材膀セ猭材兵砏﹚"穝﹡チ猭肚参舦痲翠疭︽現跋玂臔""現郸"舦琌穝﹡チ程璶猭肚参舦痲睝礚好拜疭︽現跋膀セ猭玂臔
畊"現郸"龟琁︓さΤ戳ㄇ把現ぃ耞癸赣兜現郸矗種ǎ穝秏某Ы種疭跋現┎ΘミΤ闽场癸赣兜現郸浪癚秏某Ы秈︽吭高讽礛浪癚ヘ琌璶秆∕秏チ︘惠―嘲糠某矗兵ㄒЧ礚跌"現郸"璹菌璉春のㄤ龟悔ノ―赣兜現郸τぃσ納ㄤ狦タ琌Τ瘆胊礚砞璝"現郸"砆计渤秏チぃ︑︽薄猵︑礛粆璶讽Ы逼秏チ妓ビ叫そ﹡跑Θ璶籔約カチ管竒候╁戈方Ы硂妓ゲ礛腨紇臫翠┬現郸翠カチ近そ﹡丁
畊и略朝勉は癸嘲某某
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I should like to state for the record that I support the Bill. Once we have decided to promote equal opportunity by legislation, we should press ahead and not drag our feet. The performance of the EOC so far has not given us the confidence that no further legislation such as the present one is necessary.
However, I do make one exception and that is, of clauses 12 and 24, with relation to the notorious small house policy. I say it is a notorious policy and I will not defend it. Indeed I doubt if it is defensible. It was brought in over 20 years ago as a pragmatic solution in the eyes of both the Administration and indigenous villagers. In the eyes of the villagers then, it was one side of a two-sided bargain. By now a complicated network of rights, expectations and obligations has arisen. The policy cannot be abruptly terminated within a fixed period of one or two years without some clear idea of how problems which may be generated may be dealt with. An injustice might be done.
I fear my stance will please neither the Honourable LAU Wong-fat nor the Honourable Miss Christine LOH. Nevertheless, my view remains that the small house policy must be scrapped and the Administration should carry out the review with that in mind with expedition. But I would not go so far as what clauses 12 and 24 propose. I would, therefore, vote against these clauses while supporting the rest of the Bill.
Thank you, Mr President.
毒浪膀某璓勉畊иさぱチ碞嘲糠某┮矗╧キ单璹祇и-
種ǎ嘲糠某璹いи粄╧キ单膀セ琌⊿Τは癸⊿Τ粄硂临╧蔼┪蔼╧莱赣產常妓
拜肈琌莱︙磅︽磅︽よ猭︙妓ミ猭ぃよ┪ぃ瓣產穦Τぃ夹非┪丁и癸嘲糠某┮矗Τ闽璹Τ场だи-
琌穦やぷㄤ琌êㄇ籔チネΤ钡闽玒Τ场だи-
玥穦矗は癸︓ㄇ场だ穦砆や㎝は癸и-
チ郭Θ某穦矗
и穦栋い癚阶現郸のチ癸硂現郸種ǎ碞現郸τēチ︑眖Θミㄓㄤ現乎の┕矗ユぉ現┎ゅンず疭Τ闽┬ゅン睲贰и-
辨現郸┪и嘿ウ"現郸"莱赣ぉ瞶パ琌瘤礛и-
碙い瓣肚参ぷㄤ琌计κㄓ穝﹡チΤ╧莉皌現郸硂現郸ぇ┮︓さ琌パ璣瓣現┎眔翠崔チ穝τ玻ネ瓣恨獀い瓣ㄏい瓣肚参紇臫τ璹ㄓㄤいぇ兜現郸硂現郸祇甶筁祘いи獺糂某㎝眎某穦耕и剪眡矗筁и硂ぃ狡眖俱祇甶筁祘いи-
ǎ瞷俱穦秨﹍常カて﹡チㄤ龟蛤ㄤカチ膀セだぃ杠и箇戳ㄓ羬硂現郸莱赣ぉ
嘲糠某Τ闽現郸璹и粄ê琌籔チ現郸よΤ钵ぃぇ矪╧キ单拜肈矪瞶現郸τぃ琌钡癸現郸
┮孔╧キ单よ猭矪瞶現郸種畊и稱ビ現郸種单и┮現郸ぃ筁иㄏノ硄玌弧猭τぃぇ矪琌沮嘲糠某璹τ硂璹莉硄筁杠獽穦玻ネㄢ┦ㄤい┦琌╧キ单穝ぃ阶╧┪常ぃ局Τ┦琌礚阶╧┪常局Τぃ阶︙璹硂現郸ご礛膥尿現郸璝ご礛玥籔и-
チ┮酵るらぃ莱赣Τ現郸阶秸琌ぃ才︓弧琌"Τ"籔"⊿Τ"ベи-
粄の彼и-
莱琌"⊿Τ"現郸璝礛痷⊿Τ現郸ㄤ龟╧キ单挂硂妓狥﹁ぃ"Τ"籔"⊿Τ"セ礚だ碞現郸拜肈и-
粄莱秈˙︙現郸τぃ琌硓筁現郸陪ボ﹡チい︘拜肈╧キ单╧常莉皌贺ぃキ单薄猵獽穦瞷︙–╧┪﹡チ常Τ丁τ︘纒┪翠畄カチ玱⊿Τ硂穦硑Θ贺ぃキ单薄猵
и-
粄硂拜肈и-
籔嘲糠某程璶みベ琌и-
璶"辟苐"и-
璶﹡チ現郸硂琌и-
ぇ丁程だ猍矪瞶硂兜拜肈и-
辨笷程沧ヘ現┎痷盢現郸┪現郸"辟苐"よи-
稰硂暗猭琌眔や玥嘲糠某璹穦猭ご礛玂痙現郸硂猭ぱ⊿Τ砆硂現郸ご璶膥尿珿и-
粄硂現郸籔チ現乎琌ぃ才︓Τベ
╯澈癸硂薄猵и-
莱︙矪瞶и-
フベぇ矪琌硂現郸獶さぱ瞷τ琌Τ计κぇ狦и-
さぱ盢ウ"辟苐"琌癸ヘ玡セ祅癘Τ-
ㄓ临⊿Τ莉現┎у弧-
莱赣琌⊿Τ硂兜舦硂獽穦ま璓現郸瞷拜肈Τ"發饭"
沮и眖戈い秆璶ビ叫斗才琘ㄇ兵ン眖現┎戈┮陪ボヘ玡ゎΤ13 300﹡チ琌Ч才現┎┮砏﹚兵ン-
局Τ杠琌莉パΤ硂уごゼ莉砍и-
"辟苐"ぃу倒-
杠獽穦Τ借好現┎︽現琌珿種ぃуㄤ龟-
20玡10玡┪5玡莉琌現┎ぃуτ旧璓-
さぱ⊿猭局Τ硂琌そキ┪Τ發饭現郸㎡硂玻ネ贺ぃそキ瞷禜
琵и庢и︑剪眡ㄒ讽炊硄﹡チビ叫そ4產畑ㄒ肂ぃ禬筁14,700じ產畑禬筁计﹡翠7┪3┪﹡翠7ㄤよ秸琩常才莉皌そ硂穦瞷薄猵琌近い現┎–秸琩3窾產畑Τ13 300產畑常莉現┎硄才戈の莉皌そ璶单Τ虫︗だ皌琌材ぱ現┎╆簆ボ虫︗ぃ絪皌ê或ê13 300產畑は莱穦︙狝叭そи-
и獺ㄤㄆぷㄤêㄇ匡ㄆ常穦êㄇ產畑┏安砞临Τ惠璶そ-
ゑ近耕ち現┎琌莱皌倒-
τぃ琌皌倒近㎡τ穦瞷薄猵琌讽現┎絋龟纯種у絪皌そㄓ跑Θ⊿Τ拜肈獽穦玻ネ
и-
粄ヘ玡ゎ程璶琌笷ヘ現┎睲贰陪ボㄤ程沧穦絣┪蠢現郸硂筁祘琌璶Τ丁"辟苐"琌弧и-
﹚ら戳ら戳玡才兵ン篒﹚计τ現┎ら斗砞猭矪瞶硂计ヘビ叫计┪よ猭絣┪よΑ蠢硂現郸︓硂ら戳礚阶-
ネ▅ぶㄠ常ぃ莉皌ヴ︙и粄硂琌現┎┮莱σ納よ
さぱ臛阶拜肈и稰沸磑и-
щは癸布杠и-
琌は癸╧キ单は癸嘲糠某甅Τ闽и矗筁êㄇ⊿Τは癸╧キ单現郸и-
щ觅Θ布獽穦玻ネи┮弧贺贺拜肈妓㎡硂⊿Τ笷и-
絣現郸ヘ
и-
щ觅Θ布杠獽穦瞷ベи-
チヘぃ笷程璶絣現郸ㄏ猭現郸и-
щは癸布杠穦綝粇穦┪瞷ベ┪ぱ綝絴弧チは癸╧キ单硂碭ぱㄓチ碞現郸拜肈秨筁4Ω穦某笷穦某ㄓ臛阶の癚阶╯澈チ莱︙矪瞶硂拜肈
程и-
笷Θ醚и-
辨硂暗猭Θи-
硓筁さぱと秈︽硂叫甧砛и弧ㄇ杠酵のи-
さぱ┮暗筁ㄆи-
籔糂祇某睲贰弧チミ初и-
辨笷硂妓ヘ材и-
籔翠現┎﹛珹畒現叭矗и-
ǎ秆の辨現┎癸и-
┯空現┎琌腀種盢ㄓΤらǎ現郸砆"辟苐""辟苐"⊿Τ硂狥﹁讽礛盢ㄓ蹦ノ或現郸┪猭ㄒㄓ矪瞶硂拜肈現┎斗璶σ納讽и-
矗種ǎぉ翠現┎程иぃ饼硂癚阶俱筁祘и粄и-
笷Θ醚翠現┎種さ材﹗ずΘミ盡〆穦╯︙矪瞶蠢瞷︽現郸Τ穦胔好現┎穦╯10︓2050ぃ跑临璶╯㎡ㄤΩ"︙"琌跑计ㄏ種籔ぃ種┪膥尿临㎡礚好и獺祔現叭穦睲贰氮臛┮╯琌1临琌50讽礛и粄俱醚程璶碭琌"︙矪瞶蠢"砞猭蠢┪秸传現郸現郸ぃ莱沮и┮瞶秆硂琌〆穦よи硂瞶秆ぃ綝現┎は癸и粄硂瞶秆莱眔やㄤ龟и紐納籔現┎弧Ч翠現┎穦祔るら玡琌翠璣瓣現┎Τ恨獀╆簆るら琌パ疭跋現┎恨獀籔-
礚闽猭参ぃ
さぱとи纯克︑┕疭快蛤疭跋穦酵の杠莉疭跋赋ネ克︑種現叭さぱ臛阶い┮弧ボるら疭跋現┎穦盢さぱ┮弧杠┯踞и辨疭跋"弧眔暗眔"
タ丁逞緇だ牧иゴ衡酵︙蠢瞷︽現郸よぃ筁祔и临Τ丁材12兵臛阶硂よиさぱ栋い矗┮弧現郸玥矪瞶筁祘の瞷礚阶瞷ヴ現┎┪疭跋赋ネ┮笷Θ醚現┎材﹗ずΘミ盡〆穦╯︙矪瞶蠢瞷︽現郸и辨ㄇや硂暗猭常钮и辨糂祇某のㄇ畒﹡チ常钮и戳辨-
秆э跑и-
惠璶盢ㄇ侣現郸э跑筁ㄓи種現┎纯уぉ-
杠и辨-
種よ猭矪瞶拜肈讽礛и辨-
""琵-
︑ゴ衡
谅谅畊
讲蚌某璓勉畊嘲糠某兵ㄒず矗瞷︽"穝現郸"兵ㄒ硄筁Θ猭ㄒ赣兜"現郸"︓ㄢ盢沧ゎネセは癸硂兜兵ㄒ讽и-
糵某兜現郸ぃ眖薄猵ゲ斗秆ㄤ菌璉春の現獀碙╧キ单碙舦ョ斗碙﹡チ莱Τ舦碙菌籔ゅて"現郸"倒禜琌穝﹡チ╧"碞Τ︘"硂琌岿粇阀├璶痷タ秆拜肈璶菌璉春璣瓣眏︽穝99玡穝﹡チㄤ局ΤЧΤ舦︑︽∕﹚ノ贺┪Θ璣瓣崔チぇ-
癸局Τ舦砆管跑Θ璣瓣┮Ττ-
跑Τㄏノ舦τ硂ㄏノ舦琂Τ戳ョΤㄏノノ硚-
Τ舦崔チ参獀τ獻籯瞷ㄇ羘羘弧琌崔チ参獀玻琌-
ぃ秆筁菌龟悔琌崔チ参獀羬ㄏ﹡チ舦管狦羘羘弧跌舦或ぃ矗硂翴㎡タ瑆材綝フ崔チ参獀卑管さぱ確倒ぉ-
ㄇ舦痲獽砆跌疭舦盾
︓"穝現郸"琌翠┎璹ミ讽翠禫ㄓ禫現┎惠璶祇甶穝の璹"﹡︘現郸"堡ゼ磃の穝﹡チ挪穝セōョ妓吏挂э到の﹡︘惠―眖τ絋ミ兜現郸秏チ︑秏300絛瞅ずビ叫︑局Τ︑禣程ぃ阶╧ぃ阶琌﹡チ常ビ叫ㄤ硋亥Μ候現郸э╧┦﹡チネビ叫Ωτ穨锣琵惠干基ぉ現┎硂ぃ琌禣㎝キフ眔ㄓヘ玡ョЫΤㄤ龟悔惠璶の肚参璉春╧┦﹡チ肚参┦儿ひ穦瞒秨セ︘ひ產⊿Τ﹡︘惠璶は╧┦﹡チ挡盉獽穦痙セ秨狵床腑珿Τ﹡︘惠璶よ妓絋﹚穝﹡チ琌﹎發饭Τ沮硂籔猍跌包礚闽
畊膀セ猭材兵"穝﹡チ猭肚参舦痲翠疭︽現跋玂臔"肚参穝﹡チㄤ局Τ︑︘莱跌ㄤ猭肚参舦痲莱膀セ猭玂毁嘲某矗兵ㄒ琌笻は膀セ猭
畊セ略朝勉は癸嘲某矗兵ㄒ
糂胺祸某璓勉畊さぱ臛阶ヘ獶癚阶莱﹚猭ㄒр┦の摧痚猍跌笻猭︽τ琌璶癚阶莱瞷獽璹┦猍跌兵ㄒ㎝摧痚猍跌兵ㄒτぃ臮и-
龟琁赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒ┮眔龟悔竒喷
㈱フ弧иだ猋洁嘲某璶荷е过┏埃┦の摧痚猍跌ê荐港礛τΤ荐港τゼ皌続讽诀程沧琌饼硉ぃ笷
畒某讽穦癘眔赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒ琌ミ猭Ыき竒筁ぞτ臛阶篤﹚せる龟琁キ单诀穦〆穦るタΑ笲τ赣〆穦碞硂ㄢ兵兵ㄒ璹沟赌龟叭玥ョる莉ミ猭ЫタΑ硄筁ぉ崩︽パ猭ㄒ龟琁ぃìτキ单诀穦〆穦笲ョ琌癬˙瞷顶琿程璶临琌倒ぉ蒥チだ丁秆穝猭ㄒ┮结ぉ-
猭﹚舦㎝竡叭琵キ单诀穦〆穦仓縩ㄇ龟筋竒喷τ浪癚σ納琌惠璶璹Τ闽兵ㄒ︑パ囊粄瞷顶琿璹猭ㄒぃ度穦そ渤稰睼瞔τョ穦紇臫キ单诀穦〆穦蒥チ秆㎝宽赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒよ┮暗崩約
ぃ筁и阶沮癸嘲某ㄓ弧Ч⊿Τ種Ч钮ぃ秈φ嘲某る祅舅厨矗璹┦猍跌兵ㄒの摧痚猍跌兵ㄒㄢ兵兵ㄒごゼЧネ㎝ゼ龟琁ǎ嘲某セ⊿Τσ納琌Τ龟悔惠璶矗璹ョ⊿Τ臮のキ单诀穦〆穦龟悔笲琌"璹τ璹"讽礛嘲某兵ㄒ场だ兵蹿琌纯竒きパ璊ド某矗τ⊿Τ砆セЫ钡璹瞷嘲某璶―崩陆セЫぃìㄢ玡┮∕﹚﹚穦穕甡ミ猭Ыそ獺約蒥チ稰睼瞔膥τ礚┮続眖
瓣竒喷禗и-
璹は猍跌兵ㄒよ龟ぃ莱巨ぇ筁庢ㄒㄓ弧翠┦猍跌兵ㄒ琌璣瓣┦猍跌猭屡セ璣瓣き硄筁赣猭︓┦猍跌猭龟琁ぇ矗タΑ璹某ㄏ硂妓沮и┮┮矗某璹讽いぃ璣瓣現┎┮蹦瞷璣瓣┦猍跌猭兵ゅ砰ご籔き程﹚兵ゅ琂礛ㄤ瓣產倒ぉㄤそチ肝丁剪策の続莱︙и-
璶璹┦猍跌兵ㄒの摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ︓蒥チ祏戳ず螟秆钡赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒ㎡
︑パ囊粄現┎莱倒ぉ蒥チ肝丁て㎝Μ赣ㄢ兵は猍跌猭ㄒи-
讽叭ぇ琌糤眏蒥チ癸赣ㄢ兵猭ㄒ粄の钡祘τそ渤毙▅琌惠璶安らΜ眖猭芠翴ㄓ癸猭礚ぃ篶Θ臛臔瞶パ眖穦㎝笵紈àㄓ琘璝ゼΤ诀穦剪策琘猭ㄒ璓牟デ赣猭ㄒτ砆籃玥Τろそす㎝巨ぇ筁璹┦猍跌兵ㄒの摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ穦キ单诀穦〆穦ㄏ蒥チ剪眡赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒτ崩︽そ渤毙▅の肚笆ゴ阑
沮и┮キ单诀穦〆穦縩伐崩約Τ闽沟赌龟叭玥и獺翠沟常や沟赌よㄉΤキ单诀穦の丁龟琁跌く暗猭玥崩沟ㄤ龟ぃぶ竨叫畍のㄆ臮拜╯玥ずまㄤそ璹の崩︽穝ㄆ現郸絋玂兵ㄒ砏﹚眔宽︽ス硄筁嘲某兵ㄒ硂ㄇ沟筁フ禣惠璶щ戈穝暗癸硂ㄇ沟ㄓ弧硂贺绰э琁現癸-
そキ盾
嘲某某穝﹚"丁钡猍跌"迭﹚竡窽ゎ"丁钡猍跌"兵ゅヴ︙は猍跌猭ㄒいА妮璶兵ゅ瞷﹚竡琌獶硂或еэぃ某﹚竡よ耕瞷Τ﹚竡穝﹚竡沟莱妓暗砆浪北硂穝﹚竡癸瞷︽ㄆ現郸㎝暗猭Τ︙紇臫硂ㄇ拜肈常琌某┪や兵ㄒ莱赣沟硋睲贰秆氮拜肈
︑パ囊猔種キ单诀穦〆穦┯空赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒ龟琁1さる计るぇ獽穦癸赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒ秈︽浪癚刚拜浪癚赣ㄢ兵兵ㄒよ临Τ街ゑ〆穦秤ヴ㎡嘲某兵ㄒ┮某璹Τ︙ち┦璓и-
惠璶〆穦浪癚玡穖∕﹚ヴ︙猭ㄒ璹А惠ㄆ龟计沮㎝Τ阶沮ㄓや瞷顶琿硂ㄇ戈琌ろ糵稸ミ猭и-
琌荡癸ぃ莱赣瞯咎稰┦璹猭ㄒ
癸嘲某碞キ单诀穦〆穦戮┮某璹и粄眔坝篹嘲某璶―〆穦磅︽崩約籔ㄢ兵は猍跌兵ㄒΤ闽瓣悔そи-
莱赣フキ单诀穦〆穦Θミ琌磅︽の崩約и-
硂ㄢ兵は猍跌兵ㄒ璝〆穦娩碵崩約瓣悔そ硂妓穦睼瞔跌钮蒥チ礚┮続眖
︓嘲某某キ单诀穦〆穦猭皘砛矪瞶ビ禗猭皘篗禗砠и粄琂礛ㄤビ禗斌猭皘癚舦〆穦琌ぃ莱赣Τ砫ヴ盢禗砠┑尿嘲某┮某翠Θ钩瓣妓躬禗砠穦よョ穦糤〆穦肂秖
嘲某粄盢ㄢ兵は猍跌兵ㄒい癸穨僚戳パ3罽祏︓18るの场だ僚兜ヘㄒ現郸玂惫琁单獽玂毁蒥チ┦の摧痚猍跌и粄嘲某琌臮瞶稱τ⊿Τだσ納硂妓暗穦盿ㄓ璽紇臫
き臛阶┦猍跌兵ㄒ场だ某纯は猍跌兵ㄒ⊿Τ璶―穨щ戈┪э跑珿⊿Τ惠璶笷3僚戳ㄆ龟ぶ5穨ぷㄤ琌êㄇ產畑Α穨パセō⊿Τ甅睲捶のΤ╰参非玥矪瞶┷竨の哎......
PRESIDENT: Miss LOH, do you have a point of order?
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, as regards some of the amendments that the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU said I am making, I am intending to move Committee stage amendments to close them. So I think she might like to read the Committee stage amendments first.
