㄢ"砫ヴ翠ōㄤ龟∕﹚┦いよ辨腑某いよ秈ē辨Χギ棚某ぃ矗眶いよいァㄇ暗猭琌笻璉翠"蔼︑獀"玥
畊ネセ略朝勉や某の辩模┚某タ
綠產碔某璓勉畊ネ"瓣ㄢ"阀├パ弧さぱパ羛羘膀セ猭竒р"瓣ㄢ"阀├ノ兵㎝猭糶ㄓぃ筁и-
临ゼ"瓣ㄢ"︙辅龟и-
玱箇〆穦临碿猭某の过过┏┏笻は膀セ猭羬ミ猭穦タ盞苧候躬Θミи-
钮い瓣現┎﹛タ翠蒥チㄓㄉΤ舦购笵笵"候鉚竛"
碞穝籇︑パㄒ耕Ν玡翠緿快ヴ緗キ碞"芠厨笵"籔"躬"酵阶穝籇︑パㄒ璶ぃ躬ㄢい瓣厨ご︑パ厨笵硂贺"ē阶璶―参畖"暗猭龟穝籇㎝翠蒥チ稰ぃ緗キヴ硂礷弧杠﹍沧ゼΤそ渤ユ"躬"㎝"芠厨笵"絋﹚種竡龟癸セ翠ē阶の穝籇︑パぃ稰贾芠祔ㄤいよ﹛穝籇︑パゲ礛璶猭ㄒ┮砏τ膀セ猭材兵闽窽ゎ玵瓣だ吊瓣產㎝腁滦いァ現┎兵ゅタ琌砏絛穝籇︑パ穝籇︑パē阶︑パ惠璶猭ㄒ硂翴⊿Τ穦竚好硂ㄇ猭ㄒぃ莱琌"碿猭"硂ㄇ猭ぃ莱琌"ぃ瞶"┮и-
璶绊∕は癸㎝э硂ㄇ碿猭㎝ぃ瞶猭ㄒ
緗キヴ纯酵の"芠厨笵"㎝"躬"拜肈瞷セ翠⊿Τ"躬"硂猭阀├τゑ耕钡阀├玥"捍笆"沮翠猭"捍笆"妮ㄆ竜︽τΤ闽玵瓣の捍笆玵睹竜︽翠猭ㄒ材200彻ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒいぃ筁畊ネ兵ゅい癸玵瓣㎝玵瓣︽の捍笆玵睹﹚竡玱獶盽約獂伐砆垒ノのΘ棒峨の纞ē阶︑パ穝籇︑パㄣ
畊ネ沮膀セ猭材兵砏﹚疭跋現┎莱︑︽ミ猭窽ゎヴ︙玵瓣だ吊瓣產捍笆玵睹腁滦いァチ現┎の叛瓣產诀盞︽緗キヴē阶ㄤ龟琌ゼㄓ疭跋羬ミ猭穦┪材ミ猭穦璹膀セヴ︙ぃ瓣產舦厨笵のē阶ぃ阶琌︙单芠常Τ牟デ膀セ猭材兵砏﹚┪ゼㄓ疭跋現┎"碿猭"┮ぃ甧膥τ砆"馋斗Τ"﹚竜
ㄆ龟瓣ㄤよē阶︑パへだ糴肞瓣厨厨笵Τ闽甃縒ミ瓣現┎穝籇︓厨彻ョ厨笵㎝蝶阶豁縒ミ現┎穝籇赣摸厨笵ョ⊿Τ砆讽現┎腁滦瓣產┪躬縒ミ︽沮炊硄猭弘Τ捍笆蹦忌ㄓは癸瞷現舦琌笻猭︓い瓣薄猵玥ぃ囊盡現現郸現┎ē阶璶―"ē绑"癸肚碈蹦北篈癸瓣ず穝籇眖穨腨北传ēぇ囊盡現肚碈現郸ゲ礛籔穝籇︑パ玥が逼ジぃ甧ゼㄓ疭跋現┎狦ぃ暗痷タ"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"и-
ゼㄓ穝籇︑パョ盢穦"囊盡現"潮紇记↖↖
畊ネセ翠穝籇眖穨セō莱ㄣΤ徖穝籇︑パ砫ヴ-
莱璽砫盢穦龟猵渤厨笵ぃ穦秆ㄆ龟痷и-
粄ヴ︙厨笵㎝蝶阶璶ぃ旧璓穦祇ネ繧薄猵Аぃ莱砆窽ō穝籇ぃ莱羬┪いよ﹛ē阶纞τ镣墩┪秈︽︑и糵琩玥獽笻璉穝籇砫ヴミ猭и-
砫ヴ癸碿猭矗は癸羘瞶猭ㄒ琜琵翠㊣ē阶の穝籇︑パ
畊ネパ瓣ず穝籇のē阶︑パ非玥籔翠ぃい瓣現┎﹚現郸┪猭琌店砞いよ﹛繦種"量甅暗甅"礚┮続眖и磀芠箇代らセ翠穝籇眖穨厨笵㎝蝶阶Τ闽囊盡現拜肈妮笻猭︽τ砆﹚竜
畊ネいよ﹛Ч臮穝籇︑パ弘種瓜管и-
翠ゼㄓ穝籇薄舦虑盢囊盡現現郸の矪ㄆよ猭パㄊ盿ㄓи-
ゼㄓ疭跋翠蝴臔の玂毁ゼㄓ︑パē阶ゲ斗いよ眏疨は琈叭ゲゼㄓ疭跋辅龟"翠獀翠"現郸
畊ネセ略朝勉や某
DR SAMUEL WONG: Mr President, is it "one country, two systems" or "one country, three systems"?
Indeed, how often do we look at the cliches so common in our society today and ask what they really mean?
Hong Kong has operated under the principle of "one country, two systems" for 150 years. That is to say policies such as military preparedness, high taxation, socialism, welfare state and so on, so dear to our sovereign power, have not been practised here. More recently, Hong Kong has become "one country, three systems" as it has joined the network of overseas Chinese, interacting with the other major centres in Los Angeles, Vancouver, London, Taiwan and so on, in a way in which its sovereign power has had no part.
So when we ask if the principle of "one country, two systems" will continue to be adhered to, we ask the question: Will our position as part of the overseas Chinese network remain the same or will we become so much a part of China, where foreign policy is not within our autonomy, that our links with the overseas Chinese network will have to change? In short, has the third system been given enough thought?
Similar scrutiny needs to be applied to the term "interference". When our present sovereign power imposed on us its style of democracy, did we regard it as "interference" or was it rather simply an extension of the western culture we had grown up with? And this is the point. We now have a culture of our own. It is not synonymous with British, nor with Chinese culture.
Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of the New Airport. Hong Kong had a culture in which large engineering projects were handled in a particular Hong Kong way, which traditionally resulted in even the most massive projects being completed ahead of schedule and within budget. Amongst other things, it often relied upon the ability of our professionals to solve problems as we went along. The Chinese have a different approach to large engineering projects, so when the airport project was presented to them, it had to be delayed and the target date extended. The project will not be completed to the original schedule, nor within the original budget.
Now was this "interference"? I think not. The Chinese very rightly adopted a protective attitude to ensure the Special Administrative Region (SAR) was not committed to excessive expenditure. So more problems had to be resolved initially. This is their culture. It is sad that the result is the opposite of that intended, namely, the project is delayed and the SAR will be committed to more expenditure than originally budgeted. But it was based on understandable provision of safeguards and not, I suggest, "interference". I do hope some lessons have been learned for the Western Corridor Railway.
The moral of this analysis is that much more time has to be spent by both sides learning each other's culture and how to integrate our differences. Hong Kong's promised "high degree of autonomy" certainly implies that our professional culture should remain intact, yet we need to appreciate Chinese concern for the SAR welfare and they need to understand the culture that has made Hong Kong such an outstanding success and to encourage us to retain it.
To encourage is positive. But it need not be "interference".
Let me give another example government attitude towards high technology. The Chinese Government is quite good in this respect. Two of the three executives who head the country were trained as engineers and the other is a professional. Enormous efforts are being made by the Government to catch up in technology, to enhance the telecommunications network, to upgrade industry and to learn from the most advanced countries even Hong Kong.
This has never been the case in Hong Kong. Our position in the world of high tech is entirely due to the efforts of the private sector. It has taken decades of lobbying by professionals to get the Government to introduce protection of data, to establish Electronic Data Interchange and put effort into high tech support for industry such as a Science Park. We have still not succeeded in convincing them of the importance of giving adequate administrative training to technologists in the Civil Service, so they can make decisions within the Government without the eternal and expensive trouping off to consultants for opinion and so they can tell when that opinion is flawed.
Only recently, a government-sponsored consultancy cost $2.67 million and reported that one of the options would cost $165 million to provide in Hong Kong when the option concerned already existed here, waiting to be used. These highly paid consultants had not bothered to find out. It was the private sector that did so.
