OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Tuesday, 24 June 1997
せるら琍戳
The Council met at Nine o'clock
と9タ穦某秨﹍
MEMBERS PRESENT
畊某
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
畊独Щ祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
腜某C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
㏄辩睶┥某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
琖皇某Q.C., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
瓣腳某O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
ぶ城某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
畕地某
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
糂祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
︙┯ぱ某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
甃ㄎ瞶某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
糂胺祸某O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE EDWARD LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
辩醇翬某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
朝岸穨某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
眎ゅ某
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
糕蚌┚某
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
毒浪膀某
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
︙庇古某
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA, M.B.E.
独綺笽某M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
糂紌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
ッ笷某
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
產不某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
地某
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
璣某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
襖略ビ某
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
独﹜グ某
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
法此某
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
法У地某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
独岸藉某
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
嘲糠某
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
バ玊某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
朝挪狶某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
朝篴篱某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
朝胞糭某
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO
綠產碔某
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN, J.P.
綠癡某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
綠模磁某
DR THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG
眎▆某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
眎簙┚某
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
讲蚌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
Χギ棚某
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
︙玊く某
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
腑瓣辆某
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK, J.P.
糂ホ某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
糂簙煌某J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
霉不瓣某
THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG
霉璓某
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
币某
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
辩模┚某
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
郭Θ某
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
霉睲某
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
馋莱某
THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
艷祸某
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
肅繟某
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI
虫ヲ昂某
THE HONOURABLE TSANG KIN-SHING
纯胺Θ某
DR THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSE WING-LING
谅ッ闹某
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
独窥ㄤ军某C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAWRENCE YUM SIN-LING
ヴ到圭某
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
CHIEF SECRETARY
︽現Ы某ガ現朝よネC.B.E., J.P.
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
笲块拷琖ネC.B.E., J.P.
MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING
┬独琍地ネO.B.E., J.P.
MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
徖ネ褐繬霉璼O.B.E., J.P.
MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
毙▅参膚ッキネJ.P.
MR PETER LAI HING-LING, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
玂兢紋圭ネC.B.E., J.P.
MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
坝玕﹙┥J.P.
MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
砏购吏挂現辩腳篴ネC.B.E., J.P.
MRS STELLA HUNG KWOK WAI-CHING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
現叭ふ尝磃睲J.P.
MR RAFAELl HUI Si-yan, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
癩竒ㄆ叭砛くネJ.P.
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE
畊
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, J.P., SECRETARY GENERAL
毒更不ネJ.P.
MR LAW KAM-SANG, J.P., DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
捌霉繟ネネJ.P.
MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
瞶狶綠腳
畊瞷確穦某
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
玂厨孔
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
1996ㄆ竜︽璹材2腹兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed and put.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Miss Emily LAU claimed a division.
糂紌某璶―翴∕
畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕
畊瞷伙牧3だ牧辩醇翬某笆某某砰〆穦糵某顶琿Τ
畊略矗眶︗某瞷窖∕ぇ某肈1996ㄆ竜︽璹材2腹兵ㄒぉ弄硄筁
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖秙ぇい匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗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 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, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Miss Margaret NG and Mr SIN Chung-kai voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming and Mr LO Suk-ching voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 23 votes in favour of the motion and 20 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
畊ガ觅Θ某23は癸20琌ガ某莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (CONTROL OF PROVISION OF SERVICES) BILL
砏家反防猌竟矗ㄑ狝叭恨兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 April 1997
確るら笆某弄臛阶
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и祇ēや硂兵ㄒ,и辨弧睲贰碭翴現┎闽猔
и-
猔種瞷硂兵ㄒ璶琌皐癸ㄇ砏家反防猌竟耎床璉や穿矗ㄑ狝叭恨ㄆ龟и獺タ現┎┮弧翠ぃ琌ㄇ驹菠珇耎床措笵程Τㄇ厨笵矗紈瓣┪瓣单瓣產闽猔翠盢ㄓ"瓣ㄢ"癸硂ㄇ砏家反防猌竟猌┪て猌单Τ闽禩の恨穦Τ▆菏恨ㄓи獺パ闽磅︽硂よ猭ㄒ琌秤ヴのΤぃ筁沮и瞶秆パ硂ㄇΤ闽癩叭┪ㄤ狝叭ㄤ龟琌ら穝る钵穦繦м祇甶τ耎甶┮瞷ㄒ砏家蹿兜︓硉常ゑи-
玡ê甅恨の盎琩秈˙狦и-
礚猭и-
禩官︸Τ獺み粄и-
恨钩るら玡ê妓Τи獺硂穦紇臫и-
磕蝗︽筿癟㎝禩单よ┮眔珇┪狝叭ㄑ莱
畊眔и-
闽み揭肈琌Τ拜パい瓣翠疭︽現跋玂痙ユの瓣ň舦穦硂よㄒ舦硂兜猭ㄒ妮い瓣ユの瓣ň单舦烩办传杠弧Τ踞みい瓣穦硓筁ユの瓣ň現郸ㄒ程Τ瓣產闽猔い瓣扳芥猌竟倒ぺ膀吹㈱のレ单瓣產硂ㄇ現郸┑翠の硂ㄇ猭ㄒ穦舦ぇи辨Τ闽よ穦坚睲硂翴и︑瞶秆琌狦い瓣龟琁兜瓣ň┪ユ現郸琌籔и-
瞷︽猭ㄒΤ侥ㄒ瞷緉瓁猭籔翠瞷︽ㄇ猭ㄒぷㄤ琌Τ闽牡よ闽单磅猭舦猭ㄒΤ侥︙镑秆睦睲贰┪猭Α┪ヴ︙Αㄢ秸硂琌璶莱睲贰フ耞
и︑ぃ獺い瓣穦硓筁翠ㄓ矗ㄑΤ闽ㄑ莱砏家反防猌竟狝叭猭Τ惠璶坚睲玥ら碞穦и-
禩官︸稰踞み疭琌讽и-
禩官︸瓣穦┪ぃ現囊ぇ丁瞷だ猍碞穦虑琘ㄇ瞶パ癸翠︓い瓣у蝶τ硂ㄇу蝶ゼゲ常琌そキ┮и辨盢ㄓ疭︽現跋︽現﹛镑籔いァ冈灿╯硂ゑ耕庇稰揭肈ぃ虫ゎ硂兵猭ㄒ莱珹い翠ユ舦の翠猭ㄒぇ丁ユ钡瞷ぃ秸薄猵硂ㄇ常琌Τ惠璶坚睲の睲贰и稱庢ㄒ碞琌Τ闽瓣產猭ㄒ磅︽よㄇ璽砫瓣產诀篶翠妓籔翠磅猭だ㎡┪ㄤセō磅猭舦穦翠︽ㄏ㎡硂ㄇ常琌惠璶╯揭肈
畊иや硂兵ㄒ瘤礛硂兵ㄒぃ琌龟琁琘兵そ砏﹚狦翠镑琵и-
禩官︸и-
Τ硂妓猭ㄒㄆ龟糤眏癸и-
獺み谅谅
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the Weapons of Mass Destruction (Control of Provision of Services) Bill was introduced into this Council on 23 April 1997. The Bill seeks to make it an offence for a person who knowingly provides services to assist the development, production, acquisition or stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. Examples of such services are financing, sourcing of materials, the provision of training, technological information or know-how, and other consulting services.
After the introduction of the Bill, we have exchanged views with Honourable Members who have indicated interest in the Bill. As a result of these discussions, the Administration will be introducing a number of technical amendments to impose conditions on the exercise of certain powers provided for under the Bill, to provide a clear definition of the agencies responsible for enforcing the Bill, and to improve the drafting of a number of provisions. I will explain these amendments during the Committee stage, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank Members for the thought they have put into studying the Bill.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank in particular the Honourable James TO's support of the Bill. I would wish to state for the record that under the "one country, two systems" concept embodied in Hong Kong's two legal documents, namely the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, Hong Kong will continue to enjoy after the transition a high degree of autonomy in trade and economic affairs. Hong Kong will continue to legislate and enforce its own trade controls system, maintain the integrity of the system to our satisfaction and to the standards expected of us by our international trading partners. It is in Hong Kong's own interests to ensure that our trade controls system is one that is respected by the rest of the world. I wish to emphasize that we are doing this for Hong Kong's own interests and not as a result of pressure put on Hong Kong by any other country.
I have already explained the necessity for the Bill when I moved the Second Reading in April. The need arises from Hong Kong's necessity to have undisrupted access to high-tech goods to support our commerce and industry. To this end, it is indispensible for us to have a strategic trade controls system which closely follows the highest standards accepted by the international community. The enactment of this Bill represents a further step towards this goal.
The Honourable James TO referred just now to the issue of foreign affairs. Under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, Hong Kong will remain a separate trading entity and a separate customs territory after 1997. Part and parcel of this autonomy would mean Hong Kong maintaining a separate and autonomous import and export control system, including control on strategic commodities. The basis of our control is trade- and economic-oriented and therefore falls squarely within Hong Kong's autonomy, now and after 1997. As a world class trading economy and a responsible community, we are committed to exercising the highest level of control in all illegal activities including the illegal trading of weapons of mass destruction. Hong Kong will continue to implement its own law to the full professionally and impartially.
Mr President, I comment the Bill to this Council's support subject to the amendments that I will be moving in the Committee stage. Thank you.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕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
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (CONTROL OF PROVISION OF SERVICES) BILL
砏家反防猌竟矗ㄑ狝叭恨兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 to 9 and 12
兵ㄒ材1235︓9の12兵
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments to clauses 1, 5 and 12 are technical amendments mainly to improve the drafting of the Bill. The other amendments serve mainly two purposes: to impose conditions on the exercise of certain enforcement powers provided for under the Bill, and to clarify the definition of the agencies responsible for enforcing the Bill.
Enforcement powers
Amendments to clauses 6 and 7 deal with the power of enforcement agencies to enter and search premises. Under the existing clauses, enforcement agencies can enter and search premises and place without a warrant except for domestic premises. The amendments will require enforcement agencies to apply for a warrant before entering and searching any kind of premises and place. The amendments to clause 6 will also specify the time limits for the detention of aircraft and vessels of a specified tonnage.
The amendments to clause 8 makes it clear that a suspect cannot be detained for further inquiries longer than it is necessary while a maximum detention period of 48 hours has already been provided in the clause.
Enforcement agencies
Amendment to clauses 3 and 9 seek to clarify the definition of agencies responsible for enforcing the Bill. The Bill, as currently drafted, empowers the uniformed branch of Customs and Excise Department and authorized officers to exercise any powers conferred by the Bill. The term "authorized officers" is currently defined under clause 3 to include, apart from a police officer of the rank of inspector or above, any public officer authorized by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise. The purposes of authorizing public officers are twofold: (1) to allow the Trade Controls Officer grade, a non-uniformed branch in the Customs and Excise Department, to enforce the law, and (2) to allow technical experts, for example, Government Chemists, to assist in the investigations. The former will play a major role in the enforcement of the Bill while the latter will mainly play an assistant role. To better spell out the two different roles, amendments to clause 3 provide specifically that public officers mean officers employed in the Trade Controls Officer Grade in the Customs and Excise Department while a corresponding amendment is made to clause 9 to allow enforcement agencies to bring in assistants necessary for the performance of duties.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎン VIII
Clause 2 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎン VIII
Clause 3 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎン VIII
Clause 5 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎン VIII
Clause 6 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎン VIII
Clause 7 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材7兵ǎン VIII
Clause 8 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎン VIII
Clause 9 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材9兵ǎン VIII
Clause 12 (See annex VIII)
兵ㄒ材12兵ǎン VIII
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 to 9 and 12, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材1235︓9の12兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clauses 4, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材410111314の15兵莉眔硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY reported that the
坝厨孔
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (CONTROL OF PROVISION OF SERVICES) BILL
砏家反防猌竟矗ㄑ狝叭恨兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
FAMILY STATUS DISCRIMINATION BILL
產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 April 1997
確るら笆某弄臛阶
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, subsequent to the lengthy debate on the Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1996 two weeks ago, three other equal opportunity Bills, namely the Family Status Discrimination Bill, Equal Opportunity (Family Responsibility, Sexuality and Age) Bill and Equal Opportunity (Race) Bill will receive Second Readings at this sitting.
As the Chairman of the Bills Committee on all these Bills, I shall now speak on the Family Status Discrimination Bill. Mr President, this Bill is the only Bill among these four that is introduced by the Administration. It is to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of family status as a result of overwhelming support of legislation against discrimination in this area as reflected in the Government's 1996 consultation exercise on this issue. This Bill is basically modelled on the Sex Discrimination Ordinance which we passed a few years ago.
The subject matter of this Bill overlaps in substance, in particular Part II of the Equal Opportunity (Family Responsibility, Sexuality and Age) Bill introduced by the Honourable LAU Chin-shek as a Member's Bill. All these Bills cover family status discrimination areas of activities, including employment, education, the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises.
There are, however, two main differences. Firstly, the scope of family status or family status defined under this Bill is narrower than that defined under Mr LAU Chin-shek's Bill. Given the strong public objection to legal recognition for the de facto spouse relationship as a form of family status, the Administration proposes to define family status as the status of having responsibility for the care of an immediate family member. As "immediate family member" must be related to the person concerned by blood, marriage, adoption or affinity, this proposed definition will cover inter alia relationships between husband and wife, parent and child as well as near relatives. On the other hand, under Mr LAU's Bill "family responsibility" or "family status" in relation to persons means the following:
1. having responsibility for the care of another person, whether or not that person is dependent or other than in the course of paid employment;
2. the status of being a particular relative; or
3. the status of being a relative of a particular person.
Secondly, Mr President, this Bill proposes to empower the Equal Opportunities Commission to oversee its implementation while Mr LAU's Bill proposes to empower the District Court to hear cases brought there under this Bill. It is very obvious that Mr LAU's proposal is for the reason of avoiding the charging effect.
As in the case of Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which we passed a couple of weeks ago, Members of the Bills Committee have divergent views on the Family Status Discrimination Bill, and we have not come to any consensus.
Mr LAU has attempted twice to amend the definition of family status in this Bill by broadening it along the lines of the definition of his Bill. All versions have been ruled out by you, Mr President, on the grounds of charging effect and the scope of the Bill. I understand Mr LAU will be proposing amendments to this Bill, some of which has been claimed by the Administration as having charging effect which will obviously need your ruling.
Mr LAU has finally said also to have Part II of his Bill on discrimination against family status deleted. I am sure he will speak on this some time later.
Mr President, after heated debates some provisions of the Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1996 passed a couple of weeks ago, but after serious consideration the Administration has said they are not to make parallel amendments passed in that Bill to the Family Status Discrimination Bill, and the Honourable Miss Christine LOH will introduce parallel amendments.
Now, I would like to say some of my personal thoughts on this particular Bill and all the other Bills at the same time. Mr President, I welcome the Administration's introduction of this Bill, but regrettably the Government has still not made enough progress in other areas of anti-discrimination necessitating Members to introduce Member's Bills in the line of this legislation as we see today.
I am also disappointed that the Administration is unwilling to make parallel amendments to those passed in the Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Not only will this delay the activity of this Council in its very busy schedule over the next few days, but worse it would be against the interests of Hong Kong in general and this Council in particular to see similar laws on anti-discrimination yet have different provisions.
With those remarks, Mr President, I commend to Members the Second Reading of this Bill.