畊狦璶―坚睲杠璝糂某腀種琵矗獽矗糂某腀ぃ腀種
糂胺祸某畊и穦坚睲嘲某┮矗の翴
き臛阶┦猍跌兵ㄒ场だ某纯は猍跌兵ㄒ⊿Τ璶―穨щ戈┪э跑珿⊿Τ惠璶笷3僚戳ㄆ龟ぶ5穨ぷㄤ琌êㄇ產畑Α穨パセō⊿Τ甅睲捶のΤ╰参非玥矪瞶┷竨の哎眏︽祏戳龟琁は猍跌兵ㄒ癸穨盢硑Θ螟场だ沟甡┤牟デは猍跌兵ㄒτ挡︽穨程沧甡ご琌沟讽礛嘲某弧眔癸盢穦〆穦顶琿矗ㄇタ埃ㄤㄇ某и瞷弧阶翴﹍沧琌膀嘲某兵ㄒず甧讽礛嘲某祔砰〆穦糵某顶琿矗タ讽礛Ч琌嘲某舦穦莉眔硄筁玥琌セЫ某∕﹚и谋眔癸嘲某兵ㄒ矗阶翴惠璶ㄇ莱癘魁獽嘲某祔┪盢ㄓら矗иΤ┮ㄌ碻
и量絑Τ弧兵ㄒョ某僚現郸某讽Ы莱兵ㄒ硄筁1篗綪現郸現郸紇臫计窾璸穝﹡チ,穦癸硂兜現郸種ǎぃ璓洪膀ㄢ┦キ单瞶パτ璶紀埃現郸单弧┦パゼ磃┮莱篗綪╧┦ㄉΤ纔磃┦⊿Τ╧┦ぃ赣ㄉΤ硂砆у蝶琌Ибτ獶璶―キ单猵盢蒥チㄇ琂Τ舦痲ぷㄤ琌眏︽硓筁ミ猭祘ㄓ盢ウ硂穦硑Θ摸ぃそキ㎡現┎瞷タ浪癚現郸さぱョΤ┯空穦计るΘミ疭〆穦矪瞶单現┎タ縩伐矪瞶и粄現┎莱荷е秈︽浪癚約獂吭高紇臫过┏秆∕現郸盿ㄓ狡馒拜肈иぃ镑觅Θ浪癚Τ挡狦ぇ玡パ某矗"ち"紀埃現郸璹
玂惫琁セ借琌妮候惫琁膀候惫琁琌螟箇代ㄏ現┎ゼΤ庢硂ㄇ惫琁ㄒи粄ョΤㄤ笵瞶ぃ莱埃硂ㄇ僚兵ゅ瞶パ
畊は猍跌兵ㄒ琌惠璶丁龟筋τ毙▅蒥チ埃猍跌獶绰暗嘲某兵ㄒ礚好穦癸龟琁ㄢ兵は猍跌兵ㄒのキ单诀穦〆穦笲硑Θ≧阑セ略朝勉は癸1996┦の摧痚馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ
肅繟某璓勉畊パ嘲糠某矗1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒヘ琌眏のэ到┦猍跌兵ㄒ㎝摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ硂ㄢ兵ㄒ龟琁︓さ临ぃ1丁カチ龟惠璶丁秆Τ闽兵ㄒ兵ゅ狦瞷禩礛癸Τ闽兵ㄒэ穦カチ礚┮続眖セ礚э到猍跌拜肈
璽砫龟琁硂ㄢ兵兵ㄒキ单诀穦〆穦る秨﹍笲﹟ゼ仓縩ì镑龟琁ㄢ兵兵ㄒ龟悔竒喷瞷矗璹ゼēぇ筁Ντキ单诀穦〆穦┯空さ┏碞硂ㄢ兵兵ㄒ秈︽浪癚某莱〆穦ЧΘ浪癚︽∕﹚莱璹τぃ莱瞷︽ㄆ
︓嘲某矗璶瞷︽┦猍跌兵ㄒずㄇㄒ兵ゅ琌"来矗種ǎτぃ臮狦暗猭"篗綪現郸ㄒ嘲某ビぃ琌璶現郸τ琌辨┦ぃ┦猍跌ㄤ龟兵ㄒ莉硄筁┦﹡チ現┎ビ現┎琌у玥パ現┎∕﹚︓現┎τ璶уぶ┪ぃìτ現郸玥ぃㄤ癚阶絛瞅硂贺ぃ臮狦ē阶ぃ莱︑セЫ某ぇ翠禯瞒耴ぃì20らヴ︙跑珿ョ穦紇臫キ铆筁寸珿某ミ猭斗糵稸︽ㄆ
и稱眏秸チ羛獶は癸╧キ单現郸籔┦猍跌礚闽τ讽Ы瞷タ浪癚現郸ゼΤ挡狦ぇ玡龟ぃ﹜挡阶莱既玂瞷ㄏ現┎ら浪癚挡狦琌∕﹚篗綪現郸ョ莱ち龟σ納ヘ玡╧┦﹡チ膀局Τ绑穨τ礚猭ビ叫そ㎝﹡拜肈
︓盢场钉いだ皌盝ㄒ薄猵拜肈讽Ы秆睦狦ぃ玂痙硂ㄇ兵ゅ現┎莱虫ō场钉ビ叫盢斗砍盝┪盉惠近丁莉だ皌盝Τ闽讽Ы﹟ゼт秆∕快猭嘲某眏︽璹穦ㄆ薄碿て
畊ミ猭琌ン腨德ㄆ薄ミ猭ミ猭埃莱σ納琌ち穦计惠璶ぇョ莱臮の現┎┯のカチ环痲硂玡矗チ羛∕﹚は癸嘲糠某某
セ略朝勉
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊チ囊や1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒチ囊穦だ碭场だㄓ癚阶硂兵ㄒи穦栋い癚阶摧痚猍跌τ独岸藉某穦栋い癚阶┦猍跌
摧痚猍跌よ嘲糠某矗璹璶琌Τ闽キ单诀穦〆穦戮の舦ㄤ龟キ单诀穦〆穦產常Τヘ窣碞琌ア辨и穦倒ウぃの疭琌摧痚猍跌よΤボウぃ嘿戮疭琌"独─皊┍"硂ンㄆンい┶荡畓醇狝叭琌ぃ莉眔糴包刮砰常甧キ单诀穦〆穦ぃìи獽穦ノ"ぱぃìぱア秸"ㄓ甧キ单诀穦〆穦
︙孔"ぱぃì"キ单诀穦〆穦琌パ┦猍跌兵ㄒの摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ┮玻ネτ"ぱア秸"琌瞷烩旧龟畉玪碞ヘ玡キ单诀穦〆穦τēウ戮舦疷舦ぶ畉┕┕琌砆笆иノ "畓" ㄓ甧キ单诀穦〆穦快ㄆキ单诀穦〆穦常穦眖╯à祇笆τ┮臛瞶计ヘ獶盽ぶ璝猍跌琌岿杠或и-
璶甧гウ㎡礚阶さ边兵ㄒ硄筁籔チ囊常辨現┎㎝キ单诀穦〆穦ら笆璝礛Τ岿杠莱赣эタ疭琌玂毁ㄉキ单诀穦砆猍跌硂よ璶暗ㄇひ
ㄤ龟糵某嘲糠某兵ㄒ筁祘いи-
场だ丁癚阶╯澈琌毙▅璶临琌ミ猭璶㎡は癸硂兜兵ㄒ刮砰常琂礛毙▅笷キ单诀穦硂ヘ夹и-
獽礚斗璶ミ猭琌安⊿Τ猭ㄒ┏帹⊿Τ睲捶兵ゅ杠妓毙▅㎡チ囊讽礛琌や毙▅のミ猭莱琌疭琌酵のキ单诀穦〆穦и-
琌や嘲糠某某キ单诀穦〆穦ㄤ竡矗猭祘糤ㄤ莉戈舦チ囊や眏キ单诀穦〆穦舦の辅龟"キ单"硂弘
и稱虏虫莱チ祇ēチ粄-
穦骸種現┎さ材﹗╯絣現郸ㄤ翴琌さ秨﹍╯絣現郸ㄤ龟チ囊钮筁硂┮孔"醚"稰獶盽ア辨或㎡きる讽┦猍跌兵ㄒの摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ硄筁現┎竒フ堵糶ミ猭Ы穦某魁弧氮莱秨﹍浪癚琌い临ゼ秨﹍ê或ㄤ港種祘琌キ㎡и-
ぃぃ胔好現┎蹦癹磷篈癸拜肈и稱矗眶チ狟ね現┎⊿Τ玂靡穦紀埃硂ぃそ笵ぃそキ猍跌現郸ウ琌⊿Τ玂靡穦磅︽êよ蠢ウ琌弧穦╯
材翴и辨チぃ莱砮ǎㄇ安く安竡獽т虑ㄓぃやㄢ┦キ单チ囊穦やΤ浪癚瞷現┎氮莱チ琌⊿Τ矗のи-
ぃざ種Τㄢ︓琌5璶弧ボΤ港種浪癚琌ㄢ筁浪癚临ゼ秨﹍и-
妓獺現┎琌Τ港種浪癚㎡╯琌10︓2030╯挡狦穦琌或妓㎡ゼ╯ぇ玡и-
﹚璶Τぃ虫ゎよ玥τ琌弧浪癚惠璶Τ玥硂玥獽琌ぃ猍跌のそキ玥秨﹍╯╯ぃ蠢╯きミ猭穦╯挡狦常琌ぃ蠢и粄癸穦︓癸﹡チぃそ笵礚阶現┎妓村弧チ狦⊿Τ┪⊿Τキ单玥浪癚チ囊琌荡癸ぃ穦や
谅谅畊
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr Deputy, the business community supports the principle of equal opportunity for all. However, we have always stressed that the way to achieve this is by expanding the economy, by creating more, better-paid jobs for every man and woman. Also, we have stressed that we can achieve this by public promotion and education on the concept of equal opportunity and not by legislation.
However, we note that legislation has already been put in place to guarantee equal opportunity in these areas against the views expressed by the business community, and this was enacted in this Council in 1995.
What is the change in circumstances since 1995 to justify any amendment to these Ordinances? Has there been any incident to show that the amendments proposed in the Bill are necessary? Why are these amendments so urgent that they must be made now, that is, only after six months of full operation of these Ordinances? These are questions that the Honourable Miss Christine LOH will probably address and answer later.
To ensure public respect for the law, any legislative amendment should not be proposed lightly, but must be introduced after serious and careful thought. Christine has proposed some 30 Committee stage amendments to the Bill which contains only 40 clauses. Is this a measure of the care she had exercised in preparing the Bill? If the Bill itself can be so easily amended what faith can we have that the Committee stage amendments she now proposes will not be further amended totally again next year?
Mr Deputy, equal opportunity is a new concept in Hong Kong. The SDO and DDO commenced full operation only in December last year after the two Codes of Practice prepared by the EOC to give guidelines to employers on compliance with the Ordinances were approved by this Council.
Since the full operation of the two Ordinances, the business community had just less than half a year to adapt to this new concept and the new legislation. Employers in particular have to understand and get familiarized with the provisions of the Ordinances so as to ensure compliance with them. While employers and the public at large are still finding their way through the relatively new Ordinances, amendment at this juncture of time will do nothing but to cause confusion to them.
Employers have made it clear that they have support for equal opportunity for all in employment. They have in the past few months worked extremely hard to understand and shoulder the new obligations placed upon them as a result of the full operation of the SDO and the DDO.
The Code of Practice on Employment under the two Ordinances, which contain practical guidance to help facilitate employers' and employees' understanding of and compliance with the provisions of the two Ordinances were approved by this Council only a few months ago. Since then many employers have just started developing new personnel policy and administrative procedures to deal with them. For example, we have learnt not to specify "female" in advertising for a female secretary. We will simply advertise for a secretary, although at the end we will only offer a secretary job to a female. For example, we have learnt that when we decided not to promote a female employee but a male employee, we should not tell the female employee that she is not promoted because she is a female, just tell her she is less qualified.
We have also started to establish guidelines on good office practices and provide training for all employees. All these require considerable effort, time, manpower and resources. Not only employers of large companies which have comparatively more manpower and resources have strived hard to ensure that they are ready to fulfil their new obligation. Employers of medium and small enterprises have also done the same to achieve the same aim. To them, this means even more difficulties and greater efforts.
The majority of these proprietors of small and medium businesses are not wealthy people but just ordinary citizens trying to make a better living. When employers, large, small and medium, have made so much effort to understand the two Ordinances and to prepare themselves for complying with their provisions, is it fair and reasonable to introduce amendments to the legislation at this time and tell them, sorry, the law has changed now? Go and understand it again. They will need to make further efforts to understand the proposed changes and the new
obligations brought to them by such change.
Since the Bill, if enacted, will take immediate effect, it simply leaves no time for them to prepare themselves. Therefore, in the meantime, despite all their will and effort to be good, law-abiding citizens, they stand exposed to claims made against them under the Bill if enacted.
Employees too will be confused. What are their rights? When to claim, complain, and when not to claim and not to complain? There is no doubt that employers support fair practices in the workplace without any discrimination. Indeed, they have been working hard to educate, promote and to comply with the provisions of the SDO and the DDO. It is only fair and reasonable that they should be given the chance to get accustomed to the obligations provided for under the existing legislation before any new obligations are thrust upon them.
With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I urge Members to vote against the Honourable Mr Christine LOH's proposed amendments. The Liberal Party will vote against it.
独岸藉某璓勉瞶畊и⊿Τ庢も笵и稱祇ē瞶畊и琌⊿Τ非称さぱ祇ē簍勉きせるらセЫ臛阶┦猍跌兵ㄒτ摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ琌る穦某矗冈灿盢Τ闽玥璹弧и獺Ыずㄆ常睲贰赣Ω臛阶琌讽縀疨┮иぃ狡ㄢ玡阶翴ぃ筁瞷獶Τ糂胺祸某┮弧琌耕Νぇ玡セЫ秈︽臛阶┮弧耕Ν玡ㄓ琌ㄢ玡ㄢ玡莱ぃ衡耕Ν玡ㄢ玡琌丁安Τ闽兵ㄒ竒筁ㄢち龟穦琁︽и-
猍跌兵ㄒご礛ぃЧ到и-
ミ猭Ы某︑礛琌Τ砫ヴ秈˙璹ウ秈˙盢Τ闽兵ㄒ跑眔Ч到硂秈˙㎝耕玂毁ㄇ猍跌
瞶畊さぱ弄钩跑Θ現郸臛阶琌菠┾瞒硂ㄢ兵は猍跌兵ㄒㄆ龟ㄇㄆ祇ēョ留弧硂現郸ぷㄤ琌毒浪膀某秨﹍弧谋眔嘲糠某硂兜璹琌虫眖╧キ单à祇⊿Τ眖龟悔秆∕よσ納и┣и-
硂兵兵ㄒタタ碞琌妓玃秈╧キ单и-
璹兵ゅ糶猭㎝惫勉︑礛琌妓玃秈╧キ单硂タ琌瞷嘲某璹兵ㄒ弘┮祔и穦冈灿莱毒浪膀某硂ㄇ弧猭
瞶畊и⊿Τ非称量勉璶琌タи┮弧и阶翴ㄢ玡竒冈灿量瓃┮иさぱ璶琌Г硂测钮и-
ㄆΤㄇ穝阶翴и-
硂Τㄇ穝ㄆ穦Τㄇ穝阶翴琌и冈灿ョ灿测钮︗ㄆ祇ē玱钮ぃ穝阶翴はτΤ穝弧猭琌㎝ㄇㄆㄢ玡セЫ┮弧Τ翴畉钵и祔穦ゑ耕
瞶畊眎簙┚某㎝糂祇某常疭眏秸現郸玌嘿現郸-
弧硂琌菌拜肈ョ琌膀セ猭材兵玂毁-
疭眏秸材兵矗穝﹡チ猭肚参痲琌玂毁и礚阶妓ぃ砆弧狝硂現郸琌肚参╯澈и-
┮粄肚参琌ぶ非玥㎡10Θ肚参20Θ肚参临琌100200Θ肚参㎡現郸琌秨﹍Τ瞷Τ璝獽Θ肚参杠ê或﹡チ猭肚参舦痲獽盢嘲尿秈τ玂毁┮и琌眖ゼ砆弧狝粄硂現郸琌崩︽獽琌肚参┮孔膀セ猭材兵玂毁
ㄤΩ﹡チ硂阀├琌璣瓣崔チ現郸参獀穦玻ネ產弧Τぱ獽耴ぃ璶繷璶キ铆筁寸Τ稱ぱ耴ぇ︙翠临Τ穝﹡チ硂贺疭嘿腹狦い瓣﹚﹡衡琌﹡チ狦и⊿Τ癘岿杠玡穝﹚﹡チ常衡琌﹡チㄆ龟埃穝Τ┮孔﹡チカ跋Τ┮孔﹡チ妓﹚﹡チ㎡╯澈耴瓣莱临Τ﹡チ㎡ㄤ龟⊿Τ瞶パ临Τ﹡チ硂阀├產琌キ单い瓣
糂祇某疭眏秸庢ㄒи-
┦竝﹛ㄓ靡翠╧琌キ单и獺╧キ单獶秖て拜肈ぃ琌Τ╧暗﹛獽莱Τ︗暗﹛硂妓琌キ单弘阀├秖て非玥╧獽衡琌キ单ê膀セぃ琌и-
瞷硂ㄢ兵猭ㄒ弘и﹚硂ぃ琌и-
ぃ琌ノ秖てτ琌и-
璶Τキ单硂阀├キ单硂弘琌и-
ぃ璶弧翠碙㎡
瞶畊钡и稱莱琌毒浪膀某㎝糂胺祸某ㄢ︗┮弧杠иゼ莱ぇ玡и技魁きせるらミ猭Ы臛阶┦猍跌兵ㄒ-
ㄢ︗Τ琿祇ē毒浪膀某讽弧"蝴臔舦キ单玥セō莱赣砆跌穦ㄢ乎烩ΤΤ舦緍ㄤ穦策玌の現┎筁┕崩︽現郸讽穦ぃ耞秈˙龟琁兵ㄒョΤ惠璶繦锣跑τ続讽τ瞶皌"瞶畊и技魁毒浪膀某琿弧"現郸現郸龟悔琌Ч牟キ单弘ョ籔舦猭セōΤ┮笻璉セ粄現┎ぃ莱赣ゼ癸現郸秈︽浪癚の蝴臔侣Τ肚参瞶パτ盢現郸兵ㄒ僚絛瞅盢菌ㄓ拜肈ぃぉ秆∕璝現┎绊盢現郸僚兵ㄒは琈ㄤ玃秈╧キ单港種琌セ┮ぃ钡"
糂胺祸某ㄢ玡酵現郸ョ硂妓弧иョ琌竊魁"現┎瞷︽現郸甧砛穝╧┦﹡チ局Τ舦и-
粄硂琌笻は╧キ单玥"瘤礛ㄓ弧ぃ莱赣ミ"ち"ミ篗綪琌蛤弧"︑パ囊瘤粄瞷︽現郸ぃ莱赣膥尿蝴現┎莱荷е絣"璶―玃叫現┎荷е秈︽浪癚窾ぃ璶寂璴ㄆ
陪и-
ㄆ常粄硂現郸"現郸"琌牟笻は╧キ单硂玥ぃ筁產瞷膀琘ㄇ現獀σ納┪琘ㄇ現獀痲厩現┎ㄇ┷计獽琌"╈"讽-
竒牡現┎璶荷е秈︽浪癚ぃ璶寂璴ㄆㄢㄓи-
ぃ耞發拜現┎╯澈ㄢ玡現叭┯空弧砏购吏挂現穦秈︽浪癚瞷浪癚︓或祘㎡現┎氮滦琌ご礛浪癚讽い浪癚或祘⊿Τい戳秈甶ㄢ╯澈現┎浪癚ㄇ或㎡┮и筁某ぷㄤ琌毒浪膀某ㄢ玡┮弧㎝┮弧杠и︑谋眔弧瞷弧猭耕嘲糠某璹秈˙琌弧嘲糠某璹ㄏ硄筁临Τ現郸よ猭琌硂現郸ぃ莱璶过┏硂現郸谋眔嘲糠某璹癸硂現郸临ゼ镑眏疨チ璶眏疨ㄇ琌玱钡現┎秏某Ы︓疭"╯"泊弧琌弧眔玦幢龟悔チ琌硂稱︑蛾ㄤ弧┪тㄇぃや嘲糠某璹虑㎡瞷弧╯╯⊿Τユ临Τ埃丁┦ぇ╯澈╯ㄓ現郸穝現郸穦妓膥尿盿Τ猍跌┦㎡硂琌и-
さぱ臛阶程璶翴и-
或璶篗綪硂現郸タウ牟╧キ单弘㎝玥牟Τ闽兵ㄒ┮璶篗綪ㄆ常硂妓弧礚阶ㄢ玡┪さぱ硂妓弧琌現┎⊿Τ┯空筁盢ㄓ穝現郸穦妓ㄏ穝現郸ㄢ3浪癚ЧΘ穝現郸ゼゲ琌⊿Τ猍跌┦иぃ窽璶拜╯澈チ︙璶は癸現郸㎡獽琌ウΤ猍跌┦┮は癸琂礛ウΤ猍跌┦獽莱赣荷е篗綪硂Τ猍跌現郸
╯︑礛碞琌蹦╈┑も琿現┎竒╈┑筁Ω╈Ω︑礛琌だ剪絤╈︓┪ミ猭穦и獽踞み盢ㄓи-
某璶矗╬猭秈︽璹穦琌螟祅ぱぃ琌钩瞷璝ぃ疉の癩現秨や獽矗產笵膀セ猭盢ㄓ琌妓某矗╬猭иぃ幢戳辨盢ㄓи-
矗Τ闽╬猭
ㄤ龟チ4布琌獶盽ぇ璶或現┎秏某Ыのㄤは癸嘲糠某璹﹚氮莱璶―㎡ㄤ龟-
4布琌甠さぱ∕﹚╯澈や临琌は癸猭硄筁┮チㄤ龟琌Τì镑セ窥璶―р╯泊τ莱赣﹚∕﹚璶篗綪Τ闽現郸璹ミ穝ぃ盿Τ猍跌┦現郸狦チ矗硂泊иぃ獺現┎┪秏某Ы┪︓ㄤㄆぃ钡璝-
ぃ钡穝璹チ獽や嘲糠某и獺-
﹚穦钡チ硂兜某┮и谋眔チ⊿Τ笲ノ-
Τ璶硂4布崩笆╧キ单玥㎝阀├┮и辨毒浪膀某㎝チㄆ稱稱-
硂某ぃ阶琌蛤現┎璹ミ蛤街璹ミ琌笷ぃ-
┮稱眔狥﹁埃獶-
ぃ琌稱眔ê妓狥﹁τぃ筁琌稱т顶ㄓや-
ぃや嘲糠某璹ョ虑ぃ笻璉╧キ单硂玥и笵ǐ硂妓葵帹琌だ螟
瞶畊セ略朝勉や嘲糠某璹
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
某璓勉畊и戮穦羛幅ボや1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ兵ゅいΤ计兜琌耕ㄣ某┦材琌闽篗綪15窾じ竭纕よи钮糂胺祸某┮弧ミ猭琌璶Τ计沮ê或硂15窾じ计沮琌眖︙矪眔ㄓ㎡放菌ㄓ琌き狶īχ古ぃ眖︙┾ㄓぃ筁ㄤ龟現┎よ⊿Τ纗计沮產璶癘眔硂菌セ硂15窾じ琌⊿Τ计沮ぃ筁琌眖ぱ┾ㄓ挡狦┦狦猍跌竭纕礛丁
ㄤ龟硂15窾じ琌Ч笻は俱チㄆ干毕芠├チㄆ干毕琌ㄏ猍跌琘祘穕ア獽斗ぉ╄綪τチㄆ干毕芠├琌皐癸ぃ莱Τ猍跌τ璝沟猍跌┦沟獽璶干毕穕ア狦砞ㄤ龟碞琌单ヴパ猍跌硑Θ穕甡τ硂穕甡琌ぃ莉干纕┮и辨產癘︘硂琿菌硂15窾じ琌⊿Τ计沮и辨產や篗綪硂15窾じ
材ゑ耕ㄣ某┦琌–Ω兵ㄒ〆穦穦某常穦酵確戮拜肈ㄤ龟現┎常弧ぃ莱赣璶沟﹚沟ノê︗甡и稱矗眶︗某材璝弧干毕杠赤ア琌ぃノ窥ㄓ干毕τよ瞷┮弧碞琌琵猭畑糵琩┮Τ靡沮ぇ掉∕瞷はτ猭畑ぃ硂掉∕ㄏ猭畑砆干毕Τ狙
現┎ㄇ骋猭ㄒ弧璶パ骋戈蛮よ種ぇ確戮ê或璝璶パ骋戈蛮よ種ぇ確戮êㄤ龟单ぃ確戮狦骋戈蛮よ種杠セ碞ぃノ猭畑箋竒镑確戮┮產常璶痙種硂翴確戮癸猍跌琌贺だ璶干毕ョ琌贺程过┏干毕眖τ甡眔
材ョ矗碞琌穨拜肈Τ闽よㄤ龟ぃ莱肛眎弧硄筁猭ㄒ獽穦êㄇ穨超ㄤ龟瞷┮弧ぃ琌璶羱Ч⊿ΤΘセずぃ筁琌Ч到恨瞶よ猭穦êㄇ穨砍-
竒耚叉侣┮Τ岿粇芠├琌獽穦ㄓ∕﹚竨叫莱紉籔τぃ琌┦┪琌摧痚夹非┮и稱硂よ產ぃ璶ê或肛眎ㄤ龟硂ンㄆぃ筁琌璶恨瞶Ч到τ
ョΤ弧キ单诀穦〆穦ョ穦菏诡ぃ莱赣パミ猭Ы┪嘲糠某矗璹產笵ㄤ龟キ单诀穦〆穦セō程沧眔挡狦穦妓τウ癸硂拜肈秆螟笵穦ゑ畒︗ㄇ盾︙產ぃ稱稱琌莱赣ㄏ猭ㄒЧ到程沧ㄏキ单诀穦〆穦跑眔甧┮и辨產ぃ璶砆キ单诀穦〆穦浪癚紇臫ㄤ龟硂ぃ筁琌セや布茂ぃウ穦糶或さぱΤ诀穦锣跑ê或辨產锣跑
程и稱矗矗碞琌拜肈產常穦弧や╧キ单и稱拜拜Τ闽穝﹡チ舦痲穝﹡チ讽礛珹┦俱癚阶い⊿Τ砆矗の筁﹍沧ΤョΤ﹏ゝ┮ㄤ龟產常莱赣候癘翴琌讽產癚阶ぃ璶穝﹡チ眔╧┦ㄤ龟临Τ┦瞷ぃ筁辨Τ╧キ单讽礛程沧俱現郸ㄤ龟琌荡癸Τ惠璶篗綪
谅谅畊
郭Θ某璓勉畊и稱チ干计翴種ǎ
材現郸莱赣荷Νи兵ㄒ〆穦穦某矗硂種ǎㄤ龟ぃ琌さぱ矗и-
璶︙璶矗硂兜某ぇ翠耴い瓣┮Τ翠Г看差玡Τ﹡チ┪嘿""硂琌⊿Τ禨竡種┮Τ現郸盢ㄓ疭跋┮Τ翠翠疭跋┮Τ﹡チ琌疭跋""產АΤ舦痲┮狦и-
︗某琌翠舦痲杠硂翴ㄓ弧и-
ヘ夹莱赣琌疭跋﹡チΤ舦キ单Τ︘狦琌﹡チ膥尿玂痙Τ舦杠弧眔琌キ单硂琌螟氮
材и-
璶ノ猭祘秆∕舦拜肈τ硂猭硚畖ぃ穦笻は膀セ猭材兵沮и瞶秆舦獶猭结ぉ舦硂洪琌現郸Τ某弧阀琌25玡琌︽現よ猭秆∕菌拜肈硂иぃ览狡パウぃ琌猭舦硄筁猭祘盢ウэ跑︓┮硂贺暗猭翠硂猭獀穦琌Ч才翠猭ウぃ笻は膀セ猭材琌兵τ膀セ猭材兵琌弧"玂毁﹡チ猭肚参舦痲"┮и-
璶竒猭祘ウぃ猭ウ獽⊿Τ猭肚参舦痲祘甧砛и-
э┪︓舦
材и稱弧璶硂現郸┪舦璶矗秆∕よ礛ウ┮孔"辟苐よ"и癘眔セЫ某︓ㄢる玡癚阶芠纒加┬ㄆ叭〆穦產硄筁兜∕某碞琌弧現┎ゼтì镑戈方竚﹡チ秆∕ㄤ拜肈ぇ玡現┎璶挡芠纒加璸购硂兜∕某璉弘琌現┎璶矗よゼΤ秆∕よ猭玡獽ぃ崩︽硂琌и-
砮矪瞶よ猭摸璶―ㄤ龟ミ猭Ы竒盽矗癸現郸ョ莱琌и-
さぱ璶"辟苐"и谋眔莱赣硂妓暗ㄆ玡и-
莱赣矗甅よрウ秆∕и-
既ゼΤよ絣現郸┮и-
獽璶現┎矗よは筁ㄓ弧и-
ぃㄣΤヴ︙よ獽璶рウ杠現┎螟暗ウ螟莱拜肈碞琌現┎ぃ璽砫ヴ︓暗┮孔"衡眀"┪璹ミㄇΤ發饭現郸Τ舦痲穕某–硔Τヴ︙﹡チ瞷Τ舦痲穕и-
莱ㄤよ蠢徖
材и辨秏某Ы镑癸穝癸翠穝э跑繦翠瞷て秈˙瓣悔てのよ秈˙╧キ单㎝璶―產キ单硂ㄇ禗―琌硋亥蔼害硂奸瑈琌ぃк┶璶―舦蠢現郸硂禗―琌礚к┶ㄤ龟產稱ㄤΝら祇ネ┮и辨秏某Ы硂э跑ぇ籔現┎だ祔材﹗穦Τ浪癚矗よ蠢現郸ㄤ翠硂菌锣钡戳秆∕硂拜肈и辨秏某Ыだ稱秆∕よ
材きи稱莱独岸藉某у蝶弧チ羘羘弧璶絣現郸ぃ筁щ布は癸嘲糠某龟悔琌т顶ぃ琌痷タや╧キ单畊и-
チぃ惠璶顶顶琌倒ノи-
さぱご礛暗某チぃ筁琌荷и-
秖さぱ硂璶щ布玡荷秖現┎璶┯空辨秏某Ы糂祇某ㄇ┯空ョ玡今˙璶硂秆∕硂拜肈и-
硂よ猭弧產ヘ夹璓產ノも猭ぃ硚耴さぱиごゼ钮チ囊┪独岸藉某┪ㄤチ囊Θ矗秆∕現郸絣よи辨祔癚阶材12兵-
矗-
粄妓秆∕產稱︽よ秆∕硂拜肈ぃ筁ぱиごゼ钮ヴ︙よ-
矗の璶
程и稱弧弧祔щ布и-
㎝и-
︙や嘲糠某ㄇ璹
嘲某矗璹и-
玥や耴摸ㄢ贺璹材摸琌礚阶浪癚籔êㄇ常莱赣璹и-
穦や弄ㄤいΤ6翴и㎝嘲糠某穦玡Τ﹚и谋眔硂ㄇ璹続讽珹盢猭畑∕15窾じ筁ゼΤ﹙ンи-
璶獺ヴ翠猭禗砠ぶ赣パ猭畑ㄓ∕礚阶ヴ︙璶"粪秨"猭畑琌荡ぃ穦眡计倒タ波┛单チㄆンи-
禗砠璶―竭纕ぃ"粪秨"膀セ璶Τ瞶∕﹚ㄆ玡︳璸ㄒ嘲某璶―┦猍跌ンい猭畑Τ舦箋ガ確戮硂砏﹚瞷更摧痚猍跌兵ㄒㄢ兜兵ㄒ︙Τぃ硂琌玡菌拜肈Τㄇ某や摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ禬筁琘布计硄筁翠猭い⊿Τ瞶パ兵兵ㄒず猭皘Τ舦τ兵兵ㄒ玱⊿Τ硂妓ぃ璓龟莱赣э跑硂甅猭ぃ虫ゎ琌琵计τ琌琵硂翴ㄏぃ浪癚現┎赣笆暗硂よи-
穦や
ぃ筁Τ碭兜璹琌и-
ぃや璶琌и-
獶过┏ぃやτ琌瞷顶琿и-
踞み穦籹硑睼睹琌嘲某矗"丁钡猍跌"单芠├硂ㄇ続﹜盢ㄓ浪癚い冈灿浪癚τぃ莱钩и-
瞷硂е∕碞翠τē璶ㄇ猭ㄒэ跑и獺パキ单诀穦〆穦矗穦耕続и-
程Τび猭璶糵某⊿猭灿み冈灿╯嘲某︑览兵ㄒ筁祘いэ︙э硂或糵某筁祘い祇谋拜肈ゼΤ稱睲贰┮現┎弧筐ㄇる穦浪癚硂ㄇよる獽穦Τ˙挡狦и-
続﹜祔单穦ョ磷ㄇ睼睹и稱畒某谋眔璝и-
ぃ琌把籔硂兵ㄒ〆穦ぃび睲贰薄猵и畍Τ穦灿弄狦Τ璶ノ硂ㄇ猭ㄒ北現┎и璶眖繷筂硂ㄇ猭ㄒ癸酚ず场だ盽э穝穦惠碞崩約
и辨現┎穦┯空浪癚筁祘い盢嘲糠某矗種ǎ场ㄓ浪癚埃嘲某矗浪癚ㄤ龟и祇谋瞷︽猭ㄒいΤ簗瑌拜肈斗浪癚и辨ぃ璶浪癚ê或ぶτ冈荷浪癚
畊иΤ硂ぶぶ祇ē璝祔癸妓蠢現郸よ產镑矗ㄤ種ǎиだ舧祔毒浪膀某穦弧弧и-
ㄇ猭
谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, first of all, I would like to pay tribute to the Honourable Miss Christine LOH and members of the Bills Committee for their hard work on this Bill and also their patience in carefully considering the Administration's views. It is unfortunate that, despite the goodwill on both sides and the genuine attempt made to arrive at some consensus, the only agreement we can reach with Miss LOH is to disagree.
While appreciating Miss LOH's good intention behind the Bill, I am afraid that the Administration objects to it. The Government fully subscribes to the principle of equal opportunities for all. Our main concern is whether the two Ordinances, which were enacted following lengthy and comprehensive debates by the Council, should be amended after less than a year's operation during which there has been no change in circumstances to suggest that any of the provisions inthe Ordinances is inappropriate or that any of the amendments proposed in Miss LOH's Bill is necessary on ground of operational experience.
As Members are aware, Miss LOH's Bill was introduced into this Council even before the Ordinances came into operation. The Bill was not well thought out. This is evident from the fact that she has now proposed about 30 Committee stage amendments when there are only about 40 clauses in the Bill. Moreover, some of the Committee stage amendments are proposed to delete the
clauses in the Bill so as to retain the original provisions in the Ordinances. The Bill, if enacted, will only cause confusion to the public and perhaps even unrest to certain sectors of the community. It will only serve to undermine people's respect for and confidence in equal opportunities legislation.
The Administration also objects to the Bill because its enactment would adversely affect the smooth implementation of the Ordinances and the work of the EOC. As Members are aware, the SDO and the DDO, which were modelled on the corresponding legislation in the United Kingdom, were enacted in 1995. The EOC established in May 1996 has been doing its utmost to explain the contents of the Ordinances to the public and to promote compliance. In accordance with the Ordinances, the Commission prepared two Codes of Practice to guide employers in complying with the ordinances. It was only after these Codes were ready and were approved by the Legislative Council in December 1996 that the two Ordinances were brought into full operation on 20 December 1996.
One of the statutory functions of the EOC is to keep under review the working of the two Ordinances and recommend changes as and when appropriate. In fact, the EOC has undertaken to do a comprehensive review of the Ordinances towards the end of 1997, that is, one year after the Ordinances have been in full operation. By then, there will be sufficient operational experience to enable an informed and rational decision to be taken on what improvements to be made to the two Ordinances. The EOC has also undertaken to take into account in the forthcoming review all the proposals contained in the Bill and views expressed by Legislative Council Members. For certain matters of particular concern to Members, the EOC will give them priority attention in the review and will make their recommendation in time for the Administration to make an announcement by March 1998.