I hope that our new sovereign power will encourage the SAR Government to keep more abreast of technology not to "interfere" but to give encouragement.
I therefore give qualified support to the motion. We expect a high degree of autonomy without interference, but we should also expect understanding and encouragement. Let us not word our approaches to China in a way that will undermine these.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion as to be amended by the Honourable IP Kwok-him.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, the Honourable Martin LEE has proposed a perfectly clear motion which I fully endorse. It is hard to quarrel with any part of the motion. Mr LEE urges the Chinese Government to abide by the promises that have been made to Hong Kong, and also asks Hong Kong people to do their bit to maintain their way of life.
Mr LEE is perfectly right in putting emphasis both on China and on Hong Kong. The Chinese Government must give the Hong Kong system enough leg-room for Hong Kong people to enjoy their current lifestyle. When the two systems conflict, China should try to understand the values that underpin Hong Kong's system and not impose its values instead. On the other hand, Hong Kong people themselves must have the self-confidence to take on the responsibility of autonomy by using each, every and all available channels to explain and press home to China the values that underpin their society, and their way of doing things.
If the "one country, two systems" policy is to work, then the people of Hong Kong need to see that when the two systems conflict that resolution can be based on open and honest dialogue between Hong Kong and China. Let us take two examples to illustrate areas of conflict that are worrying people here. I know that my colleagues have alluded to some of them, if I may be permitted to put my start on those two examples as well.
Firstly, there is the unending and unhappy problem of the provisional legislature. Hong Kong's legal circles are arguing that the provisional body, as currently envisaged by China, would not have proper legal basis according to the way Hong Kong is used to interpreting constitutions and laws. China supporters argue that according to Chinese legal thinking, the body will have proper constitutional basis. Both Hong Kong and China may be right in their own contexts. This illustrates a case of conflict because the concept of law is so different in the two systems.
Secondly, there is the much talked about CNN interview of the Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office where he was asked about China's view of freedom of expression. His remarks about China's policy of "no two Chinas" sparked concern here that Hong Kong's freedoms could be curtailed after 1997. Again, we see a case of conflict between the two systems. The Chinese Government regards certain official policies as absolute and does not tolerate public dissent. In Hong Kong, people are used to speaking up against government policies, indeed, we are used to taking open and visible actions to press for changes.
In both examples, China may have real difficulties understanding and accepting Hong Kong's ways of doing things. However, its Government is committed to try very, very hard because of its policy of allowing a second, and fundamentally different, system to flourish within one country. China must show generous flexibility, otherwise what chances has the smaller second system got, to survive in the shadow of the mighty People's Republic?
Whilst we ask China to accept our way of life and not interfere, Hong Kong people too must play their part. They must be prepared, collectively, to explain and assert their system. There is no point in concluding that Hong Kong will enjoy less freedoms after 1997 and thereby debilitate ourselves in its defence. If we become resigned to a less free life, and not continue to exercise our freedoms, then we will have less freedom.