糂ホ某璓勉畊穦產畑盺︗猍跌Τ沟ぃ腀種竨ノ┪缆ど璶酚臮┦┪Τ︹泊描ㄤ璽Τ產畑砫ヴ粄竨叫-
碞穦癸そぃ
︑秨﹍ミ猭Ы某璊ド獽览は癸產畑砫ヴ猍跌猭ㄒ堡きミ猭Ы骸ゼ莉眔硄筁
иきる繦も盢Τ闽兵ㄒ矗ユミ猭Ы現┎┏ボ璶览は癸產畑盺︗猍跌猭ㄒτ╈┑︓さる現┎猭ㄒ览セиぃ笵現┎琌锚и矗ユ兵ㄒ砆崩闽耕玂兵ㄒ礚阶︙現┎腀種矗ユ硂兵ㄒ癸カチㄓ弧羆衡琌Τ矪
и弧現┎玂琌現┎兵ㄒ籔и產畑砫ヴ兵ㄒ程だ琌и癸"產畑盺︗"﹚竡珹獶盉闽玒τ獶現┎﹚竡い盉﹀絫克の烩緄よи芠翴琌ヴ︙常ぃ莱綝猍跌ぃ莱赣ㄤō璽產畑砫ヴτ砆┶荡竨ノ砆┶荡矗ㄑ砯の狝叭の砆┶荡︘よ
ㄤ龟"產畑砫ヴ"種琌琘惠璶產い酚臮┪"惠璶酚臮"硂贺酚臮砫ヴ琌竒爹產畑い瞷ㄇ⊿ΤタΑ爹セ借局Τ荡场だ"產畑"┦借︘闽玒い瞷иㄓΤ闽產畑砫ヴ兵ㄒ┮闽猔琌⊿Τ璶璽癬產畑酚臮砫ヴτ猍跌の砆管祇甶㎝匡拒ネよΑキ单诀穦
現┎竩┽阑и兵ㄒ"產畑砫ヴ"﹚竡い礚逼埃┦攀и籔荡计Τキ单诀穦種醚狟ね常粄狦┦攀の╧┦攀糹︽產畑砫ヴτ猍跌螟笵и-
璶粄硂贺猍跌︽盾盢"產畑砫ヴ"﹚竡Ыひヾ闽玒﹀絫克の烩緄闽玒τ臮ㄤ產畑砫ヴτ綝猍跌硂兵猭ㄒ琌ぃそキぃ瞶
Τ粄耎惗產畑砫ヴ﹚竡穦躬纘﹡и龟篘ぃ繷福穦琌秈˙琌タ祇甶い穦锣跑ぃ琌北穦ㄒゲ斗蛤穦ǐ瞷翠猭ㄒい產畑忌兵ㄒ癩玻膥┯ㄑ緄框篷の緄兵ㄒの沟竭纕兵ㄒ盢獶盉闽玒玂毁ǎ猭ㄒ璶莱穦惠璶τ﹚のэ跑
妓狦獶盉闽玒ぃ產┮钡︑礛穦渤宠斌︑礛穦Τㄤ措笵穦林阶单ゎ硂蒋┑硂獶иキ单诀穦兵ㄒ┮璶秆∕拜肈и矗兵ㄒ弘琌玂毁–摸璽Τ產畑砫ヴ常ぃ穦綝猍跌硂琌玥拜肈琌摸莱ㄉΤ膀セ舦
パ現┎矗ユΤ闽產畑盺︗は猍跌猭ㄒ莉眔硄筁иキ单诀穦兵ㄒい產畑砫ヴ场だ獽逞秖のぃЧ俱兵ゅи盢硂场だ篗瘤礛и辨現┎荷璽は猍跌砫ヴさぱ-
斌场だ猍跌舦и辨-
Τ荷е浪癚ぱ常Τ岿и羆辨岿丁ぃ璶び
и略朝勉谅谅畊
糂胺祸某璓勉畊セ︑パ囊祇ēや現┎矗產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ
︑パ囊やキ单诀穦硂玥は癸ヴ︙Α猍跌琌и-
ゲ斗フ猍跌硂拜肈琌ぃ┾瞒獺├穦笵紈芠├の穦基芠├珿璶穝猭ㄒ┪穝惫琁ㄓ窽ゎ猍跌и-
粄荡癸ぃ巨ぇ筁ゲ斗約獂钮カチ種ǎ眔そ渤や硂妓穦Τ玃秈キ单诀穦
瓣現┎崩︽は猍跌猭ㄒゲ﹚倒ㄤ瓣チだ丁ㄓ続莱荡ぃ矗ミ猭┪璹︑パ囊や現┎瞷┮蹦糵稸篈碻亥秈よ猭翠ま秈は猍跌猭ㄒ
產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ琌セ翠材兵キ单诀穦兵ㄒτ現┎セЫ矗ユ兵ㄒ玡る碞產畑猵秈︽戳ㄢる吭高Μ栋そ渤癸產畑猵τ綝猍跌種ǎ吭高挡狦陪ボ荡场だカチ常やミ猭窽ゎ硂よ猍跌
現┎矗產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒヘ窽ゎち產畑盺︗τ猍跌︽τ兵ㄒ┮﹚窽ゎ猍跌笆絛氓籔┦猍跌兵ㄒ┮瞇籠璝︑パ囊粄硂暗猭琌才そ渤痲ㄏカチ渤耕甧秆の続莱穝は猍跌兵ㄒ
︓ㄇ兵ㄒ玂毁現┎璶沮吭高眔ㄓそ渤種ǎр"產畑盺︗"﹚璽Τ酚臮╰產畑Θ砫ヴ盺︗τ╰產畑Θ斗籔赣Τ﹀絫盉烩緄┪克闽玒兵ㄒ龟琁秈˙玂毁虫克產畑ぷㄤ琌êㄇ惠璶酚臮ρギの摧痚產畑Θ
兵ㄒ癸﹡皌案ぃ矗ㄑ玂毁硂よ琌籔糂ホ某┮矗キ单诀穦兵ㄒΤ闽產畑砫ヴ场だ程だ猍ぇ矪そ渤種ǎ陪は癸ノミ猭絋粄﹡闽玒翠ㄓい瓣肚参ゅて紇臫瘤礛瞷Τぃぶ钡﹡闽玒璶絋ミ﹡猭︗礚阶琌钡┪丁钡玥琌ㄆ︑パ囊琌Ч瞶秆碙カチ硂よ種ǎ
產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ琌兵柜穝猭ㄒ硂よ翠ゑㄤㄈ瑆瓣產︓璣瓣の瓣玡徖硂ㄇ瓣產瞷临⊿Τ﹚猭ㄒ窽ゎ膀產畑盺︗猍跌緿瑆硄筁┦猍跌猭8盢ㄤ璹窽ゎ產畑砫ヴ絫珿τ秆沟兵蹿膀硂猭ㄒ某阀├耕穝镑把酚瓣ㄒ耕ぶ現┎崩︽產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ疭惠璶倒ぉカチì丁秆猭ㄒの続莱ぷㄤ琌沟の沟
ㄆ龟┦猍跌兵ㄒの摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ龟琁度せるカチごゼЧ秆硂ㄇ猭ㄒぃぶそ沟瞷タΓ沮キ单诀穦〆穦祇沟赌龟叭玥璹穝ㄆ現郸の︽現祘絋玂そる丁宽硂ㄢ兵は猍跌兵ㄒ砏﹚璝硂ま材兵は猍跌兵ㄒ琁硂ㄇ沟ōよ穦-
稰睼瞔よ硂ㄇ沟ゼゲΤì丁の戈方材兵は猍跌兵ㄒ场竝珿︑パ囊や現┎そ沟砞ミ糴戳
瘤礛︑パ囊さぱや硂兵產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ︑パ囊﹍沧粄圾て猭兵ゅ戳埃穦猍跌ぃ琌程Τよ猭ㄤ秖硂踞讽徊à︹瞷穦贺猍跌场だΤㄤゅて﹙毙の笵紈芠├縒疭璉春璶过┏埃猍跌現┎莱眏肚毙▅硓筁肩簿纐て硋˙э跑カチㄓ笵紈の基芠├眖拜肈方ㄓ秆∕猍跌拜肈
畊セ略朝勉︑パ囊や產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ
朝胞糭某璓勉畊羛穦や現┎矗產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒи-
粄兵ㄒ癸膀糷"ゴ"疭琌包骋矗ㄑ碞穨玂毁
把籔穦ㄓ竒盽常Τㄇ璶酚臮""┪琌虫克產畑"ね"иは琈弧-
ビ叫沟粄-
盉Τ┪璶酚臮產いρτ砆猍跌砆┶窖иョ璶酚臮產畑闽玒τぃ┪眖ㄆ戮"ゴ"Τぃぶ辨戮┪Τ诀穦穦玱禣硂ㄇ戈方
程穦Τㄇ種ǎ粄ㄇ虫克產畑珹穝簿チ產计–る烩侯穿窾じ琌"緄胕"硂ㄇ┪粄-
礚みΤㄇ弧現┎侯穿現郸琌"緄胕"и谋眔硂弧猭琌獶盽獶盽ぃそキ沮ㄇ虫克產畑洱洱и-
硓臩-
ㄌ綼侯穿筁獶痷稱"緄胕"τ琌ㄆ龟-
骋笆カ初い闹の產畑砫ヴ紇臫猍跌-
疭琌ㄇ沟笵-
琌虫克產畑洱洱碞⊿Τ盢-
σ納竨ぇ癸硂薄猵-
ㄏぃ稱烩侯穿砆璶烩侯穿и獺-
∕ぃ穦侯穿τ斌-
戴辨Τ铆﹚戴辨︑ǒ对ㄓ緄產硂琌-
み腀
-
┮猍跌琌稱钩龟悔瞷ぃぶρ馏芠翴眖恨瞶à"ル癘"-
粄"ル癘"莱赣程24繦㏑弧痁碞痁ぃ穦璶"礷"礜逗搓""τ┶荡┪盿""洛ネ盿""σ厩刚τ礛叫安沟稱沟硂ㄇ猵讽-
ビ叫ρ馏碞"瑼も谰繷"圭匡拒ゼ盉┪⊿Τ"ル癘"и-
荡癸觅Θミ猭よΑ窽ゎ癸產畑盺︗猍跌絋玂ㄉΤ硂舦и-
穦拜︙硂穦穦膥尿甧砛и┮弧薄猵のêㄇ沟芠├㎡︙璶р诀竟㎡︙璶俱穦⊿Τ薄㎡и-
やミ猭矪瞶硂拜肈
包┪虫克產畑╧籔產т砆猍跌ョ籔現┎戳矗ㄑ癠ㄠ狝叭ぃì┪借秖ぃΤ馋闽玒硂翴現┎︑ョ┯粄現┎ボ埃硓筁ミ猭船埃產畑盺︗猍跌临穦矗ㄑ穿狝叭ㄒギㄠ癠ㄠ狝叭ρ狝叭臔瞶皘砞琁单倒Τ惠璶產畑-
秆∕螟礛τ瞷硂摸穿狝叭ㄑ莱秖陪腨ぃì
碞癠ㄠ狝叭ㄒせ︓現┎┪ㄤ戈ら丁癠ㄠ┮矗ㄑ25 000肂ビ叫玱Τ3窾τ翠2︓6烦担玱Τ窾羇ㄏи-
螟参璸龟悔癠ㄠ惠―秖瞷ㄑ莱秖ㄓ荡ぃ骸ì膀糷產畑癸癠ㄠ狝叭惠璶
и︑暗包骋ぃ耞現┎矗硂翴現┎眖ㄓ⊿Τσ納э到癠ㄠ狝叭и癘眔и砐拜穝℡盢竒喷現┎堡現┎篈玂︓さぱ現┎矗Τ闽產畑盺︗猍跌猭ㄒウ矗硂拜肈и辨現┎ちち龟龟タ跌硂拜肈玥璽產畑砫ヴ穦膥尿溃τ砆產畑τ斌硂琌-
┮ぃ稱
程癸糂ホ某矗タ3糴戳硂拜肈и籔羛穦包ㄆ叭〆穦粄3戳びぃ筁狦Ч⊿Τ糴戳ㄇ沟穦驰"毕㏑"ぃ筁и-
羛穦包ㄆ叭〆穦某現┎ぃ莱赣砞Τ硂或僚戳┮и-
穦や糂ホ某タ
畊и略朝勉
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊иチ囊祇ēや產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ
"產畑盺︗"琌璽Τ酚臮╰產畑Θ砫ヴ盺︗ㄤ龟翠瞷產畑盺︗疭琌虫克產畑よ猍跌セ兵ㄒΤ玂毁產畑盺︗猍跌硂よ猍跌ぃ猭ぃ膀產畑盺︗τ倒ぉ耕畉笿の癸產畑盺︗琁ぃキ单兵ン羆砰ㄓ弧產畑盺︗癸计よ猍跌珹毙▅﹡︘の钡狝叭单セ兵ㄒ癸猍跌﹚玂毁
チ囊穦や糂ホ某矗癸そ糴の嘲糠某タи-
粄甡Τ舦莉眔確戮莱赣15窾じ竭纕и辨セ兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁縩伐埃猍跌
谅谅畊
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, only two weeks ago the Administration lobbied aggressively against every aspect of my Member's Bill to strengthen the Sex and Disability Discrimination Ordinances. I am sure over the next few days the Administration will again aggressively lobby Members not to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sexual orientation or race.
The Administration claims that it has a policy of incremental progress in regard to equal opportunities, but its actions are too tentative. The Bill is meant as an example of incremental progress in this case, but Mr President, it is limited to the smallest possible increment.
The Sex Discrimination Ordinance already prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status. This Bill will similarly prohibit discrimination based on the person's family status, which means the person's responsibility for the care of
an immediate family member, such as a child. The Bill defines family status in the narrowest possible way so that any family or dependent relationship that is not already recognized by the law will enjoy no protection from private discrimination under the Bill.
I recall, for example, the reported case of a woman who raised a child abandoned by her neighbours as if the boy were her own. That family will not be covered by this Bill nor will any other de facto family relationship no matter how long-standing or how well-recognized it may be in the local community. The heartless policy reason for this limitation is, and I quote the word used by the Administration during the Bills Committee, "clarity". The Administration invoked the charging effect rule to block the Honourable LAU Chin-shek's efforts to widen the definition as well as his efforts to make other minor improvements by amendment.
Rarely has such a large Bill, Mr President, been used to take such a small step. No one in this Council should mistake the Bill's bulk for meaningful content. The 69 clauses and three schedules in it do no more than exhaustively reproduce the provisions and limitations of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. The only novel provision in this Bill is its bare minimum definition of family status.
The Administration could have, Mr President, achieved exactly the same effect by simply amending the Sex Discrimination Ordinance instead of wrapping one new provision in a huge re-enactment of that entire ordinance. But I suppose the Administration would not wish to use my Member's Bill as the vehicle to amend the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. As usual, the imperative to squelch Member's Bills triumphs over good sense and thus we have a separate and almost wholly redundant Bill before us.
Remarkably in some respects, the Administration apparently wants this Bill to regress from existing law. The Sex Discrimination Ordinance was changed in important respects two weeks ago when Members passed key clauses of my Member's Bill. In particular Members will recall removing the damages cap that crippled that ordinance, and authorizing the remedy of reinstatement by votes of 31 to 25 and 33 to 22 respectively.
The Administration did not accept defeat gracefully, however, and has declined to move parallel amendments to this Bill. I will, therefore, have to do it at Committee stage. I assume the Administration, however, will not object to these amendments this time.
With these words, Mr President, I support this Bill, but I deplore the cramped and grudging mentality that shaped it.