One of Miss LOH's purposes of the Bill, I believe, is to facilitate the work of the EOC by giving it more powers. In fact, those supposedly new powers which the Bill seeks to confer on the EOC are powers which the EOC already has under the existing Ordinances. These are the powers to bring proceedings for judicial review and the powers to bring proceedings as if the EOC were the individuals affected by discrimination or harassment. Contrary to Miss LOH's intention to help the EOC, I am afraid that the Bill, if enacted now, would be counterproductive.
The extensive amendments proposed in the Bill, if enacted at the time when the public is still trying to come to grips with the two Ordinances, will throw a spanner into the work of the EOC and obstruct the smooth implementation of the two Ordinances. The public will be puzzled why the EOC told them one thing a few months ago and then tells them something quite different now. The EOC's credibility will be at stake. The credibility of the equal opportunities legislation will also be at stake for the public may gain the impression that such legislation is subject to changes from year to year, if not from month to month. This is why the EOC is not in favour of any amendment to the Ordinances at this stage.
The proposals in the Bill are not only premature. Some of them will present a real practical problem. Let me elaborate. First, clauses 3, 13, 26 and 30 and the relevant Committee stage amendments proposed by Miss LOH seek to impose additional functions on the EOC, including the promotion of standards in certain international instruments which have not been accepted for implementation in Hong Kong. Such promotional work would mislead members of the public into thinking that the standards are legally binding. On the other hand, for the EOC to be seen to be pushing for the adoption of standards not yet applicable to Hong Kong will not be conducive to the EOC's political neutrality.
Second, clauses 4, 5, 6 and 27 and the relevant Committee stage amendments proposed by Miss LOH seek to redefine what constitutes indirect discrimination under the SDO and DDO. The proposed amendments amounts to reversing the ruling made by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal. While the United Kingdom EOC recommended such a reversal in 1988, the United Kingdom Government has not adopted it. Such an important operative provision in the Ordinances should not be changed without an in-depth research and detailed assessment of the implications. Such a major change so soon after the operation of the Ordinances will be a serious blow to those persons, especially small employers, who have worked hard to comply with the law. For example, the Bill seeks to change the definition "indirect discrimination". An employer who has taken pains in recent months to revise his personnel policy and practice in order to ensure compliance with the law as it is may, if the Bill is passed, all of a sudden find himself falling foul of the new law. This will undermine his respect for the law.
Third, clause 11 seeks to delete the exception in respect of acts to safeguard the security of Hong Kong. We have to strike a balance between the individual's rights and the community's interest. We need the exception provision in order to avoid any unforeseen emergency measures taken to safeguard security being ruled as unlawful on the grounds that they afford different treatments to the two genders.
Fourth, if clauses 12 and 24 of the Bill were enacted, the small house policy will have to discontinue after a defined period. We have to carefully consider the feelings of the indigenous villagers about setting an expiry date for the policy, and no one has yet come up with any concrete proposals as to what, if any, changes should be made to the policy.
This policy is presently under review by the Administration. To facilitate the review, we will set up a committee in the third quarter of this year to examine how best to replace the existing small house policy.
Fifth, clauses 12 and 24 also seek to discontinue our long-established policy to allocate departmental quarters to the married but not single members of the disciplined services. The policy takes account of the relative housing needs of the married and single officers. However, if the Bill were enacted, the policy would have to discontinue. The consequence is that either more quarters have to be constructed or the married officers will have to wait longer before being allocated quarters.
Sixth, yet another effect of clauses 12 and 24 is that in future the height and weight requirements for recruitment to our disciplined services will be open to challenge in court for allegedly being discriminatory to either the male or the female gender.
Mr President, as the proposals in the Bill, including the Committee stage amendments proposed by Miss LOH, are unnecessary and undesirable at this stage, I appeal for Honourable Members' support to wait until the Equal Opportunities Commission's comprehensive review of the Ordinances in December 1997 before deciding whether any amendment is really needed. I appeal to Members not to hastily amend the law without knowing the full impact of its consequences. I appeal to Members to vote against the Bill.
Thank you.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, my Bill makes urgently-needed amendments to the SDO and the DDO. These Ordinances came into force late last year more than a year after they were enacted. The Administration and some Members argue that it is too early to amend these Ordinances. They have it backwards. Surely, now that the Ordinances have finally come into force, we must make sure that they do not fail the people whom they are supposed to protect.
Our long-suffering Chair, Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung, and also the Honourable James TIEN both ask "why so many Committee stage amendments"? The Government also just now says so many Committee stage amendments must mean this is not well thought out. Well, frankly, if any of you bothered to read the Committee stage amendments you will see that many of them were to split up the clauses for voting purposes because I wanted to make sure that clauses that people do support are not going to be voted down because they might be voted together with clauses that they do not support. Surely you recognize this as a very pragmatic and practical move.
Some of the amendments have been amended after due discussion with the Administration, and I think this is part of the legislative process that we go through with every bill. A few more of the amendments arose out of passage of time. It has already been pointed out by other Members, Mr President, that the time that I gazetted this Bill, and now, time has passed and since the two Ordinances have come into force, obviously I need to make amendments to my original Bill. Again, nothing out of the ordinary.
Moreover, the number of Committee stage amendments is not a sign that the substance of the Bill is at fault. I think I can list quite a long list of Bills moved by the Government to which, after discussion in the Bills Committee, substantial amendments were moved. One that many of you will recall is the Organized and Serious Crimes Bill. Another one is the MPF. Surely the Government is not saying that just because these bills have been substantially amended by the Government itself after the Bills Committee that they were never well thought out in the first place.
The Honourable James TIEN will recall that not many Members in this Council have tried to move substantial bills. With us today in the guest gallery is our former colleague, Ms Anna WU. She is the first and I believe the only Member in our legislative history who has succeeded successfully, who has successfully, to table in legislation an entire area of policy to force the Government to acknowledge a vital area of policy that Hong Kong needs to address. I willingly inherited her work in this Council as she chose not to stand for election in 1995.
I am conscious that we are pioneering in this area. I do not see our efforts as irresponsible, but I know we have had to drag the Government and many Members of this Council screaming and kicking into dealing with the area of equal opportunities. As such, that is why we have so much resistance.
Right now, if I can go back to the substance of parts of my amendments, a victim of work-related sex discrimination or of sexual harassment in the workplace cannot obtain more than $150,000 in compensation. A victim of any form of disability discrimination cannot claim more than $120,000. These damages caps deter any recourse to litigation at all. Contrary to the usual practice in civil proceedings, an award of costs is not normally available under either Ordinance. A victim of discrimination must therefore plan on paying litigation costs out of the damages he or she is awarded. But no one can stay in
court for long on either $150,000, still less, $120,000. The stark reality, Mr President, is that right now many victims of discrimination are best advised to swallow their hurt and humiliation while any discriminator with even moderately deep pockets may rest assured in the Ordinances' defects.
The two Ordinances make discrimination unlawful but so long as these caps on damages remain in effect they simply do not provide a remedy for it. Even a victorious plaintiff in a case of unlawful dismissal may have suffered lost pay and benefits exceeding these amounts. Sexual harassment, Mr President, can have a devastating impact on the victim and in serious cases, expenses for medical bills and counselling alone may exceed these figures.
Meanwhile, some victims of disability discrimination and harassment are cut off from whole realms of activity that other people take for granted. Is $120,000 just compensation for a person who has endured such sufferings?
But the actual damages suffered by a victim of discrimination and proven in court, Mr President, I repeat, proven in court do not matter under the Ordinances as they stand. The very law that is supposed to uphold the equality of people has put a special low price tag on their victimization. I think on these two points alone Members should allow me to move the Second Reading debate so that we can move on to the Committee stage amendments and let us get rid of these damages caps.
These caps are so destructive to the purposes of these two Ordinances that their removal alone justifies the enactment of this Bill, of those parts of this Bill if you cannot bring yourself to agree to anything else. But there are also other defects in the legislation that demand immediate action. An order for reinstatement can be obtained under the DDO but not under the SDO, even though everyone agrees it may often be the right remedy for discrimination in a large organisation. Death and retirement benefits are simply exempt from the SDO, and will likely remain so unless the Bill is passed. Both Ordinances are replete with other ill-conceived limitations and exemptions. As long as we continue to dither over these loopholes, real people will keep on falling through them.
Nevertheless, the Administration as well as some Members argue that we should wait in order to gain more experience with the operation of these Ordinances. This is an exceptionally threadbare excuse for inaction. First, discrimination is an ancient and truly international phenomenon and we are not breaking new ground in Hong Kong with the methods we have chosen to deal with it. The SDO, which the Administration treats as the model for all equal opportunity legislation in Hong Kong, is essentially copied from the United Kingdom Sex Discrimination Act. Virtually all of the amendments contained in this Bill are based on recommendations based on the United Kingdom Equal Opportunities Commission after more than a dozen years' experience administering that law. The Administration's obstinate insistence that Members behave like ostriches and stick their heads in the sand when lessons may be learned from experience in the United Kingdom and elsewhere is, frankly, foolish.
Second, it is nae to believe that a vote against this Bill is a vote merely to defer reform for a short time, perhaps for a year or so. If this Bill fails, it is likely that we condemn this community to live with the defects of the existing ordinances until the distant future. I am aware that the EOD has undertaken to study the Ordinances and make recommendations within a very short time. The experience in the United Kingdom in this respect, as in so many others, is instructive. The Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU has interpreted the events in the United Kingdom in one way. Mr President, allow me to give you another interpretation.
The United Kingdom Equal Opportunities Commission made its comprehensive proposal for reform to the Sex Discrimination Act in 1988. For five long years thereafter, the United Kingdom Government responded with ungracious silence. It did not reply until 1993 when it issued a short paper rejecting virtually every major recommendation. In regard to the few recommendations that it accepted four years later, it still has taken no action, citing excuses such as an inability to secure a legislative time slot. Virtually all the amendments that have been made in the United Kingdom were forced on the United Kingdom Government by judgments of the European Court of Justice requiring it to comply with European human rights standards. The Honourable Mrs Miriam Lau seems to think that the United Kingdom Government's example is something Hong Kong should take on board. This is regrettable since it is one of the less enlightened ones. No equivalent mechanism to force compliance with international standards applies to Hong Kong. Let me remind Members of this.
So, can we expect the Hong Kong Government to treat equal opportunity law with more respect than the United Kingdom Government has treated it? Nothing in this short history suggests that we should place a lot of our confidence on the Hong Kong Government so far. On the contrary, the over riding purpose that has consistently driven the Administration's policy on equal opportunity legislation has not been to secure equality rights, but to control and contain public pressure to do so.
To be fair, Mr President, I believe the DDO was put forward in good faith by the Administration, but in the details of even that Ordinance the interests of people with disabilities are sacrificed whenever a right enjoyed by them threatens to spill over in other legislation. Meanwhile, where sex discrimination is concerned, the Administration has done exactly as much as it has been forced to do, and it has seized every politically viable opportunity to undermine what is done. The damages cap in both Ordinances may be cited as examples.
One in the SDO was a last-minute proposal by individual Member which the Administration enthusiastically endorsed despite its devastating impact and continues to defend. The other in the DDO was a drafting error which the Administration today does not acknowledge as such and also defends. The policy seems to be one of opportunistic hostility. The Administration rarely passes by a chance to hobble the legislation. Experience, therefore, suggests that to entrust the task of progressive law reform to the Administration is almost to give up the struggle.
Finally, I note that the EOC has essentially endorsed the dilatory policy of the Administration. I feel embarrassed for the Commission that it has done so. The Commission failed to offer any views on the substance of my Bill and failed to endorse even the removal of the damages cap. Such timidity on matters of fundamental importance suggests a truly abject fear of official displeasure, and I fear it has seriously damaged the Commission's credibility. For the sake of the many people whose rights the Commission is entrusted to protect, I can only hope that it will show more backbone in the future.