It is for this reason that I cannot support the Honourable IP Kwok-him's amendment, the purpose of which is to ask us to support the work of the Preparatory Committee. Well, we might be prepared to support its work if we can see that the Committee is actively trying to address and resolve areas of conflict between the two systems. Instead, so far, what we see is that the Committee seems to find it easier to adopt China's values and way of doing things, rather than assert and explain Hong Kong's ways. Hopes bring eternity. I hope that the Members of this Council who are also members of the Preparatory Committee will assert themselves more and explain and assert Hong Kong's values and ways of doing things.
I also cannot support the Honourable David CHU's amendment. Of course, we are pleased that the Chinese Government will ensure that central government departments and provincial governments will be prohibited from interfering in Hong Kong's internal affairs after 1997. However, that is not quite the point of Mr LEE's debate today, so let us not get too diverted from the subject at hand.
Mr President, as for the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment, I do have the greatest sympathy for it, but I wonder why it is necessary at all. Surely, Mr LEE's motion allows Mr LEUNG to include the various points he wants to make without going for an amendment which, as it stands, is somewhat of a dog's dinner in the way it is worded.
It would be helpful if Mr LEUNG can better phrase his amendment to state more clearly what he is asking us to endorse. Is he implying that the Basic Law should be amended so that the Court of Final Appeal should have the final right to interpret the Basic Law itself, or might Mr LEUNG be referring to some specific sections, like the contentious reference to "acts of state"?
As to the second limb of the amendment, is Mr LEUNG implying that the Chief Executive and legislators should all be directly elected by universal suffrage? Further, it seems that Mr LEUNG is saying that Chinese national laws applying to Hong Kong should be interpreted with reference to international human rights standards where relevant. If that is his intention, this is a new and interesting idea which should be explored.
Whilst Mr LEUNG has explained his amendment in his speech, I wished the amendment is more clearly worded so that I do not need to second-guess what it is trying to say. I feel strongly that legislators should not have to guess the meaning of any amendment put to us.
Finally, I would have preferred that the word "indiscriminately" was dropped from the amendment. China should not interfere at all except in foreign relations and national security, whether discriminately or indiscriminately.
Mr President, with the above reservations, I am prepared to support Mr LEUNG's amendment to Mr LEE's motion.
肅繟某璓勉畊ネふΤお"ぃ碽くぃ紐玦ぃ倪"翠耴瓣程硂κぱいи-
莱赣ぃ碽ぃ紐ぃ倪縩伐篈絋玂疭︽現跋抖ミ笷璓翠キ铆筁寸
い璣羛羘琌い璣ㄢ瓣現┎碞"翠獀翠"㎝翠蔼︑獀┯空τ膀セ猭璹﹚玥砰瞷い璣羛羘弘┮璶キ铆筁寸碞璶い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭ㄌ沮
い璣羛羘砏﹚翠疭︽現跋ㄉΤ蔼︑獀舦硂璶琌埃瓣ň㎝ユㄆ叭妮いァチ現┎恨瞶ぇ翠疭︽現跋ㄉΤ︽現恨瞶舦ミ猭舦縒ミ猭舦㎝沧糵舦い璣羛羘るらタΑ帽竝ぇ沮羛瓣舅彻材102兵砏﹚羛瓣祅癘そガい瓣現┎碞翠蔼︑獀缠腨┯空い瓣現┎璽Τ糹︽砫ヴ硂ㄓい瓣現┎癸獺羛羘绊產琌Τヘ窣τ膀セ猭硂ゼㄓ疭跋舅┦ゅンㄣ砰癸翠蔼︑獀舦絋砏﹚秈˙辅龟"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"の"蔼︑獀"瞶├膀セ猭琌兜瓣┦猭癸瓣カАΤ眖τ磷翠蔼︑獀舦獻デ
膀セ猭﹚菌き琌竒筁翠そ秨㎝吭高は滦絉坝τΘ膀セ猭┯膥い璣羛羘弘甶瞷ゼㄓ"翠獀翠蔼︑獀"屡瓜ゲ斗碙蝴臔㎝辅龟
畊ネ琖皇某某玱叉瞒い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭︑︽秆睦"瓣ㄢ"弧杠临琌簘獹玱Τカ嘎加ゼび筁店ほ硂癸玃秈翠キ铆筁寸セ⊿Τヴ︙縩伐種竡τ硂翠㎝い瓣現┎ぇ丁ㄨ種籹硑がぃ獺ヴ猑龟ぃゼㄓ翠疭︽現跋抖ミ
"ぇㄤē礚砫φ╫"硂杠種琌Τㄇ量杠淮瞯-
ぃ┯踞或砫ヴ硂筁寸戳いㄇ羘羘璶翠獀翠よ玱癸い瓣現┎玂毁翠蔼︑獀缠腨┯空竚璝籇癸い璣羛羘癸膀セ猭簔跌ぃ瞶┪膏睦硂贺硏︕ぇе篈癸翠キ铆筁寸セ睝礚砞┦硂ㄇ贾"暗show"贾"佰癐翠"龟ぃ琌翠ぇ褐
"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"㎝"蔼︑獀"硂ㄇヘ夹眔龟瞷Τ苦砰翠カチ蝴臔い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭ㄌ猭猭硄筁玂臔猭┮结ぉ舦㎝砏﹚祘眖τ玃秈翠チ㎝︑パ
畊ネセ略朝勉や腑瓣辆某タ
霉不瓣某璓勉畊ネ翠耴い瓣程顶琿ぃぶ翠癸い瓣ゼㄓ癸翠琁現ごΤ紐納瞷い瓣現┎癸翠箇Τ钡Τ丁钡癸钡箇翠牡谋┦衡蔼ョ玦笷種ǎㄇ丁钡┦箇玥琌耕留扁ョノū癹Α瞷
セ粄い瓣現┎莱绊"瓣ㄢ"场ョ斗Τ種醚ňゎ硂摸箇翠︽и穦羭ㄢㄣ砰ㄒ璶―い瓣現┎闽猔荷еэ到Τ闽薄猵