郭Θ某璓勉畊иチ祇ēや硂兵ㄒ
糂ホ某某兵ㄒいョΤ產畑盺︗硂场だパ兵ㄒㄤい程狙琌キ单诀穦〆穦à︹琌箂"秸禗砠"诀┮狦и-
硄筁糂ホ某兵ㄒカチ穦谋眔だ睼睹ぃフ︙硂兵ㄒいΤ场だ琌キ单诀穦〆穦⊿Τ把籔秸秆ぃ筁糂ホ某硂暗猭Τ钡狦碞琌現┎ミ盢タ览兵ㄒ矗ユセЫ糵某и璶禤糂ホ某莉眔硂钡狦セЫせるら玡糵某硂兵ㄒ
現┎兵ㄒ癸"產畑盺︗"﹚竡琌才翠薄猵"產畑盺︗"癸ヴ︙τē琌璽Τ酚臮╰產畑Θ砫ヴ盺︗τ╰產畑Θ﹚竡琌﹀絫盉烩緄┪克τ籔赣Τ闽ヴ︙硂﹚竡и-
耕睲贰笵琌ㄇτぃ穦钩糂ホ某ê兵ㄒêㄇ蛤痷港矪疉のずи谋眔硂﹚竡ぃ睲贰珹﹡┪⊿Τ﹀絫┪盉闽玒庢穦猭ㄒ耕肞笆τぃ才翠薄猵翠癸產畑﹚竡ご琌耕疷癸糂ホ某硂玡徖﹚竡ゼ钡硂兵ㄒ材矪琌キ单诀穦〆穦Τ把籔à︹
祔砰〆穦糵某顶琿и-
チ穦や嘲糠某タタ硂兵ㄒ籔┦猍跌兵ㄒ㎝摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ镣璓某猭皘舦籔瓃ㄢ兵兵ㄒ硂兜タぃ穦產踞み筁ㄏΤ硂舦︓ヘ玡ゎご⊿Τㄒ⊿Τ禗窖猭畑硂琌猭ㄒび穝穦毙▅临ぃì镑翠临ぃ策篋盢硂ㄇ拜肈矗猭畑禗砠︓竭纕よ硂籔ㄢ琍戳и-
芠翴璓┮и-
穦や硂暗猭
и略朝勉
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I am grateful to Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung and members of the Bills Committee, in particular the Honourable LAU Chin-shek, for their careful examination of this Bill and their comments.
After the enactment of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, this is the third anti-discrimination Bill introduced by the Government. In line with the Government's step-by-step approach and as clear support was expressed in the public consultation exercise last year for legislation to protect persons with family status from discrimination, this is the opportune time to introduce such legislation.
Under clause 2 of the Bill family status is defined as the status of having responsibility for the care of an immediate family member. By the term "immediate family member" in relation to a person means someone who is related to the person concerned by blood, marriage, adoption or affinity. The merit of this definition is that it is clear and certain. It also meets the aspirations and actual needs of our community.
The definition of immediate family member does not extend to co-inhabitants of the same or opposite sex who are not legally married to each other. During our public consultation exercise, an overwhelming majority of the respondents expressed disapproval of giving legal recognition to such de facto relationships. We understand and respect such views.
From the submissions received, it appears that most if not all of the persons who require the protection from family status discrimination are the single parents. The definition in the Bill covers them regardless whether the children they have to care for are born in wedlock or are illegitimate. In either case the children are related to their parents by blood. Other examples of persons related by blood are brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and cousins. This list is not exhaustive.
There was concern whether the definition covers couples whose marriages have not been officially registered in Hong Kong. I can confirm that a couple whose marriage is contracted and registered in a system of law outside Hong Kong are considered to be related by marriage for the purpose of the Bill.
As regards a couple who are married under traditional Chinese customs or who have been living together for such a long duration that they are regarded as husband and wife by their friends, relatives and neighbours, the principles of family law apply and a couple whose marriage is valid under these principles will be regarded as related by marriage for the purpose of the Bill.
Two persons are related by adoption only after the necessary procedure has been completed and the adoption recognized by law. This is for the sake of clarity.
Affinity is the relationship between a husband and his wife's blood relatives and between a wife and her husband's blood relatives, for example, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the spouse's brothers and sisters. Again, the list is not exhaustive.
As can be seen from the above, the definition of family status covers a wide range of relationships recognized in law and our customs. I believe the definition is broad enough to include those with family status who actually require protection against discrimination on grounds of such status.
Mr President, during the Committee stage I shall move a number of amendments to the Bill. The proposed amendments to the definition of "estate agent" in clause 2 is to tie in with the definition of the same term as used in the Estate Agents Bill passed by this Council on 21 May 1997.
The proposed deletion of subclause (5) of clause 8 is necessary because the legislative provision referred to in the subclause, that is, section 14(2)(d) of the Employment Ordinance, was repealed by the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1996 which was passed by this Council last week on 17 June 1997.
The proposed amendment to Schedule 1 Item 11 takes account of the new title of the Open University of Hong Kong, which was approved by this Council in the context of the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong (Amendment) Bill 1997 passed on 21 May this year.
As regards the other Committee stage amendments which I shall move, they are all textual amendments to improve the drafting or to correct clerical errors in the Bill.
I note that the Honourable Miss Christine LOH and Mr LAU Chin-shek will move Committee stage amendments. I am afraid we do not support these amendments.
Mr LAU's proposed amendment to Clause 8 seeks to remove the three-year grace period proposed in the Bill to be given to small employers, that is, those having not more than five employees, for compliance with the provisions in the Bill. The proposed amendment, if adopted, will cause difficulties to the small employers. Anti-discrimination legislation in respect of family status is new, not only in Hong Kong but also in overseas jurisdictions. In the absence of experience of precedence it takes time for the community, especially employers, to understand their new obligations and take steps to comply. Compared with large companies, small employers have much less manpower and resources to fulfil these new obligations. The removal of the proposed grace period would actually burden the small employers who are already required to develop new personnel policies and administrative procedures so as to comply with all the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and the Disability Discrimination Ordinance by July and August 1998 respectively.
Miss Christine LOH's proposed amendments to clause 54 seeks to empower the courts to order re-employment and also to remove the maximum limit of $150,000 in respect of damages in relation to employment matters. The proposed amendments differ from the two provisions enacted by this Council as recently as last week on 17 June in relation to unfair dismissals. Under the new section 32(n) of the Employment Ordinance enacted by this Council last week, reinstatement orders may be made only where both the employer/employee concerned consent. The requirement for such mutual consent is in the interests of good labour relations and protects the employer/employee alike. Yet, such a requirement has not been written into Miss LOH's proposed amendment.
Also under the new section 32(p)(4) of the Employment Ordinance the maximum damages to be awarded are set at $150,000, that is, the same as in the Bill. As anti-discrimination legislation is new in Hong Kong and employers are worried about breaching the law for insufficient understanding, the removal of the maximum limit would cause anxiety to them. This would not be conducive to our present objective of counter-weighting acceptance in the community of such new anti-discrimination legislation.
Miss LOH also proposes to amend clause 64 such that the time taken for conciliation by the Equal Opportunities Commission will not count towards the period within which legal proceedings may be brought. Clause 64 at present provides proceedings to be brought with 24 months after an allegedly discriminatory act is done. A conciliation by the Equal Opportunities Commission would normally take much less than 24 months. Furthermore, the clause provides for the courts to consider any claim out of time if it is just and equitable to do so. In the circumstances, we see no need for the proposed amendment.
Mr President, with these remarks, I commend the Bill to Members.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕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
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
FAMILY STATUS DISCRIMINATION BILL
產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 to 15, 17, 18, 19, 22 to 53, 55 to 63 and 65 to 69 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材135679︓1517181922︓5355︓63の65︓69兵莉眔硄筁
Clauses 2, 4, 16, 20 and 21
兵ㄒ材241620の21兵
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.
As I have explained at the Second Reading debate these are technical amendments.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンIX
Clause 4 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンIX
Clause 16 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材16兵ǎンIX
Clause 20 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材20兵ǎンIX
Clause 21 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材21兵ǎンIX
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 2, 4, 16, 20 and 21, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材241620の21兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clauses 8
兵ㄒ材8兵
糂ホ某璓勉и笆某タ材8兵タず甧更祇倒︗〆ゅンず
畊иセㄓ癸現┎硂兵ㄒΤ3兜タ珹篗綪沟僚沟璶―沟矗ㄑ戈癸沟矗ㄑ玂毁の耎惗產畑盺︗﹚竡堡埃篗綪沟僚ㄤ緇常砆"疉のそ┊"の"禬絛瞅"τぃタ挡狦穦琌ㄏ糧猍跌絛瞅
畊現┎竒盽碭狾琌Τ穝猭ㄒ沟璶丁秆続莱沟戈方Τ惠璶碭僚戳
倒5沟3僚戳琌ゲ璶㎡и粄ぃゲ璶穦琵Τ產畑盺︗3猍跌诀
きい硄筁┦猍跌兵ㄒの摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ現┎粄琌穝芠├倒3糴戳倒沟-
糧猭呼и笵讽某常ぃ觅Θ狦は猍跌猭琌穝芠├杠沟常琌丁钡芠├璶沟钡Μぃ猍跌獺猭ㄒ硄筁龟琁ら戳礚阶┷竨ヴノ缆ど单絛瞅ず磷猍跌讽いぃ疉の戈方拜肈はτ禫ぶ沟そ笲碞禫虏虫
瞷現┎產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ"酚快礜窲"倒沟3僚戳痷弛獶筁ㄢ現叭肚患猍跌獺╯澈暗或キ单诀穦〆穦きるΘミㄓ肚キ单毙▅琌ㄆ礚Θ玥或璶倒3僚琵沟Τ诀穦猍跌Τ產畑盺︗沟狦5Τは猍跌猭ㄒ硄筁琌璶倒3僚
は猍跌芠├獶绰產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒス硄筁и稱ぃ或薄猵沟惠璶3丁フи-
ぃ莱猍跌璽產畑盺︗τ沟玥ぃ惠璶猵現┎ボ硄筁硂兵ㄒ璶龟琁硂禬筁丁ず現叭のキ单诀穦〆穦琂礛Τр搐硄沟ぃ璶猍跌Τ產畑盺︗︙硈沟硄硂或虏虫獺⊿Τ
現┎硂兜僚ì瘆胊は猍跌キ单┦の瞶┦τ硑Θ綝猍跌畊埃獶現叭弧︑或ぃ暗キ单诀穦〆穦ぃ穦钡產畑盺︗猍跌玥и辨︗ㄆや癸沟僚
и略朝勉矗タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIX
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и辨㊣苸︗ㄆは癸糂ホ某硂兜タ
糂某钩弧僚沟碞琌甧砛-
猍跌ㄤ龟荡癸⊿Τ硂妓ㄆи-
秆翠Τ沟τ-
竒犁兵ンのㄤよ常穦癸螟蛤碻ㄇ猭ㄒ暗猭よ穦-
竒犁τ硑Θ贺贺ぃ獽倒ぉ-
"絯侥戳"┪"既絯戳"琵-
ㄣΤ兵ン┪砏家そ璶―硂ぃボ-
礚斗癸猍跌蹦锣跑篈τ琌и-
璶秆翠ㄆ龟ㄆ龟現郸常穦癸︓い穨Τ疭酚臮㎝σ納硂琌и-
秆-
龟悔螟τи沟㊣苸產腊-
рは癸糂ホ某タ
糂胺祸某璓勉畊︑パ囊は癸糂ホ某矗タそ糴戳
и-
ゲ斗フは猍跌猭ㄒ癸そ沟┮硑Θ紇臫环耕そτそ沟宽︽穝猭ㄒτ挤もの戈方ョ耕そぶ璶―-
э跑篋盽暗猭㎝現郸宽︽瞷Τㄢ兵は猍跌兵ㄒ兵は猍跌兵ㄒ龟-
ぃ秤璽颤倒ぉそ沟琿続讽糴戳ぃ度琌続讽暗猭龟悔Τ惠璶硂妓暗琵セ翠そ眔膥尿ネ
セ纯セせるらセЫ弄┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ崩︽は猍跌兵ㄒ穦ㄏㄇそ磷牟デ兵ㄒτр︽穨挡璝硂薄猵瞷は猍跌兵ㄒ獽"ゼǎㄤǎㄤ甡"
畊膀瓃瞶パ︑パ囊は癸糂ホ某矗タ
某璓勉糂胺祸某弧安龟琁は猍跌猭ㄒ獽穦そ沟挡犁穨и粄硂弧猭菠肛眎ㄤ龟Τ闽キ单诀穦よи-
辨э跑琌芠├硂ぃ琌璶琵沟璽ヴ︙↖璽踞璶沟フ猭ㄒ璶―讽-
竨ノ┪缆哎瘆埃侣Τ芠├ㄒぃ竨叫Τ┪Τ边﹚⊿Τ盯丁┮ぃ倒-
哎戮诀穦单硂獽竒ㄌ碻猭ㄒ硂ぃ穦ま璓ヴ︙Θセ碩糤τ琌璶芠├э跑璝芠├镑э跑獽琌▆恨瞶も猭
и辨產や糂ホ某タ硂ぃ穦痷癸そ沟篶Θ腨ゴ阑
谅谅畊
谅ッ闹某璓勉狦и-
甧砛そㄉΤ僚杠ㄤ龟琌Τ蛮夹非︙そ璶菏恨㎡讽礛и-
ぃΤ硂蛮夹非材竨ノ莱赣阶㎝τぃ莱阶-
產畑盺︗и粄ㄏ琌そ竨ノ莱赣ビ叫琌ㄣΤ続厩菌キ㎝τぃ琌膀-
琘贺產畑砫ヴτ∕﹚琌竨ノ-
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I explained at the Second Reading debate it would not only be fair but also necessary to give employers of small companies time to familiarize with the new legislation and to adapt their existing practices to comply with it. A three-year grace period is necessary and reasonable.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to the Committee stage amendment.
糂ホ某璓勉畊и辨セЫㄆやиタ谅谅畊
Question on Mr LAU Chin-shek's amendment put.
糂ホ某タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr LAU Chin-shek claimed a division.
糂ホ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗某瞷窖∕ぇ某肈糂ホ某碞材8兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, 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, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG 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 Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong and Mr LEE Kai-ming abstained.
The electronic display showed 24 votes in favour of the amendment and 24 votes against it.
筿陪ボ狾陪ボ觅Θ24は癸24
〆穦畊щ布挡狦觅Θ24は癸幫24沮╢ェ还某1867┮璹ぇ玥ゼ莉筁计薄猵畊︽ㄏ∕﹚┦∕舦琌は癸よΑ︽ㄏタ綝∕
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I move the amedment set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.
As I have explained at the Second Reading debate, the proposed deletion is a technical amendment.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 8, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材8兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 54
兵ㄒ材54兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 54 be amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
The amendment to clause 54 removes the $150,000 cap on damage awards for unlawful discrimination at work. It also authorizes several specific remedies including reinstatement.
The damages cap comprehensively undermines the Bill's enforcement scheme. As under the other discrimination ordinances, an award of costs is not normally available under the Bill, a victim of discrimination must, therefore, plan on paying litigation costs out of his or her damage award and no one can realistically litigate on a budget of $150,000. With little or no prospect of court enforcement, an alleged discriminator will also have no incentive to cooperate in conciliation. Finally, the rare complainant who navigates this obstacle course will not be able to obtain just compensation at the end.
As for reinstatement, it is now available as a remedy both under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and the Disability Discrimination Ordinance. It would therefore make no sense to not allow it under this particular Bill before us. The court will naturally take account of whether an order for reinstatement is practical in the particular case. We know, however, that in many cases, reinstatement will not only be practical, it will be the best remedy for a person who was forced to leave a large organization because of unlawful discrimination.
I am surprised to hear from the Secretary during her speech that the reason for not supporting this amendment today is that it creates anxiety to employers because they do not know how to apply the Bill. Surely we are legislating for the community at large, not for any particular group. And I would suggest to the Secretary if she were so unlucky or if any member of her family were so unlucky as to face discrimination at work and a $150,000 damage cap was imposed, that she herself would find it extremely unfair.