I do wish to touch upon the issue of the small house policy since so many Members have spoken up on this as if I have devised this Bill solely to attack the issue of the small house policy. Mr President, as you well know, this bill is about sex and disability discrimination. In the area of sex, it would be strange if I did not include the small house policy since, during the Bills Committee discussion, official Members told the Bills Committee quite clearly that it recognizes that it is a discriminatory practice.
I cannot solve the problem of the small house policy with this Bill. I recognize along with everybody else in this Council that the small house policy needs direct policy addressing. But to the extent that I could do anything in this Bill, and to the extent that I should do something because this Bill is about discrimination, I have, Mr President. I also recognized the efforts contributed to this process in opening up the very difficult area of small house policy by Members of this Council. I wish to thank Mrs Miriam LAU for asking a very difficult question when distinguished members of the Heung Yee Kuk came before the Bills Committee. She urged them to go back and consider whether this policy could continue ad infinitum. The members of the Heung Yee Kuk graciously also said they would go back and think about it. So, this is one way of opening up a difficult issue for public debate.
I also wish to thank the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) for making their efforts to do what they are trying to do today. The Government has given some undertaking, although I do not know whether ADPL members consider what has been said by the Secretary as sufficient for them to vote against this particular amendment, but I recognize their efforts. If indeed the office of the Chief Executive has agreed to look into this, it is a step in the right direction.
So, all I can say is to the extent that I could do something, Mr President, I have. Thank you.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕
畊略矗眶︗某瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈1996┦の摧痚猍跌(馒兜砏﹚)兵ㄒぉ弄
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗某癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好 拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
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 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, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the motion and 26 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
畊ガ觅Θ某29は癸26琌ガ某莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 4) BILL 1996
1996沟赌璹材4腹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 Ocotober 1996
確せるら笆某弄臛阶
某璓勉畊セЫ纯碞1996沟赌璹材4腹兵ㄒΘミ兵ㄒ〆穦瞷セ畊ōだ厨硂兜兵ㄒ
硂兜パ辩模┚某矗兵ㄒΞ罽搭沟沟ゼΤ矗ㄑτΤ舦莉眔缓床禣砏﹚ら计虑璹沟赌兵ㄒ材57彻"赣兵ㄒ"闽沟砆沟氨兵ゅ
沮赣兵ㄒ材31E兵ヴ︙ㄌ綼沟矗ㄑ莉厨筍沟ㄒら羱┪ン璸筍璝ㄤ砆沟氨羱氨禬筁
(a) ヴ︙4琍戳戳丁ずタ盽ぱ羆计┪
(b) ヴ︙26琍戳戳丁ずタ盽ぱ羆计だぇ
赣沟獽ㄤ沟ビ缓床禣
兵ㄒ瞷某р赣兵ㄒΤ闽氨砏﹚ら计だ罽搭︓
(a) ヴ︙4琍戳戳丁ずタ盽ぱ羆计だぇ┪
(b) ヴ︙26琍戳戳丁ずタ盽ぱ羆计だぇ
礛τΤ闽氨ら计砏﹚琌倒ぉ沟ビ缓床禣舦Τ闽沟匡拒ぃ︽ㄏ兜舦薄猵鲸恨赣沟砆氨ご膥尿籔沟蝴沟赌闽玒
兵ㄒ坝某筁祘い現┎讽Ыボぃや兵ㄒ
材赣兵ㄒ瞷︽Τ闽氨兵ゅ倒ぉ贺贺τ既ゼ沟矗ㄑ沟﹚艶┦单兵ゅョ絋玂沟Τ瞶Μ讽Ы粄硂妓玂毁妮讽ぇ庢沟痲籔沟痷タ笲惠璶ぇ丁眔続讽キ颗
材兵ㄒ盢穦糤沟戈よ璽踞ぷㄤ琌┮眖ㄆ穨叭耕﹗竊┦猧笆紇臫沟单肂秨や沟竒蕾癐癶癩現螟场だ沟匡拒┪砆罽搭穨叭砏家┪︓挡犁穨硂妓盢穦玻ネは狦穕甡俱砰碞穨诀穦
材癸沟ビの骋戈羆计τē骋矪钡莉щ禗戳氨ぶ礚格禜陪ボ戳氨ぃ耞糤┪よ篶Θ腨拜肈
︓沟刮砰種ǎよ沟刮砰眏疨は癸兵ㄒ兵ゅ沟刮砰ぷㄤ琌ㄓ︑麓の籹︾穨沟刮砰у蝶矗兵ㄒ某ゼΤㄆ玡吭高-
-
粄矗兵ㄒ︽笆笻は骋臮拜〆穦"骋臮穦"ずΞ笷璓醚よ坝弘τ兜骋戈蛮よ痲莉眔だσ納
沟刮砰璓粄瞷︽Τ闽氨兵ゅ倒ぉ沟﹚祘艶┦玂靡沟沟ネ種睲睭穨叭﹗竊┦猧笆┪ぱ碿τ既氨莉眔程Μ眖τ-
矗ㄑ贺玂毁
兵ㄒ璝莉眔硄筁盢癸砏家耕籹硑︽穨癩現铆┦盿ㄓぃ紇臫ㄏウ-
р穨叭綞瞒セ翠┪挡犁穨ㄓヘ玡秨ぃì盢穦炒ア穨挂
骋刮砰よ玱獶盽や兵ㄒ-
粄兵ㄒ盢盿ㄓㄎ玂毁ョ矪瞶秨ぃì拜肈兵ㄒ莉眔程ぶ单る羱だぇ戈-
Τ舦莉眔缓床禣
羘嘿筁计パ场だ綞┕ネ玻Θセ耕い瓣嘲瞷戳秨ぃì薄猵硂薄猵麓穨の籹︾穨ぷ陪ぃ筁宽眖瓣麓珇皌肂砏﹚籹硑穨砆セ翠蝴程癬絏才玻ㄓ方砏玥挡狦旧璓уン璸筍戳秨ぃìτ礚猭莱ネ秨や沮瞷︽猭ㄒ单1るず璶莉やら计硄盽12ぱ羱筍獽ぃビ叫缓床禣τ兵ㄒ览某兵ゅ玥璹–る盢程ぶ莉矗ㄑ16ぱΤ羱璝-
ゼ莉祇程戈-
匡拒ビ叫缓床禣┪膥尿沟沟兵ㄒョňゎ沟刚瓜硓筁戳ぃ矗ㄑì镑よ猭ㄏ︑︽瞒戮τ発磷や缓床禣
兵ㄒ糵某戳丁現┎纯砐骋臮穦τ兵ㄒ糵某筁祘いи-
纯癚阶筁闽骋臮穦拜肈某せるらミ猭Ыㄆ叭〆穦穦某畊璶―讽Ы碞兵ㄒ吭高骋臮穦骋臮穦礚碞兵ㄒ莉眔吭高璓ま癬伐闽猔讽Ы粄パ硂琌兜某兵ㄒ莱パ矗兵ㄒ某∕﹚莱吭高骋臮穦竒辩模┚某種兵ㄒ〆穦るら穦某∕﹚骋臮穦るら庢︽Ω穦某坝某兵ㄒ玡既絯秈˙癚阶兵ㄒ兵ㄒ〆穦︑ぇ穦氨ゎ糵某
骋臮穦るら穦某∕﹚骋矪莱沽刚穓栋瞷氨参璸计獽秈˙だ猂Τ闽某莱ユパ骋臮穦烈骋戈闽玒〆穦冈灿╯
讽Ыボパ骋矪穓栋参璸戈骋臮穦烈〆穦龟ぃきるぇず庢︽穦某碞よ畊碞ら紉―某種ǎ埃バ玊某兵ㄒ〆穦ㄤ〆А種パ穝戈Τ闽よ┮笷ぃ種ǎ盢礚猭莉眔秆∕兵ㄒ〆穦礚惠穝甶秨
и琌兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ祇ē瞷и戮穦羛幅笷и︑種ǎ
ㄤ龟︑きи秨﹍踞ヴΘ︾籹硑穨戮穦羆稦ㄆи獺и矪瞶翠程Τ闽氨秨ぃì拜肈и辨戳秨ぃì薄猵镑硓筁ミ猭眔э到и癘眔и纯шΘ"芉"ガ現竝仅к某現┎⊿Τ碞"芉"猭ㄒэ到
現┎繦暗或и竒а癘琌現┎埃4琍戳ㄓ12ぱ砏﹚糤兜26琍戳戳丁ずタ盽ぱ羆计だぇ砏﹚ê獽琌瞷︽猭ㄒ
и粄程拜肈琌現┎弧璶╯计沮弧璶瞷戳秨ぃì薄猵琌腨и粄硂ㄇ计沮琌⊿Τ種竡и-
σ納"芉"拜肈惠拜︑拜肈戈緄產ぷㄤ琌癸羱ン羱τē戈緄產拜肈碞琌硂或虏虫ㄤ龟и-
セ弧╯澈程ぶら计莱琌ぶ传杠弧沟1る程ぶ莱倒ン羱ぶ戈狦ぶ戈┪璸ぶら计沟獽發癚缓床禣
ㄤ龟ぃ琌ㄢ沟常Θ發癚缓床禣沟程癚秆沟硄и-
璶拜︑┏ら计玂靡琌び璙ㄨ㎝︙糤ら计㎡狦產谋眔戈ぃ镑緄產杠獽莱赣や辩模┚某さぱ兵ㄒ辩某ㄤ龟纯碞赣兵ㄒタ弧钡戈秨﹍4琍戳戈ぃ筁ぃ戳钡"芉"辨10琍戳ずΤだぇ玂靡硂兜タㄤ龟倒ぉ沟艶┦沟纯兵ㄒ〆穦弧兵ㄒ艶┦虏虫ㄓ弧艶┦獽琌"祏ぃ"沟芉4琍戳τ倒ぉ沟戈璓êるぃ镑緄產礛τ沟ぃ戳沟"芉"ê碞琌弧狦10琍戳ずΤだぇ玂靡4琍戳ぱ礛材4琍戳畉ぃ程ぶ璶だぇら计礛程ㄢ琍戳獽璶倒ì镑ら计传杠弧ㄢるずご礛瞷"秨ぃì"薄猵材る璸衡ら计材る璸衡だぇら计ㄤ龟瞷и-
┮癚阶琌ぶ计ヘ產莱赣拜拜︑硂计ヘ琌ì緄產и稱弧獽琌硂ㄆ
и辨產や辩模┚某矗硂某兵ㄒ產ぃ笵"芉"礹璚沮瞷Τ猭ㄒ26琍戳だぇぱ羆计沟璶"芉"4る硂4るい沟莱狦ぃ膥尿獽アㄓ戈の烩缓床禣舦狦膥尿獽璶硈尿4る寥戈ぃ筁硂妓琌焙眔︘㎡︙╄產溃㎡戈緄產㎡Τ沟砆勉戮㎝斌缓床禣獽碝硂跑Θ︑笆勉戮τ赤ア缓床禣舦┮иだ辨產やセ兵ㄒи钮弧現┎よ穦浪癚狦セ兵ㄒさぱぃ莉眔硄筁現┎﹚穦矪瞶硂拜肈и辨現┎硂ンㄆい痷タσ納"芉"璚猵
谅谅畊
バ玊某璓勉畊硂ㄇ癸沟赌兵ㄒ秈︽璹ㄤ龟癸翠场だ沟㎝常цぃ闽玒︓さぱи稱Τ籹︾穨㎝沟籔硂兜猭ㄒц闽玒计玡羙и稱Τê或骋猭ㄒ穦秈︽э紅筐Ν穦禫竭禫┮и竭计窾じ缓床500さぱ狦璶缓床硂у┤货じぃì镑┮穨ず常嘿苂и来眔"せǐ"
и┕竒犁籹︾临Τ窾眖ㄆ籹︾穨瞷玱逞窾ㄤい场だ琌ゑ耕螟锣┕矪τゑ耕羙㎝淮常锣┕ㄒ筿┪狝叭┦单︽穨弧眔螟钮翴瞷逞计窾籹︾常琌螟钡蚌癡-
螟锣
某弧硂ㄇ4琍戳ら计Τ戈眔-
︙蝴ネ㎡ㄆ龟硂薄ぃ琌蝴俱或籹︾紅瞷硂薄τ筿紅⊿Τ硂薄㎡ê琌筿穨㎝鹅溅穨⊿Τ﹗竊┦籹︾穨よ︗某稱钩臮讽礛穦ぱ潦禦を︾㎝ブ凉は筁ㄓ弧﹗暗T-甃﹗芥1ㄓ璸獽Τ碭る琌らи-
┮弧ê计窾︓璶–㏄60-
Τ惠璶"痁"Τ秨ぃì┮孔"芉"ぃ筁俱ㄓ薄猵ぃ钩某弧眔ê或碿Τ闽某セ琌皐癸缓床禣τ挡阶琌莱膥尿缓床禣獽ぃ玂痙ㄓぃ烩缓床禣膥尿赣辨26琍戳ず秨ぃìら计琌だぇ4琍戳獽琌ら计硂薄沟ご膥尿眖ㄆ籹︾紅產恗弧瞷続硔睭﹗セ戮ㄤㄒе繺┍┪ㄤ︽穨狦硂妓暗-
临玂碙腨弧︑琌籹︾妮м砃┦狦⊿Τ硂ㄇ隔ぃ锣┕ㄇ耕τ璶眖ㄆㄒ繺芔瑍窲盒硂癸-
︑碙みㄓ弧盢穦硑Θゴ阑-
セㄓ妮м砃瞷玱璶瑍窲盒–るΤじ戈ぃ丁吏挂临璶ゑ籹︾紅碿硂琌某┮辨㎡
и竒盽谋眔某糂某㎝辩某眖骋よよㄓ弧みゼゲ暗ㄆ瘤礛êㄇ眔缓床禣拜肈琌-
穦τア传杠弧碭窾じぇ–る獽⊿Τ碭じτぃ琌常Τじì镑穦Τきせじ羆τēぇ紅﹗竊┦拜肈甡┤⊿Τ璹虫硂琌⊿Τ快猭籹︾穨琌⊿ぃ奸瑈ㄒ超泊氟暗10窾ン堵︹を︾硂琌ぃ籹︾紅﹚璶暗Τ綪隔砯Αユ砯戳跑眔祏┮狦兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁眖ㄆ﹗竊┦︽穨籹︾紅獽爱挡穨
某ョ纯矗玻ㄓ方靡拜肈狦ぃ膥尿ネ玻獽单禣皌肂ㄤ龟场だ紅產常谋眔翠瞷皌肂ぃ窥硂㎝碭玡薄猵畉环瞷ㄤ瓣產妓砞紅妓莉眔皌肂┮砞紅ぃ﹚璶翠紅產翠砞紅碭砞璸㎝恨瞶常硂ㄏ矪砞紅ご穦翠膥尿蝴紅竨ノ计︓100硂琌快猭
钡и稱癚阶拜肈纯竒骋臮拜〆穦癚阶筁ê碞琌狦璶笷骋よ璶―獽璶パ瞷26琍戳だぇら计э10琍戳だぇら计26琍戳笷北だぇら计讽礛ゑ10琍戳だぇ甧碞ネ玻を︾ㄓ弧狦る⊿Ττ璶硂或祏丁ず笷璓だぇら计紅產常穦快ぃ硂薄猵紅產暴Τ缓床倒ㄇ窥讽礛弧硂獽眔计窾じ-
眖獽ア硂琌某┮辨㎡
и辨︗某秖琵膥尿蝴临琌-
烩缓床禣瑍窲盒㎡ы┪蝴籹︾紅Τ惠璶痁话Τ秨ぃì┪砛琵-
戮
畊и竒碞セ兵ㄒ倒ぉ冈荷秆睦场常琌㎝籹︾穨Τ闽籹︾穨穨ず叫и矗眶辩模┚某琌麓籹︾獶虫虫琌麓籹︾
谅谅畊
︙庇古某璓勉畊チ囊やセ兵ㄒㄓ秨ぃì┪"芉"拜肈絋龟搭ぶ礛τ癸琘ㄇㄓ弧硂ご礛篶Θ拜肈セ兵ㄒ秈︽癚阶и-
Μ砛沟種ǎ竒筁σ納и-
さぱ穦やタタ耕ㄓ兵ㄒいミ┪砛Τㄇ穦甧い丁熬オ羆珹ㄓ弧и-
よ琌穦烩缓床禣よэ到ㄤ龟硂兜э跑穦沟计ぱ戈ゼゲ斗璶缓床沟ㄏ沟∕﹚沟ご匡拒琌钡缓床さぱ臛阶秨﹍玡現┎﹛┯空ㄏさ边兵ㄒぃ莉硄筁-
ご礛┯空穦秈︽浪癚のэ到ぃ筁︙さぱ現┎硂妓弧㎡
某矗兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽癚阶產Μ獺琌は癸ê⊿Τ眏τ睲捶獺陪ボ現┎┯空穦秈︽浪癚產陆琩穦某癘魁︓测钮魁盿赣兵ㄒ莱琌┏舅厨祅禯瞒瞷竒Τ琿丁兵ㄒ〆穦糵某戳丁и-
祇瞷現┎膀硂兜琌辩模┚某矗某兵ㄒ┮ゼ眔辩某種玡ぃ幢患ユ骋臮拜〆穦"骋臮穦"秈︽吭高и粄硂芠翴Ч抡現┎璝璶骋臮穦矗ユゅン秈︽吭高骋矪矪琌骋臮穦畊讽ミ猭Ы祇ネㄆ薄τΤ某兵ㄒ舅厨祅現┎琌Τ砫ヴ骋臮穦秈︽吭高ぃ阶癚阶挡狦︙現┎Τ砫ヴ矗ㄓ癚阶︙璶痙︓さるΘミ兵ㄒ〆穦弧临璶痙辩模┚某種杠盢兵ㄒユ骋臮穦秈︽吭高硂妓ㄤ龟フフ禣俱丁狦矗Νユ骋臮穦ΝΜ栋戈ささら穦︓˙現┎さ禗и-
骋臮穦话ぃの秈︽癚阶㎝穓栋戈硂琌現┎ア砫現┎さぱ禗и-
辨さ椿安穓栋戈籔骋臮穦癚阶
畊и笵さΩ硂兵ㄒ莱赣ぃ镑布计莉眔硄筁琌и辨矗眶現┎骋臮穦┮ш簍à︹τ現┎琌讽畊戮碞骋戈拜肈ㄓ弧狦現┎粄骋臮穦硂或璶–兜ㄆ薄璶钮骋臮穦種ǎи玥辨現┎镑糤眏庇稰ぃノ辩模┚某矗暗酚ヘ玡瞷ㄓи-
︽現诀闽龟瞯
畊チ囊祔穦や辩模┚某矗タセ略朝勉
毙▅参膚璓勉畊現┎は癸辩模┚某矗1996沟赌(璹)(材4腹)兵ㄒ瞷碞琵и秆睦虹い
沟赌兵ㄒ瞷Τ闽氨兵ゅ倒ぉ沟﹚艶┦甧砛-
睭﹗笲┑粇┪ㄤ礚猭箇薄猵のヴ︙獶-
┮北薄猵既ぃ矗ㄑì镑ョ玂毁沟Τ瞶硂ㄇ玂毁兵ゅ莱続讽臮沟痲㎝沟竒犁よ龟悔惠璶
辩模┚某矗兵ㄒΞ璹氨﹚竡碩罽搭沟ぃ莉矗ㄑ┪倒ぉ羱筍τΤ戈烩缓床禣ら计
辩某ㄤ祇箇非称砰〆穦糵某顶琿矗穝某矗兵ㄒ某タ矗沟硈尿10琍戳(瞷26琍戳)戳丁ずゼΤ沟矗ㄑ禬筁タ盽ぱ羆计だぇ┪倒ぉ单羱筍赣沟跌氨Τ舦ビ缓床禣
и-
は癸辩某兵ㄒ璶瞶パ琌⊿Τ矗ヴ︙计沮やㄓ某㎝タ某埃碩搭沟睭﹗┪ㄤ礚猭箇薄猵竒犁よ艶┦╯澈癸沟琌Τ龟借腊璶琌辩某程穝タ某ず甧Ч⊿Τ吭高骋臮穦骋戈蛮よ┪︽穨沟㎝沟硂獶э到骋舦痲璽砫ヴ暗猭
現┎獶盽跌玂毁沟碞穨诀穦琌и-
璶み蝴臔沟碞穨诀穦㎝旧璓沟缓床ぇ丁眔キ颗猵瞷碞穨薄猵尿э到︑き材﹗癬碞穨ぃì瞯パきる︓る2.5%︓る︓る1.2%籹硑穨戳秨ぃì瞯ョパ2.4%︓1.7%
硂薄猵籔ㄤ沟纕㎝骋戈羆计ゑ耕骋矪钡莉Τ闽щ禗氨ぃせ骋矪钡莉щ禗氨125﹙щ禗羆计0.6%
骋臮穦るら穦某い冈灿癚阶辩某兵ㄒ沟〆穦眏疨は癸兵ㄒ某眏秸某癸碞穨诀穦┮盿ㄓ璽紇臫场だ沟〆玥ぃは癸э瞷︽猭ㄒ沟〆借好环ㄓ弧辩某某琌癸籹硑穨Τパ辩某ゼ矗ì镑靡沮や兵ㄒ籔穦種骋矪莱穓栋旧璓氨参璸戈ㄑ骋臮穦烈骋戈闽玒〆穦冈灿糵某礛ユパ骋臮穦秈˙╯
Τㄇ某闽猔э到瞷︽猭ㄒΤ闽氨﹚竡и︗某┯空現┎玥腀種эΤ闽氨﹚竡絋玂沟莉眔玂毁讽骋矪セる丁ЧΘだ猂氨参璸戈矗ユ骋臮穦烈骋戈闽玒〆穦糵某現┎繦穦Ω紉高骋臮穦種ǎ骋臮穦癸璹氨兵ゅㄣ砰ず甧笷Θ醚現┎獽穦矗闽ミ猭某瞷顶琿龟ぃ莱硄筁兵ㄒず⊿Τ瞶沮や㎝ゼ竒吭高某
膀瓃薄猵и略叫︗某や現┎ミ初щ布は癸辩某兵ㄒ
谅谅畊
辩模┚某璓勉畊и稱癸毙▅参膚㎝ㄇㄆ┮祇ē莱︙庇古某弧さ边兵ㄒぃ莉硄筁鲸恨иご谅祇ēョ谅チ囊ボ穦やиタㄆ龟さミ猭Ыずи-
Τㄓ︑穦㎝骋Τ闽セ兵ㄒ祇ēいΤチ囊㎝某矗種ǎㄤ骋狟ねはτ⊿Τ弧-
種ǎ硂琌и谋眔ぃ秨みよ
︓秨ぃì琌"ゴ"┮癸拜肈さぱ澈礛產常ぃ稱量︙и稱產Τ︑иぃ稱だ猂и稱弧ㄤ龟讽產弧璶ゴ狟ね舦痲и辨ぃ璶琌酵程璶临琌璶蹦龟悔︽笆痷痷タタゴ狟ね舦痲暗ㄇ龟悔礚阶某癸硂兜兵ㄒΤ或種ǎ礚阶иタ琌ゑ耕放㎝ㄤ龟硂タΞ穝络璹"氨"﹚竡э到筁┕ね盽盽矗"芉"拜肈
и辨畒某粄痷稱稱或盢氨嘿"芉"㎡硂琌讽㎡骋狟ねノ"芉""氨"﹚竡ㄤ龟は琈痷タ薄猵ぃ阶某┪毙▅参膚芠翴︙ㄤ龟瞷兵ㄒ穦ね璭┑摧齿-
ネ痷磀篏硂琌-
寥戈τ-
戈琌┏羱璸衡刚稱稱ね┏羱璸衡戈τ琌璸衡戈-
┏︙蝴ネ㎡疭琌紅ね-
タ盽戈Τきじ戈獽Τじ硂妓︙ì蝴ネ㎡┮"芉"硂迭絋龟盢-
璚猵は琈ㄓ讽礛沟穦弧-
セō薄猵畉-
瞷┮孔螟┮礚猭矗ㄑì镑秨ら计-
ご礛璶戈ぃノ綝バ玊某┮弧缓床硂よㄓ弧沟硂暗猭讽礛ぃ岿よ產Τ稱ねㄤ龟ぃ琌矗筁だ璶―-
ぃ琌璶―や羱ㄤ龟骋常砰教寸螟闽硂笵瞶瞷硂兜兵ㄒ礚阶莉眔硄筁临琌玂痙ㄓ兵ㄒ常烩ぃ羱┮и-
ぃ琌ぃ砰教┮孔睭﹗薄猵ㄆ龟и-
獶盽砰教┮ぃ璶弧骋砱眔礚菇┪Чぃ瞶穦沟螟硂荡癸ぃ琌ㄆ龟
バ玊某㎝毙▅参膚竒盽弧盢瞷26琍戳ぉ罽祏獽⊿Τ艶┦τ挡狦ㄏ沟∕﹚璶闽超紅旧璓硈ネ禣ぃ璶癸ア穨璚猵и辨癸バ某弧Ω狦沟硂妓∕﹚璶о拒狦痷璶沟и矗兵ㄒê妓暗玥獽缓床禣獽璶σ納矗ぇ┮癸螟ぃ琌缓床禣獽或ぃ瞶產莱赣稱硂ㄇね琌-
硂∕﹚﹚Τ璉ê碞琌硂妓╈セぃ莱ネ┮礚ー璶∕﹚圭腀缓床禣ぃ稱焙硂龟龟薄猵и辨產フ瘤礛バ玊某セみσ納硂拜肈и谅硂妓暗沟セō穦竒筁瞏剪納о拒
ㄆ龟ささら翠Θ硂妓常琌耴╯㎝┮孔"瓣悔だ瞷禜"щ戈ぃ耞ㄇ跋┪ㄇ镑柬伦玴よ祇甶秈︽í籸玠璓瞷翠穨ぃ耞典罽êㄇ┕筁獵琄㎝﹀┪琌翠羉篴の竒蕾癪膍ネね程跑Θぃ耞"芉"и粄沟ぃ镑崩弧Τ睭﹗τ惠璶艶┦ぃ眔ぃ璶焙и谋眔沟ぃ硂妓暗埃ぇΤㄇ钩バ某玡弧礚▆沟-
︑紅┪そセぃ焙ㄒ8る獽璶超発磷や缓床禣┪発磷や戳狝叭-
穦ノ┮孔"芉"よ猭焙狦杠暴Τ程倒ぉ缓床禣┪戳狝叭玥沟獽掸缓床禣┪戳狝叭硂琌и矗セ兵ㄒㄤい程璶
иΜㄇねщ禗-
沟紅盢穦超獽秨﹍"芉"琵礚猭焙τ︑笆瞒秨沮瞷猭ㄒ狦︑笆勉戮セぃ穦眔ヴ︙干纕硂秆睦︙璶罽祏丁盢26琍戳э10琍戳и粄и-
斗璶︵蕾τ砰教產螟ぃ璶硂妓╈ㄢる砛钡きる︙╈㎡ぃノ緄產ㄠ盾
畊セ兵ㄒぃ琌ぃ沟螟ㄆ龟и絋龟螟иョ辨沟镑ね螟矪ぃ璶稱︑Τ螟ね⊿Τ螟ㄆ龟钩︙庇古某┮弧瞷薄猵⊿Τ筁┕ê或腨︙⊿Τê或腨㎡疭琌麓穨よ產笵瓣碞皌肂拜肈籔翠祇ネ某ョ旧璓現┎Μ候"肩砯"ㄏㄇ麓籹︾紅眔膥尿竒犁薄猵τΤ┮э到τ耕Ν玡薄猵玱琌畉ね菌荷羮ǒ暴Τ︑笆勉戮碾筁戈ㄆ龟ぃ虫ゎ麓籹︾紅琌瞷籹硑穨瞷硂贺瞷禜и癘眔Τ丁も况紅妓瞷硂贺瞷禜ê丁も况紅竒犁Τ8Τ碭︗ね戈禬筁5沟辨ㄢ盢篊篊簿い瓣嘲膀硂璸购磷や缓床禣┪戳狝叭獽篊篊盢丁罽搭旧璓程硂碭︗ね礚ー︙︑笆勉戮だ窥ぃ硂瞷禜獽琌и┮弧程ぃ稱瞷禜ㄆ龟堡Τㄇ礚▆沟痷硂妓暗┮セ兵ㄒぃ筁Ξ皐癸硂薄猵ぶ砛э到獶璶笷ら硂薄猵и辨產镑フΤㄇね矪挂だ璚辨產稱稱硂ンㄆ
毙▅参膚弧セ兵ㄒぃ镑瞶沮㎝戈τ⊿Τ吭高骋臮拜〆穦沮и┮硂ㄢㄓセЫ﹚穦碞ヴ︙兵ㄒΘミ兵ㄒ〆穦钮ㄤΤぃ種ǎ刮砰種ǎ秈︽吭高狦痷硈兵ㄒ〆穦⊿ΤΘミ獽ㄓ秈︽弄弄и谋眔痷ぃび琌и-
纯碞セ兵ㄒΘミ〆穦琵產矗種ǎㄆ龟êぱ戈よ玡ㄓ笷種ǎ瘤礛琌絴矗種ǎ羆衡琌Τ倒ぉ-
诀穦┮и-
⊿Τ篒-
矗ㄑ種ǎ措笵
︓弧瞶沮ぃì硂琌ǎくǎ醇拜肈Τ闽秨ぃì戈Τ芠戈㎡ㄒи┮弧も况紅ㄒ穦骋矪щ禗㎡讽礛ぃ穦ㄆ龟笿Τ硂ㄇ秨ぃì薄猵璶沟倒ぉ12ら骋矪ぃ穦瞶Τ闽讽礛骋矪穦弧Τ硂ㄇ戈Τぶ猭ㄒ⊿Τ矗ㄑ玂毁临骋矪щ禗㎡┮ㄏ骋矪Τ戈ぃ穦琌非絋戈現┎弧穦秈︽秸琩穓栋戈и獺穓栋眔ㄓ戈穦瑈τぃ琌Ч俱戈
畊碞セ兵ㄒτēиぃ琌⊿Τ瞶沮ぃ琌⊿Τ戈ぃ筁產ミ初Чぃτ︙庇古某弧筁セ兵ㄒぃ莉硄筁琌現┎程Τ穝稱猭ê獽琌椿安戳丁現┎穦秈︽冈灿╯╯穦ミ猭盢"氨"﹚竡э到庢场だ某谋眔琂礛現┎穦硂妓暗ぃ琵現┎暗τぃやи兵ㄒи稱禗產ㄏи兵ㄒぃ莉硄筁и辨現┎宽空ē暗眔ゑиぃ筁иョ辨︗某フ笵瞶ê獽琌尘も筁κ尘狶狦Τ诀穦杠莱荷е硄筁龟︽現┎┮砛┯空常琌瑌タ独岸藉某碞兜兵ㄒぃ耞у蝶現┎来弧穦暗程挡狦︙㎡┤產みいΤ计
и辨產フゼㄓ羬ミ穦Θ常穦坝︓盢ㄓ材ミ猭穦匡庢ョ膀糷カチ把匡┮и-
ゼㄓご琌穦坝旧硂琌ぃ甧竚好ら痷穦Τ兵ㄒ骸ì┪玂毁骋顶舦痲硂琌胔好┮и腢筁ぃ耞舦痲刮砰┪ㄆやセ兵ㄒ
谅谅畊
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung claimed a division.
辩模┚某璶―翴∕
畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕
畊略矗眶︗某瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈1996沟赌(璹)(材4腹)兵ㄒぉ弄
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗某癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
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, 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, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN,Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
Miss Christine LOH, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 22 votes in favour of the motion and 30 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived, and that no further proceedings would be taken on the Bill.
畊ガ觅Θ某22は癸30琌ガ某綝∕ガセЫぃ穦碞兵ㄒ秈︽秈˙某ㄆ祘
Committee stage of Bills
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 2, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 19
兵ㄒ材1210141518の19兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that these clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
I believe these clauses are not in dispute, and from looking at my neighbour's stack of documents given to him by the Administration on how to vote, I notice that none of these clauses are in dispute, so I will not say anything. It is already very late.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンIII
Clause 2 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンIII
Clause 10 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンIII
Clause 14 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンIII
Clause 15 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材15兵ǎンIII
Clause 18 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材18兵ǎンIII
Clause 19 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材19兵ǎンIII
バ玊某璓勉畊嘲糠某敖и硂ゅン⊿Τ弧琌現┎倒и
〆穦畊叫碞某肈祇ē渤┪矗砏祘拜肈街巾ォГ娩倒ǎ⊿Τ快猭渤
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I rise just merely to say that the Administration agrees with the Committee stage amendments proposed.
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ碞材2141518の19兵┮笆某Τ闽兵ゅぇタ莉∕材2141518の19兵穦眖兵ㄒい
Question on clauses 1 and 10, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材1の10兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clasue 3
兵ㄒ材3兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 3 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members. I will speak on clauses 3 and 13 together because they are connected.
Clause 13 gives the EOC two new functions which are, first, to promote the public acceptance and understanding of internationally-recognized standards for the equal treatment of men and women, and second, to examine and report on any proposed legislation that the Commission considers may have equal opportunity implication.
Clause 3 specifies international standards which are relevant for these purposes. Clause 3 mentions obligations to eliminate sex discrimination under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and CEDAW and the Committee stage amendment, the clause to reflect that SCEDAW has been applied to Hong Kong since the Bill was first gazetted, hence one of the Committee stage amendments that have to be moved, which Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung, the Honourable James TIEN and the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU seem to think, implies that the Bill is not well drafted. In fact, as you can see from this case it is not true.
Clause 3 also mentions other relevant guidance provided in the United Nations 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and provided in two recommendations by the International Labour Organization concerning employment discrimination and equal pay.
Members and the Commission should be reassured that these clauses do not impose any new legal duties on the Commission. Indeed, if they did, the clauses would have been blocked for having a charging effect. The clauses merely give the Commissioner discretion to undertake these functions if in the Commission's strategic judgment they would be useful.
Moreover, it is undisputed that the Commission could undertake these functions even without these clauses under the authority of its existing general function of promoting equality of opportunity between men and women. The legal effect of these clauses is, therefore, rather innocuous, but I nevertheless insist on putting these clauses forward because an important principle is at stake. Hong Kong is proud of being a cosmopolitan and internationally-oriented territory. We participate actively in a wide variety of international organizations, and the laws of Hong Kong are replete with express references to international standards, conventions and agreements, both binding and non-binding.