沮きるらセ厨彻厨笵瞏疭跋厨祅い瓣チ蝗︽現郸╯场痴ゅ彻癘更︑眖ㄓ瓣產癸瞏疭跋翠刽瑈硄のㄏノ蹦ノ疭現郸硂︑礛程沧龟瞷チ刽㎝翠刽ㄢ瑈硄承硑兵ン翠耴翠刽瞏瑈硄現郸ぃ穦э跑粄瞏莱瞯笆莱荷е璹︙ㄢ砯刽が瑈硄現郸
硂現郸┦ゅ彻и獶盽ぃ硂陪ボい瓣いァ蝗︽Τ﹛そ秨躬現┎箇翠砯刽硂琌睲贰笻は膀セ猭材兵材κ兵のκ兵
材ㄒ碞琌戳瓣㎝翠纒舦跑笆ㄆンい瓣瓣產穨い獺㎝い眏癸翠ㄢ丁そ北舦硂ㄇ刘妮い瓣瓣叭皘穨眏把籔翠穨砯耫絏繷穨笲穨筿癟穨のㄤ膀娄砞砞琁い瓣瓣產穨щ戈硂ㄇ胑盡┦翠︽穨讽礛Τㄤ坝穨┦郸菠ㄤ現獀┦郸菠ョ琌獶盽睲贰
翠惠璶膥尿э到и-
︑パ膙竒蕾吏挂и荡ぃ辨ǎ翠穦パ砆"璣瓣╬胋耞戈セ"┮北竒蕾砰╰锣パ"い瓣瓣產胋耞戈セ"┮北翠カチ㎝瓣悔щ戈常伐ぃ腀種ǎ硂祇甶
い瓣瓣產穨щ戈翠Τ盡┦穨硂琌眔翠現┎種セるらセЫ竒蕾ㄆ叭〆穦穦某い現┎碞瓣㎝翠纒舦跑笆ㄆン矗ユゅンㄤい材琿"い栋刮Θ翠纒タΑ狥翠穨铆﹚㎝Τ尿祇甶"硂琌瓣ミ初厨陪ボ翠現┎琌種硂杠は種и獶盽綺佩碞琌"狦いぃ把籔翠纒翠穨碞ぃ铆﹚ョぃΤ酱玨祇甶"
セ璶―翠現┎㎝い瓣現┎癸ㄆ冈灿秆睦或璶Τい把籔ㄏ翠穨铆﹚
程セ矗眶い瓣現┎疭璶ち龟磅︽膀セ猭材兵"いァチ現┎┮妮场︑獀跋烈カАぃ眔箇翠疭︽現跋沮セ猭︑︽恨瞶ㄆ叭""瓣ㄢ"琌岸篶稱琌い瓣菌ゼ刚筁龟喷и粄–翠常璶Τ瑻┦倒ウ诀穦–ョ莱赣荷и-
セだ㎝秖ㄏウ眔Θ
セ略朝勉や琖皇某某㎝腑瓣辆某タ谅
霉睲某璓勉畊ネ讽и-
さぱミ猭Ы硂臛阶"辅龟瓣ㄢ"某眔臮琿玡菌璣瓣稰-
纒穝戳盢骸ㄤ崔チ恨獀ら痲羬螟琌ぃ耞刚贝い瓣秆∕翠玡硚拜肈ミ初籔篈る綡キ讽砐地羆服沉瞶疎哪瓃い瓣現┎よ皐ボい瓣盢Μ翠舦矗"瓣ㄢ"篶碞矪瞶翠拜肈い瓣盢蹦"瓣ㄢ"よ皐玂翠ΤネよΑぃ跑猭膀セぃ跑琌い瓣烩旧糷竒筁瞏剪納沮い瓣瓣薄の环祇甶郸菠τ矗ㄓ獶舦﹜ぇ璸硂よ皐琂琌秆∕菌框痙ㄓ拜肈ㄏい瓣ЧΘ参穨皌瓣ずэ秨瓣郸硂よ皐獶璣瓣い璣酵癚基临基眔ㄓㄆ龟讽ぃ虫ゎ璣瓣珹瓣悔穦のセ翠Аぃぶ借好ㄤ︽┦竒筁筁寸戳さぱ禫ㄓ禫獺沮硂"瓣ㄢ"よ皐翠琌キ铆筁寸膥尿玂羉篴﹚ヘ玡羬Τκぱ翠獺みぃ虫ゎ⊿Τ笆穘はτら亥眏硂ㄆ龟硈は地はぃ眔ぃ┯粄
璶砮过辅龟"瓣ㄢ"翠碞ゲ斗龟︽"蔼︑獀"街ㄓ恨獀翠㎡い瓣烩旧糷だ秆戳穦竡蚌緄ㄓ瓣ず稦场ぃ莱戈セ竡翠笲玥獽穦с炳翠玡硚ぃ瓣ず祇甶讽礛ぃ膥尿パ璣瓣┪ㄤ瞶恨獀翠瘤礛璣瓣のㄤ瞶Τ硂贺冠稱τ矗"舦传獀舦"硂琌ぃ才瓣產チ壁痲碵薄腀稱猭Ν碞砆い瓣┶荡逞碞琌Τ"翠獀翠"硚τ硂琌程瞶稱よ皐
パいよ皐癸翠キ铆筁寸現郸龟琁眔﹜セ翠筁ㄓ⊿Τ祇ネ筁或睼睹–瘤Τ计窾簿チ眖ㄓ⊿Τ祇ネ或┮孔"щ゜"螟チ奸羇芠翠计ㄓ瑈笆魁–计窾簿チ计ヘ癸翠硂妓秨カτē龟妮タ盽τ瑈簿チ琌ぃぶ筁ㄓセ翠翠じ铆﹚竒蕾⊿Τ瞷碩猧笆Λ瓣ず秨現郸ぇ褐セ翠磷筁硂筁寸戳丁瓣悔竒蕾计ぃ春紇臫セ翠竒蕾–Τ铆﹚糤チネ膀セら亥э到チみ镣铆
﹡и-
ぃぃ痙種ㄇぃ铆﹚и-
ぃ┛跌翠Τぶ技Τノみ墩籹硑睼睹笷ㄤぃヘ陪翠程ぶよ护崔チ参獀膥尿蝴ㄤセ翠現獀竒蕾痲┪穦硑Θㄇ睼睹┪甀ㄇぃ铆﹚獽籔い瓣癚基临基┪Τ蚌从-
瞶┑尿-
参獀い瓣璶癸も瓣ぃ穦筁–籔い瓣à诀穦"翠礟"絋龟琌眎ㄏノ礟渡縒芖讽Ы┪穦籔翠в笵墩が㊣莱躬翠Θ縒ミ現獀龟砰
硂ㄇ墩ぃ﹚穦í籸籸︑︽ǐà玡-
┕┕穦тㄇ瞶┸┮孔"チ徖""舦矮""稲瓣竡"︾矗ㄇ玜懊绑┪竡箕礛腹だて翠籹硑睼睹
よи-
ぃ逼埃ㄇ┦碞琌瓣ずㄇいァ场┪よカΤ闽墩┪ㄤ瞶ぃ膀セ猭快ㄆ蛮もセ翠睹"ъ"膀セ猭琌翠舅猭ㄤ猭瞶沮方い瓣舅猭ぃ虫ゎ翠碞琌瓣ず场矪瞶疉の翠ㄆ叭ゲ斗宽眖膀セ猭
и-
翠カチ斗矗蔼牡貳刮挡霍み縩伐把籔膚舱疭跋現┎沮い璣羛羘の膀セ猭辅龟"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠""蔼︑獀"徖и-
羉篴﹚Θ狦
畊ネセ略朝勉や腑瓣辆某のΧギ棚某タ
糂紌某璓勉畊ネи祇ēや辩模┚某タは癸Χギ棚某㎝腑瓣辆某タ
癸琖皇某某ㄤ龟琌螟は癸碞钩瓣弧ダ稲籔墨狦у琌ぃは癸妓и獺狦弧"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"い穦やи-
克某穦や或常穦やㄤ龟或衡琌"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"㎡и獺辩模┚某螟薄猵沽刚矗ㄇ非玥狦笷ぃ硂ㄇ非玥碞琌⊿Τ"翠獀翠"⊿Τ"蔼︑獀"ㄆ薄碞琌硂妓虏虫êㄇ非玥矗現┎のミ猭诀闽莱赣パ匡玻ネ斗ㄌ碻瓣悔そ砏﹚τи-
猭场莱赣局Τ癸俱膀セ猭程沧秆睦舦讽礛и獺某穦癘眔い璣羛羘矗и-
沧糵畑Τ沧糵舦狦硂沧糵畑硈秆睦俱膀セ猭舦⊿Τ硂沧糵舦Τ︙種竡㎡и獺辩模┚某琌腊Γ﹚ㄇ挂ス﹚硂ㄇ挂獽穦臛肈ㄣ阶┦眔狦弧や"瓣ㄢ"獺綡キ狦瞷Г硂穦ボや︙斗翴∕㎡狦и-
﹚ㄇㄆ薄獽秖琌暗眔
畊ネさぱ祇ēㄆ讽いΤ︗琌и程種矗種ǎи常種ê碞琌腜某иぃ琌盽盽種種ǎみキ㎝弧ㄓ и-
魁盿钮钮 弧弧杠и常種弧瞷翠⊿Τ獺み瞷﹟緇369ら碞耴-
ぃ獺翠Τ︑パぃ獺翠Τ猭獀ぃ獺翠Τチ硂ㄇ琌タ絋иだ種и獺腜某眔硄硓弧俱ンㄆ程沧琌闽"獺み"拜肈и-
琌獺い瓣現┎︑弧拜肈┮碞琌ぃ獺或ぃ獺碞琌い瓣現┎砛空ēи-
稰ΩΩ砆篡腇 и辨ぃ璶い耞и祇ē弧иぃ眔弧"篡腇"и琌弧"篡腇" ウ┯空и-
"翠獀翠蔼︑獀"弧現┎琌パ翠︑舱Θ畊ネ笵盢ㄓ現┎琌妓舱Θ穦Τだㄠτи玥Ч⊿Τだㄠи獺и-
きκせκ窾常⊿Τだㄠ把籔硂妓獽窖и-
ōи獺ミ猭Ы⊿Τだㄠ㏄玭そ秨弧辨穦Τ禬筁计琌弧"筁"パ-
硓筁郝匡筁祘現獀珼匡舱Θτぃ琌パ匡チ珼匡┮翠穦獺Τ"蔼︑獀""翠獀翠"㎡
眎▆某矗綠產ネ弧杠綠產ネ琌翠程碔Τぇㄢ琍戳玡莱緗キヴ穝℡弧杠緗キヴ弧翠緿快盢ㄓ程璶琌咀琘ㄇぃ砛-
箇翠綠產ネ籔ㄤ碔戈1货じΘミ"翠ぱ穦膀"碞琌硂膀穦畊綠ネ讽莱弧緗キヴ眔蛮も咀硂或克瓣杯ㄓ翠┰闽玒垦疭舦螟笵琌Τ窥┤-
箇и獺硈⊿Τ窥キチ常獶盽甡┤硂或克瓣杯ㄓи-
翠瞷ΤネよΑ常穦砆-
э跑-
甡┤盢ㄓ現┎ビ叫礟酚┪快ㄆ常璶窥┪Τ闽玒快畊ネи獺カチ甡┤碞琌い瓣現┎箇Χギ棚某弧ぃ璶琘ㄇ弧碭杠τ踞みи獺翠穦硂妓ぱ痷
拜肈琌и-
斗縩伐暗硂琌и種и-
璶縩伐辩模┚某┮矗非玥硂ㄇ常琌虏虫膀セ非玥и獺ぃ琌场非玥狦硈硂ㄇ膀セ非玥笷ぃヴ︙常琌"量フ杠"畕礛弧"蔼︑獀""翠獀翠"ス非玥ㄓ癸酚碞笵êㄇ現郸琌辅龟Τ狹フ秨某ㄓ弧"蔼︑獀翠獀翠"и獺ぃ琌びΤ種竡疭琌瞷顶琿琌"泊"и-
临ぃ痷痷タタ弧み弧杠┮иや辩某種ǎ︓"欢"ㄇ瞷Τ尺舧"肕鲤"ぃ稲篈辨盢ㄓ临穦Τ玡硚ㄤ龟辨Τ玡硚ぃ琌ン胊ㄆи獺程璶琌カチ笵硂竤稱眖現琌"Τ竬癌"Τミ初琌Τ玦禗ㄤ獺ㄇ或τぃ琌綛綛被被弧"蔼︑獀"碞縡腇ㄤи粄и-
ミ猭Ы某臛阶程璶琌–Ω常┮Τ睲捶篈┮и獶盽や辩模┚某タタ眔獶盽и︓粄ぃ镑过┏カチ硓筁硂ㄇ某臛阶ㄓ揽獹-
泊氟
瞷禫и-
龟悔ㄇ禫и-
ぃ璶ê或綰祇ēи-
碞禫璶硂妓暗畊ネ钮眔ぃ滴狝и糂紌碞琌み琌笵и獺ㄆ碞穦弧ㄓ
и略朝勉や辩模┚某タ
PRESIDENT: I think I need to study your speech, Miss LAU. The expressions are meant to reflect on a Member's character.
朝挪狶某璓勉畊ネい瓣現┎莱翠疭薄猵"瓣ㄢ"篶秆∕翠拜肈硂伐ㄣ現獀承種篶稱筁ㄓ瞣ま翠600窾ら盽ネ穦┑尿︓ぇま烩翠疭跋現┎阁禫箂箂箂
堡穦琘ㄇ種ǎ烩砈ㄨ種盢"瓣"籔"ㄢ"だ澄ㄓ┪眏秸"瓣"τ┛跌"ㄢ"┪量"ㄢ"ぃ瞶"瓣"琖皇某矗"瓣ㄢ"璉ㄤい璶留種竡琌ず穦Τ"箇"渡硂琌癸"瓣ㄢ"过┏琻Ρ膀硂妓瞶秆и-
临戳辨Τ非絋㎝瞶┦簍枚㎡
и某Τみ痷タ瞶秆の粄醚"瓣ㄢ"狟ね莱赣盢"瓣ㄢ"跌砰粄醚睲捶秆さぱ翠癸拜肈
或穦Τ"ㄢ"㎡硂碞琌い瓣現┎臮惠璶玂翠Τ穦い纔▆よ┮い璣羛羘の膀セ猭睲贰р"瓣ㄢ"ㄣ砰篶兵ゅて翠耴いァ現┎盢甭舦翠疭︽現跋膀セ猭龟︽"翠獀翠""蔼︑獀"膀セ猭玂毁翠盢ㄉΤ耕瞷崔チ現┎︑パのチ
眎ゅ某弧膀セ猭フ堵て疩Τ禫ㄓ禫科︹и弧ぃ琌膀セ猭みい莱琌禫ㄓ禫堵癸膀セ猭倒磞堵倒┵堵
い瓣現┎蝴臔"瓣ㄢ"よ皐琌睝礚钵某ョ┯空硂∕みぃ筁Τㄇ碞盡籔"瓣ㄢ"寄-
瓣秈︽村弧ぃ璽砫ヴ弧"瓣ㄢ"の"翠獀翠"竒龟τぇ翠盢パ蔼北橙纖現┎北翠︽現ミ猭の猭诀闽ぃぃ玂臔翠舦痲は穦玠翠舦
さぱ琖皇某弧"ぃ睲贰"瓣ㄢ"辅龟"瓣ㄢ"玡春ぃ虫ゎ家絢ぃ睲τ潮冻盞......"翠玡春竒诀ヱ
Τ羘嘿い瓣現┎盢ミ猭Ы╊奔ぃ硄翠瓣悔磕いみ︗穦紇臫ぃ琌ㄈび跋ずネ酱玨磕いみ
程и窱ㄇ︘狟ねи-
ǎ-
材拜碞琌"穝籇礚︑パ翠坝芥翠翠玒玒読"獺ㄇ籔瓣Τユ┕狟ね常穦Τ瓃竒喷
硂ㄇ︑セō現獀痲ぃ框緇瓣玡"佰癐"翠ヘ琌︑瓣や㎝現獀セ窥翠环痲琌ㄤΩ︓Τ弧ぇ狦Τ惠璶-
盢单翠簿チ耕跋兑竒禣痙翠矮碝―﹁よ瓣產箇翠ㄆ叭禲瓣玡穘Ю鸡床冀翠ぃ铆安禜挡狦翠暗ㄇ或
Τㄇ妓翠床冀ē羜钮ē阶弧或玡い瓣現┎矪矪箇翠ㄆ叭翠チ癶р翠耴瓣弧Θ琌秈崔チ参獀讽-
紋翠耴瑍叉幵癲-
碞蔼"耴は"讽らи-
甝陆綷さぱ菌-
獽穦祇瞷-
┮ネ羉篴穦いЧ琌Τ苦"瓣ㄢ"逼讽-
祇谋-
晋-
臮┵堵"瓣ㄢ"-
﹚穦みい稰獶盽螟筁
畊ネセ㎝チ羛辨翠み紈皚帹ǐ稲瓣稲翠チ隔蝴臔羛羘の膀セ猭や疭跋膚称砞ゼㄓτи㊣苸600窾翠パさぱ秨﹍稱稱︙硂369ぱず翠耴暗ンㄆи獺粄醚"瓣ㄢ"粄醚膀セ猭琌秨﹍
畊ネ瘤礛⊿Τ龟借種竡某臛阶タ瞏贬だ秈︽程ぶ侩琌獶и穦Τ某测钮ぃ筁ㄓ某-
癸稼瑆ì瞴辽耕琖皇某某臛阶Τ砍届硂┪砛碞琌翠現獀ゅて
セ略朝勉谅谅畊ネ
糕蚌┚某璓勉畊ネи-
臛阶耴臛阶ì瞴ゑ辽倍咎12絏秤せゑき渤
PRESIDENT: Please speak to the question.