So, I hope Members will remember how they voted last time and will support my amendment.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 54 (See annex IX)
兵ㄒ材54兵ǎンIX
糂ホ某璓勉畊現┎琌"猭磷猭"蹦緈尘現郸稰獶盽紐納硂兵ㄒ〆穦穦某現┎纯竒絘發瞨ゴ借拜иキ单诀穦兵ㄒ琌籔玡は猍跌猭ㄒ璓ㄏ琌種竡ぃ泊現┎ぃ钡粄穦ㄏ猭畑玻ネ睼瞔и種硂琌贺腨略篈琌現┎璶―硂妓暗︑玱⊿Τ硂妓暗嘲糠某兵ㄒ〆穦穦某拜現┎安1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁現┎穦タ產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒㄏㄤ籔穝硄筁猭ㄒ璓琌現┎や癸嘲某兵ㄒせるら弄硄筁現┎ぇ矗ユ兵ㄒ澈礛ぃ臮の穝猭ㄒず甧⊿Τ莱タ挡狦琌Τ闽┦の摧痚猍跌兵ㄒビよ璶―確戮璶―缆哎竭纕⊿Τ砞產畑盺︗猍跌猭ㄒ玥ぃ璶―確戮ぃ璶―缆哎纕玥ぃ禬筁15窾じ叫拜現┎硂妓暗琌穦猭畑睼瞔ы┪現┎粄猍跌Τ產畑盺︗竜︽莱赣耕淮┮竭纕莱耕ぶ㎡
畊戮幅ミ初琌璶―甡沟眔確戮硂琌-
膀セ碞穨舦и略朝勉やタ
糂胺祸某璓勉畊︑パ囊は癸嘲糠某碞材54兵矗タ
嘲某某甭舦よ猭皘箋沟斗缆哎┪穝沟ノ纯竒猍跌沟︑パ囊粄硂某琌ぃち龟悔硓筁猭玧眏蝴么竒瘆吊沟赌闽玒穦糤ら蛮よベ侥癸沟の沟常⊿Τ矪
︑パ囊ョは癸砞ミ穕甡竭纕程蔼肂タパは猍跌兵ㄒ琌讽穝猭ㄒи-
ゲ斗倒ぉ沟ì镑丁ㄓ罙猭ㄒの続莱ㄇ沟兵ㄒ龟琁戳ゼだ粄醚穝兵ㄒτ礚種い牟デは猍跌兵ㄒ癸硂ㄇ沟ㄓ弧и-
粄ぃ莱癸-
筁腨胓и-
ゲ斗フは猍跌兵ㄒ癸坝紇臫程璶磷秨﹍獽纞┤沟Τ惠璶砞ミ竭纕程蔼肂
兵ㄒ某穕甡竭纕程蔼肂琌15窾じ硂籔せるら硄筁沟赌璹材2腹兵ㄒい礚瞶秆沟程蔼竭纕肂︑パ囊粄秨﹍硂肂竒瞶癸ㄇそ沟ㄓ弧硂竭纕肂计ヘぃ獺竒Μ胓籃の牡抱狦ら璝Τ惠璶矗蔼┪玥斗芠诡硂猭ㄒネ琿丁の猭畑仓縩﹚ㄒよ∕﹚琌Τ龟悔惠璶и-
粄瞷顶琿砞ミ程蔼竭纕肂琌Τㄤ惠璶
畊膀瓃瞶パ︑パ囊は癸嘲糠某タ
朝胞糭某璓勉畊羛穦や嘲糠某癸材54兵タ
タΩи-
や嘲糠某1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ妓и-
谋眔Τ惠璶猭畑絋砏﹚沟確戮
タ糂ホ某┮弧и癸現┎猭ㄒ璶―ぃ参稰佩琂礛Ω硄筁1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ15窾じ︙現┎ぃタ硂兵ㄒ㎡и-
糵某硂兵ㄒ〆穦穦某纯拜現┎狦嘲糠某兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁現┎穦タ硂兵ㄒи┣︙現┎︓さ临绊ぃ秈︽タ
и㎝羛穦某常や嘲糠某タ
バ玊某璓勉畊Ω癚阶Τ闽15窾じи-
竒弧и-
は癸и粄场だカチ常フ┦猍跌琌或┦睲贰琌╧┦㎝┦瞶秆τи-
龟︽Τ闽兵ㄒ1┮и獺翠いそ沟常フ沟ノㄒぃ糶"睲间"τ琌糶"睲间"и獺场だ沟常フ硂翴瘤礛Ωи-
は癸15窾じパΤ羛穦τチ囊跑囊┮莉眔硄筁ぃ筁êぱ兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁ぃさぱ莉硄筁
и拜某"Family Status Discrimination Bill"いゅ琌或ㄓ琌產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ叫拜Τぶカチフ︙孔"產畑盺︗"и獺Τ砆砐常ぃフ硂妓ㄏ瞷沟宽產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ㎡狦ぃ砞15窾じΤ沟笻は硂兵ㄒ-
砆籃计窾じ计κ窾じ穦-
璶挡穨êㄇΤ闽ぃそキ秆沟兵ㄒ临璹Τ15窾じиぃ笵或璶硂硂兵ㄒ琌材Ω矗ユミㄨ硈
ㄆ龟硂ゼゲ琌и-
穨羆穦┪羆坝穦┮孔沟┮闽猔拜肈材沟ぃ穦瞣疉ずи-
盢Τ闽ㄆ叭ユㄆ竒瞶矪瞶沟北竒瞶┪ヴ-
セō琌"ゴ"┮幅弧ρ馏甡Τ闽硂產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒㄒ缆哎ê拜肈狦Τ產畑盺︗猍跌瞷τそセ⊿Τ祇Τ闽まê或猭﹛莱胓籃ê羱耕蔼︽現ㄓ竭纕倒甡㎡癸硂贺暗猭и獺ぃ虫ゎ沟螟フ砆籃セō琌"ゴ"
狦さぱ兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁15窾じ硂ぃ琌计ヘ瓣ま硂摸猭常穦砞Τ竭纕龟︽计薄猵眔秆∕硂﹟衡︽
畊и略朝勉は癸硂兜タ
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊и祇ēや嘲糠某タタ材54兵琌絋砏﹚猭畑㏑氮臛氨ゎ猍跌︽瞶竭纕甡Τ舦確戮の15窾じ竭纕
某常弧-
や┪は癸タΤ阶沮琌は猍跌猭ㄒ琌ㄇ穝猭ㄒи粄硂ㄇ猭ㄒㄤ龟竒ぃ衡穝竒龟︽ㄢ某矗︓現┎弧璶琵蒥チ疭琌坝ㄇρ馏粄醚︙孔猍跌ㄤ龟и-
瞷癚阶ぃ琌柜穝阀├穦ㄤ龟竒癚阶碭ミ猭Ы硄筁Τ闽猍跌猭ㄒキ单诀穦〆穦Θミㄓ崩約硂ㄇ猭ㄒ┮狦穝猭ㄒ硂ㄓ崩陆さΩタи粄瞶沮琌ぃì镑︙竭纕﹚璶Τ肂㎡硂琌讽ぃ瞶⊿Τ镑弧︙璹15窾じ︙ぃ琌150窾じ︙ぃ琌25窾じ⊿Τ矗だ弧︙竭纕﹚璶Τ肂︙ぃ琌跌猍跌腨┦τ﹚︙ぃ琌跌產畑砫ヴи-
粄疭端竭纕よ莱赣⊿Τ莱赣跌薄猵τ﹚
嘲糠某タ矗確戮拜肈︓ヘ玡ゎ⊿Τ某矗の硂よиぃ︙ぃや確戮︙и-
璶甧гㄇ猍跌︽膥尿︙и-
ぃ腊ㄇ產畑盺︗猍跌常矗のㄇ虫克產畑贺贺......
〆穦畊谅某и-
瞷琌癚阶材54兵タ
谅ッ闹某畊и穦碞材54兵祇ē疭琌Τ闽籃蹿Τ瞶沮琌籃蹿15窾じ竒ì镑硂琌バ玊某弧15窾じ琌ì镑埃斗跌籃蹿籔临璶跌癬禗Θ瞯狦琌籃蹿τ癬禗Θ瞯琌⊿Τノ矪璶籃蹿璶砆诀穦蔼Θ纞ㄇ沟硂よ猍跌и-
ぃ谋眔15窾じ琌籃┮硂兵蹿琌ゲ﹚璶и-
ぃ谋眔砆诀穦穦矗蔼埃獶現┎矗ㄇよㄒ笲ノキ单诀穦〆穦硂贺诀猍跌產畑盺︗耕砆砆癬禗и-
ぃ瞷Τ硂妓诀瞷キ单诀穦〆穦戮砫琌Ы摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ㎝┦猍跌兵ㄒ狦現┎⊿Τ疭惫琁砆诀穦瞯矗蔼и-
ぃ︙ぃ硂15窾じ
︑パ囊ㄆ矗瞷猭ㄒだ穝璶猭畑Τㄇㄒ琵蒥チ渤坝狟ね笵約蒥チΤ┮粄醚ㄤ龟薄猵ぃ琌硂妓и-
猭琌兜猭ㄒ硄筁蒥チ︓坝莱赣Τ砫ヴ粄醚㎝宽硂ㄇ猭ㄒ礚斗竒猭畑∕縩仓ㄒ璶-
宽猭ㄒ畊硂贺瞶沮琌Ч弧ぃ硄и-
ぃΤデ猭弧籃耕┪耕淮Τㄒ砏﹚-
琌宽и-
粄硂贺瞶沮Ч琌抡
畊バ玊某拜︙孔"產畑盺︗"и稰┣瞷硂砰〆穦糵某顶琿临矗硂妓拜肈ㄤ龟"產畑盺︗"琌Τ酚臮╰產畑Θ砫ヴ盺︗╰產畑Θ珹Τ﹀絫盉烩緄㎝克闽玒堡さΩぃ珹ゼ盉﹡皌案闽玒瓃﹚竡┮珹常硂兵ㄒ┮玂毁︙ㄢ琍戳玡Τ闽猍跌猭ㄒ15窾じさぱ硂兵ㄒ璶Τ硂㎡и粄琌Ч⊿Τ瞶沮
Τㄆ矗и-
莱刚刚硂瞷猭畑ごゼΤㄒ┮莱赣Τ∕и-
Τ诀穦刚刚硂畊и-
瞷ぃ琌弧禦ó┪禦綾и-
ぃ莱赣硂妓刚и-
酵阶琌ㄇぃ猭︽ㄇ猍跌︽и-
ぃ莱赣癸硂猭ㄒ秈︽刚喷璝胓籃淮碞デ璝胓籃碞ぃ璊ㄓи獺荡场だ翠蒥チ常そ猭-
ぃ稱刚刚猭ㄒ刚刚刚刚15窾じ琌腨传杠弧Τ窥獽猍跌硂琌弧ぃ硄狦璹Τ猭ㄒ程ぶ癬纞ノ狦硈纞ノ⊿Τ杠硂ミ猭Ы⊿Τ∕み埃猍跌
ミ猭Ы某璊ド竒埃猍跌よひ疭竭纕㎝肂よи-
ぃΤ或穝瞶沮瞶瞶沮弧狝и-
莱赣玂痙15窾じ硂竭纕肂畊и粄ゲ斗や硂兜タ猍跌ぃ猭τ籃ㄣΤ﹚纞ノ狦璹Τ玥纞ノ碞璶跌êΤ⊿Τ窥狦Τ窥碞⊿Τ纞ノ畊иビи-
ぃ琌弧刚ó┪刚綾êㄇи-
刚и-
弧琌猍跌拜肈
畊и稱弧弧そ拜肈Τㄇㄆ弧そ穦Τ﹚螟そΤ窥竭纕そゼゲΤ窥┮и-
﹚璶臮のそ痲琌そ碞猍跌τそ碞ぃ㎡畊иぃ粄硂贺蛮夹非疭琌и-
琌ミ猭诀篶и-
莱赣跌くぃそ⊿Τ15窾じ竭纕τ璶酚臮ウ-
и-
琌ミ猭,ぃ琌蠢-
郸购ネ種и-
璶ミ猭よ荷秖玂毁翠蒥チи-
瞷琌弧產畑盺︗猍跌舦痲┮и-
ぃ莱赣蠢ㄇそ臛臔狦и-
蠢そ臛臔︙ぃ蠢そ臛臔㎡и-
弧硂妓癸そ狥ぃ璶籃-
窥
畊и粄ゲ﹚璶荷快猭硂15窾じ玥и-
碞琌甧г硂猍跌︽膥尿и粄礚阶癸そ狥┪そ快ㄆ常ぃ莱甧砛Τ硂摸猍跌膥尿
谅谅畊
某璓勉畊и稱疭產畑盺︗硂芠├獶盽璶バ玊某弧カチ螟フ硂芠├狦安砞︑痷琌"ゴ"獽笵包―戮穦砆拜の琌Τぶ烦弄︙痁琌斗璶话產酚臮单硂ㄇ拜肈ㄤ龟炊筂иぃ笵バ某竨叫Τ⊿Τ矗硂ㄇ拜肈辨常ぃ穦硂妓拜玥碞琌笻猭ㄤ龟俱芠├琌ぃ莱赣產畑盺︗砫ヴㄓσ納琌竨ノ-
Τㄇ虫克產畑蛤и弧Τ钮虫克碞ぃ竨叫-
〆穦畊某叫碞某肈祇ē瞷癚阶碞材54兵┮矗タ琌獶盽ㄣ砰某肈
某и瞷穦碞15窾じ祇ēи璶莱バ玊某⊿Τ碞硂某肈祇ēêㄇē阶バ玊某矗ㄤ龟程璶パㄆ场竒瞶璽砫猭ㄒ睲贰璹硂琌沟砫ヴτㄆ场竒瞶琌沟沟┮程砫ヴ┯踞琌沟τぃ琌ㄆ场竒瞶
或薄猵穦瞷砆籃15窾じ㎡и谋眔狦Τ沟竒ㄓ產畑盺︗砫ヴτ砆秆沟碞穦莉眔耕蔼竭纕琌狦琌竨ノ籔薄猵玥猍跌穕ア﹚ぃ穦笷15窾じ硂或硂琌﹚ぃ筁狦沟虫琌跑虫克τ砆秆沟產常谋眔硂琌ぃ莱赣ㄤ龟Τ匡拒┮и辨產∕や確戮舦狦Τㄢ匡拒琵確戮碞礚斗倒竭纕15窾じ甡竒⊿Τ穕アぃ筁狦砏﹚璶骋戈蛮よ常種琵確戮玥ê碞穦Τ陈沸骋よ绊璶窥竭纕猭畑ぃぃ竭纕τ璶確戮硂癸沟⊿Τ矪
狦產ぃ稱瞷15窾じ竭纕硂薄猵┦讽礛碞琌產荷秖磷笻は猭ㄒ材碞琌や確戮舦猭畑过┏σ納┮Τ靡ㄑ15窾じ┪確戮舦竭纕∕﹚
谅谅畊
霉璓某璓勉畊и稱弧场だ種ǎ常倒谅ッ闹某耕冈荷祇ēい矗ぃ筁и稱虏虫干ㄢ翴材ヴ︙猭ㄒ璹常惠璶続莱礚阶琌カチы┪沟常琌︓程ㄨ続莱
材︓┮孔肂拜肈и谋眔Τ砞ミ肂ㄆ龟常琌跌и-
癸猭畑∕琌獺ヴ琌そキ狦и-
粄猭畑∕琌そキ杠и-
砞肂Τ︙種㎡и辨產や嘲糠某タ
バ玊某璓勉畊и穦"醚暗"и穦碞15窾じ肂硂拜肈祇ē
畊谅某弧斗跌Θ瞯蔼ぃ蔼狦砆Θ癬禗ê碞畉ぃ狦⊿Τ砆Θ癬禗玥ぃ镑蔼硂瞶阶ㄤ龟ぃ琌瞶и-
辨翠ぃ璶猍跌は筁ㄓ玱辨浪北Θ瞯蔼浪北瞯蔼籔⊿Τ猍跌и谋眔琌は
狦チ粄15窾じ肂ぃ镑蔼矗某э20窾25窾じи-
σ納や狦竭纕琌ぱゅ计硂猭ㄒさぱ琌材Ω硄筁カチぃ笵︙孔"產畑盺︗"иぃ琌弧и-
某ぃ笵и琌弧カチ珹"ゴ"┪"ρ馏"ぃ笵︙孔"產畑盺︗"猭ㄒス硄筁獽ぃ砞竭纕и粄琌ぃ続讽
畊そ㎝そだ琌そρ馏セぃノ瞶穦硂ㄇㄆ薄璶竨叫ㄆ竒瞶璶剪弄硂兵猭ㄒ┪ま獽宽酚磅︽沟セぃノ瞶穦ρ馏獽ぃ-
璶"竲金"ユ禦砯ǎ常琌パ︑矪瞶琌臮眔ê或ㄆ薄笵┷竨璶臮の"產畑盺︗"硂拜肈㎡
Τ某矗刚ó┪刚綾ぃ筁ㄆ龟и-
Τ猭ㄒ磅︽常砞Τ璝э硂ぃ琌ΩΤ猭ㄒ砞Τ籃蹿и-
临Τ猭ㄒミ猭Ы硄筁常砞Τ竭纕︙癸êㄇチや㎡ぃ弧ウ-
琌刚ó刚綾㎡或-
琌癸硂兵猭ㄒ硂妓暗㎡
辩模┚某璓勉畊и刁ね狝叭矪や嘲糠某タ
и-
粄莱赣15窾じ虏虫ㄒバ玊某禦进簘獹═ó基琌30窾じ砆иτ猭ㄒ砏﹚程蔼竭纕肂琌5窾じバ某ぃ㎡﹚ぃ
瞷癚阶竭纕琌倒甡┪沟窥竭纕狦-
穕甡セぃ15窾じ珿種﹚肂癸-
琌そキ㎡タи┮庢ㄒ癸バ某琌そキ㎡﹚ぃ穦钡ê竭纕谋眔︑穕甡セぃ5窾じ琌30窾じ
и谋眔程璶琌猍跌癸沟硑Θ穕甡┮и-
倒-
竭纕ㄓ干纕癸-
穕甡硂疉のンㄆ碞琌癸-
碙腨碙-
碙腨穕︙癸-
竭纕璶砞肂㎡︙琌15窾じ㎡讽-
猍跌穕甡碙腨15窾じ盾
硂竭纕计ヘぃ琌沟︑︽璊睹﹚ㄓぃ"粪秨"璊睹弧计程琌璶竒筁猭畑掉∕埃獶и-
ぃ獺猭﹛玥硂程沧∕﹚琌パ猭﹛掉∕莉眔竭纕计肂и辨產瞶秆и-
ぃや砞ミ
Τ闽確戮よи粄硂琌Τ闽碙腨拜肈筁現┎┪ㄤㄆ常眏秸硂妓薄猵沟ぃ穦璶―確戮沟籔沟闽玒硂妓碿沟穦璶―確戮㎡ㄤ龟狦沟セōΤ硂種腀┪璶―τ猭畑程琌秆蛮よ闽玒薄猵掉∕硂掉∕琌パ材ㄓ︙и-
ぃ甧砛沟Τ確戮舦㎡硂ぃ琌芠眏沟钡τ琌ㄆ龟琌竒筁掉∕埃獶и-
Чぃ獺硂兜掉∕ぃ獺猭畑玥и-
︙ぃ甧砛硂兜舦㎡ㄤ龟確戮琌兜舦и辨產フ礚阶竭纕┪確戮常琌沟舦и辨產ぉ跌
畊и略朝勉
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊и稱虏虫莱バ玊某種ǎи琌碞15窾じ祇ē
и稱坚睲硄盽デ猭常疉のㄢ兜材砆诀穦瞯材ㄏ砆粄籃び淮┮碞穦デ猭︙璶15窾じ㎡癸坝產ㄓ弧硂琌计ヘЧぃ癬纞ノи-
璶倒坝產獺碞琌瞷瘤礛и-
ぃ笵砆诀穦瞯籃よ程ぶミ猭瞷北р籃碞磷猍跌
и辨硂礷弧杠坚睲バ玊某矗拜谅谅畊
バ玊某璓勉畊辩模┚某и矗拜肈и稱虏虫莱瘤礛êㄇ拜肈籔さぱ癚阶肈ヘ⊿Τ闽玒
庢ㄒ弧狦иΤ进基30窾じó进綝竭纕眔5窾じи穦妓暗安辩模┚某иó进竭纕и5窾じи穦玂繧そㄤ緇竭纕
〆穦畊琌Τ某稱祇ē璝Τ叫ぃ璶瞒肈ョぃ狡
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, as I explained at the Second Reading debate, the court should only be empowered to order re-employment where both the employer/employee concerned consent. There is also a need to impose a maximum amount of damages in relation to employment matters in this new area of anti-discrimination legislation in Hong Kong.
The provisions in the Bill are in line with the Members' decision made in the context of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1996 enacted last week.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to the Committee stage amendments.
嘲糠某璓勉畊и稱ㄇ莱材現┎㎝ㄇ沟某猭常琌眖沟痲祇某秆睦眔睲贰狦Τ確戮舦癸㎝沟常琌程そキ狦砏﹚Τ確戮舦猭﹛琌耞琌確戮穦∕﹚硂妓薄猵猭畑ぃ璶―沟竭纕и-
ぃ莱眖琘痲よㄓ耞猭莱赣琌妓猭莱赣琌キ
и纯沟纯沟┮иフ砛バ玊某㎝︑パ囊ㄇㄆ琌︑沟┪琌沟┮-
ぃ穦眖沟àㄓ瞶秆硂兵ㄒㄤ龟ウ癸沟㎝沟常琌獶盽そキ糂胺祸某弧砞ミ15窾じ竒纞沟ňゎ-
ら猍跌︽ぃ筁甡à狦-
穕ア痷禬筁15窾じê︙祑璶-
钡㎡ぃ阶琌炊硄沟┪蔼戮硂15窾じ穦纞甡ぃщ禗ぃ矗禗砠狦и-
眖沟㎝沟ㄢよㄓ硂ンㄆ杠и-
莱赣琵猭畑∕確戮τ竭纕ぃ莱砞Τ
Ωи-
竒碞硂拜肈秈︽臛阶τ莉眔硄筁┦猍跌兵ㄒ㎝摧痚猍跌兵ㄒ常琌璓┮иぃ辨さぱ某ぃや硂兜タ硂妓穦沟㎝沟稰睼瞔ョㄏそ渤癸猍跌猭ㄒㄇ瞶秆稰睼睹
糂胺祸某畊и稱璶―嘲糠某坚睲祇ē琌弧狦猭畑璶沟ノΤ闽沟猭畑獽ぃ穦㏑Τ闽沟竭纕
嘲糠某畊и腀種坚睲糂胺祸某琌︗畍и獺穦フ狦猭ㄒ砏﹚ぃ確戮玥ㄏΤ硂猭畑ぃ∕確戮狦猭﹛粄確戮竒秆∕拜肈ぃ穦∕沟斗倒ぉ沟竭纕и獺猭畑穦Τそタ耞
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr James TIEN claimed a division.
バ玊某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材54兵笆某タぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗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 CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, 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, Mrs Elizabeth WONG 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 Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Mr LEE Kai-ming abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 32 votes in favour of the amendment and 19 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ32は癸19琌ガタ莉硄筁
Question on clause 54, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材54兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 64
兵ㄒ材64兵
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 64 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
As I said two weeks ago in this Council, there is no sensible reason to oppose this amendment. It merely ensures that any time spent in conciliation does not count against the time limit to bring court proceedings. Conciliation is a slow process and no one should have to abandon it prematurely for fear of losing the right to bring proceedings later.
The Administration argues that the Bill already offers persons engaged in conciliation adequate reassurance that they will not run out of time. In fact the Bill does not. For reasons I explained in detail last time the Bill offers such persons hope but not certainty. They need certainty which the amendment provides.
Members supported the amendment then and I urge them to do so again today.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 64 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材64兵ǎンXI
糂胺祸某璓勉畊︑パ囊ぃ穦させるら嘲糠某碞1996┦の摧痚猍跌馒兜砏﹚兵ㄒ矗妓タ莉眔硄筁︑パ囊瞷碞穦碞絛︑パ囊ご礛は癸硂兜タ︑パ囊粄ヴ︙碞Τ闽猍跌兵ㄒ┮矗禗砠常莱赣Τ戳狦よ猭皘粄ン琌瞶杠よ猭皘穦甧砛矗硂禗砠ぃ穦丁瞷嘲某矗タ穦盢ビ叫戳┑硂癸沟琌ぃそキ
谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: As I said at the Second Reading debate that there is no need for the proposed amendment since the Equal Opportunities Commission would normally take much less than 24 months for conciliation, and the clause provides for the court to consider any claim out of time if it is just and equitable to do so.
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to the proposed amendment.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: The Administration objects to certainty in the law.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ粄
Mr James TIEN claimed a division.
バ玊某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈嘲糠某碞材64兵笆某タぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕﹟ろ琌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 CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, 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, Mrs Elizabeth WONG 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 Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Mr CHENG Yiu-tong and Mr LEE Kai-ming abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the amendment and 19 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ31は癸19琌ガタ莉硄筁