Nevertheless, the Administration steadfastly resists the insertion of any reference to the relevant international standard in equal opportunity legislation, even as it regularly represents this legislature to the United Nations as implementing those standards. This is not only hypocritical. It retards the development of equal opportunity law in Hong Kong. Attention to fast-developing international standards is valuable in the area of equal opportunity for the same practical reasons as in any other field. As the expert body in this field, the EOC should as a matter of course take up the task of overseeing and promoting the awareness and implementation of such standards.
I hope that it will do so whether or not these clauses are enacted, but these clauses will substantially assist it in that task. I hope Members will vote for clause 3.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, as a matter of principle, we cannot agree with the proposed amendments which seek to specify international covenants in domestic legislation.
Clauses 3 and 26, in conjunction with clauses 13 and 30, seek to expand the powers of the EOC to include the promotion of international instruments which have not been accepted for implementation in Hong Kong. This is unacceptable and will mislead the public into thinking that the standards in these instruments are legally binding.
Furthermore, for the EOC to be seen to be pushing for the adoption of standards not yet applicable to Hong Kong will not be conducive to the EOC's political neutrality.
Mr Chairman, the Administration strongly objects to clause 3 and the Committee stage amendments.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, the Administration seems to argue that these have to be legally binding before the EOC can be promoting them. I think they know very well in their hearts that these are standards, and standards as such will not become part of the law. But if we abide by these international agreements and conventions, the EOC should of course be pushing them.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材3兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, 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 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, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 25 votes in favour of the amendment and 31 against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ25は癸31琌ガタ綝∕
辩醇翬某畊沮穦某盽砏材37兵材(4)蹿砏﹚и笆某璝Τ〆セΩ穦某畊碞1997莱揭祙珇璹兵ㄒㄤ緇兜タ璶―秈︽翴∕砰〆穦斗翴∕牧羘臫癬1だ牧ミ秈︽Τ闽翴∕辨ㄆぃ璶は癸ぃ璶秈︽臛阶
Question on the motion proposed and put.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ畊セ畊ガ∕璝Τ〆セΩ穦某畊碞1996┦の摧痚猍跌(馒兜砏﹚)兵ㄒㄤ緇兜タ璶―秈︽翴∕杠砰〆穦斗翴∕牧羘臫癬1だ牧ぇミ秈︽Τ闽翴∕
Question on the original clause 3 put.
览兵ㄒ材3兵ぇ某肈窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈材3兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊﹟ろ计セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, 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 James TO, 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, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 24 votes in favour of the motion and 31 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某24は癸31琌ガ某綝∕
〆穦畊パ砰〆穦ぃ種р材3兵セ兵ㄒボ砰穦ョぃ穦種р材13兵籔材3兵Τ闽硈ぇ兵セ兵ㄒ材13兵盢ぃ穦砆弄τ赣兵ゅョぃ穦セ兵ㄒ
Clauses 4, 5 and 6
兵ㄒ材45の6兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
A major purpose of the SDO is to eliminate indirect discrimination, that is, apparently neutral rules and practices which in actual practice have a disproportionate impact on one sex or another. This purpose has been thwarted in the United Kingdom by a series of court decisions beginning with Perreira v. Civil Service Commission. These decisions are virtually certain to be followed in Hong Kong unless clauses 4 to 6 of this Bill are enacted.
In the Perreira case the United Kingdom court decided that an indirect discrimination claimant had to identify a requirement or condition that absolutely barred his or her success. This is impossible in most real situations of indirect discrimination. Real decisions, such as the choice of a successful job applicant, are typically based on the balance of criteria. One or more criterion may in practice be highly detrimental to one sex. Nevertheless no single criterion can be described as an absolute bar by itself. As a result, no such decision can be treated as indirect discrimination, no matter how much difficulty the criteria used actually posed for that sex.
The Perreira line of cases will almost certainly be applied to the SDO. The Administration has pointed out that Australian courts have not adopted such a restrictive construction of similar language used in Australian legislation. Unfortunately, because the Ordinance is copied from United Kingdom law, Hong Kong courts will follow the United Kingdom rather than the Australian construction of the legislation. Clauses 4 to 6 redefine indirect discrimination to prevent the Perreira construction from being applied to Hong Kong. The Committee stage amendment retains as much of the current statutory language as possible whilst still achieving that purpose.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 4 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンIII
Clause 5 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンIII
Clause 6 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, the proposed amendments seek to reverse a decision of the United Kingdom's Court of Appeal that a condition or requirement may constitute indirect discrimination only if it amounts to an absolute bar. At this juncture, there is little information on whether such a reversal is justified. Also its implications have yet to be assessed and more detailed study is necessary before we can formulate a view.
The provisions on what constitutes indirect discrimination are important provisions in anti-discrimination legislation. Therefore any amendment will need strong justification. Miss LOH said her proposed amendments were based on the recommendation made by the United Kingdom Equal Opportunities Commission in 1988. What she has not said is that this recommendation has not been accepted by the United Kingdom Government. Assuming for a moment that the Court of Appeal's decision should be reversed, it is not clear whether the wording proposed by Miss LOH now can achieve the objective.
As the proposed amendments also seek to change other wording in the existing sections, this would mean that other judicial ruling on the meaning of indirect discrimination can no longer be relied upon. This would give rise to uncertainty in what is one of the most important provisions in the SDO.
Mr Chairman, the Administration strongly objects to Clauses 4, 5, 6 and the Committee stage amendments.
Question on the amendments put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材45の6兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ3瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, 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 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, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendments.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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 against the amendments.
Miss CHAN Yuen-han abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 25 votes in favour of the amendments and 30 against them. He therefore declared that the amendments were negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ25は癸30琌ガタ綝∕
Question on the original clauses 4, 5 and 6 put and negatived.
兵ㄒ览材45の6兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕綝∕
Clause 7
兵ㄒ材7兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I believe this is another clause that the Government is asking everybody to support so I will not waste your time. Please vote yes. (Laughter)
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 7 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材7兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, the SDO provides for a grace period for small employers which will end on 13 July 1998. This grace period is reasonable and necessary. We object to the shortening of the grace period as proposed in clause 7(b) and (c) as it will cause much difficulty to those small employers.
Mr Chairman, as the Committee stage amendments seeks to delete this objectionable clause 7(b) and (c), the Administration agrees with this Committee stage amendment. However, Honourable Members may wish to note that clause 7(a) provides a grandfathering provision in respect of death and retirement schemes. Mr Chairman, may I put down a marker that if clause 7(b) and (c) were deleted from clause 7, the Administration will object to clause 7 as amended because there is no urgent need to propose any amendments to grandfather existing death or retirement schemes.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I hope what the Administration was saying is the same in this paper that I spied from the Honourable James TIEN's set of documents. If what the Administration is saying is "vote for it" and then something else, then yes, please vote for it.
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on the cluase 7, as amended, put.
竒タぇ兵ㄒ材7兵竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Miss Christine LOH and Mr Albert CHAN claimed a division.
嘲糠某の朝岸穨某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈竒タぇ材7兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ2瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, 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 MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the motion and 25 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某31は癸25琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clauses 8, 9, 22 and 23
兵ㄒ材8922の23兵
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, there is no urgency to propose any amendments to these items at present. Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to clauses 8, 9, 22 and 23.
Question on the clauses 8, 9, 22 and 23 put.
兵ㄒ材8922の23兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈材8922の23兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 votes in favour of the motion and 26 against them. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某30は癸26琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause 11
兵ㄒ材11兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I will respond.
CHAIRMAN: You may reply afterwards, Miss LOH.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: I am sorry.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, section 59 of the SDO provides for an exemption for acts which are carried out for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Hong Kong. As this exemption provision serves to protect the interests of our community, it is necessary and should therefore be retained.
I am sure Honourable Members will agree with me that while protecting the rights of the individuals we should not undermine our security. Security measures are, by their very nature, mainly emergency measures which are difficult to foresee. There is no justification for the deletion of the existing exemption provision unless one thinks that our security does not worth protection.
Mr Chairman, the Administration strongly objects to clause 11.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, the Administration has never been able to provide an example of what acts the exception is intended to authorize and the Administration was unable to give an example even at the last minute. It is in fact very difficult to imagine any act of sex discrimination which is both so unfair that it does not fit into any of the Ordinance's many other exceptions and is also necessary for Hong Kong's security. Whatever the intention, the terms of the exception are grossly wide. Any act done for the purposes of safeguarding security falls within its scope without regard to whether the act was reasonable or whether it was actually necessary to achieve the purpose.
Moreover, the exception provides that in cases outside the employment field, the Chief Secretary may conclusively certify any act as subject to the exception. There is no judicial control of the use of such certificates. Let me underline this point, Mr Chairman. The exception does not allow a judge to question the Chief Secretary's certificate.
The reason that there is no similar provision for certification of employment cases is because that provision was struck down in the United Kingdom by a judge of the European Court of Justice before the Administration copied the United Kingdom Act. The exception creates a potentially enormous loophole. I am afraid that in practice it will be tempting for the Administration to deploy this exception to squash any discrimination claims that threatens to interfere with an established practice in any security-related part of the Government.
A similar exception was deleted from the DDO prior to its enactment, and I urge Members to repeal this one as well.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊иだ佩砓琌現┎计玡矗兵ㄒゼ矗ㄒぃи獺現┎局Τ硂或珹俱钉現叭﹛の胑╯钉ヮ澈礛パ讽矗兵ㄒ︓瞷氮臛ゼ矗ㄒ弧︙贺薄猵惠璶玠搭赣よ︑パ㎝舦璝礛硈ㄒぃ矗ㄓ杠и獺現┎阶沮琌だ店┠の⊿猭獺狝ㄤ龟︽盢らのら穦某糵某щ禗牡よ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒ穦笿ㄒи珼驹現┎安渤硂玠搭舦の︑パ兵ゅずゼ矗ヴ︙ㄒи辨︗某σ納赣翴玥杠и-
獽琌ヘ蛤繦兜兵ゅ猵赣兵ゅョゼ弧狝杠︙や現┎蝴兵ゅ赣兵蹿㎡
〆穦畊琌Τㄤ〆稱祇ē獺產ぃ惠璶セ畊矗眶〆穦顶琿祇ē筁Ω讽礛ぃ狡ず甧
Question on clause 11 put.