糕蚌┚某筁きミ猭Ы穦某琖皇某常Τ︑現獀某τ瞷砆チ某跌烩旧硂琌篴琌Θ碞盢翠场だ痲ミ︑ōи瓣砐拜拜и琖皇某穦瞒秨翠и氮琌硂竒琌иさぱ材Ω矗の狦琖皇某痷タ翠ㄆ叭笷種ǎい瓣現┎ 翠ゼㄓ﹙瓣 荡癸甧砛硂贺ē阶狦琖皇某瓣墩種瓜籹硑秖癸翠⊿Τ痲琖皇某︑盢穦眔菌毙癡
翠絋龟肚碈┪场だ某ē阶┮ま旧-
よ稰だぃ莱ㄓ弧и-
斗浪癚筁┕ㄓ翠癸い瓣╆或篈のみ篈い瓣烩旧纯弧辨"猠ぃデか"-
秆︑琌玻囊瘤礛い瓣現┎盢玻囊玜ㄣΤい瓣疭︹穦竡甧-
秆︑ご秈˙い┪続莱奸瑈τ锣跑い翠场だ┮孔チ斗瞏ち浪癚い瓣ろ-
或盾︓瞷ゎい瓣êㄇ┮孔ぃ現ǎ-
癸い瓣烩旧┪ㄤよ硑Θ┪Τぃ種ǎτ綝胓籃硂ㄇ拨澈⊿Τ钡翠翠︑眖せㄆンび秆ㄆ薄祇甶肚碈耕钡紇臫и纯竒籔い瓣烩旧顶糷矗筁い瓣玻囊筁46ㄓ竒盽祇ネ蔼糷現獀矮チ繦êㄇ現獀矮τ锣ㄓ锣綝ぃ現獀猑紇臫狦翠璶秆硂翴碞ゲ斗秆い瓣烩旧疭︹碞琌
讽礛-
穦繦丁τ秈˙龟悔êㄇ┮孔チ┮╆琌珼碿種い端︓琌玍癲篈硂妓眔或㎡-
琂礛Τ義秖玍癲碿種い端讽临阑-
玱"毕㏑"иだ猋洁產Θ疨-
琌τ礚狙-
玱ぃ盿烩炊霉渤カチ蛤繦-
-
穦Τ或矪㎡-
Τぱ穦Θ疨程Τ眎瓣篨籠ǐ炊霉渤カチ玱⊿Τ
и-
莱赣眖ㄢよㄓだ猂硂ㄆ龟и–Ω瓣讽礛ぃ穦琖皇某ê或舧ㄒ讽и放地讽"地勾ぇ琍"单筿常穦砐拜ии讽礛穦碞琘ㄇㄆ薄笷и種ǎи穦╆讽キみ篈ㄓだ猂翠吏挂и粄翠吏挂荡癸ぃ產┮ê或磀芠い瓣現┎稱ΜㄣΤ承硑┦籔い瓣秈˙翠τ荡癸ぃ腀種ǎ翠琌钓瞷┮孔チちē阶玱い瓣烩旧Τзみτ稱琵"翠獀翠"﹚璶т钮-
弧杠翠獀翠硂薄猵ぃ琌︑拜肈τ琌蹦癸к┮眔挡狦-
讽いΤダ狦ㄠぃ耞籔ダ癸к暗ダ琌穦筁-
讽いΤ畍狦厩ネ瘤礛羙沧ら籔-
癸к螟笵-
穦苂倒100だ?讽礛琌ぃ穦癸糴甧
狦Τ種ǎい瓣現┎烩旧瘤礛ゼゲ氮莱程-
琌穦タΑ钡瘤礛и⊿Τ戈瞷い瓣玻囊弧杠ㄆ龟ウ琌だ秨だ钡到種у蝶τ碿種い端и獺ヴ︙常ぃ穦钡иだ辨翠场だカチ莱赣蛤繦ミ猭Ы某狦Τ種ǎ產莱赣秈︽癸杠ㄆ龟現獀程蔼挂碞琌產癸杠Т程沧眔︑ヘ夹狦琌沧ら顾┪癸к穦硑Θ贺薄猵иぃЙ義弧碞琌瞷程眔痲琌璣瓣現┎璣瓣現┎瞒秨翠籔い瓣現┎钡癸кτи-
產眔或㎡
и辨礚阶琌琖皇某ы┪畕地某產常痷タい瓣痲稱-
瞶秆㎝瑻┦い瓣碝―產肪硄㎝癸杠措笵礛矗-
タΑΤ砞┦種ǎ狦琌疸絴┪у蝶い瓣辨ㄏ翠み薄睼睹眖τ莉痲矪杠и粄硂贺現獀ぃ暗絵
畊ネи辨ら產臛阶常琌ㄣ砞┦
糂簙煌某璓勉畊ネる翠疭︽現跋現┎盢穦Θミ龟琁"翠獀翠の蔼︑獀"い瓣現┎ョ蹦ノ"瓣ㄢ"よ皐現郸玂翠ネよΑきぃ跑–翠瞶莱胔淮肞磖еみ薄钡硂菌┦ㄨㄓ羬琌或Τㄇ羆琌紐み胔好い瓣現┎ゼ辅龟┯空┤い瓣現┎箇翠ず场ㄆ叭и粄耴╯琸琌獺み拜肈獺み膀が秆秆从肪硄肪硄磷粇穦ㄓ獺み拜肈常粇穦τ癬
и-
⊿Τ垂瞴箇代ゼㄓ琂礛и-
胔紐納み薄╆好の癸ミ篈ㄆ︙干㎡ぃ贾芠縩伐︽笆辅龟膀セ猭膀娄翠疭︽現跋
畊ネ籔い瓣現┎肪硄ㄏи瞏獺"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠の蔼︑獀"よ皐琌い瓣現┎矗ㄓぃ琌璣瓣矗ㄓい瓣現┎ぇ眏秸矗ノ"瓣ㄢ"よ皐秆∕翠拜肈ぃ度琌眖蝴臔翠羉篴铆﹚祇琌眖Τい瓣э秨㎝瞷て砞祇τ临琌眖环い瓣㎝キ参穨祇辅龟"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠の蔼︑獀"琌い瓣琂﹚瓣郸い瓣琌瞴程瓣﹚兜璶瓣郸ぃ甧э跑瓣郸玥螟礚惠踞みい瓣現┎辅龟"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠の蔼︑獀"港種
畊ネ"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠の蔼︑獀"龟琁琌るらぇτぇ玡パ疭跋現┎﹟ゼΘミΤい瓣現┎ゼㄓ疭跋現┎籔璣瓣現┎絉坝翠阁禫""ㄆ﹜窖穝诀初祘﹁臟隔璸购のㄤ膀阁禫""癩現箇衡单い瓣現┎ビぇ瓃ㄆ叭常妮疭跋現┎ず场ㄆ叭いァ現┎∕ぃ穦箇狦Τ粄""ぇ玡い瓣現┎ゼㄓ疭跋現┎籔璣瓣現┎絉坝Τ闽阁禫""ㄆ﹜碞琌箇翠ず场ㄆ叭杠ê或弧硂贺杠碞盢籔à︹常锣岿┛菠""ぇ玡琌璣瓣璽砫翠︽現恨瞶临ぃ琌"翠獀翠"临ゼ纯琌翠蔼︑獀︑︽矪瞶︑ず场ㄆ叭
畊ネ膀セ猭癸翠""チ猭舦︑パのネよΑ常猭だ玂毁и-
堡猭獀弘璶㊣苸翠カチ徖瓃舦程Τ快猭琌㊣苸翠カチ局臔㎝徖膀セ猭τぃ琌羘痚㊣ㄇ瑌瞶├┪腹
翠闽み㎝癚阶疭跋ㄆ叭琌瞶┮讽礛笷よΑ硓筁狶狶羆羆続讽措笵琌璣瓣崔チ恨獀ミ猭Ы硓筁某矗玥螟磷い瓣現┎跌箇い瓣舦ㄆ叭ㄏ某莉眔硄筁穦畕骋礚и羆粄蹦籔到笷よΑ程Τ
エ近玡邻秈иぃ窽稱癬坝留荡"眖ㄓ么ら梅冻ぃ秤饼碞陈﹉禦飞狹琄臩"籔ㄤ癸ゼㄓ獺み籷ìぃ玡饼梅么ら痙︘ぃ眏肪硄縩伐玡秈籔翠癬㎝い瓣現┎―钵膀セ猭膀娄膚〆穦砞疭跋
畊ネセ略朝勉
畕地某璓勉畊ネи璶莱糕蚌┚某и⊿Τ筁"毕㏑"
Τ矗眶и-
弧玡纯Τ躬舦传獀舦и稱稱琌街纯硂妓躬㎡êㄇ瞷ō︙矪㎡итт钩膚〆穦いт瞷跑Θ稲瓣
Τ矗㏄玭弧辨盢ㄓ羬ミ猭穦Τ琌瞷ミ猭Ыず琌㏄玭弧弧獽穦琌痷㎡弧Τ穦琌ê或碞莱秆睦︙ぃ琌弧羬ミ猭穦琌匡羭玻ネ瞷硈崩匡〆穦临ゼΘミ獽矗硂ㄇぃ琌も眔筁τ琌︕繷眔び
穦某い硚Τ厨繻癘肚㊣倒ии滦筿杠倒拜或ㄆㄓΤ弧さぱ膚〆穦秨穦∕﹚翠硄筁兵猭ㄒ帽竝﹚るらネ琌ぃи拜琌兵猭ㄒㄓ琌闽ㄘ拦盿猭ㄒ︙ㄘ拦盿猭ㄒるらネ琌ぃ㎡硂琌疉の瓣ň籔ユ㎡ы┪筁寸龟びキ铆ㄘ拦盿琌控ぃキ铆筁寸硂ㄇ瘤礛琌ㄆ玱は琈"瓣ㄢ""蔼︑獀"龟瞷
Τ矗瞷琌キ铆筁寸ヘ玡临ゼ瞷щ゜薄猵馋獶痷稱瞷瞷щ゜盾
Τㄇ弧и-
"佰癐"翠玡硚硂龟琌ぃ"佰"–绰睲贬Μ玡边翠筿跌竊ヘぃ阶琌放地ы┪常Τㄢ約狥杠約冀筿㎝筿跌-
–ぱ常禦せいゅ厨彻ㄤい场だ常穦厨笵翠穝籇獶ヴ︙ㄢ弧弧獽Ч蠢-
ノ︑泊︑φ┮笵翠ㄆ薄⊿ΤΤ硂或硄セ烩琌ㄆぃ瞒龟τㄆ龟-
蛤翠ごΤ獶盽盞ち闽玒
Τ弧笿狟ね册ㄓ谋眔狟ね癸翠薄猵ぃ秆ㄤ龟狟ねゑ秆翠薄猵︑はτ琌跌τぃǎ钮τぃ籇
畊ネи略朝勉や琖皇某某
法此某璓勉畊ネ肅繟某まノふ弧杠弧暗醇く玦獽ぃ碽ぃ紐ぃ倪ㄤ龟癸и辨ぃ碽瞷龟琌и-
ぃ碽㎡
и-
ミ猭Ы硄筁舦猭ぇ繦よ沮舦猭э砛崔チ猭ㄒウ-
琌耑㎝ゴ阑舦︑パ穝籇︑パ約冀︑パ单猭ㄒ瞷膚〆穦玱弧璶临碿猭刚拜畒︗癸硂ㄇ舦玂毁硂或≧阑穦癸舦玂毁ボ碽㎡