Question on clause 64, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材64兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Schedule 1
1
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members for reasons as I have explained in the Second Reading debate.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Schedule 1 (See annex XI)
1ǎンXI
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Schedule 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ1ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Schedules 2 to 3 were agreed to.
2︓3莉眔硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS reported that the
現叭厨孔
FAMILY STATUS DISCRIMINATION BILL
產畑盺︗猍跌兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
COPYRIGHT BILL
舦兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 February 1997
確るせら笆某弄臛阶
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, as the Chairman of the Bills Committee on Copyright Bill, I now report on its deliberations.
The Bill seeks to localize the law of copyright and provide for a comprehensive regime for copyright protection. The extent of public concern on the Bill is evident by the number of organizations requesting to meet with the Bills Committee and of submissions received. It represents the many interests, some of them conflicting and others overlapping, which are at stake. In more than two-month's deliberations, the Bills Committee has held 19 meetings, met with 15 organizations and received 113 submissions. Members have also been approached individually and in groups by the intensive lobbyists on all sides. Given the large number of issues examined by the Bills Committee, I shall not exhaust all in my speech but just touch upon those which are controversial and have aroused considerable public concern.
Before I embark on the various issues, I must stress the very strong consensus among all parties concerned. The need for Hong Kong's own Copyright Ordinance before 1 July is unequivically recognized and supported, and the call for tough action against piracy is loud and clear. The broad position and direction of the Administration is endorsed. What was asked of the Bills Committee was to address the balance between the opposing forces in the trades in the context of the wider public interest of the copyright owners and the consumers. The Bills Committee was engaged in a tightrope exercise in which should any one lose his balance the technicians controlling the tightrope below were certain they might be squashed to injuries or even death. As a result, and given the limited time available, the officials and the Bills Committee went through a highly pressurized two months. I am therefore extremely grateful to all those individuals who have co-operated remarkably to reach the final outcome.
As Members are aware, the subject of parallel importation of copyright articles is the most contentious issue in the Bill. There are strong views for and against parallel imports being permitted per se, and for and against the proposal of decriminalization in the Bill. The retail trade call for total deregulation of parallel importation while consumers would like relaxation along the lines of the Law Reform Commission report. The music and film industries, on the other hand, object to decriminalization. Each camp has advanced a number of reasons to support its stance. Without going into the details of their arguments, I must say that the Bills Committee has carefully considered each and every point made by the deputations. The fact that no international standard or consensus has been reached on parallel importation is self-explanatory of the controversy, delicacy and intricacy surrounding the issue. It seems that every country or territory would look at how its own interest would be affected or best served in determining whether to restrict or relax on such imports, and therefore whether a country is an exporter of intellectual property products is a major, if not the most, important factor in deciding the manner in which parallel imports are handled. In general, most developed countries with high standards of copyright protection prohibit parallel importation. We were told that most of them have retained criminal sanctions in their statute books against parallel imports but prosecutions have been few and far between. In fact we were told that many of our partners in the WTO is watching the outcome of our debate from which they might draw lessons. In mapping out a regime that suits our needs, both Members and the Administration have not lost sight of Hong Kong's particular position as a major exporter and consumer of copyright products, especially for films and sound recordings. Against this background, and as a result of strong request for our local producers, the Administration has proposed to amend its original decriminalization provisions in the Bill to the effect that parallel importation of copyright works remain a criminal as well as civil infringement within 12 months of first publication of the work anywhere in the world. After the initial 12 months, civil remedies would still be available to the copyright owner and the exclusive licensee until the end of the copyright term. It would be a defence for a person who imports a work without the licence of the copyright owner if the owner or the exclusive licensee has acted unconscionably, that is by withholding supply on unreasonable grounds, or by agreeing only to supply on unreasonable terms.
Members of the Bills Committee have different views on the adequacy of a 12-month criminal sanction period. Some are sympathetic with the film industry and maintain that this period is inadequate to protect exclusive licensees of foreign films in Hong Kong. Others, however, consider this period acceptable from the consumers' perspective. Taking into account Members' divergent views, the Administration has subsequently revised its proposal to extend the period of criminal sanctions to 18 months. I must point out that the Bills Committee has not reached a consensus on this issue. Nor has it agreed on the need to define "unreasonable ground" and "unreasonable terms" in the Bill. Since some of my colleagues have given notice to move amendments relating to these issues, I shall leave the debate on these points until the Committee stage.
Another issue related to parallel importation is the level of evidentiary requirement for proof of knowledge of infringing activities. The plaintiff has to prove under the existing law that the defendant has actual knowledge of the infringing activity. Under the Bill, the copyright owner is required only to prove that the defendant "knows or has reasons to believe" that he is dealing with infringing copies. While copyright owners and licensees were satisfied that this new move to lower the threshold of proof for the plaintiff, the retailers were extremely unhappy, for two reasons. First, whereas under the 1956 United Kingdom Act whether imports in breach of a licensing agreement are infringing copies had been unclear in the law and therefore inconclusive the position is absolutely clear in the Bill. In other words, they will be infringing copies once the Bill is passed. Second, without spelling out what constitutes "reasons to believe" retailers can be placed in extreme uncertainty or would be deprived of products to sell even if the licensees have behaved unreasonably. The Administration has acknowledged retailers' concern over the need for certainty and has proposed to add new provisions to clarify circumstance under which a defendant may claim that he has no reasons to believe in that goods that he has been dealing with are infringing copies. The new provisions spell out matters that the court may have regard to in determining whether a defendant has no reason to believe. Again, members of the Bills Committee have different views on this issue and it would be another subject for debate at the Committee stage.
I would like to turn to another issue on which the Bills Committee has received opposite views also, namely, whether decompilation should be expressly permitted in the Bill. Two major business software associations have strongly objected to permitting decompilation for the purpose of intereperability. Other computer organizations, albeit supporting the inclusion of a specific provision for that purpose, criticize the Bill for allowing contractual restrictions on decompilation. The two camps have each put forward different reasons to substantiate their positions. Members in general agree that the provision for decompilation in the Bill fails to address the needs for the computer industry and that the issue should be dealt with in the context of fair dealing. To this end, the Administration has proposed amendments to the Bill, which, Members are told, have been agreed by the software industry.