兵ㄒ材11兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈材11兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, Mr SZETO Wah, 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 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, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the motion and 30 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某26は癸30琌ガ某綝∕
Clause 12
兵ㄒ材12兵
毒浪膀某璓勉谅谅畊и辨碞現郸矗Ωиよ秆睦и︙矪瞶硂拜肈タиチ辨現郸さΩ嘲糠某矗タи-
щ布癸ㄇ螟螟ぇ矪嘲糠某タ⊿Τ某現郸硂薄猵璝チщ觅Θ布獽跑Θ觅Θ現郸膥尿狦チщは癸布獽穦谋眔チは癸╧キ单┮硂螟薄猵ぇи-
チ莱︙矪瞶螟肈㎡
и-
暗猭琌辨現┎矪瞶硂拜肈よ镑そ秨┯空穦碻蠢現郸よ┪玥︽ㄆи-
チ粄Τ現郸过┏秆∕拜肈現郸穦﹡チぇ丁ぃ穦瞷╧ぃキ单瞷禜
よ鲸恨嘲糠某タ莉眔硄筁現郸ご穦ご穦暗Θ贺ぃそキ瞷禜 穝﹡チ礚阶╧┪常Τカ跋﹡チ玥⊿Τи獺畒砛"礚催浇"┪﹡︘羬┪泞常辨局Τ丁璝現┎膥尿甧砛穝﹡チ局Τ杠碞ぃ琵┮Τカ跋﹡チㄉΤ单笿璝ぃ硂妓杠и獺璶и-
チщ觅Θ布跑や現郸獽穦Τ拜肈и穦產┯空チ穦膥尿現郸
琎ぱ現┎纯┯空τ疭跋赋地ネョ纯繷┯空ボ穦╯︙矪瞶蠢瞷︽現郸讽礛и⊿Τ钡钮赋地ネ硂妓弧琌硓筁現叭眔眡現┎ボ穦さ材﹗Θミ盡砫〆穦╯︙矪瞶蠢瞷︽現郸и┮┯空琌眖現叭氮滦亩セい硋竊魁ㄓ硂┯空璉ㄣΤ蛮種竡材種竡琌現┎癸瞷竒才局Τ舦穝﹡チ┯空ボ腀種稱快猭矪瞶硂竤﹡︘拜肈иフ硂竤﹡チ紐納﹡チ常才兵ンビ叫砍单510︓20瞷現┎ご⊿Τу倒-
-
⊿Τ快猭局Τ丁さぱ璝現郸-
20ㄓ戴辨獽穦Θ獁紇硂癸-
琌ぃそキ
иセ眖ㄆ跋舱麓и-
眖玡れ跋㎝羬跋﹡チ舦痲戳丁祇瞷鲸恨現┎纯竒フ堵┯空ボ穦琘琘ら秈︽睲╊程玱⊿Τ硂妓暗и-
フ-
稰穦-
妓и-
ョフ硂竤さぱЫ︓Гそ渤畊﹡チ琌穦稰荡辨и荡癸フ-
稰ぃ筁иョ辨-
镑フㄤ稰
翠琌瞷てカ狦и-
蹦ノ┕睲ㄒ︓猽ノㄤ菌框痙ㄓ現郸и-
硂穝カ┪砛ゼゲ镑钡и辨さぱ畒﹡チ镑钮и種ǎ產叫稱稱ㄤ龟и-
さぱぃバさぱョぃ┰唉バさぱи-
弄瓣粂璣ゅ㎝約狥杠硂籔计玡竒ぃи辨畒﹡チフ璝現┎㎝疭跋赋地痷Τ港種┯空︽ㄆи-
琌莱赣癸穦跑て硂┯空材種竡睲贰現┎癸盢ㄓΘミ〆穦琌Τ戳辨Τ闽┯空睲贰弧璶矪瞶蠢瞷︽現郸传ēぇ現┎粄瞷︽現郸琌惠璶蠢硂琌睲贰よ硂睲贰よㄤ龟琌翠現┎㎝疭跋赋地碞琌さΩ臛阶カチ┮ユ讽礛臛阶筁祘いΤㄇㄆ借好и︙璶獺現┎︙璶獺疭跋赋地-
踞みи穦砆篡腇иぃ笵現┎穦篡腇иぃ笵赋ネ穦篡腇и琌и谋眔さぱ翠硂羉篴秈˙穦ㄓ弧璝現┎ご篡腇и-
杠璝︽現﹛篡腇и-
杠-
碞礚好璉璽崔チ框痙ㄓ钓ッ环⊿Τㄓ︓ささらиご礛獺翠現┎ぃ穦琌礚獺礚竡現┎ささらиご獺疭跋赋地ネ琌ぃ腀種暗癸カチ礚獺礚竡烩砈
チ現乎璶―現┎現郸チョ绊現┎斗現郸璝纯竒┯空倒ぉ琘ㄇ狥﹁獽璶膥尿候┯空┮и-
某ノよ猭蠢瞷︽現郸祏戳ぇずи辨現┎σ納チよㄓ蠢現郸и弧弧иよ玥
() 現┎莱荷е璹ミ篒ゎビ叫ら戳硂琌弧篒ゎら戳ぇネ┪骸18烦﹡チぃビ叫瞷才戈τ祅癘莉┯空﹡チΤ13 000オ传ēぇ篒ゎら戳ぇネ╧┪常ぃビ叫
() 現┎莱Ω筁肂挤砍﹡チ﹡Τㄤ虫︗硂ㄇ﹡Τㄤ虫︗计ヘ莱ì镑竚13 000и琌┮瓃戈﹡チ计ヘ非玥盢13 000﹚夹非虫︗计ヘ莱ì镑﹡チ┾乓τ┾乓玥蹦ノ瞷翠﹡Τㄤ
璝璶把籔琌兜璸购┾乓Τ闽莱
(i) 才ビ叫兵ン
(ii) 蹦ノ厚┾乓
() 琌兜﹡璸购ノ﹡璪Α瞷狦瞷┮弧琌13 000琌21畒﹡加璸购跋砍畒﹡加ㄒ璝拉砍ì镑甧600╧﹡璪玥ㄤ龟獽ê砍畒加常︽传ēぇㄣ砰よ琌碔紆┦﹡基窥莱パ現┎络﹚τ硄盽τēヘ玡ゎ碭﹡基琌カ基50%临Τ琌﹡チ璝┾い﹡ぇ3ぇず芥倒﹡チ
程﹡チ璝痷稱カ初扳芥ㄤ虫︗ョ10現┎干基扳
瓃︓翴よ材纔翴碞琌贺ぃキ单薄猵⊿Τ現郸传ēぇ碞⊿Τ╧琌キ单拜肈⊿Τ現郸碞⊿Τ﹡チ㎝獶﹡チぃキ单
材纔翴琌笷璓キ单猵瞷﹡チぃビ叫そ㎝禦﹡Τ硂現郸ぇ-
常钩ㄤ妓產キ单
材纔翴琌10ぇΤ闽虫︗カ初禦芥ㄤ龟瞷現郸旧璓舦ノ﹡ΤㄤよΑ碞⊿Τ芥緇﹡チ碞琌﹡︘﹡虫︗碞琌徽︑瞶ぃ芥材纔翴琌芥カ初虫︗璶干基璓程現┎⊿Τ瑉禟倒﹡チи辨硂よ莉現┎σ納蠢現郸よ猭谅谅畊
糂祇某璓勉畊タи┮弧現郸ㄤ龟籔┦猍跌╧キ单单拜肈琌цぃ闽玒狦祑璶瞶パ臮龟薄硂兜Ξ秆∕秏チ﹡︘惠璶現郸琌ぃ璽砫ヴи辨セЫ某镑碙菌碙瞷龟篈穝拜肈
穝秏跋秏チ﹡︘吏挂㎝ネよΑАΤカ跋﹡チи-
弧現郸ㄤ龟琌兜︘逼琂臮の穝菌肚参ち秏チ惠璶干翠現┎┬現郸ぃì璹硂兜現郸ヘ鉩琌秆∕秏チ﹡︘拜肈硂兜現郸琌甧砛Θ╧┦﹡チビ叫硂妓獶琌┦猍跌τ琌σ納秏チ肚参ネよΑ琌┦秏チ儿眖ひ礚龟悔惠璶
ㄆ龟穝秏某Ыぃは癸盢現郸絛瞅耎︓続ノ┦﹡チ玡矗琌現┎ゲ斗Т到逼秏跋Τì镑ぇノ秏某Ыは癸Τ╧キ单虑ゼЧΘ浪癚現郸ゼΤㄤ逼ぇ玡硂兜現郸竚秏チ舦痲ぃ臮畊穝秏チκㄓネ吹吹ㄓ常琌┮戴―琌镑︑產秏ネㄓ現┎稧基眏︽紉Μ秏チ笆ノ秖そ┊砍そ﹡秆∕カ跋﹡︘拜肈程控㎝種稱ぃ琌さぱ穝﹡チ澈礛硈︑產秏︑︑禣砍舦墩盢玠и-
矗眶產セㄓиぃ稱硂妓弧ぃ筁и临稱ノ"牡"┪琌"┚"泊
畊穝秏チ舦痲礚瞶管-
﹚ぃ穦礚笆癑-
ぃ穦ヴパΤノみ耚ガ㎝˙˙溃τ-
ぃ穦г羘ヴパ辰ψ-
﹚穦徖-
莱Τ舦痲畊璝嘲糠某兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁璓穝﹡チ舦砆ちê獽琌单ノぃ猭も琿彩忌癸翠﹡チ秈︽甡菌禗и-
硂妓暗猭眖ㄓ穦癸穦㎝坑铆﹚盿ㄓ端甡ㄆ龟パτ旧璓チず场こ侥瑈﹀穦笆历ㄒ琌眔璝痷瞷Ы镑パêㄇΤノみぃ堡穦㎝坑铆﹚戒猔璽砫
畊и笵さぱ礚阶и弧ぶ弧杠妓秆睦癸ㄇΤΘǎ常穦癬ぃ或ノ琌и辨セЫ︗ㄆщ布ぇ玡镑芠稱稱щは癸布硂妓獽磷紇臫チネ
畊иは癸Τ闽兵ㄒ
ッ笷某璓勉畊毒浪膀某弧チ硂拜肈ミ初иご辨3︗ごゼ祇ēチΘ秈˙坚睲セЫ琌そ诀篶τパи-
ミ猭獶盽璶и-
ゲ斗沮ㄆ龟の箇代薄猵и-
∕﹚毒浪膀某┸臩ㄇ穝戈ㄤい珹纯钡牟赋地ネτ沮弧赋ネ纯倒ㄇ繷┯空硂贺锣瓃繷┯空薄猵翠菌祇ネぃぶΩ琌砛砆ま瓃常ま瓃岿粇τ斗坚睲蛤獽玻ネ礷臛阶硂贺薄猵ぃ琌眖ゼ祇ネ筁и粄毒浪膀さぱミ猭Ы┮弧杠讽礛Θщ布σ納琌璝ㄓ秆睦チミ初杠獽陪眔ぃì镑さぱそ渤┪ミ猭Ы常ゼΤ钮ゼㄓ︽現﹛硂拜肈ミ初の暗猭狦и-
荷獺毒浪膀某锣瓃玂靡τ沮ミ猭杠и-
ミ猭筁祘獽穦跑眔淮瞯
材毒浪膀某チ弧-
篶Ч到よㄓ秆∕硂拜肈τ-
よㄤ龟琘àㄓ弧耕嘲糠某兵ㄒ过┏硂絋ㄏи稰種и琍戳臛阶纯ボ現囊琌ぃ硂妓暗ㄆ璝毒某Τ種ǎ莱赣Ν翴矗ㄓ臛阶Ν翴琵產笵チ稱妓秆∕拜肈獽そ渤秈︽臛阶のΜ栋そ渤種ǎ璶琌璝チΤ某獽莱赣璹嘲糠某兵ㄒ沮ミ猭Ы某ㄆ祘某琌Τ丁矗タ璝チ谋眔-
某硂或︙-
单瞷矗ㄓτぃ璹嘲糠某兵ㄒ㎡硂贺暗猭┪м獶盽踞みミ猭Ы某ゲ斗睲贰-
琌觅Θ┪琌は癸硂よи笵Τㄇㄆぃ觅Θ嘲糠某某τチ囊玱琌觅Θミ初睲贰ぃ斗癹磷琌讽и-
来т虑ㄓ秆睦︑ミ初τぃ琌р︑ミ初砰瞷猭ㄒ弧ㄇゼㄓτぃ﹚祇ネㄆ薄ㄓ沮ㄤ某獽Τ瞶阶沮ㄓ胔好и-
痷タミ初借好и-
琌琌み獶沮и芠诡チぃ琌材Ω硂妓暗
Ωミ猭Ы臛阶臟隔祇甶郸菠и璝某Τ種ǎ獽莱Νㄇ矗ㄓ臛阶璹某ぃ璶程闽繷矗ㄓ琌瞷и眖ゼ厨彻綷弄筁チ硂某τи衡琌痙種┬拜肈某иさぱ材Ω钮毒浪膀某弧硂或冈灿某иぃ獺毒某琌さぱと逗礛稱硂種ǎ或Τ硂或種ǎぃ矗ㄓ臛阶㎡或矗タ㎡┮и辨チ坚睲礛и臛阶谅谅畊
〆穦畊毒浪膀某琌砏祘拜肈
毒浪膀某畊и稱莱ッ笷某┮矗拜肈Τ材Ω祇ē
〆穦畊砰〆穦糵某顶琿琌Τ⊿Τㄤ〆稱祇ē糕蚌┚某毒某セ畊单穦叫祇ē
糕蚌┚某璓勉畊и辨弧碭ㄓや糂祇某㎝稰谅嘲糠某矗某и稱矗眶︗ㄆ璶癸︑щ布∕﹚璽场砫ヴ,ぃ璶盢砫ヴ崩倒ㄤЫ
毒浪膀某畊ッ笷某弄ぃ初現叭簍勉睲贰τи簍勉い┮弧琌現叭弧杠陆亩弧或獽陆亩或某讽ぃ初┮钮ぃ現叭弧杠某借好赋疭╯澈Τ⊿Τи繷┯空и瞷讽礛⊿Τ快猭тㄓ坚睲ぱиē阶穦ǎ厨璝⊿Τ杠赋疭и弧晾ぃ筁程ぶ現叭瞷琌初
材チ矗種ǎぃ单厨彻Τ祅厨彻Τ祅ぃ单某Τ筁и-
某ノ﹡矪瞶拜肈纯辩璣弧筁疭琌辩璣ㄓチΤ癘初и-
弧筁и-
辩腳篴弧筁程и-
籔穦某Μㄢ禲皑初矗某盢瓁緿禲皑初êи-
矗硂よ
材きるせら讽и-
穦ǎ独琍地癚阶环┬郸菠и-
Τ弧筁и-
チ纯ㄢΩ碞郸弧︙祏戳ぇず秆∕拜肈琌傍ㄗよ猭и-
は癸眔3糷︙ぃ琌26糷38糷讽и-
琌硂妓弧糶猭琌硂妓辨ッ笷某ぃ璶弧钮ぃ碞单и-
⊿Τ弧┪弧ぃ碞单ぃㄤ龟硂琌ぃ厩ぃ琌臛阶よΑи龟ぃ琌材Ω氮滦ッ笷某硂妓拜肈┕ㄢΩ薄猵妓ê琌玡и-
癚阶︽現ミ猭诀闽闽玒さΩи產硂拜肈ぃ琌材Ω矗︙и-
ぃ矗タ狦и矗タノ﹡ㄓ蠢杠иГ現叭︗и⊿Τ兵ン笆ノ現┎秨や硂拜肈籔霉不瓣某Ω拜肈妓и-
辨砞ミいァ┦借〆穦矪瞶翠ユ硄笲块拜肈硂疉の現┎秨や︙タ㎡獺產常ぃ琌材Ω讽某材Ωノ妓拜肈ㄓ篕и-
и粄ぃそキи琌稱坚睲ㄇ拜肈
︙玊く某璓勉谅谅畊и稱虏虫莱材翴糂祇某祇ē材獽弧粄瞷︽現郸礚猍跌Θだㄤ龟璝糂某癸︑弧猭ㄣΤì镑獺みセぃ惠璶踞み硂兜タ硂兜タ琌紇臫㎝続ノㄇΤ猍跌Θだ現郸現郸┕㎝瞷琌僚┦猍跌兵ㄒ琌兜タ琌皐癸現郸琌ご莱ㄉΤ僚и-
ぃ琌璶硂兜兵ㄒ僚兵ゅ┮传ēぇ璝Τ闽現郸Τ猍跌Θだ穦紇臫は璝⊿Τ猍跌┦セ琌ぃ紇臫
材翴糂祇某弧Τ闽菌璉春┕兵ㄒ〆穦穦某い糂某ョ纯竒矗筁戈и-
ョ稰谅秆氮и-
拜肈ぃ筁и-
癚阶硂兜兵ㄒи-
獶璶秆∕の種瓜秆∕穝﹡チ﹡拜肈и-
ョ礚種琌皐癸ㄇ菌框痙ㄓτ現┎筐筐ゼ秆∕拜肈ㄆ龟и-
谋眔璶秆∕硂拜肈и-
琌斗璶秈︽芠诡и-
ぃ璶盢穝拜肈だ秨矪瞶и粄и-
琌Τよ猭秆∕拜肈τぃノ膥尿蝴ㄇΤ猍跌┦現郸┮и谋眔ㄏさぱи-
硄筁硂兜兵ㄒи-
ご礛膥尿癚阶妓蹦ㄇΤ惫琁秆∕菌框痙ㄓ拜肈秆∕ㄇ穝﹡チ﹡︘拜肈タи-
秆∕カ跋┮癸﹡︘拜肈妓
ㄤ龟硂兜タ琌Τ糴戳狦и-
钩毒浪膀某妓癸現┎Τ獺みи-
莱赣妒玃現┎硂糴戳ぇずЧ辅龟ウ┮┯空珹赋疭┪ガ現チ┮┯空ㄤ龟ㄢ丁琌莱赣秆∕拜肈ぃ筁и癘眔ㄢ玡讽硂兵┦猍跌兵ㄒ砆矗臛阶硄筁ョ讽礛琌璊ド某矗キ单诀穦兵ㄒ現┎常稱ノㄇ丁ㄤ龟さΩ璝倒ぉㄢ竒4狦Τ港種杠︙ぃ秆∕㎡ㄤ龟瞷и-
斗璶矪瞶琌┦猍跌拜肈и-
谋眔﹡チ﹡︘拜肈琌璶秆∕硂ぃ╧﹡︘拜肈ョ璶秆∕猵產笵現郸辅龟琌Τ拜肈τ現┎ョ笵璝璶辅龟硂兜現郸杠琌⊿Τì镑戈方ㄓ莱現┎蹦ノ︽現よ猭ㄓ籹硑锚и稱﹡チΤщ禗近丁笷ぃ眔硂妓琌骸種㎡
ㄤ龟и-
ぃ莱発磷硂ㄇ拜肈硂ㄇ拜肈琌璶癸の秆∕猍跌拜肈琌ぃ甧гτи谋眔倒ぉㄢ糴戳琌ì镑и辨狦產痷タ獺毒浪膀某┮眔現┎┯空ㄢ丁琌ì镑
и辨產硂璉春莱赣やタㄢずㄏ硂摸猍跌現郸ぃ籔и獺產ㄆョ穦膥尿璓癬秆∕┬﹡︘拜肈珹穝┕菌┮框痙ㄓ紉ノ拜肈㎝τま癬┬﹡︘拜肈
谅谅畊
ッ笷某璓勉畊и材Ω祇ēご礛稱臛阶硂拜肈
材毒浪膀某⊿Τ氮и拜肈赋ネ氮莱琌或ㄆ
〆穦畊搭癬ǎセ畊稱矗眶某嘿㊣ㄆ叫嘿㊣某ㄒ毒浪膀某ッ笷某单狦產㊣ㄤ杠碞穦禫臛禫糉甡瘤礛Τ┮弧杠⊿Τ钡篕弧晾ご莱赣み硂穦硑Θぃ猑セ畊辨產癘眔ㄇ膀セ搂祸叫某膥尿
ッ笷某畊и谋眔и瞷弧杠吹ゅи癸穦某盽砏だ剪眡┮и⊿Τ稱筁璶北禗弧晾
毒浪膀某矗赋地ネ纯弧杠ま靡и┮踞みㄆ碞琌瞷礚ヴ︙玂靡赋地ネ穦毒浪膀某┮弧ê妓暗ㄆи谋眔硂暗猭淮瞯
材毒浪膀某弧纯盢ê狡馒㎝柜穝種ǎ禗иぃ笵Τ⊿Τ癸厨彻弧程ぶи笵厨彻⊿Τ祅ㄤ種ǎΤ闽チ碞現郸ミ初㎝ゅン常⊿Τ厨彻祅狦チ蹦硂贺ミ初иㄤ龟だ舧ミ猭Ы臛阶ぇ玡计琍戳┪ぱぇ玡琵и稱矗のず甧┪Τ⊿Τミ初狦さぱ弧ㄓи-
妓臛阶㎡硂癸ㄆ琌そキ
材Τ闽そ┊やи㎝毒浪膀某癬秈ミ猭Ыи-
笵ミ猭Ы某兵ㄒ琌ぃΤ疉のそ┊や场だぃ筁產ミ猭Ы某硂或ョ纯把籔兵ㄒ〆穦狦︗Τ種ǎ毒浪膀某Τ種ǎиぃは癸и穦やパㄆ癬磐荷福ツ稱妓ぃ篶Θそ┊やи籔郭Θ某兵ㄒ〆穦ず酵阶拜肈и-
踞みタ穦盿ㄓそ┊や莱赣ㄓ產癚阶и籔郭Θ某酵眔だщミ初璓иぃΤ或拜肈и粄莱Νㄇ盢種ǎㄓ蛤癚阶т琂才產玥暗ぃ疉のそ┊や快猭ㄨ璝癸и弧穦疉のそ┊やи讽礛快ぃぃ疉のそ┊や硂ぃ琌臛阶そ現郸㎝璹猭よ猭狦谋眔硂種ǎ琌ゑ嘲糠某種ǎ临璶ê獽莱ㄓ琵そ渤癚阶碝―よ猭タ暗ぃ疉のそ┊や硂獽琌程よ猭狦1る玡┪ㄢる玡矗現郸钡ボ踞み穦疉のそ┊や玥礚阶嘲糠某妓羙ㄢる丁ぃ眔ぃ疉のそ┊や挡阶иだㄘ狝毒浪膀某瞷蛤и矗硂ンㄆ畊そ現郸臛阶琌硂或ㄠ栏
谅谅畊
毒浪膀某畊ッ笷某ぃぃ笵иま瓃赋地弧杠琌或瞷и弧筂狦陆綷某ㄆ魁獽笵и弧3筂赋地┮┯空琌......