и稱癸玡硚ぃ紐暗秨み盾き玻ネミ猭Ы硂或カチや澈礛いよ羘"笻は"ぇ獽Ч秆砰ぇτ癬琌Ч⊿Τ竒筁チ匡羭τ玻ネ羬ミ猭穦硂螟笵ぃ琌チ癶盾狦弧ぃ琌チ癶螟笵琌チ玡秈盾狦琌硂妓杠и稱弧硂弧杠呸胯痷琌会Τ拜肈
и稱癸玡硚ぃ倪讽緗キネ矗穝籇︑パ材弧或常量材獽弧Чぃ矗芖縒ミ硂笻は"瓣"玥矗ㄢい瓣拜肈ボ"厨笵""躬"獽ぃи倒絢额ㄓ"躬"㎝"厨笵"猭琌硂或ぃ癸硂妓穝籇︑パ產琌Чぃ倪㎡
и粄產ぃ璶暗唉緈尘盢繷甀‵帮иぃ穦癸玡硚踞みτ斌и辨產フи-
琌璶は琈翠紐納и-
ぃ穦更簈更籖钡и-
穦Τは穦盢翠紐納笷ㄓ翠舦︑パ㎝チ絋龟≧阑翠"蔼︑獀"いよよ箇孔"礚稬ぃ︓"硂琌ㄆ龟癸硂ㄆ龟и-
荡ぃ穦癶罽и-
穦膥尿痙翠硂珼驹翠"翠獀翠""蔼︑獀"荷暗и-
┮暗ㄆ狦翠い瓣舦镑龟瞷"ㄢ""蔼︑獀"ぃ虫ゎ癸翠璶癸俱い瓣祇甶璶и-
ちづヘ玡螟┪盢ㄓ璶癸挂τηみи谋眔﹚璶癬剑暗╋眔癬繷い瓣翠铆и-
盺︗い瓣舦"翠獀翠""蔼︑獀"
Τ矗"稲瓣稲翠"ㄤ龟い璣帽и-
硂竤チㄓやい瓣Μ翠舦┮и-
琌や耴硂耴拜肈и-
粄崔チ竡┪菌讽挡獽璶挡и-
やい瓣Μ舦и-
ぃ粄崔チ菌璶膥尿┑甶"稲瓣"ぃ单"稲囊"и-
ぃ玻囊┮ㄆи-
癸ウу蝶τウぃ尺舧и-
獽ぃ幢弧径璝碒峦硂妓暗-
粄衡琌"稲囊"盾硂妓暗はτ琌甡瓣產硂琌稲チ盾龟はτ琌甡チи粄"稲瓣稲翠"莱眖硂à簍枚ぃ璶囊┪痲τヘ局臔囊礚阶ウ或ㄆи-
常ぃ幢у蝶ウи谋眔硂妓琌笻璉そ竡ぃ琌"稲瓣"膀セ弘
谅谅畊ネ
ッ笷某璓勉糂簙煌某酵の玡硚拜肈矗肪硄谋眔肪硄琌甧秆∕拜肈よ猭瞶阶硂琌タ絋⊿Τぃ種拜肈琌妓肪硄㎝Τ暗肪硄琍戳ら翠現郸硓跌碞Τ闽膚〆穦そ獺秈︽兜秸琩挡狦琌Τ50%癸膚〆穦獺ヴ祘琌箂瘤礛и-
玡ㄆ糜模﹙ネ癹磷氮硂拜肈弧硂よㄆぃ弧ぃ惠璶弧и粄硂玱琌璶弧硂ぃ琌チ囊倒膚〆穦だ计τ琌舱麓硓筁厩秸琩倒竤瞷タ矪瞶翠筁寸ㄆ叭い瓣現┎〆ヴだ计-
︑莱繰稱稱ㄤいΤ14︗琌и-
ㄆΤㄇ琌玡纯籔и-
ョΤㄇ琌癸耕秨︙翠カチ倒-
そ獺蝶だ耕箇〆穦临琌-
ぃ縩伐ぃ硓ぃ秨ぃ笆狦い瓣現┎┪膚〆–Ωカチ㎝穝籇癸-
у蝶獽弧硂ㄇ琌碸﹚眃チ"┵堵"-
硂礚好琌珿˙︑挡阶ッ环рㄇу蝶讽琌ほ稱寄潮紇潮垦–ぱ獽硂ㄇほ稱寄潮紇ゴ阑-
挡狦琌ゴぃ
糂簙煌某┮弧拜肈琌い瓣現┎琌ゼㄓ疭跋現┎┪疭跋チ籔璣瓣現┎坝癚筁寸拜肈и盽常胔好硂杠и胔好い瓣玻囊い瓣現┎龟舦琌現┎チ甭舦иぃ琌種ウ琌現┎и眖ㄓゼ钮筁玻囊瞷磅現現┎琌硓筁チ炊匡┪チ匡羭筁祘玻ネ琌痷瓣チ常やиぃ笵狦秈︽Ω匡羭Τ硂妓挡狦и穦"羭竲"觅Θ硂琌ㄆ龟硂ㄆ龟呸胯ㄓ弧翠琌莱ノぃ翠カチ現獀瞷龟谋眔и-
耴瓣ウ琌и-
ゼㄓ﹙瓣いァ現┎ウ瞷┮矗ē阶琌翠カチ猭㎡硂琌璶硓筁カチ種ǎ笷㎝厩チ種秸琩Τ闽硂翴иぃび種糂某猭
朝挪狶某弧チ囊┪チ尺舧瓣穘Ю鸡и痷ぃ琌街尺舧穘Ю鸡硂皚翠緿快ヴ緗キ钡﹁よ肚碈砐拜硂薄硂或ㄓ琌獶盽ぶǎ㏄玭ネ钡㏄砐拜硂ㄢ︗ネ翠玱ぃび尺舧钡セ厨彻㎝穝籇碈ざ砐拜ぃ㏄玭ネ㎝緗キヴ琌疭尺舧瓣肚ㄇ獺㎡朝挪狶某琌谋眔㏄玭ネ㎝緗キヴ瓣穘Ю鸡㎡盢ㄇ籔瓣钡牟酵阶翠拜肈暗猭弧Θ琌瓣穘Ю鸡硂弧猭琌琻Ρㄆ龟㎡翠ㄆ琌砆"佰癐"㎡硂琌单弧翠ㄆ琌砆"佰"眔㎡
⊿Τゎい瓣現┎–ぱκ︓窾ㄏ瓣㎝らセ肚い瓣矪矪ぃ琌虫綼肚碞眔ㄓΤ硂妓稱猭獽琌钡玻囊策篋チ琌超⊿Τ現獀獺︑パ⊿Τ戈癟︑パ┮肚琌肚琌肚胊硂獽琌筁玻囊ら膥ィて毙▅┮毙旧ㄓ稱猭狦ㄆ薄琌稱肚ウ琌胊ぃ琌甧狦ㄆ薄琌ぃ稱肚ウ琌獶盽︑パ穦ぃ琌び甧┮и辨硂ㄇㄆぃ璶盽チ"┵堵"い瓣
иΤぃフ︙チ穦Τ硂或秖单иぃフい瓣現┎︙ê或倪┤êㄇチ笲-
癬ㄓぃì2020チ笲のㄏ翠Τ计κチ獽磐硂或ㄆ薄-
癦獶琌担獿╧獿场常琌иぃびフ︙硂ㄇ穦Τ硂或秖局Τ4 000窾囊局Τ瓁钉現┎ê或甡┤и-
⊿Τ簀斑Τ眎〤弧ㄆ龟弧チ羘ē
耴玡κぱи蛤法此某猭Τ稰牟盽盢瓣產チ壁囊㎝チ痲睼酵и稲и︑瓣產и稲и璏иぃ稲玻囊︙и﹚璶稲玻囊硂囊ぃ琌チ甭舦Θ現┎硂囊璶―チ獽璶╇窽硂囊尺舧钮弧杠ぃ稲钮ぃ弧杠︙и-
﹚璶稲ウ㎡︙璶盢硂囊痲单瓣チ瓣璏┪い地チ壁环痲㎡и眖ㄓぃ硂呸胯斑呸胯琌硂ㄇ┮暗琌﹠狝現獀瞷龟ぃσ拜肈盢瞷龟弧Θ瞶稱癸い瓣玻囊い瓣チ痲のい地チ壁环痲硂翴и琌κだぇκぃ種
谅谅畊ネ
朝挪狶某畊ネッ笷某纯矗のи弧и纯矗のチ囊┪チㄆㄆ龟и簍勉いи眖ㄓ⊿Τ矗のチ囊㎝チ┮и辨坚睲
PRESIDENT: Mr CHAN Kam-lam, is it a point of order or a point of elucidation?
朝挪狶某и辨坚睲硂翴
PRESIDENT: Mr CHAN Kam-lam, are you trying to explain the point that was misunderstood by Mr LEE Wing-tat. You have my permission to do so; simply explain it and not making a speech as a rebuttal to what Mr LEE said. Explain that part which has been misunderstood.
朝挪狶某畊ネ某矗Τ弧チ囊┪チ弧ㄇ禖粽翠ㄆии簍勉い眖ㄓ⊿Τ矗チ囊┪チ┮и辨镑坚睲狦ッ笷某粄и┮弧琌-
┮暗ㄆи︑ぃ穦は癸и⊿Τи簍勉い矗の┮弧杠
谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: Did you refer to the Democratic Party or the democrats in your speech?
朝挪狶某畊ネи簍勉い⊿Τ矗のチ囊┪チ
琖皇某璓勉畊ネΤ兜タ┮きだ牧丁ㄤ龟琌ぃì镑ぃ筁и穦荷е
Τㄇ某琂やи某や腑瓣辆某タиだ禣秆┮иǐぃ琌瑍も丁┪ì瞴ゑ辽τ琌拜睲贰チ狟ね-
╯澈иΤ钮岿-
玱弧⊿Τ-
弧タ琌某ぶ砛ず甧и辨-
睲贰琌羆ㄢ琌"のぃ璶箇翠ず场ㄆ叭"狦や腑瓣辆某杠琌埃硂τ琌"徖翠チ猭獀舦︑パのネよΑ"狦チ狟ね-
粄硂杠ぃ觅Θ叫ぃ璶弧やи某ぃ爱や腑瓣辆某タぃ璶やи某狦硂ㄢ弧杠竒ぃ琌и某и辨產睲贰ぃ璶琌ぶ砛硂ぃ琌"ぶ砛"τ琌ㄢ璶杠τи某ぃ琌临Τ翴禣秆碞琌霉不瓣某祇ē縀笆弧い瓣現┎セ碞琌钡㎝丁钡箇翠и種硂翴琌и某ê杠琌チ種腑瓣辆某и硂┮и辨霉不瓣某荷е蛤チㄤ某坝秖笷Θ某∕やи