The subject of re-transmitting non-encrypted satellite broadcasts has also been high on the agenda of the Bills Committee. The Bill proposes to remove the exemption currently enjoyed by licensees of Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) systems to re-transmit non-encrypted satellite broadcasts without infringing copyright. Whilst major broadcasters in Hong Kong welcome changes, SMATV operators, on the other hand, have argued that non-encrypted programme signals should be presumed to be intended for general reception. Since prevailing licensing conditions of SMATV prohibit them from paying copyright owners for retransmission of non-encrypted broadcasts, SMATV operators have serious concern over the viability of the trade once the Bill comes into operation. To ensure minimal disruption to services currently enjoyed by SMATV subscribers without compromising the rights of broadcasters to distribute their signals, the Administration proposes to provide for a revocable implied license to SMATV operators to retransmit non-encrypted broadcasts. The maker of a non-encrypted broadcast may revoke the license by publishing a six-month revocation notice in the newspaper. Members have been told that the effective date of this proposal will tie in with the change in SMATV licensing conditions following the broadcasting review in 1998. Although the Bills Committee has agreed to support the Administration, the broadcasters remain dissatisfied, and I understand a Member will move an amendment at Committee stage, so I expect the debate to continue.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the organizations which have submitted views to the Bills Committee and have made suggestions to improve on the Bill. May I also express the Bills Committee's appreciation of the Administration's hard work, open-mindedness, and promptness in providing information requested by Members in the course of deliberations. The enactment of the Bill is certainly an indisputable proof of Hong Kong's commitment to protecting intellectual property rights.
Mr President, I shall now spend a few minutes to express my own view as a Member towards the Bill. I have to admit that this is one of the most difficult bills that I have scrutinized in my long career in this Council. Nevertheless the process has been challenging and I might even say, at times, enjoyable. No Member can be unimpressed by being waylaid by my good friend Jackie CHAN, and petitioned by Jackie CHEUNG, two of the most influential and, dare I say, sexy men in Hong Kong. But with all the razzmatazz, we must not lose sight of what this is all about.
Having spent a substantial part of my career in the creative industry myself, I cannot help but be a defender of copyright. On this my position is absolutely clear. Any unauthorized reproduction of a work and its exploitation through trade or performance, is an act of theft, a criminal act, and therefore deserves the same punishment as any other kind of theft.
But when it comes to parallel importation, the picture changes somewhat. Here we often are talking about the dealing of legitimate products in the realm of right assignments, licences and contracts. This question is how much should the law intrude into this layer of activities. I suspect this is why so many governments around the world find it hard to determine the rules. To my mind this is not about infringing copyright. It is about fairness and orderliness in a market. If the industry has established for itself a regime, such as the window system for the film industry, and rights have been licensed to parties in a territory, then it is up to those parties to exploit such rights without interference or intrusion. However these licences are not the rights owners. They are the bridge between the rights owners and the public and have the responsibility to fulfill their obligation as such, that is, to bring the product to the attention of the widest public and then to supply the products to where there is a demand. We in the Liberal Party have based our deliberation and final decisions on the Bill on these principles, and believe we have achieved the correct balance. But I worry that our preoccupation with parallel import has somewhat overtaken the very important attention that we must pay to pirated goods, which remains a headache to Hong Kong, especially in the context of our role in the world trade. In the last few years, I have repeatedly called for stronger action against piracy, requesting more resources and tougher laws. The Golden Arcade and such black spots are the living pillars of shame for Hong Kong, and high-profile and resolute action is necessary to demonstrate to the culprits as well as to the rest of the world our determination to stamp out these crimes. Hong Kong people should be told in no uncertain terms that although the law does not penalize consumers, that they are nevertheless partners in crime in buying such products. Feeding their business at the sacrifice of our own legitimate trades and industries is wrong. I am somehow disappointed that the Administration's efforts to persuade members, especially our Members who belong to the legal fraternity, to put some responsibility on landlords to reject pirates as their tenants have failed. Government says this Bill when passed will help enforcement. I look forward to that, and pledge here and now to monitor the developments closely.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, just a few words to support the Bill. This is a highly complex and technical piece of legislation. I would say, if I may, that it is a job well done by the Administration team. During the scrutiny in the Bills Committee, all efforts were made to ensure that affected groups and persons had a fair chance to voice their views. These groups and persons took great trouble over their representations which were listened to sympathetically.
Here, there is a great deal of conflict between rights and interests and among different interests. Everyone worked very hard to find the right solution, not least the Administration team. We were hard-pressed for time but, as a member of the Bills Committee and a keen participant in the process, I can assure Honourable Members that no corners were cut. I can say that the Administration has got it about right in the amendments the Secretary for Trade and Industry will move later today, and I recommend these to Members.