〆穦畊砏祘拜肈毒浪膀某叫Г琖皇某Τ砏祘拜肈
琖皇某畊钩弧筁и-
Ω祇ēぃ狡︑弧弧3筂渤
毒浪膀某琌-
囊璶―и坚睲弧и⊿Τ莱
〆穦畊礚斗弧璶弧"и竒弧筁產陆琩穦某魁碞穦ǎиㄆ龟竒弧筁"硂妓弧竒睲贰
郭Θ某璓勉谅谅畊и稱干碭翴種ǎ材и稰ア辨︓瞷ゎи临⊿Τ钮ǎチ囊某┪︗某矗ヴ︙Τ闽現郸ぇ玡璶矗︽よㄣ砰種ǎ琎ぱ碞兵ㄒ弄祇ēи纯矗璶―辨и-
兜硂或璶現郸璶矗ㄇㄣ砰︽よ┮и辨チ囊矗ㄇ摸某ぃ穦弧硄筁兵ㄒ穦祇ネ或ㄆ產常ぃ笵и稱チ囊ごΤ某ゼ祇ē单穦︗某碞祇ē矗種ǎ
材ッ笷某矗のチ某赣Ν翴矗種ǎ硂衡琌腨德癚阶ノ璹璹兵ㄒよ猭ㄓ矪瞶硂ㄇ某毒浪膀某矗и-
纯ㄇ初矗筁兵ㄒ〆穦癚阶い讽秏某ЫΘ畊и纯矗"辟苐"よ竒跑и-
赣稱稱妓р硂ㄇㄆ薄辟耞讽朝胞糭某纯矗摸蛤秈借高会種硂よ
ㄤ龟硂ㄇ種ǎ玡矗и-
ョ纯ㄤ初矗硂ㄇ種ǎぃ筁⊿Τ厨彻冈灿厨笵Τи-
⊿Τ盢種ǎ肚痷倒︗某硂琌и-
ア郸よ祔и-
穦盢更Τи-
種ǎ俱ゅン干癳︗某ㄑ把σッ笷某癸┬拜肈ぷㄤ闽猔и莱赣盢肚痷腹絏郎チ肚痷诀ずΤ闽┬ㄆ﹜常琵筁ヘぃ筁辨某は筁ㄓ琵и-
種ǎ產がユ瑈
矗璹兵ㄒよ硂玱琌ぃи-
赣ゲ﹚穦疉のΤそ┊やи-
ぷㄤ璶現郸よσ納妓崩︽現郸ㄓ蠢瞷現郸┮硂琌︽ぃ硄
パ丁ぃì莱赣ㄇ盢種ǎ矗ㄓ琵產癚阶и稱и-
碞硂翴浪癚
程ㄤ龟さぱ臛阶いи-
辨硂兜現郸ぇ玡矗よ硂琌ミ猭Ы砮矪ㄆよ猭и-
绊硂贺矪瞶よ猭┮さぱΤ粇穦и-
は癸╧キ单и-
ご穦绊膥尿т秆∕硂ンㄆよ猭ㄤ龟產ヘ夹璓よ璓琌も猭ぃи-
ぃ獽弧產Τだ琌碞钩ッ笷某у蝶螟笵Τ琘矗よ猭琌程硚耴τ辨產甧砛и-
Τ硂贺丁
谅谅畊
襖略ビ某璓勉畊闽硂肈ヘи谋眔程璶琌︙秆∕硂拜肈иビ翴碞и钮チ某┮弧-
粄瞷現郸Τ猍跌Θだ╧ぃキ单玥-
ぃ穦璶―拜肈琌и-
甧砛硂ンㄆ㎡-
┮獺苦Τㄢ翴材翴琌現┎┮弧杠硂ョ珹材翴疭跋赋地ネ┮弧杠
現叭弧氮莱3るずΘミ舱╯︙蠢и-
芔纯秈︽礷癚阶и-
弧╯︙蠢程挡狦琌ぃぉ蠢莱ぉ蝴硂妓ぃ弧現┎礚獺礚竡現┎弧╯挡狦琌ぃ蠢狦э∕﹚︙蠢獽琌弧竒∕﹚蠢ぃ筁﹟ゼ∕﹚ノ或よ猭蠢τぃ筁-
弧現┎ぃ穦эㄆ龟現┎ごΤ┮玂痙╯Ч拨膥尿蝴┪︓弧硂才膀セ猭狦弧現┎┯空ぃ泊ê或"╯"㎝"∕﹚"Τ︙だ㎡и-
窾ぃ璶硂或稱さぱ耕Ν腑瓣辆某纯и-
〆穦碞辩皇ネ瞒戮ㄆン厨某璶Ч厨獽穦癸現┎獺みΤ借好現┎〆穦ず粆ㄑ妓倒ぉм砃┦氮滦礛獽弧ê琌┮孔"м砃┦氮"狶坟ネ竒盽硂妓弧〆穦粄硂ンㄆ薄現┎羘臕籜γそ獺腨穕穕甡現┎讽Ы籔ミ猭Ыが獺闽玒иぃ琌さΩ硂妓弧τ琌〆穦琍戳穦臛阶厨硂ぃ筁琌и-
11︗某璓挡阶ぃきせ︗某妓猭拜肈琌現┎倒ぉм砃┦氮滦秈︽╯礛ぃ倒ぉ┯空ê或龟悔現┎┯空琌或и-
琌獽甧砛硂ぃキ单種產種瞷禜硂瞷禜蝴
ㄤΩи-
璶現┎程弧猭ㄓ耞и-
ミ猭膀娄毒浪膀某弧狦и-
僚獽穦Τ""矗珼驹︓ㄤ獶穝﹡チ穦矗珼驹粄現┎膥尿龟︽現郸獽琌笻は猍跌現郸""沮硂兜猭ㄒ珼驹現┎狦╧Τ舦ㄤ獶﹡チ穦沮舦猭珼驹現┎ぃ筁拜肈琌狦痷僚現┎笵穦ぃ︘竲硂現郸ぃ┯猭珼驹現┎弧╧ぃ穦妓ㄉΤ舦狦ㄆ龟獽ぃ穦祇ネ毒浪膀某┮弧薄穝"╧"АㄉΤ疭舦カ跋┪獶穝跋玥ぃㄉΤ硂兜疭舦硂獽琌┮孔""だ現┎桂Ω硂妓眏秸∕﹚硂妓暗┮и谋眔и-
箇代現┎秈︽だ猂常﹚璶膀и-
瞷Τ戈パи⊿Τ蛤赋地ネ酵筁┮и⊿Τ戈иぃ穦借好毒浪膀某Τ岿粇ま瓃ぃ筁Τ赋ネ粄硂ぃ筁琌超穦某︓⊿Τ稱筁某穦弧ㄓ某弧ㄓ砛穦稰廓Ъ︓ぃ莱ぃ莱粄┮и胔好穦琌硂摸┯空Τぱ疭跋快そ莱笵
畊и稱莱糂祇某矗翴弧穝﹡チぃ穦"白г"ぃ穦ヴパ"穊蛾溃"-
ぃ穦Г跌ぃ瞶﹚穦癬ㄓはки稱弧琌ㄤ龟硂ぃキ单舦﹡チ籔獶﹡チぇ丁妓穦カチぇ丁ΤΤ杠ㄇ┮孔瞦б㎝だ猍ㄒ︙Τ︑玱⊿Τ拜肈传杠弧狦玂痙硂兜現郸妓穦瞷が┝薄硂眖某猭は琈ㄓ獶弧蝴硂兜現郸獽礚ㄆ硂荡獶眅︑耑τ琌瞷拜肈㎝薄狐и-
惠璶秆∕
и辨ぃ阶タ硄筁籔琂礛現┎砛店疊┯空и辨某ōだ硂ㄇ┝㎝だ猍ご礛穦芠斗璶и-
砞猭秆∕
独岸藉某璓勉畊チ郭Θ某ぃΩ璶―安祔嘲糠某タ莉眔硄筁チ囊獽莱矗よ秆∕拜肈и-
臛阶璹莱揭祙珇猳祙覆靛皊祙砆︑パ囊Θ嘿и-
現┎弧и-
毙現┎妓璸衡祙Μㄆ龟и-
ぃ琌現┎⊿Τ現┎ê或戈方㎝戈и-
ゼゲ钩毒浪膀某妓矗よ鲸恨и-
ぃ笵Τ闽よ琌︽硂よ⊿Τ某篒ゎら戳狦某現┎㎝秏某Ы璹﹚篒ゎら戳-
穦妓暗㎡稱糂祇某Τ⊿Τ義秖弧︙篒ゎら戳10Τ⊿Τ義秖弧100穦Τ義秖弧ㄓи獺狦и-
さぱΤ诀穦痷タいゎ┪ぃ倒ぉ僚礛倒ぉ現┎ㄢ丁秈︽浪癚и獺浪癚穦ッ环╈┪タ襖略ビ某┮弧現┎ЧΘ浪癚弧稱ぃ快猭蝴Τ現郸襖略ビ某碞场だ莱τи-
纯╬籔毒浪膀某癚阶筁盢"╯"硂泊э∕﹚ぃ盿Τ猍跌┦τよ毒某ボ纯籔Τ闽よ酵阶筁粄ぃ︽ㄤ龟狦よ常╆ヘ夹辨ぃ盢ㄓ蠢硂╧ぃキ单τ盿Τ猍跌Θだ現郸或-
ぃ∕﹚硂陪琌-
セぃ稱現郸
材毒浪膀某弧ぃや嘲糠某タ-
粄タ硄筁現郸ご礛穦ぉ玂痙璝琌硂妓и獺現┎㎝秏某Ыぃゲ候眎┮и-
さぱ臛阶莱赣栋い╧キ单硂肈琌弧硂猍跌┦現郸莱膥尿
毒浪膀某瘤礛矗よご甧砛硂ぃそキ猍跌現郸膥尿ぃ筁⊿Τ笵硂現郸穦膥尿ㄤ龟иぃ笵秆∕現郸琌﹚璶矗穝よ毒浪膀某琌┬ㄆ叭〆籔┬ㄆ叭〆穦ㄆぃ筁弧岿杠 "﹡チぃビ叫そ㎝﹡"硂琌и-
兵ㄒ〆穦矗筁妓拜肈現┎纯竒〆穦矗ユ筁3氮滦﹡チ璶才Τ闽ビ叫兵ンㄒ才㎝⊿Τ╬穨单砏﹚獽ビ叫そ-
ビ叫﹡琌拜肈瞷绑""よ現┎ョ弧眔睲贰狦Τ闽﹡チ琌绑瞶τセō⊿Τ龟悔玻舦痲ê或妓ビ叫﹡狦Τ龟悔玻舦痲獽璶ビ叫矗靡ㄆ龟﹡チ㎝獶﹡チ瞷妓ビ叫近そи-
琌粄﹡チ琌疭惠璶疭現郸-
秆∕︘拜肈τぃ莱ノ瞷︽そ﹡現郸ㄓ秆∕-
︘拜肈㎡и-
谋眔⊿Τ硂惠璶
毒浪膀某矗の璹﹚篒ゎら戳篒ゎら戳玡祅癘﹡チご礛ㄉΤ舦某Ω筁肂挤﹡チ砍﹡и粄硂某穦硑Θ╧ぃキ单и稱毒某矗硂よ琌皐癸"╧"ぃ阶篒ゎら戳︙硂妓暗ぃ虫ゎ穦硂ぃそキ猍跌現郸┑尿跑"╧"砍﹡腊-
膥尿ㄉΤ疭舦Θセ基潦禦現┎砍﹡硂龟悔琌兜疭舦或﹡チぃ㎝ㄤ妓そ㎝﹡近Ω近┮иぃ粄チ某琌よ
畊и稱虏祏狡瓃ㄢ玡セ兵ㄒ秈︽癚阶讽秏某ЫΘセЫ祇ē矗3翴材玡翠璣現┎秖紉Μ穝瞷惠璶竭纕и粄現┎莱赣矗ㄑ竭纕琌竭纕莱Μ琌沮瞷現郸﹡チ莉眔竭纕璶琌"╧"ぃ阶琌ㄠ甝临琌纯甝莉眔竭纕硂琌竭纕㎡材現郸ㄢ玡秈︽臛阶秏某Ыㄆ常弧穝﹡チ贺ネ-
ぃр猟耚そ┮﹚璶秏﹡︘琌-
﹡︘吏挂畉┮惠璶硓筁現郸э到-
ネ吏挂ㄏ-
膥尿叭笰材蝴么-
ん壁﹎﹡チ辨籈﹡癬ぃ辨Τ"﹎"-
﹡︘
碞硂碭瞶パㄓ瞷﹡チぃ叭笰ネㄏ膥尿贺-
锣ノ瞷ㄣバ砞竚糳竚贺ノㄣ︓ん壁拜肈иㄢ玡臛阶い纯竒矗の筁瞷穝﹡チ膀セ竒р-
扳︓р舦扳ㄒ祇甶坝㎝-
酵Μ潦50舦獽砍50糽礛干基獽扳
瞷アㄓノ㎝種竡ョア讽э到﹡チ﹡︘吏挂ノ硚瞷跑Θ坝珇局Τ芥基沮毒浪膀某某瞷狦璶扳獽莱赣芥倒﹡チ-
晋だ皌ぃぃ現┎︙уㄤ龟狦琌蝴ん壁辨腊-
э到﹡︘吏挂瞷セ芥倒﹡チ或玱芥倒ㄤê琌扳﹡チ莉眔耕蔼柬┏毒浪膀某秏某Ы糂祇某現┎㎝赋地ネ竒癚阶笷Θ醚琌龟︽и粄龟Τ好拜硂琌и癸現┎獺みぷㄤ琌и-
ㄢ玡纯碞キ单诀穦兵ㄒ秈︽約獂臛阶現┎讽ボ惠璶ㄇ丁︓さら現┎暗ㄇ或現┎蹦ノ"╈"砕τи程踞み獽琌╈┑ぃ╈︙ㄆ薄莉眔秆∕硂ぃ琌チ毒浪膀某碵薄腀獽硓筁╯秆∕拜肈
畊嘲糠某タ砞Τㄢ糴戳狦タ莉眔硄筁Τ闽よ硂ㄢずǔ硉秈︽浪癚狦ㄢ玡現┎┯空浪癚竒甶秨瞷莱赣ЧΘ场だ浪癚ぃ斗╈┑瞷и-
临Τㄢ丁秈︽浪癚或ぃ暗㎡
畊и辨產ぃ璶硂Ω臛阶い栋い癚阶︙秆∕現郸拜肈и眏秸莱泊妓ㄏ╧キ单弘㎝阀├眔辅龟и-
や嘲糠某タ洪琌╧キ单硂よ泊翴碞硂拜肈毒浪膀某㎝チ4︗ㄆ┪砛癚阶眔耕灿
程畊и辨矗眶毒浪膀某きせるらセЫ臛阶璊ド某パ辩醇翬某兵ㄒ〆穦矗タぃ現郸倒ぉ僚τиま瓃毒浪膀某弄祇ē瞷ぃ狡讽毒某щ布觅Θ辩醇翬某タ琌は癸ㄉΤ僚蹦ノ"ち"よΑ礛倒ぉ糴戳さぱチ㎝毒浪膀某┮弧琌"谋さ琌τ琎獶"或-
ㄢ玡⊿Τσ納睲贰獽щ布やタは癸僚㎡
谅谅畊
眎ゅ某璓勉畊セ粄さぱ程岿粇獽琌и-
獶盽粄痷は婚チ種ǎ-
セōゼゲ獺︑穦タΤ現囊赋疭"筁爵"и-
莱パ眔ウ硂妓暗琌и-
玱焚Τざㄆ俱边臛阶硂碞琌秨︑и粄硂琌ぃ惠璶チ囊程е盢璶瞴辽
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊琂礛и囊ねи弧е翴и獽虏祏碞3翴莱チ材チ璶―и-
獺現┎材チ璶―и-
獺ウ籔現┎ユ传材チ璶―и-
獺ウ┮矗┮孔︽よ
璶и-
獺現┎現┎﹚璶ボ港種倒ぉ﹚┯空㎝玂靡︽琌程ぃ琌現┎魁ぃきい┮弧......
〆穦畊谅ッ闹某癸ぃ癬┮孔"狡"ぃ度琌狡︑阶沮狡ㄤ某阶沮疭琌狡囊ㄤ某阶沮琌妓セ畊辨痷弘虏翴
谅ッ闹某и粄程璶琌砏购吏挂現﹚璶荷е秈︽╯氮莱浪癚τЧ⊿Τ筁浪癚ê獽ぃ琌氮莱材獽琌チ籔現┎┪赋地ネㄇユ传㎝╯и獺程璶琌讽いΤ玂靡иぃ狡ê弧杠τ琌⊿Τ"玂靡"硂ㄢ⊿Τ程璶琌ㄤいぃ瞇ぃ猍跌玥チ瞷程ㄨ矗┮孔︽よ硂琌獶盽ぃ璽砫ヴ暗猭︓或琌︽よ硂琌だ芠拜肈и粄瞷程︽よ獽琌ミ猭Α現┎秈︽浪癚璶―現┎玂靡穦膀ぃ猍跌玥ず秆∕拜肈
谅谅畊
毒浪膀某璓勉畊и-
秆睦筁и-
ぃ琌程ㄨ矗谅ッ闹某芠瞴辽τ钮ぃτиョぃ狡
и稱秆睦︙и玡щ布觅Θ僚璹さぱ玥は癸讽ら現┎⊿Τ氮莱筁現郸よ氮莱浪癚浪癚ぇ琌或よи琌ぃ笵┮и谋眔讽иぃщ觅Θ布ぃや現┎┪や璹さぱ現┎弧璶蠢瞷︽現郸讽礛иぃ幢璶―チ囊獺現┎и琌弧︓ささらиご礛獺現┎ぃ穦璉獺斌竡иささらご礛獺赋地ネぃ穦璉獺斌竡и辨-
"弧眔暗眔"
郭Θ某璓勉畊и琌虏虫莱ㄢ翴材碞琌襖略ビ某弧璝Θミ〆穦璶浪癚㎡Τ⊿Τ┮孔""拜肈硂陪陪ボΤ某ぃ獺ヴ現┎璉琌獺ヴ拜肈┮現┎璶睲贰璶暗眔"诨诨"ぃ璶晟倒êㄇ某疭ぃ璶倒"非"莱喷碞痷琌ぃ眔盢ㄓ竜靡┮現┎璝琌材﹗穦Θミ盡砫〆穦痷璶Τよの祏丁ず獽籔秏某Ыの穦癚阶ㄇ︽よぉ蠢現郸
材翴琌и钮独岸藉某弧だ牧琌癸チ矗よу蝶琌и矗珼驹の拜肈琌и璶-
矗よ瞷и-
ぃ琌さぱ璶硄筁よи-
さぱ琌璶矗ㄇよ常琌︽眔硄秈︽э琵現┎把σチぃ谋眔矗よ獽﹚琌㏄冈┪Ч秆氮ㄇ產好拜程ぶ璶荷ㄇ羆璶荷ㄇ硂妓-
琌矗у蝶獽юセ程ョ⊿Τ氮и拜肈и拜肈獽琌叫矗︽よさ边暗ぃ狦さぱΤ挡狦辨チ囊そ渤矗︽よ
谅谅畊
独岸藉某畊и祇ē弧瞷﹡チ籔┮Τ翠カチ妓-
Τ戈ビ叫その﹡セぃ惠璶......
〆穦畊さぱセ畊祇ゅ倒產弧狦某琌璶矗砏祘拜肈叫钡弧"砏祘拜肈"
霉璓某癸ぃ癬иび灿羘畊и矗祘笆某τミ窖∕
〆穦畊矗砏祘拜肈パセ畊掉∕耕矗祘笆某穦某盽砏い癸Τ闽某ㄆ祘某┮矗ぶ玥璝场跑Θ某τê某セō臛阶杠盢穦ッ礚ゎ挂ぃ瞷Τ或砏祘拜肈
霉璓某谅谅畊ま琌и临ぃ琌びフ畊ま瞷琌瞏1и瞶秆㎝弧杠竒ゴчΙ┮и琌辨畊掉﹚琌荷е∕谅谅畊
法此某畊砏祘拜肈
〆穦畊法此某琌砏祘拜肈
法此某琌畊畊さぱΤゑ耕疭惫琁碞琌某祇ēぃ耞祇ē弧祇ēㄢΩ瞷ぃゎㄢΩ狦硂妓и-
祇ē︓ぱΤ祇ēぇ狦Τ某ぃび钡┪ぃ狝钡庢も嘲糠某Τタ瞷矪瞶材12兵畊狦硂妓и璶琌╈㎡叫畊掉﹚
〆穦畊霉璓某ゼ纯矗砏祘拜肈ぇ玡セ畊竒非称璶―独岸藉某碞某肈祇ēτ某肈碞琌"材12兵セ兵ㄒ"ㄏ臛阶讽いΤ某矗筁ㄆ薄ぃ璶盢某肈跑Θ琌癚阶êず甧ㄒチよ╯澈癸ぃ癸ぃ秆∕拜肈τ琌╯澈琌や材12兵セ兵ㄒ临琌ぃや材12兵セ兵ㄒ狦產ご礛琌碞硂某肈祇ē杠τぃ琌皐癸某弧ㄆ薄琌ぃ穦瞒肈独岸藉某临稱ぃ稱祇ē
独岸藉某畊ㄤ龟虏虫и⊿Τ瞒肈и矗よ琌瞷竒Τ碞琌瞷Τ﹡チビ叫その﹡畊程翴琌毒浪膀某ぃ耞ビ-
粄現┎┯空秆∕拜肈琌и-
眏秸琌╯ЧΘ眔ㄓΤ闽﹡チ┬現郸琌盿Τ猍跌Θだ現郸谅谅畊
〆穦畊腑瓣辆某琌Τ砏祘拜肈
腑瓣辆某畊︙硂礚ヰゎ臛阶沧ゎㄏи-
镑ǔ硉∕㎡
〆穦畊硓筁祘某秈︽и-
穦某盽砏い⊿Τ砏﹚⊿Τ硂妓逼ぶ城某
ぶ城某畊琌︑弧熬瞒某肈硂︗某弧Чê︗某膥尿硂妓琌牟砏祘┮и玡临稱癸弧"畊或ぃΝㄇ弧㎡"琵-
臛ㄓ臛ㄓ瞷跑Θ"ㄓ"產"┾竲"硂琌或臛阶㎡セぃ琌臛阶┮畊и谋眔莱赣∕﹚酚独岸藉某ゼ祇ē┮弧êㄇ笵瞶ゎ獽
〆穦畊セ畊矗のㄢよΑよΑ琌辨產镑︑碞某肈祇ē狦Τゲ璶材Ω祇ēぃ璶狡︓腑瓣辆某拜иΤ⊿Τよ猭单霉璓某拜Τ⊿Τㄇ祘某矗セ畊弧Τê碞琌"That the question be now put""盢某肈ミ窖∕"セ畊甧砛某笆某硂妓某琌"盢某肈ミ窖∕"セ畊僚箇琵︗某笆某狦Τ某璶―笆某杠セ畊僚箇セ畊ョぃ砛笆某狦筁Ν盢兜瞶臛阶いゎ琌ぃ癸瞷Τ某笆某盢某肈ミ窖∕
法此某畊иタΑ矗硂妓某癚阶ぃ耞狡叫畊秈︽∕
〆穦畊瞷∕某肈琌盢某肈ミ窖∕
襖略ビ某и碞硂兜某祇ē
〆穦畊セ畊既氨穦某5だ牧
1.42 am
贬142だ
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
1.53 am
贬153だ
Committee then resumed.
砰〆穦確穦某
〆穦畊︗〆セ畊甧砛法此某礚斗箇笆某兜祘某碞琌"盢某肈ミ窖∕"琌弧碞硂兵ㄒ"材12兵セ兵ㄒぇず"硂兜某肈ミ窖∕
法此某矗硂兜某ぇセ畊ミㄨ矗硂兜∕某肈沮ぬ吹宾材405琵セ畊弄璣ゅ"After a question has been proposed, a member may rise in his place and move "That the question be now put." That question must be put forthwith, without amendment or debate, unless it appears to the Chair that the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority."硂兜祘某某肈ぃ甧タぃ甧臛阶斗ミ窖セ畊甧砛硂兜某矗碞斗ミр某肈窖∕┮セ畊瞷矗ぇ∕某肈"盢某肈ョ"兵ㄒ材12兵セ兵ㄒぇず"ぇ某肈ミ窖∕"瞷窖∕
Question on the motion put.
某ぇ某肈竒窖∕
The Chairman said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ""
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈盢某肈ミ窖∕硂妓產フ盾"材12兵セ兵ㄒ"ぇ某肈莱赣ミ窖∕
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr Henry TANG, Mr James TO, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr Ambrose LAU, 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 NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr LEE Wing-tat abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 55 votes in favour of the motion and no vote against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某55礚は癸琌ガ某莉硄筁
Question on clause 12 put.