и獺朝挪狶某琌琂や腑瓣辆某タやΧギ棚某タи弧"ず穦Τ箇渡"τぃ蔼砍ㄤ龟程弧硂杠ぃ琌иτ琌緗キネ緗キネ纯弧-
もぃ璶眔ê或и琌钮眔睲贰τ綠產ネ琂ぃ琌チぃ琌チ囊临弧緗キネ咀ê或蛮も┣琌狦產Χギ棚某タи某い玱"舧い瓣現┎ら硓筁瓣叭皘翠緿快そヴ玂靡ボ穦ゎヴ︙いァ┪現┎场箇翠ず场ㄆ叭"и谋眔硂Χギ棚某硂杠弧眔и辨チ羛狟ね璶稱睲贰狦-
ぃ尺舧иê弧杠ê或-
獽ぃ莱やΧギ棚某硂弧杠иぃ筁琌弧呸胯辨產睲贰㎝稱睲贰и笵產穦ゑ耕睼睹êㄇタэ硂эêぃ琌俱某ㄓ琌碞某糤糤Τぃ眔睲贰俱┮и辨產灿みㄆ龟и丁兜タ
瞷琵и弧弧辩模┚某タ嘲糠某弧眔癸弧ぃフ╯澈辩模┚某稱暗或ㄤ龟и禗辩模┚某龟悔痷琌稱э膀セ猭琌琍戳法此某穦矗э膀セ猭某τи-
畊硂或璣狦弧璶э膀セ猭﹚叫某痙琍戳辩某杠〤娩眔▄┮琌ぃ睲Τ某粄и某睭钩フ秨ぃ镑"欢"堡ê︗某祇ē眔Ν狦琌筐ㄇ祇ē杠碞穦钮朝挪狶某癸и硂兜"傣"┪Τ"フ秨"某腨ю阑糕蚌┚某Τ把籔┮ㄤ龟靡и琖皇ㄓ常琌"キ"渤
或и-
ぃや辩模┚某タ㎡或и-
璶щ斌舦布㎡ㄤ龟и某碞钩碩堵フ礶琌Ч俱碩礶τ辩模┚某碞璶肅︹セㄓи会尺舧︹眒玱ぶ砛场だ礶肅︹场だ玱⊿Τ肅︹┮硂碩礶场だΤ肅︹场だ⊿Τ肅︹ぃ尺舧и掸礶êㄇㄇ灿竊┮灿竊玱ぃ┮竒э硂碩礶だ螟и-
チ囊琎ぱと逗纯秈︽癚阶и-
ぃ穦は癸タセ矗某常琌玡и-
纯竒矗琌и-
镑斌舦
畊ネиΤ翴┣и澈礛镑硂或祏丁ず弧Чи癸兜タ種ǎ
谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: I hope it does not reflect all the time you have lost in court. (Laughter)
舅ㄆ叭璓勉畊ネиぃ笵妓俱瞶︑簍勉タ琖皇某┮弧ㄤ龟さぱ臛阶㎝兜タ┮矗阶翴常獶盽睼睹渤и稱ぇ踞み穦粄и瞒肈挡狦и∕﹚ㄌ酚程絑ぶ砛э侯
"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"㎝"蔼︑獀"琌い璣羛羘琂﹚玥τ砮过磅︽硂ㄇ玥癸絋玂翠膥尿羉篴﹚獶盽璶い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭┮┯空㎝玂靡︗某常剪眡ぃ筁τい璣ㄢ瓣現┎АΤ砫ヴ硂ㄇ玥ョ琌渤┮㏄
瘤礛狦璶蝴硂ㄇ玥临斗秈︽砛ㄣ砰翠さぱΘ碞膀猭獀瑈竒蕾膀娄砞㎝癸舦籔︑パ碙蝴㎝綿㏕硂ㄇΘи-
︑癬暗ぃぶи稱虏虫羭ㄒ
(a) 猭獀よい璣蛮よ種Θミ沧糵猭皘絋玂翠猭眔┑尿и-
ミ猭よΤ秈甶瞷ЧΘ璣瓣猭ㄒセて璸购だ︓瓣悔猭糷и-
ョ会ΤΘ罿翠タ籔瓣產碞猭㎝猭ㄆ﹜絉坝帽璹╰せるら膥尿続ノ蛮娩﹚
(b) 竒蕾よ綿㏕瞷Τ膀娄い璣蛮よ種翠璶瓣悔磕禩㎝竒蕾舱麓籔材瓣產坝璹兜щ戈玂臔﹚蛮よ临穝诀初癩叭逼珹程览材兵禲笵祘笷Θ某よи-
ョ碞続ノ翠醚玻舦砏恨琜篶眔醚
(c) ︓玂毁舦㎝︑パよい璣蛮よ種兵舦娩兵せるら膥尿ネτい璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭砏﹚竒蕾穦籔ゅて舦瓣悔そ㎝そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そ盢膥尿続ノ翠
瓃贺贺Θ狦Τㄇ眔穝籇繷兵よΑ厨笵約ョΤㄇ耕壕窰ゼま猔ヘ礚阶︙硂ㄇ非称癸抖筁寸妓璶ぃ筁и-
瘤礛眔ぃぶΘ狦ごΤㄇㄆ兜﹟秆∕珹產常獶盽闽猔﹡痙舦拜肈猭続莱て诀チノ笲块﹚よ拜肈单丁讽礛琌禫ㄓ禫候и-
﹍沧Τ獺み璶蛮よ腀種硂ㄇ拜肈﹚の秆∕
讽礛и-
㎝いよぇ丁﹟Τ翴膀セだ猍碞琌癸ミ猭诀篶ゼㄓ逼猭闽硂拜肈璣瓣現┎㎝翠現┎ミ初獶盽絋琎ぱ穦某秨﹍ガ現碞硂拜肈冈灿哪瓃翠現┎ミ初и-
﹚穦膥尿р搐诀穦い瓣烩旧ビи-
硂よ猭
Τㄇ稱笵翠玡春㎝-
ゼㄓㄆ龟い璣羛羘砏﹚翠ゼㄓ50祇甶隔璣瓣現┎㎝翠現┎绊∕┯空穦荷み很磅︽い璣羛羘ち砏﹚璣瓣纯絋ボ璣瓣穦膥尿闽猔翠祇甶穦┯踞癸翠竡叭
︓い瓣烩旧ぃぶ初いビ癸糹︽い璣羛羘┯空い瓣羆瞶腜る瓣チ穦ビい瓣現┎穦辅龟"瓣ㄢ"玥τ翠穦ㄉΤ蔼︑獀舦い瓣瓣產畊緼チる籔璣瓣穦玂靡い璣羛羘┮┯空玡琌ョ琌
辅龟い璣羛羘琌菌ヴ翠抖筁寸㏕礛Τ苦い璣蛮よタ计︗某┮弧翠カチョ踞讽璶à︹ㄆ龟翠ゑ街常甠翠玡硚㎝-
セō㏑笲翠镑承硑竒蕾螺祇钵眒璶琌パ翠局Τ箈眏驾㎝≧ぱ稦玪縩伐蝴臔-
獺基夹非珹猭獀稧间τ璽砫現┎そキ膙㎝︑パτи绊獺璶酚"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"㎝"蔼︑獀"玥翠и-
產﹚镑膥┕秨ㄓ膥尿承硑藕Θ罿
PRESIDENT: I now call upon Mr IP Kwok-him to move his amendment to the motion.
MR IP KWOK-HIM's amendment to MR MARTIN LEE's motion:
"埃"セЫ玃叫い瓣現┎""抖ミ翠疭︽現跋,"埃"のぃ璶箇翠ず场ㄆ叭"""埃"セЫ㊣苸"い""の埃"徖翠チ猭獀舦︑パのネよΑ""刮挡霍み蝴臔い璣羛羘㎝膀セ猭や疭︽現跋膚称〆穦""
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネи笆某タ琖皇某某タず甧某ㄆ祘ずи┮更
Question on Mr IP Kwok-kim's amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr IP Kwok-him claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall now proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: Members may wish to be reminded that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him be made to Mr Martin LEE's motion. Would Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, 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 PRESIDENT announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the amendment and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