Mr President, I support the Bill.
11.25 pm
と1125だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
独綺笽某璓勉瞶畊舦猭琌獶盽瞏而τ狡馒猭ョㄢ︗某┮弧琌獶盽璶さΩ兵ㄒ〆穦秨Ω穦某ㄓ糵某硂兜兵ㄒョ丁ㄓ钡ǎΤ闽穨ずō畊㏄辩睶┥某硂ンㄆ絋み﹀ǒ骋琌羆珹ㄓ弧俱糵某筁祘ご礛倒ㄆ稰谋程絋﹚兵ㄒセ琌ぃ镑丁瞏╯薄猵璹ㄤいごΤ炒ら惠璶干毕產讽礛笵︙薄猵穦跑眔硂或畉セ琌さミ猭Ы4ヴ戳,砆獶猭竬辟ぃ筁иぃゴ衡丁癚阶硂拜肈舦猭兵ㄒ絛瞅獶盽約惗程场だ癚阶ず甧常栋いキ︽秈拜肈τ玥琌徖琍拜肈虫ヲ昂某祔穦矗のさぱㄤ璶璶タ常琌瞅露キ︽秈拜肈硂拜肈и稱チ囊祇ē
秨﹍и-
ㄤ龟琌酚猭э〆穦某辨盢キ︽秈獶ㄆてョ糤舦局Τ㎝盡ノ砛Τチㄆ禗砠㎝秤禗诀穦猭э〆穦璓粄ぃ莱赣ㄆ祘ㄓ箇舦痲磅︽兵ㄒセ琌辨⊿Τㄆ砫ヴ玡矗瞷︽猭癸舦局Τ㎝盡ノ砛ΤΤ礛τ現┎筿紇穨㎝佰穨村弧㎝溃ぇ竊竊癶程琂糤チㄆ禗砠玂臔確ㄆ砫ヴ跑耕瞷︽猭玂臔舦局Τ㎝盡ノ砛Τ
и-
ぃ睼瞔砯㎝陆砯產睲贰и-
琌獶盽は癸陆砯翠瓣悔禜穦陆砯τ穕甡琌砯ぃ琌陆砯坝┮扳砯ご礛琌舦局Τ┮ネ玻籹硑砯珇⊿Τ獻デ舦局Τ舦舦痲ぃ筁或穦Τ砯㎡瞶パ琌贺玻珇ぃ跋穦Τぃ基┪ぃ祇︽戳璓禣硓筁砯耕Ν┪耕獽﹜潦砯珇硂琌砯瞷碞钩讽も矗筿杠翠扳基琌窾じ场砯獻獽禴︓瞷计じ场蒥チ搭ぶ璽踞讽礛禣辨砯τ獽﹜珿砯坝獽"穎抖ó"礚斗だ踞盡ノ砛Τ崩約Θセτ扳砯珇硂讽礛癸砛Τ坝穨琌ぃτ穦谋眔ぃそキΤ砯膙蒥初ぃ砆Ч胋耞癸禣舦痲碞Τ矪砯坝絋蒥初竒蕾Τぃ┵焚璶┦よ舦局Τ瘤礛ネ玻ぃよΘセ琌妓-
讽礛ョ辨琘ㄇ跋寥眔耕柬碞盡ノ砛Τㄓ弧-
讽礛辨胋耞薄猵莉程痲坝ē坝讽礛螟┣-
Τ硂稱猭琌硂玱-
籔禣舦痲陪瞷癸ミ芠ㄢぇ丁痲琌惠璶キ颗ぃ莱赣琌渡弊筁だ玂臔舦局Τ┪盡ノ砛Τ禣獽璶耕蔼基窥┪搭ぶ匡拒┪单丁讽礛璝舦Τ┪盡ノ砛ΤЧ⊿Τ玂臔硈チㄆ禗砠舦常⊿Τ崩約笆獽穦搭ぶ硂ョぃ﹚琌ンㄆ硂拜肈и-
翴ゲ斗︙眔キ颗拜肈
筿紇穨㎝佰穨やㄆ砏恨膀セ琌パ-
︽穨ㄇ笲疭翴庢ㄒㄓ弧筿紇穨埃筿紇临Τ臞甮盒魁紇盿单玻珇筿紇簍琿丁獽穦崩琌パ翠栏皘逼戳拜肈ョパΤぃ眔だ綪舦璓ㄤ跋臞甮㎝魁紇セ瞷筿紇玱ごゼ翠簍璝硂ㄇ紇盒紇盿杠筿紇ゲ穦ゴ阑佰そョ粄キ︽秈坝琌穎禣抖ó-
崩約ㄇ佰穨罿ゴ阑セ翠筿紇籹硑ョ┯粄-
籔ㄤ跋瞶┮帽璹穦ㄤ跋Τ耕翠獽﹜砯珇ス硂ㄇ砯珇瑈翠︑礛穦紇臫-
翠柬Τ瘤礛琌翠坝╃尼筿紇玱翠跋琈鲸恨-
ノㄇ疭疭砛夹禟单мㄓ北蒥初琌-
セ⊿Τ硂妓暗-
惠璶ㄌ苦ㄆ兵ゅㄓ玂臔-
ㄤ龟筿紇穨㎝佰穨常莱赣璶粄醚セ琌锣跑呼潦セ琌禫ㄓ禫炊硄и獺るら翠㎝瞏ㄓ┕穦硋虏て㎝よ獽狦翠砯珇基筁蔼匡拒ぃì蒥チセ硓筁呼┪┕瞏潦︓キ︽秈坝ぃ穦琌砯斑ㄓ方砯ョぃ穦琌ヘ玡猭┮镑痷タ╄咀眔︘筿紇穨㎝佰穨ぷ莱箇Νσ︙胑珹翠ずい瓣蒥初崩綪玻珇
┮孔砯坝穎禣抖ó讽礛琌ゲ斗秆∕拜肈琌い瓣ㄤ蒥礚阶琌ㄊ約单禣常耕ㄤ跋蔼狦硂ㄇ常蒥基﹚眔び蔼ご礛穦旧璓砯拜肈陪ㄤ跋琌⊿ΤΤ硂或蔼基τㄤい瓣蒥セぃ琌钩翠Τ兵娩狦翠筿紇坝㎝佰坝ぃ泊い瓣琌辨硓筁ㄆ祘碝―玂臔杠ㄤ龟-
琌а癘︙ゴい瓣蒥初︙硓筁э到︑蒥初郸菠㎝瞯ㄓ硂蒥初柬チ囊教秆筿紇穨矪挂笵穨ずセ螟秆∕ヘ玡螟チ囊種-
Τ18るㄆ砫ヴ玂臔и-
谋眔ㄤ坝㎝舦セ琌莱Τㄤ12るㄆ砫ヴ玂臔τ钩セ㎝硁ン单и-
ヘ玡セぃ或﹚璶Τㄆ砫ヴ玂臔ぃ筁パи-
セ⊿Τ丁冈灿糵某硂よ┮и-
沧種-
ョΤ12るㄆ砫ヴ玂臔
瞶畊и┮弧и-
ゲ斗舦局Τ㎝盡ノ砛Τ舦痲籔禣痲ぇ丁眔キ颗珇玻ネ12︓18る獽ぃ莱Τㄆ砫ヴ玂臔τΤチㄆ禗砠獽禣ㄉΤ匡拒のぃ︓ㄑ莱ぃìτ璶ぃ瞶基窥法У地某㎝и常穦矗タ絋﹚或薄猵莱赣甧砛キ︽秈┮孔砯и-
辨よぃ穦筁だ端甡盡ノ砛Τ舦痲τよョぃ穦端甡禣舦痲
朝挪狶某璓勉瞶畊兵ㄒ〆穦筁Ω穦某いノ禬筁丁癚阶Τ闽キ︽秈拜肈癸硂伐ㄣ某拜肈ぃ瓣悔ゼ笷璓醚夹非〆穦パミ猭丁候程ョ㎝現┎笷ΘТよ∕﹚戳﹚砫夹非
チ羛粄硂挡狦ぃ琌程瞶稱よ镑弧酚臮翠よ疭薄猵疭琌癸翠筿紇㎝佰穨ТよΤ闽よョ丁钡舦疭砛ΤスΤГ局舦τぃ祇︽┪盢砯珇扳基矗蔼︓ぃ瞶キ杠兵ㄒ癸キ︽秈砏玱癸耕糴肞獽ňゎ舦Τ"禦耞"ン珇穕甡禣痲
癸キ︽秈拜肈и-
は滦钮タは蛮よ種ǎよ種箂扳坝弧猭キ︽秈砯珇琌舦種猭籹硑坝珇ぃ莱籔陆砯珇妓砆跌"獻デ舦狡籹珇"よョ粄碞ㄇ瓣珇τē安翠⊿Τ盡ノ疭砛Τキ︽秈礚好禣矗ㄑ匡拒
ぃ筁癸箂扳坝粄キ︽秈砯珇盿ㄓ基膙玂毁禣痲и-
玥ぃ幢蜛и-
粄舦珇ぷㄤ紇玻珇箂扳基埃珹瞶坝у祇基ㄤ緇场だ琌箂扳坝柬ヘ玡ㄢ丁程やキ︽秈獶ㄆて佰硈玛┍ㄒ-
佰箂扳基┕┕碞耕︽砯┪タ砯基蔼︓ㄢΘぃ单τи-
ョΤ闽硈玛┍い祇瞷眎佰︽砯の砯基ゑ耕琌︽砯祔獽﹜ㄇ
產常笵祇︽坝┪瞶坝崩兜紇玻珇常斗璶秖戈秈︽肚笆硂ㄇ約崩綪Θセ龟悔俱砰Θセ场だ礛τキ︽秈坝玱礚斗硂ㄇ崩綪┪約ヴ︙Θセや礛τГㄉㄤΘ竒犁Θセ︑礛璝ㄤ扳基籔︽砯妓杠ㄤ龟碞ㄉΤ伐伦玴柬狦弧カ初膙杠и-
粄陪礛硂贺薄猵琌ぃそキ膙
и-
谋眔Τゲ璶玂毁承舦の盡ノ疭砛Τ舦痲程沧ヘョ琌玂毁禣痲
チ羛だ秆筿紇㎝佰︽穨癸キ︽秈Ч獶ㄆて紐納パ陆筿紇盒㎝佰伐ぇ瞫见ㄇ临ゼタΑ翠そ簍瓣筿紇钩ら玡闽碞穓уゼそ簍ㄜ霉そ堕尿栋陆筿紇盒妓獶ㄆて穦硂ㄇ陆砯珇鞍杆Θキ︽秈砯珇獻デ舦局Τの疭砛Τ舦痲硂贺薄猵琌荡癸ぃ莱赣
猵и-
ョ種薄猵琂礛盡ノ疭砛Τ舦Τ潦縒產祇︽舦狦-
ぃカ初矗ㄑΤ闽砯珇┪玻珇癸-
ㄓ弧琌Τ甡τ礚痲-
斗璶┯踞パ盿ㄓ┮孔カ初繧㎝竒蕾穕ア讽礛и-
ョ璶瞶秆瞶坝坝ē坝-
﹚穦储集カ初㎝秆禣惠璶τ崩筿紇┪佰┮孔"き絘せ荡陆ō"碞畉ぃΘ筿紇の佰︽穨-
︽砏
癸坝祔盢穦〆穦糵某顶琿矗Τ闽キ︽秈タ盢ン珇瞴ヴ︙よΩ祇︽18る﹚ㄆ掉玥チ羛ボ舧現┎粄莱癸セ舦局Τㄇ玂毁и-
癸18る琌程続讽戳丁玥Τ玂痙и盢穦〆穦糵某顶琿ず矗盢戳┑︓24る
瞶畊ヘ玡翠衡琌紇珇承玻膀ぇ琌セ翠蹲Μㄓ方ㄤい兜セ穨︽穨ぃぶ纔▆筿紇贾美砃承簍㎝辊ぃ翠カチ矗ㄑ伦碔ゅて毙▅㎝弘鲁τョ琌瞴地蝴么い地ゅてぃ┪爵假ぇ硓筁猭ㄒ玂毁セ承ㄤ瓣產現┎ョ常Τ暗猭и粄翠ョ莱玂毁セ承︽穨舦痲
и粄狦и-
ぃ癸セ承︽穨舦Τ玂毁盢穦礚磷旧璓セ翠筿紇の佰︽穨﹚ゴ阑ǐ典罽玠畓膙τ禣程沧ョ妓籜穕ア
瞶畊セ略朝勉や弄
霉不瓣某璓勉瞶畊舦兵ㄒ琌疉の竒蕾笆ミ猭Ξ琌玂毁承㎝舦局Τ╬Τ玻舦琌︑パ竒蕾璶や琖ぇ禣舦痲ぃ琌﹖ミウ琌承舦痲だ玂毁ぇ镑祇甶ㄓ瞷︽カ初竒犁薄猵ぇ舦局Τ炊筂穦蹦ノだ跋舦疭砛Τ逼ㄓ竒犁翠镑玂毁セ舦疭砛Τ猭舦痲ぃ砯㎝陆珇紇臫ㄤ龟琌玂毁承㎝舦局Τ舦痲璶吏翠ΤㄤΘセ筿紇穨㎝佰穨硂ㄢ︽穨ぃ承硑ぃぶ癩碔碞穨诀穦㎝舧贾盢翠纔▆ゅて祇喘崩約︓瞴﹚舦猭セ筿紇穨㎝佰穨舦痲の︙崩笆ウ-
祇甶莱赣琌σ納翴и粄碞砯よ逼耕戳ㄆ砫ヴ玂臔戳ㄒ琌24るㄤ龟琌瞶パヘ玡猭ぇ舦疭砛Τ璶北禗砯坝琌獶盽螟τ現┎穝猭ㄒよョ⊿Τ陪э到硂よи-
や現┎菠虏て祘よ獽舦疭砛Τ矗北禗и-
辨硂逼Τゴ阑獶猭砯拜肈
程Τ某璶―猭ㄒタ獽ス舦疭砛Τゼ瞶矗ㄑ玻珇箂扳坝瞶逼蹦ノキ︽秈硂よи㎝チ常琌や辨癸禣舦痲矗ㄑ続讽玂毁鲸恨иゲ斗ぃぶ砯坝常ノ虑眏秸-
砯ㄏ禣㎝カチΤ匡拒ョゲ﹚基窥芠诡カ初薄猵и-
祇谋硂ゼゲ琌﹚挡狦ㄇ砯ㄆ龟琌ゑ耕杆砯珇禥砯坝竒犁逼琌﹚禣眔痲и-
琌Τ玂痙
谅谅瞶畊
虫ヲ昂某璓勉瞶畊現┎さΩゑ耕筐丁矗舦兵ㄒ龟и-
把籔糵某硂兜兵ㄒㄆ痟゜㏑稰伐㈱フ弧и-
谋眔セ⊿Τì镑丁ㄓ灿糵某硂兜兵ㄒи-
辨現┎猭ㄒ硄筁ㄒぇ┪ㄤ続讽耕候盞浪癚и獺現┎ご斗暗ㄇㄤ肂干毕瘤礛タ︗ㄆ┮弧現┎坝㎝醚玻舦竝硂兜兵ㄒよ矗ㄑや㎝硂琌弘チ囊や硂兜舦兵ㄒ硂ョ琌膥TRIPS芠砞璸兵ㄒ㎝盡兵ㄒぇ程兵Τ闽醚玻舦兵ㄒи-
粄硂ㄇ兵ㄒ癸翠盢ㄓ坝穨祇甶琌獶盽璶﹚舦兵ㄒぇ現┎坝㎝醚玻舦竝龟莱σ郸菠┦獽矗蔼翠┪翠坝癸舦碙
и-
谋眔瞷翠カチ︓坝场だ癸舦碙祘ごぃì镑い瓣獻管玻舦薄猵琘ㄇ琌ゑ耕炊筂現┎ぷ莱σ納筁寸戳ぇ莱赣妓硂よ碝―籔い瓣癬ゴ阑獻管醚玻舦︽舦兵ㄒ獶盽狡馒τ舦硂阀├セōョ琌簍秈い簍秈筁祘現┎龟斗璶ぃ耞矗ㄇ浪癚よ庢ㄒㄓ弧現┎莱浪癚盢ㄓ"internet"祇甶癸舦紇臫穦Τ硂ㄆ龟琌現┎莱赣瞏╯㎝瞏菏诡さΩ舦兵ㄒ矗柜穝阀├贺︽さぱぃ牟デㄆ竜︽18るぇ玱跑Θㄆ竜︽и獺現┎龟︽硂柜穝阀├﹚璶暗浪癚ㄇ祇甶い瓣產┪ㄤ瓣產穦芠诡翠龟琁薄猵翠硂拜肈穦祇揣ボ絛ノ┮и谋眔坝玂臔醚玻舦現┎场莱赣硂よ磅︽候盞菏诡
硂碭兜兵ㄒㄤ龟ごぃì镑玂臔醚玻舦и-
ご礛翠ǎ陆笆㎝獻舦笆程陪帝ㄒ獽琌產莱赣剪眡独坝初㎝翠畄碭坝初ê陆笆ご礛竩環現┎さΩ璹兵ㄒㄓゴ阑陆и獺穦玻ネㄇ狦и眏秸現┎莱膥尿暗ひ
ゅ眃約冀Θミ疭钉ヮゴ阑瞉炼のぃ懂珇筁碭るΜぃぶΘ現┎莱屡セ硄筁舦兵ㄒぇ現┎莱蹦続讽惫琁ㄓ皌ゴ阑陆笆苯历ヘ夹莱珹筿福硁ン筿紇盒︓佰盒и-
さぱ琌臛阶キ︽秈单拜肈и-
讽礛璶キ颗ㄢよ痲琌翠ヘ玡薄猵ㄓ弧程紇臫舦局Τ┪盡疭砛exclusive licensees玱琌陆笆┮現┎Τ硂碭兜兵ㄒ獽﹚璶笲ノウ-
┮结ぉ舦╯琌ì镑礛1ぇ秈︽耕苯燩и獺硂よ﹚璶皌闽㎝現┎戈方臛阶兵ㄒ筁祘い現┎┶荡Θミ"central registry"硂琌紇盒┪盒祅癘㎝爹よㄏぃ琩高舦局Τ琌街┪盡疭砛琌街現┎硂拜肈篈и碽ぃ秆舦Τ㎝箂扳坝常辨現┎暗硂ンㄆ程ぃ辨現┎暗玱琌現┎︑さΩΤ闽キ︽秈阶い狦現┎砞ミいァ祅癘矪杠ㄤ龟琌腊蛮よ覸秆ㄇベ┮瘤礛現┎さΩ丁τ快ぃиご辨現┎盢ㄓ穝σ納硂ンㄆ
程и稱酵酵翠紇︽穨讽礛и種碭︗ㄆ┮弧紇︽穨翠癪膍琌и-
ョ璶σ納﹚猭ㄒ痷タ弘и-
璶稱稱и-
猭ㄒ琌莱赣玂臔翠︽穨临琌約獂玂臔醚玻舦筁碭るи-
ョ刚瓜玂臔翠紇︽穨琌и玱粄﹚ㄇ猭ㄒ疭玂臔翠紇︽穨琌ぃ続讽и-
莱赣矗ㄇ猭ㄒ玂臔醚玻舦局Τ┪舦Ττぃ琌疭膊臮┪酚臮琘︽穨硂続讽и-
莱赣﹚猭ㄒ承硑丁琵痷タ眖ㄆ承醚玻舦玂臔ぇ镑翠眖ㄆ承и-
ぃ莱疭膊臮琘︽穨ス琘︽穨ぃ镑穝瓣悔膙吏挂把籔膙胳礚阶琌ミ或猭ㄒ硂︽穨盢ㄓ﹍沧穦Α稬┮瞷拜肈礘翴琌現┎莱赣籹硑玂臔醚玻舦吏挂τぃ莱疭種玂臔琘︽穨
瞶畊и谅現┎筁ㄢ暗辅龟玂臔醚玻舦㎝盢猭ㄒセてиョΩ玃叫現┎パ硂兵ㄒ硄筁眔ゑ耕現┎莱1ぇΤ或框簗璶干毕礛ミ猭Ы矗
セ略朝勉や兵ㄒ谅谅瞶畊
法У地某璓勉瞶畊Ν現┎矗硂舦兵ㄒぇ玡и籔セЫ︗ㄆョ讽礛珹︑パ囊︗某恗竒砆よ村弧眔だ糉甡埃舱〆穦穦某畉ぃ筳ぱ獽籔ぃのぃ痲刮砰ǎ测钮-
朝硄筁硂兵兵ㄒ甡の︙穦紇臫-
︑︑︽穨
︑パ囊﹙Ξ琌辨Τそキ膙吏挂︑パ囊辨镑硄筁猭ㄒㄏ舦Τ玻珇籹硑坝箂扳坝盡ノ疭砛Τの禣痲眔キ颗
箂扳坝 礚阶琌眖-
︑︽穨痲临琌-
盽┮まノ臮の禣痲à祇ㄓ弧常觅Θゑ耕秨糴肞篈璹猭ㄒиセ笴穨àㄓ翠笴羆ぶぃ潦珿匡拒禫獽禫まㄓ翠潦ち龟瞷翠"潦ぱ绑"臕
狦璶祇甶セ翠筿紇贾ㄆ穨讽礛璶蝴臔醚舦ゴ阑陆セ筿紇の贾粄硈砯ョ莱ミ猭恨セ美侥翠侥ㄈ瑆稼单筿紇竊贾箋贱搂常膥墓眔贱兜ǎセ翠筿紇の贾絋龟竒秨﹍瓣悔粄
糤眏翠みい禜の荷秖矗蔼翠癸まヘ玡の翠┎タ╯セ翠琌斗璶睰贺穝笴翴ㄤい珹砍Τ闽セ翠筿紇ㄆ穨"筿紇"┪筿跌璶硂璸购綫隔セ翠﹚璶Τ胺玂臔舦畊セ祔〆穦糵某顶琿非称碞舦猭兵ㄒ矗タセ矗タぃ笻は現┎矗タ玥琌干現┎矗タノ睲捶兵ゅ坚睲玂靡珹舦Τ盡ノ疭砛Τ箂扳坝の禣单よ痲眔キ颗
セ祔┮糤兵ゅョ珹Τ闽瞶瞶パ(reasonable ground)の砫臛臔(defence)单よず甧
セタョ非称2筁寸┦逼硂ㄇ筁寸┦逼だ璶ョㄣ某┦癸穝ㄒ龟琁玡硓筁ぃ笻猭硚畖块翠砯珇瞷砯и-
粄ぃ莱穝猭ㄒ硄筁τミ紇臫皑跑Θ笻猭┪笻は猭砯珇и獺硂翴秆∕Τ闽ヘ玡计秖Τ瞷Θ砯好納ョㄏ箂扳坝みぃ穦"礚狠狠"Τ砯τ牟デ穝猭ㄒ
ヘ玡硂兵兵ㄒ惫勉ㄏ箂扳坝璽笆琩╯砯珇Τ獻デ舦┪琌獻デ舦狡籹珇砫ヴぃ筁玱⊿Τ睲贰弧舦Τの盡ノ疭砛Τ琌Τ砫ヴ璶矗ㄑΤ闽舦ヴ︙戈硂翴и-
粄癸箂扳坝ぃだそキ┮ョ旧璓и-
矗场だタㄆ龟и籔独綺笽某タ惫勉琌璓
翠Θ祘琌パウ琌ぃ現┎箇︑パ坝梆現┎筁だ箇の坝穨笆タ盽の︑パ笲絋龟Τゲ璶璹猭ㄒ璶―Τ闽舦Τの盡ノ疭砛Τゲ斗箂扳坝矗ㄑΤ闽舦ì镑戈ㄏ箂扳坝眔戈镑だ猂Τ闽砯珇琌才舦猭ㄒ
瞶畊埃ぇиョ稱虏虫矗の碭︗某癸硂猭膥矗Τㄇ籔セ┪︓礚闽タ琌闽獶ㄆてのㄆて程辅龟戳莱琌ぶるи-
︑パ囊や現┎矗18るи-
谋眔硂镑眔キ颗程琌弧Ч獶ㄆてㄓΤ矗戳琌112る癸琘ㄇ︽穨ぷㄤ琌筿紇穦硑Θ螟τ24る琌び︓独綺笽某玥某だ秨贺摸筿紇琌摸ㄤ琌摸琌Τ玱穦拜狦硂妓Τㄇセぃ惠璶ㄆて┪獶ㄆて戳玻珇ㄒ膟筿福硁ン︙だ摸㎡м砃暗眔㎡и-
谋眔琌Τ螟┮и-
谋眔程镑ㄏ現┎某18る莉眔硄筁癸タず闽и籔独綺笽某獶盽タ璶穝材35A兵ずΤㄇ兵蹿и-
︑パ囊セㄓ琌辨現┎セタ兵subclause硂籔独綺笽某タ惫勉琌妓產ョЧ钡現┎セタ斑ぃ琌独綺笽某癸現┎タㄤいи-
ぃ稱钡牟兜兵ゅ材4兵菠Τэ笆и-
辨某酚現┎某栋い舦Τの盡ノ疭砛Τ絛瞅ぃ璶盢拜肈耎惗и-
ゼΤì镑丁ㄓ秈︽╯╯澈и-
硂妓タ国┮硂薄猵и-
琌やぃ璶э現┎材4翴タ
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Deputy, I am deeply indebted to the Chairman, the Honourable Miss Selina CHOW, and members of the Copyright Bills Committee for the time, patience and insight given to the Bill.
The Bills Committee met 19 times between late March and early June and has been receiving countless representations from parties representing copyright owners, exclusive licensees, retailers, consumer lobbyers, and so on. This must be a record in itself. The hours spent and parties involved are indicative of the vital importance we all attach to the Copyright Bill.
I must thank all for adopting a pragmatic and flexible approach in trying to reach a consensus view on many of the often controversial issues for it is imperative for us to agree on and put in place a copyright law before the transition. Failure to do so would give rise to a lacuna in copyright protection. This is not something Hong Kong could afford to have.
The Copyright Bill is not a mere replication of our existing largely United Kingdom-based legislation. We have proposed new provisions which have been widely welcomed. Let me highlight some of these before turning to the more controversial issues.