兵ㄒ材12兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈材12兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
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, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 23 votes in favour of the motion and 33 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某23は癸33琌ガ某綝∕
Clause 16
兵ㄒ材16兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I would just want to say that since the Secretary was not allowed to speak just now on clause 12, we did not actually hear the Government's undertaking, I think, for the purposes of Mr FUNG's suggestion. But moving onto clause 16, this is the $150,000 cap for the SDO. Please support this.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 16 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材16兵ǎンIII
バ玊某璓勉畊硂タ闽玡┦猍跌猭ㄒい闽┦猍跌㎝┦奶耑よ狦デ猭Τ籃蹿獽琌15窾じ硂ㄢ薄猵讽礛и-
弧┦奶耑﹚ぃ穦琌丁そ暗﹚琌ê或埃獶琌︑暗ρ馏玥狦ョ琌ㄤい官璸癸ㄤㄆ┪╧ㄆ秈︽┮孔┦奶耑砆籃瞷15窾じи竒谋眔び蔼弧硂ㄇ琌み┪ぃみデ猭ス竜Θミ硂兜籃玥渡產亢玻ゴ癸ㄆ┪╧ㄆ弧ㄇぃ琌或杠妮┦奶耑τ砆籃蹿15窾じ⊿Τ杠猭﹛籃蹿计κ窾じ
薄癸そㄓ弧沮┦猍跌兵ㄒそ竨叫沟祅┷竨約ぃ竒種糶╧┦┪┦璶―妮牟デ兵ㄒ瞷﹟Τぶ砛玂毁獽琌ê15窾じ琌稱坝ンㄆτ瘆玻㎡讽礛嘲糠某弧ê猭﹛ぃ穦ê妓短硂玱ぃ眔τヴパê猭﹛妓掉计窾じ窾じи谋眔Τ玧眏临钡狦硈砆ㄆ龟êンㄆ程沧挡狦穦︙琌⊿Τ穦笵
畊иは癸硂タ
独岸藉某璓勉畊и祇ēや嘲糠某硂兜タ
某弄矗筁硂琌讽パ玡晋ㄆ狶īχ古某矗獶咎稱ㄓτ琌蛤眖璣瓣暗猭礛い︗计ㄓ璸衡18.75иぃび睲贰ノ或祘Α璸衡ㄓ讽琌ノい︗计瞷い︗计Τ┮糤
ぃ筁璊ド某ㄓ纯弧筁璣瓣篗綪琂礛ǐ筁隔粄琌ǐ岿τ篗綪Τ闽и-
ミ猭Ы⊿Τ瞶パ蛤ǐ兵岿隔и辨ㄆや篗綪玂毁êㄇ猍跌
谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, the main effect of the Committee stage amendment is to remove the cap on damages in proceedings in relation to the employment field.
Under the existing provisions in the SDO there is no cap on damages to be awarded in proceedings not related to the employment field. The existing cap on damages in proceedings in relation to the employment field resulted from a Committee stage amendment moved by a Legislative Council Member and supported by a majority in the Council when the Sex Discrimination Bill was debated in mid-1995. We respect the views of those Legislative Council Members who considered it prudent to impose such a maximum limit. Since then there has not been any new development to suggest that the cap is inappropriate. Therefore there is little or no justification for removing the cap at this stage.
The original clause 16 as proposed by the Honourable Miss Christine LOH also seeks to empower the District Courts to make remedies, including reinstatement orders, and to repeal the provision that there shall be no award to damages if the indirect discrimination was unintentional. For the sake of good labour relation, the Administration considers that the courts should be empowered to order re-employment only where both the employer and employee concerned consent. Yet, such a condition is not written into clause 16.
I should add that the provision of such a condition would mean not only that an employer will not be compelled to re-employ a person, it will also mean that a former employee will not be compelled to accept re-employment even though she or he may prefer other remedies such as compensation.
As regards the original provision in the SDO that there shall be no award to damages if indirect discrimination is committed unintentionally, this is a fair provision expressly when anti-discrimination legislation is so new to Hong Kong. In the United Kingdom, a similar provision was amended only after the relevant legislation had been in operation for some 20 years. The amended United Kingdom legislation provides that for unintentional indirect discrimination, damages may be awarded only where it would not be just and equitable to grant other damages alone. Such a condition, however, has not been written into Miss LOH's proposal.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to both clause 16 and the Committee stage amendment.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, the Committee stage amendments that I am proposing, that we are asked to vote on right now, only deals with the $150,000 cap. I do not know whether the Administration may be partly asleep by now and the issue dealing with reinstatement comes a little bit later.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材16兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, 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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the amendment and 25 against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ31は癸25琌ガタ莉硄筁
Question on clause 16, as amended, put.
竒タぇ兵ㄒ材16兵竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈竒タぇ材16兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, 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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE nd Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the motion and 25 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某31は癸25琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause 17
兵ㄒ材17兵
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, in the United Kingdom the Commission for Racial Equality has made a similar proposal. However, the United Kingdom Government has also decided to wait and see the effect of the change in the field of race relations before deciding whether to make any change to the United Kingdom Sex Discrimination Act. Hence there is no need for us to rush to make any similar amendments to the SDO this time round.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to clause 17.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, this is one of the very few recommendations made by the United Kingdom Commission that was accepted by the United Kingdom Government, and four years later, however, the necessary legislation has still not been enacted by the United Kingdom because the Home Office said it was not able to get a legislative slot, so I think I dispute what the government official just presented to us. So, I hope that we in Hong Kong can implement the proposal more expeditiously. In fact we have an opportunity to do it right now.
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕ぃ莉硄筁
Clause 20
兵ㄒ材20兵
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, we expect that conciliation by the EOC will not take more than two years to complete. Besides, by virtue of section 86(3) of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, the District Court may consider any claim or application which is out of time if it considers it just and equitable to do so. Therefore there is virtually no need for amending the SDO at this stage.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to clause 20.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, there is really no sensible reason for the Administration or any Member to oppose clause 20. The clause provides that any time spent in conciliation does not count against the time limit to bring court proceedings.
The time to bring proceedings under the Ordinance is short: two years from the date the act in question was done. Everyone, including the Administration, agrees that a person whose complaint is being conciliated should not need to break off conciliation and bring proceedings instead merely because he or she would otherwise run out of time and lose the right to bring proceedings.
In cases where conciliation has caused delay, everyone, therefore, agrees in principle that the time limit to bring proceedings must be extended. The current Ordinance does not do so. It gives the District Court a general discretion to allow any claim that is out of time and specifically directs the court to consider two circumstances. One is the time elapsed during conciliation. The other is the time elapsed before a claimant entered into conciliation.
Mention of the latter circumstance is discouraging because it suggests that in some cases the court will still disallow a late claim filed as soon as conciliation ends. For a potential claimant who wonders if he or she will be penalized for persisting with conciliation, the existing law offers hope but by not means certainty. To avoid discouraging conciliation efforts, the time limit for litigation must be certain and clause 20 makes it so, Mr Chairman.
Question on clause 20 put.
兵ㄒ材20兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Miss Christine LOH claimed a division.
嘲糠某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈材20兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ2瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, 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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the motion and 25 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某31は癸25琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause 21
兵ㄒ材21兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 21 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 21 ensures that the EOC is able to bring judicial review proceedings to uphold laws other than the SDO itself if they are relevant to its functions. Examples of such laws include Article 22 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and certain provisions in Chapter 3 of the Basic Law.
It is well established that the United Kingdom Equal Opportunities Commission has such a power and is not limited to enforcing the United Kingdom Sex Discrimination Act only. For example, the United Kingdom Commission has successfully invoked applicable European equal pay laws numerous times in judicial review proceedings. It is doubtful, however, that the Hong Kong Commission has inherited a similar power.
The SDO, unlike United Kingdom law, specifically authorises the Commission to litigate but fails to mention any law other than itself. This omission may prevent the Commission from invoking other laws. Clause 21 ensures that this problem will not arise here.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 21 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材21兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, the Secretary for Home Affairs is already empowered under the SDO to make a regulation to allow the EOC to bring proceedings in its own name and such regulation approved by this Council came into effect since December 1996.
The amendments proposed in clause 21 are, therefore, unnecessary and irrelevant. I believe this is the reason why the Honourable Miss Christine LOH now proposes to repeal clause 21 by this Committee stage amendment. However, this Committee stage amendment not only seeks to repeal clause 21 but also to empower the EOC to bring judicial review proceedings under the SDO. As the Commission can bring judicial proceedings under the existing SDO, there is really no need for an express provision in the Ordinance.
Mr Chairman, though the Administration agrees to the proposed deletion of clause 21, its objects to this Committee stage amendment which also seeks to make it expressly that EOC can bring judicial review proceedings. Mr Chairman, may I put down a marker that if this Committee stage amendment is defeated, the Administration will also object to clause 21 in its original form.
Question on amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材21兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, 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 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, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 votes in favour of the amendment and 26 against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ30は癸26琌ガタ莉硄筁
The clause 21, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タぇ材21兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 24
兵ㄒ材24兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 24 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
This clause repeals several exceptions in Schedule 5 of the SDO. These exceptions are obsolete or redundant because of clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill. The Committee stage amendment to clause 24 repeals an additional exception in the Ordinance. The repealed exception presently permits marital status discrimination in the Home Ownership Scheme and Private Sector Participation Scheme.
Single-parent families have long complained of being treated unfairly in this area and I understand the Government has recently revised the rules of eligibility for these schemes to eliminate the discrimination. So, I think everybody should
support this clause. Thank you.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 24 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材24兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, clause 24(a) seeks to repeal all the terms as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the SDO.
These terms are defined for the purpose of the exemptions provided for in Part 2 of the same Schedule. Exemptions under Part 2 of the Schedule include, inter alia, different treatment of persons of different marital status arising from provisions of the Civil Service Regulations. This exemption makes sure that the double benefits rule, as currently applied in the Civil Service, will not be rendered unlawful under the Ordinance.
All these exemptions are reasonable and necessary. A repeal of the interpretative provisions so as to handicap the use of these reasonable exemptions is totally unacceptable. As I have explained above, all the exemptions provided for in the SDO are reasonable and necessary.
The effect of clause 24(b) is to repeal the exemptions as described in Items 3 to 8 except for Item 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the SDO. The Committee stage amendment now proposed by Miss LOH seeks to repeal also the exemption as described in Item 6, that is the exemption given for the Home Ownership Scheme and Private Sector Participation Scheme.
Notwithstanding the Committee stage amendment, Honourable Members may wish to note that to repeal the exemption provided for under Item 3 of Schedule 5 as proposed in clause 24(b) would have necessitated a discrimination of the current policy of allocating departmental quarters to married but not single members of disciplined services. The repeal of this exemption, therefore, will mean either a lot more quarters have to be constructed or married disciplined officers have to wait much longer before being allocated quarters.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to this Committee stage amendment and, irrespective of whether the Committee stage amendment is defeated or not, having particular regard to the effect of clause 24 on current policy of allocating quarters in the disciplined services, strongly objects to clause 24 in its original form.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to clause 17.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, the Government objects because it wants to retain a convenient discriminatory practice for its own quarters in the disciplinary services. Frankly, they could just have a points system and if you are not married you may have a lesser need and therefore you have fewer points. They can solve this without having a blatant discriminatory set of regulations within the Government.
That is all, Mr Chairman. There is no reason to support the Government on this.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材24兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, 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 James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, 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 and Dr John TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 25 votes in favour of the amendment and 30 against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ25は癸30琌ガタ綝∕
Question on original clause 24 put and negatived.
览ぇ材24兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕ぃ莉硄筁
Clauses 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39 and 40
兵ㄒ材252829313233353639の40兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that these clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
These Committee stage amendments delete various clauses relating to the DDO.
I told the Bills Committee I would delete these clauses to allow us to focus on other clauses which are more urgent. I believe, again, the Government supports these deletions, so I hope we will just get on with it.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clauses 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39 and 40 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材252829313233353639の40兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the Administration agrees with the proposed deletions which preserve the relevant provisions of the DDO in their original form.
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39 and 40, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材252829313233353639の40兵
ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ碞材252829313233353639の40兵┮笆某Τ闽兵ゅぇタ莉∕材252829313233353639の40兵穦眖兵ㄒい
Clause 26
兵ㄒ材26兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 26 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
We have already voted once on this with the Disability Discrimination Ordinance. This is the clause that deals with international standards listed for the new Equal Opportunities Commission function. I would not repeat the argument here.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 26 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材26兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the Administration strongly objects to both clause 26 and the Committee stage amendment for reasons that the Secretary for Home Affairs has explained earlier in respect of clause 3 of the Bill.
Honourable Members will remember that clause 3 of that Bill was rejected by this Committee earlier today.
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕ぃ莉硄筁
The original clause 26 was negatived.
览ぇ材26兵ぃ莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ砰〆穦ぃ種р材26兵セ兵ㄒボ砰〆穦ョぃ穦種р材30兵籔材26兵Τ闽硈ぇ兵セ兵ㄒ材30兵盢ぃ穦砆弄τ赣兵ゅョぃ穦セ兵ㄒ
Clause 27
兵ㄒ材27兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 27 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
This is the clause that deals with indirect discrimination and I will not repeat the arguments here.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 27 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材27兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the Administration strongly objects to both clause 27 and the Committee stage amendment for reasons that the Secretary for Home Affairs has explained earlier in respect of clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill were rejected by this Committee.
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕ぃ莉硄筁
The original clause 27 was negatived.
览ぇ材27兵ぃ莉硄筁
Clause 34
兵ㄒ材34兵
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to clause 34 for reasons as the Secretary for Home Affairs has explained earlier in respect of clause 17 of the Bill.
Clause 17 was rejected by this Committee.
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕ぃ莉硄筁
Clause 37
兵ㄒ材37兵
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, we expect that conciliation by the EOC would not take more than two years to complete. In any case, by virtue of section 82(3) of the DDO, the District Court may consider any claim or application which is out of time if it considers it is just and equitable to do so. Therefore there is virtually no need for amending the Ordinance at this stage.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to clause 37.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, it is clear that the Secretary does not strongly object as she objected to a number of previous cases. So, I will have another go. This is the one that really allows time in conciliation to not count against time to file claims. I still think it is good for you to support this.
Question on clause 37 put.
兵ㄒ材37兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈材37兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ3瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 votes in favour of the motion and 25 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某30は癸25琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause 38
兵ㄒ材38兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 38 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 38 ensures that the EOC is able to bring judicial review proceedings in relation to laws other than the DDO which are nevertheless relevant to its function.
I hope you will support this. I already explained why earlier on this morning.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 38 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材38兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to both clause 38 and the Committee stage amendment. Clause 38 seeks to repeal the provision empowering me to make regulations governing when and how the EOC would bring and maintain proceedings. We see no need to make this amendment at this stage. Indeed we are in the process of making such regulations. Mr Chairman, we therefore object to clause 38.
The Committee stage amendment seeks to repeal clause 38 but to add an express provision to empower the EOC to bring judicial review proceedings under the DDO. As the Commission is already able to bring judicial review proceedings, it is not necessary to state this power of the Commission explicitly in the Ordinance. We therefore object to this Committee stage amendment.
Despite that, we agree with the proposed deletion of clause 38. Mr Chairman, if the Committee stage amendment is defeated, we would also object to clause 38.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: I think it is time to support this Committee stage amendment, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材38兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
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 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, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the amendment and 25 against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ29は癸25琌ガタ莉硄筁
question on clause 38 as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タぇ材38兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
New clause 16AClaims under Part III or IV穝璹兵ㄒ材16A兵沮材III┪IV场矗ビ
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 16(A) as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
The new clause amends the SDO to authorize several specific remedies including, in particular, reinstatement. These remedies are already available under the DDO and I urgently need it in respect of sex discrimination. I think this is one of the ones that we will probably win and I wish to thank Members in advance.
バ玊某璓勉畊и粄嘲糠某穦秤ぃ筁秤璶弧碞端摧τēи-
粄確戮琌Τㄤ笵瞶狦猭﹛沟琌岿杠τê︗端摧ㄤよтぃê或甧赣贺薄猵ê確戮琌Τ瞶パ琌┦猍跌よи玱粄⊿Τ硂惠璶翠瞷硂或ア穨瞯Τκ窾包沟安-
沟砆掉﹚牟デ赣兵ㄒи獺硂︗ぃ辨沟┮砆膥尿沟杠琌畕礛谅谅畊
独岸藉某璓勉畊–тだ螟ㄆ龟砛包筁硂或ㄓи-
笷-
тだ螟讽-
アぃ钩バ玊某┮弧ê或甧┕矪тバ玊某矗-
や摧痚猍跌パ猭畑箋確戮-
粄摧痚膀ō砰琘ㄇ┮-
┕矪т琌獶盽螟珿-
や硂確戮安バ玊某硂或弧倒и-
稰谋硂贺弧猭癸摧痚穦篶Θ贺猍跌辨ㄆや嘲糠某硂兜タ谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, new clause 16A as proposed by Miss LOH contains provisions similar to the original clause 16 of the Bill, that is, to empower the District Court to make remedies including reinstatement order. I have stated the Administration's objection when discussing clause 16. I would like to make use of this opportunity to reiterate our objection to this proposed new clause. For the sake of good labour relations, the Administration considers that the courts should be empowered to order re-employment only when both the employer and employee concerned consent, yet such a condition is not written into this new clause 16A.
I should add that the provision of such a condition will mean not only that an employer will not be compelled to re-employ a person, it will also mean that a former employee will not be compelled to accept re-employment even though she or he may prefer other remedies such as compensation.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to this new clause 16A.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: I am also happy that the Administration does not strongly object.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause put.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈穝璹材16A兵ぉ弄
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ2瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, 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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 33 votes in favour of the motion and 22 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某33は癸22琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 16A be added to the Bill. Thank you, Chairman.
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 16A (See annex III)
穝璹材16A兵ǎンIII
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
New clause 16BClaims under Part III or IV穝璹兵ㄒ材16B兵沮材III┪IV场矗ビ
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 16B as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
This new clause repeals the bar against damage awards for any indirect sex discrimination that was done unintentionally. This limitation was copied originally from the United Kingdom law, but the United Kingdom provision was repealed last year after the European Court concluded that the limitation unjustly deprived a claimant of an effective remedy for indirect discrimination.
バ玊某璓勉畊硂兜タ琌闽礚みぇアぃ琌ㄨ種暗τ瞷璣瓣ぃ筁и獺︗ㄆ笵璣瓣Τ硂兵猭ㄒ20竒筁肚毙▅き盢ㄤ紀埃
竒Τㄇㄆや篗綪15窾じ籃蹿璝瞷硂杠ぃ琌ㄨ種暗硂ンㄆ砆Τ竜常砆籃τ籃蹿硈硂15窾じ⊿Τ
и-
琌ぃや硂兜タ
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, new clause 16B as proposed by Miss LOH contains provisions similar to the original clause 16 of the Bill, that is, to repeal the original provision in the SDO, which provides that there shall be no award of damages if indirect discrimination is completed unintentionally.
I have stated the Administration's objection when discussing clause 16. I would like to make use of this opportunity to reiterate our objection. The original provision in the SDO is a fair provision expressly when anti-discrimination legislation is so new to Hong Kong.
In the United Kingdom, a similar provision was amended only after the relevant legislation had been in operation for some 20 years. The amended United Kingdom legislation provides that for unintentional indirect discrimination, damages may be awarded only where it would not be just and equitable to grant other damages alone. Such a condition, however, has not been written into Miss LOH's proposal.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to new clause 16B.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, Mr TIEN and the Administration was obviously not willing to listen to what I was saying. It was not through long years of public education that the United Kingdom Government decided to change the law. It was because it was pressed on them by the European Court. The Court did so because it felt that the limitation unjustly deprived a claimant of an effective remedy for indirect discrimination. So, you should vote with me and not with the Administration.
〆穦畊バ玊某琌砏祘拜肈
バ玊某畊и材Ω祇ē
〆穦畊瞷某肈琌穝璹材16B兵ぉ弄琌パ嘲糠某笆某⊿Τ祇ē瞷獽赤ア诀穦竒ЧΘ程氮臛だ癸ぃ癬
Question on the Second Reading of the clause put.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈穝璹材16B兵ぉ弄
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, Mr SZETO Wah, 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 James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, 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, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the motion and 27 against it.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某27は癸27
〆穦畊沮怸ェ还某1867┮璹玥セ畊は癸Α︽ㄏ∕﹚┦∕舦某綝∕
New clause 33AClaims under Part III or IV穝璹兵ㄒ材33A兵沮材III┪IV场矗ビ
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 33A as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
This is the last vote that we have to take at Second Reading for these amendments, and I just wish to at this stage thank Members for staying, for those who have stayed. It is a pity one or two people who were supposed to have supported the Bill never showed up tonight at all and I very much regret that.
This is the amendment for lifting the $120,000 damages cap in the DDO, and again I think this is one of the ones that I will have majority support and I urge you to vote quickly.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to new clause 33A. The existing provision on remedies only came into effect in December 1996 and has yet to be put to the test.
As the general public is not yet familiar with the DDO, any amendment at this stage would only cause confusion. We do not see any urgency to make the amendment at this stage. We will request, however, the EOC to study the proposal to remove the cap on damages in its forthcoming review in December this year.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, since Members have agreed to lift the cap for the SDO, it would be wrong to not do so in this case, even more wrong since the cap currently is lower.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause put.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈穝璹材33A兵ぉ弄
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, 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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the motion and 23 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某31は癸23琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 33A be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 33A (See annex III)
穝璹材33A兵ǎンIII
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, there is not very much to add. I thank Members for speaking and for supporting important amendments to the Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We have worked very hard on this and I think I just wish to take this opportunity to thank our long-suffering Chairman, Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung, for having chaired several years worth of this effort. I also wish to thank, of course, the staff who have been following this for us and I think this is a suitable occasion for me to also thank my own personal staff for having spent many, many long hours on this.
With that I think, I hope we do not have to argue with the Administration very much longer. Mr President, the Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1996 has passed through Committee with amendments. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, it is not usual in the Legislative Council for anyone to speak on the Third Reading of a bill. I am taking this unusual step because this Council is faced with an unusual situation. Honourable Members are being asked to enact a Bill which seeks to amend the Sex and Disability Discrimination Ordinances. But in fact most of the clauses contained in the Bill are proposed Committee Stage amendments which were not accepted by the Council when these two Ordinances were enacted in 1995.
Since then, there has been no change in the circumstances in Hong Kong to suggest that the decision made by the Council then should be reversed. I wish to stress once again the Administration's strong objection to Miss LOH's approach to hastily amend the law without knowing the full impact of its consequences. The Bill is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage. It will only disrupt the smooth implementation of the Ordinances.
Mr President, I urge Members to vote against the Third Reading.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, the Government cannot learn to suffer defeat with some face, even at this hour in the early morning. I will not spend any more time because I know everybody is very tired and wish to go home.
But frankly, the amendments that have passed tonight are eminently sensible. They are not going to confuse anybody. If anybody needs to use the bill to go ahead and sought remedy for discrimination they have suffered, what we have done tonight is to have given them better remedies and better ways for pursuing those problems.
畊︗セ畊稱秆睦ㄌ酚盽砏材51兵材(1)蹿"弄硄筁兵ㄒ某笆某ミ猭Ы斗秈︽弄赣兵ㄒ祘碞赣某秈︽臛阶斗兵ㄒず甧某ぃ笆某タ赣某"┮弄某琌臛阶嘲糠某瘤礛蛤玡暗猭ぃ祇ē笆某琌盽砏讽礛某ョ祇ē
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill put.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕
畊略矗眶︗某瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈1996┦の摧痚猍跌(馒兜砏﹚)兵ㄒぉ弄硄筁
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗某癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ∕挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, 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 Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the motion and 23 against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某31は癸23琌ガ某莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT SITTING
ヰ穦のΩ穦某
畊酚穦某盽砏セ畊瞷ガヰ穦ガセЫせるら琍戳と230だ尿穦
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock on 12 June 1997.
穦某笶せるら贬301だヰ穦
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 11 June 1997
150
ミ猭Ы せるら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 11 June 1997
265
ミ猭Ы せるら