PRESIDENT: Mr David CHU, as Mr IP's amendment has been agreed, I understand that you do not wish to proceed with your amendment.
MR DAVID CHU: Mr President, I would like to withdraw my amendment to the motion.
PRESIDENT: Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, now that Mr IP's amendment has been agreed, I understand you have indicated earlier that you do not wish to proceed with your amendment.
辩模┚某畊ネи稱篗碞兜某笆某タ
PRESIDENT: Mr Martin LEE, you are now entitled to your final reply and you have six minutes out of your original 15 minutes.
琖皇某璓勉畊ネи瞷タ单チ囊ㄤ某禗и莱赣や临琌は癸硂兜タ硂兜タ竒盢и某ずㄢ璶弧杠э畊ネチ囊谋眔и-
琌ぃや硂兜タ
畊ネи稱酵酵碭翴腜某矗︙瞷⊿Τ"硄ó"и稱虏虫莱讽礛い瓣現┎穦弧璣瓣現┎┪碸﹚眃ゼ眔い瓣現┎種菊︑э匡羭猭и-
Τ沽刚稱稱︙璶Θミ羬ミ猭穦㎡氮琌璶э匡羭猭狦ぃΘミ羬ミ猭穦獽ぃэ匡羭猭﹉づ阶硂琌タ絋и-
ぃ臛碞讽琌碸﹚眃"笻は"碞讽羬ミ猭穦﹚璶Θミ︙璶硂或丁㎡Τ⊿Τ稱筁硂翴㎡Τㄇ弧穦Θミ緗キネ弧┏羭︽匡羭и-
ぃ笵羬ミ猭穦︙Θミ琌るらぇ玡羆琌戳ㄢΤ⊿Τ稱筁ㄏΤ硂惠璶︙ぃ瞷獽秨﹍览璹兵ㄒ临Τ丁るら㎝ら琌安戳るら琌琍戳璶痁狦崩匡〆穦临ゼ匡羬ミ猭穦匡êぱ匡ぃ衡筐钡琌琍戳き竒璹猭祅舅厨るら琌琍戳-
羭︽穦某ぱ弄硄筁竒璹匡羭猭よ︙ぃ羭︽匡羭㎡⊿Τ矗ぃ膚〆琌钮緗キネ弧﹚璶ΘミμΘ獽⊿Τ沽刚σ納硂ㄇ拜肈
畊ネиぃ觅ΘΘミ羬ミ猭穦и-
ミ初睲贰羬ミ猭穦スΘミи﹚穦蔼单猭皘矗癬禗ぃ筁ㄏ璶Θミ︙⊿Τ稱稱︙ぃ琵и-
カチ匡羭ㄏ琌ㄌ沮い瓣現┎粄タ絋匡羭猭︙ぃ琵翠カチㄌ帝硂ㄇ竒璹匡羭猭ㄓ匡-
︑ミ猭Ы某㎡р砫ヴ崩倒碸﹚眃琌び甧虑иぃ琌や璣瓣現┎┮ê初ì瞴ゑ辽и⊿Τ猔ヴ︙钉瞷ゑ辽タ秈︽い
Χギ棚某阶沮ㄤ龟硈︑だ侩ぃンㄆ獽琌溃㎝砆溃闽玒Χギ棚某種琌砆溃璶籔溃刮挡璓ㄓ暗ㄆ硂讽礛讽礛㎝キ翠カチ琌眔︑パ㎝舦玂毁㎡
︙и-
ê或ぃ尺舧腑瓣辆某タ㎡ㄤ龟タぃ琌び筁だㄤ種玱安砞獽琌い瓣現┎沮羛羘快ㄆ狦ウ沮羛羘快ㄆ杠セиぃ穦矗硂兜某狦い瓣現┎パ﹍︓沧常碙翠獺苦翠琵翠恨瞶︑ず現倒и-
蔼︑獀瞷翠穦Τ硂礚ー稰谋㎡狦硂兜某琌きせ矗и﹚穦やぃ筁и-
ぃ镑а癘硂┮祇ネㄆ疭琌程硂せる┮祇ネㄆ⌒霫澄舦猭临碿猭ㄤ龟琌〆ヴ玻ネ羬ミ猭穦蠢パチ匡玻ネミ猭Ыи-
讽硂ㄇㄆ薄⊿Τ祇ネ㎡
и辨チ某狦-
谋眔︑琌チ某杠辨-
は癸硂兜タ
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the motion as amended by Mr IP Kwok-him put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr TSANG Kin-shing claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the motion moved by Mr Martin LEE as amended by Mr IP Kwok-him 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?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amended motion.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, 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 28 votes in favour of the amended motion and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amended motion was carried.
ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT SITTING
PRESIDENT: In accordance with Standing Orders, I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 3 July 1996.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Three o'clock.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 26 June 1996
280
ミ猭Ы せせるせら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 26 June 1996
251
ミ猭Ы せせるせら