Firstly, broadened scope. Copyright protects the expression of ideas and as such is important to our maintaining a vibrant and competitive economy. Our existing legislation already offers protection for various categories of copyright works from literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works to sound recordings, films, broadcasts, cable programmes, published editions and the rights of performers. The Copyright Bill extends the scope of protection to cover those persons having exclusive recording contracts for public performances. We will
also protect copyright works made public in the Internet and digital environment. We will offer a new moral right to object to the derogatory treatment of works in addition to the existing right to be identified as author and right against forced arbitration. These changes are all in line with the latest and best international trend.
Secondly, open policy. In line with other intellectual property laws and our open trade policy our new copyright regime will feature an open qualification system. Any original works created or published by anyone anywhere in the world would qualify for copyright protection in Hong Kong. This effectively extends copyright protection to, for instance, broadcasts originated outside but down-linked in Hong Kong.
Thirdly, more effective enforcement tools. Proof of copyright subsistence is often the stumbling block in civil and criminal proceedings against copyright infringements. To facilitate enforcement efforts we have reinforced provisions in the Copyright Bill that allow courts to accept an affidavit as a basis of proof. We have introduced a provision that allows customs officers the discretion to seize and forfeit suspected pirated goods. We have also doubled the penalties for first offenders of copyright infringement to increase the deterrent effect.
Fourthly, greater transparency. We have introduced a voluntary registration system for the collective copyright administration societies to ensure that essential information such as scales of royalty charges will be available to the
public. We have also proposed to re-establish the Copyright Tribunal with extended jurisdiction to handle copyright licensing disputes to ensure balance of interests. I hope all these serve to demonstrate that the new copyright law will be a more comprehensive, modern, fair and effective tool to protect the interest of copyright owners and deter infringing activities at all levels.
Mr Deputy, I will now turn to the more controversial issues in the Copyright Bill. Given the degree of public concern I shall start with the regulation of parallel imports.
When the Copyright Bill was introduced into this Council in February we had proposed to decriminalize the act of parallel importing copyright works. We believed civil remedies would suffice to discourage any form of free riding on the hard work and substantial investment of copyright owners and exclusive licensees. Since the publication of the Bill, copyright owners and exclusive licensees have lobbied intensively for retaining criminal sanctions against parallel imports.
Representatives from the film industry have argued that their copyright cannot be exploited commercially and adequately unless they have exclusive distribution rights in the local market. They have further made known that they are very much constrained by the established international practice of a sequential release of films in different formats. The normal release sequence is first to arrange for theatrical release followed by home video release, release on video-on-demand programmes, pay-TV and eventually free TV, taking about eighteen to 24 months time in total. A forceful argument has been made that parallel importation would disrupt this conventional trade practice and seriously undermine the film market.
Representatives of the sound recording industry have also submitted that parallel importation of licensed products from developing countries would undercut and seriously damage the local market for recorded music. They have claimed that right holders would very rarely be able to obtain effective civil remedies against parallel importation. Together with representatives of the film industry they have asked to retain criminal sanctions for at least two years from the first release of their products anywhere in the world.
On the other hand, importers, retailers and consumer groups have voiced strong objection against any restrictions on parallel importation. Their concern is that restrictions on parallel importation will distort the market and restrict free trade, competition and consumer choice. They want to see the removal of all criminal and civil sanctions against parallel imports.
We have reviewed our proposal in the light of the representations made. We accept that the economic exploitation of a copyright work is usually most critical during the period immediately after the work is first published or released in the market. We acknowledge that criminal sanctions, though rarely exercised, have a practical deterrent effect. We accept that complete decriminalization could be misconstrued as the Government relaxing controls against intellectual property infringements. We also accept that consumer interest should not be compromised as a result of failure of copyright owners or their exclusive licensees to provide certain demanded products.
Since there is a clear wish amongst all parties to strive towards a compromise, and since we are not bound by any international standards on this matter, we have proposed an alternative package. I underline the word "package" which covers three elements.
Firstly, retain criminal sanction against the parallel importation of goods within 18 months of the first publication or release of the copyright products anywhere in the world. Civil remedies will still be available throughout the copyright term but an exclusive licensee can only proceed with civil actions when the copyright owner has joined as a plaintiff. This change meets the concerns of the copyright owners and exclusive licensees.
Secondly, introduce a defence provision for a person to parallel import a copyright product even without a licence from the copyright owner or exclusive licensee if the latter has acted unconscionably. That is, by withholding supply on unreasonable grounds or by agreeing to supply but on unreasonable terms. This defence only applies when the importation takes place 18 months or more after the first publication or release of the product anywhere in the world.
Thirdly, as an additional safeguard for importers and retailers, introduce a new provision to deter groundless threats for civil proceedings against alleged parallel imports and to provide remedies for such unwarranted threats.
Mr Deputy, we believe this carefully-constructed package strikes the right balance between the rights of copyright owners and exclusive licensees to exploit their works and investments on the one hand, and the interests of the importer and retail traders and expectations of consumers on the other. We believe it is a pragmatic compromise. I will be moving Committee stage amendments to effect this compromise.
I urge Members to support my amendments. In doing so I recognise that different affected parties would each have wanted more. However, to modify any elements of this carefully-constructed package would upset the delicate balance and risk unravelling the whole package.
Another controversial issue is whether licensees of satellite master antennae television, hereafter referred to as SMATV systems, should continue to be exempted from seeking copyright clearance. In the Bill gazetted, we had proposed to remove this exemption so that television and sound recording broadcasters could either withhold copyright permission to re-transmit unencrypted signals or impose royalties or conditions for such re-transmission. We considered this to be consistent with our commitment as well as the best international norm to protect intellectual property rights.
Nevertheless, the SMATV operators have submitted to the Bills Committee that, under the existing broadcasting policy and the terms of their licences, they are debarred from either collecting subscriptions from users of their systems or indirectly charging fees for the right to receive programmes. Therefore much as they are prepared to pay the broadcasters they would not be allowed to do so. The Copyright Bill, as originally drafted, would thus create conflicting obligations on the SMATV operators should the copyright owners exercise their rights. As a consequence the SMATV operators might have to discontinue their service abruptly. This would also disrupt the viewing habits of the many SMATV subscribers.
In seeking to balance the concerns of the broadcasters on the one hand and the practical constraints of SMATV operators on the other, the Bills Committee has asked us to review the matter. Our alternative approach, which the Bills Committee has supported, is to state in law that unless otherwise notified, SMATV operators would be deemed to have been licensed by the broadcasters to re-transmit their programmes. The latter can give notice to revoke the implied licence by putting up an advertisement in one Chinese and one English newspaper in Hong Kong. However, pending a review of the Television Broadcasting policy in 1998, we will not activate this revocable implied licence provision. Doing so would expose the SMATV operators to conflicting obligations and probably cause disruption to existing services. I will be moving Committee stage amendments to pursue this alternative approach.
A third controversial issue relates to whether de-compilation of computer programmes should be allowed. De-compilation is the process of translating the more or less intangible object codes to ordinary programming languages or source codes. In the gazetted Copyright Bill, we have proposed to allow some limited degree of de-compilation when it was indispensable to facilitate inter-operability between different computer systems. This right to compile would itself be subject to agreements to the contrary. In the light of representations from the software industry, we accept that the de-compilation provision as drafted would be so limited as to be of little practical help to software companies wanting to de-compile.
On the other hand, as an exception to copyright restriction the provision has aroused serious concern amongst leading software companies. They assert that the provision suggests condoning piracy in computer programmes.
We have reviewed our policy intention on de-compilation. We would like to encourage competition in the information technology industry by facilitating timely access to information and ideas underlying computer programmes. Doing so is necessary for the independent creation of new products that attach to or compete with the programmes under study. We accept that the incidental copying of a computer programme by a lawful user during the course of de-compilation or other reverse engineering performed to understand the operation of the programme under study, or to develop a product inter-operable with the programme under study, need not be absolutely restricted by copyright nor should it be completely de-regulated.
In determining whether the act should be allowed we believe the overriding test is whether such act conflicts with the normal exploitation of the work by the copyright owner and unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the copyright owner. If it does it would not be a fair use.
With this objective in mind we have reviewed the language adopted in the gazetted Bill. We have concluded that the de-compilation exception clause should be deleted and that the provisions on fair dealing should be modified. The object is to allow de-compilation to be deemed a fair use provided it does not
conflict with the normal exploitation of the rights and legitimate interests of the copyright owner.
Drawing from the relevant provisions in the United States we propose that other factors, including the purpose and nature of the dealing, the nature of the copyright work and the amount and substantiality of the portion dealt with in relation to the copyright work as a whole, will also be taken into account in determining what constitutes fair use. We are pleased that the Bills Committee and the software industry have both found the proposal acceptable. I will be moving Committee stage amendments later on to achieve this.
A fourth issue arousing much debate relates to whether we should institute new and more powerful measures to seek to clamp down on copyright piracy. During the deliberations in the Bills Committee, we have proposed to amend a clause so that landlords who knowingly allow their premises to be used in piracy
businesses should be subject to civil or even criminal sanction. While accepting the need to consider new measures to combat copyright piracy, the Bills Committee has asked us to consider the implications more carefully. We will do so. We will wish to conduct a proper consultation exercise on the matter which will take time. When that has been done, we will as necessary refer the matter to Members for further consideration.
As Mrs Selina CHOW suggested a while ago, we have indeed been giving serious thought to new ideas to eradicate copyright piracy. Views may well be polarised on a few issues during our debate on the Copyright Bill, but combatting copyright piracy is not one of those. The Administration and Members are united in our determination to combat piracy which has been putting Hong Kong's reputation at stake. The Administration is actively considering the need to control the import and export of CD presses and to bring copyright piracy within the ambit of the Serious and Organised Crimes Ordinance.
We will continue our regular dialogues with the copyright owners and step up publicity against the use of pirated copyright products. We welcome constructive suggestions to help combat copyright piracy.
The last issue I wish to highlight relates to the transitional clauses in the Copyright Bill. It has been suggested to us that the transitional arrangements for deeming whether certain acts infringe copyright are not clearly drafted, and that they should be amended such that goods legitimately imported before the commencement of the new copyright law should be allowed to continue to be sold.
It is a well-established legal principle that acts done before the commencement of a new law would only be subject to the provisions of the previous law in force, if any, when those acts concerned were done. Clearly goods imported after the commencement of the new law would be subject to the new provisions. Goods imported legitimately under the existing copyright framework will no doubt remain legitimate after the enactment of the Copyright Bill.
However, goods imported illegitimately under the existing law will not and should not be sanitised retrospectively. An infringing copy will not simply cease to be infringing with the passage of time, and any subsequent dealings in the copy may still be sued upon. This is precisely the purpose for which the transitional clauses have been drafted following well-established and well-tested legal principles. I would strongly advise against any tampering with the transitional clauses as they appear in the gazetted Copyright Bill.
Mr Deputy, I have spoken at some length in order to elucidate those issues of common interest and concern in the Copyright Bill. Other than those Committee stage amendments I have highlighted just now, there are some other technical, textual or translation-related refinements which I will not flag up in the interest of time. Most of these have been considered and agreed by the Bills Committee.
The Copyright Bill as drafted and amended reflects the collective wisdom of Members and that of leading representatives of various trades in Hong Kong. We have worked hard to make it as comprehensive and effective as possible. The Administration is grateful for the recognition given by Honourable Members to its efforts. Throughout the exercise the Administration has one fundamental objective in mind, and that is to put in place a protection regime for copyright which meets the highest standards in the world and which Hong Kong can be proud of.
Mr Deputy, with the support of this Council, I hope we can enact the proposed legislation in time for bringing it into force on 27 June 1997. The enactment of the Copyright Bill prior to the transition is essential to maintaining continuity in copyright protection.
With these remarks, I recommend the Bill to this Council, subject to the Committee stage amendments that I shall move shortly. Thank you.
12.26 pm
と1226だ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕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
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
COPYRIGHT BILL
舦兵ㄒ
Clauses 2, 4, 5, 10 to 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 to 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 41, 43 to 48, 50, 52 to 58, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69 to 75, 77 to 81, 83 to 86, 88 to 104, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120 to 126, 128, 130 to 146, 148 to 159, 161, 162, 163, 165, 167 to 192, 204, 207, 213, 217, 220, 221, 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 236, 237, 238, 240 to 243, 245, 248, 257, 261, 262, 263, 266 and 271 to 276 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材24510︓1316171820︓2527283031323439404143︓485052︓58626364666769︓7577︓8183︓8688︓104106107109111112114116117120︓126128130︓146148︓159161162163165167︓192204207213217220221227229230232233236237238240︓243245248257261262263266の271︓276兵莉眔硄筁
Clause 1
兵ㄒ材1兵
〆穦畊坝の虫ヲ昂某だ箇ボ览碞材1兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝の虫ヲ昂某だ碞材1兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝の虫ヲ昂某だ碞材1兵矗ぇタセ畊穦叫坝笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
I have proposed this amendment in order that I can specify different dates for bringing different provisions in the Bill into force. My intention is to activate all provisions once the Bill is enacted and gazetted on 27 June with only two exceptions.
The first exception relates to the rights of broadcasters to revoke their implied licences that allows satellite master antennae television operators, or SMATV operators in short, to re-transmit unencrypted signals as I have explained in the Second Reading debate. Pending a review of the television/broadcasting policy in 1998, it would not be appropriate to activate the related clause 82 subclause 4 and clause 254 subclause 4(a). Doing so would expose the SMATV operators to conflicting obligations and probably cause disruptions to existing services.
The second exception relates to the setting up of the reconstituted Copyright Tribunal. I will activate the related provisions, that is, parts of clause 141 subclause 4, clauses 142 to 149, and section 5 of Schedule 4, as soon as the administrative formalities are completed.
The first exception has aroused concern from broadcasters on the ground that deferring the commencement of clause 82 subclause 4 and clause 254 subclause 4(a) of the Bill would compromise their right to restrict re-transmission of their signals. The Honourable SIN Chung-kai has moved an amendment so that these sections would come into operation along with all other key provisions. The Administration does not support this amendment because the licences of the SMATV operators stipulate that they can only charge for the setting-up and maintenance of the physical facilities but not a programme fee. Pending the review on broadcasting policy it will not be fair if the SMATV operators are obliged to pay broadcasters for the right to transmit on the one hand but are debarred from charging their subscribers for the cost incurred on the other.
Although this is not my policy area, I have been authorised by the Secretary for Broadcasting, Culture and Sports to reassure Members that the broadcasting review will, as promised, take place in 1998 and the issue of making the copyright and broadcasting policies compatible in this area will indeed be examined. We would also add that the broadcasters will not be put in a worse-off position as compared with existing arrangements. Quite on the contrary, their rights will be explicitly recognized in the Copyright Bill.
Mr Chairman, I urge Members to support the Administration's amendments to clause 1 and vote against Mr SIN Chung-kai's amendment.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンX
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫虫ヲ昂某碞坝笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶坝ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫虫某笆某タ坝ぇタ莉∕ボ虫ヲ昂某ぇ览某タぃ莉硄筁
虫ヲ昂某璓勉и玃叫︗ㄆ∕坝タㄤ龟坝タ籔иタ场だ斑ぃ琌ネら戳闽镑紀埃SMATV operator舦拜肈
и稱現┎矗翴現┎矗屡兵ㄒ琌结ぉ舦倒約冀┪舦Τ硂舦Τ蔼砍ㄓだ戳顶琿せる坝礛矗硂よタㄆ龟硂よタユи-
も竒琌筐и-
礚猭Τだ丁ㄓ钮蛮よ種ǎ讽礛и-
Τ琿丁琌钮SMATV operator種ǎㄓ讽Τ闽約冀坝Μ現┎タぇ-
獽羛癬ㄓ笴弧︗ミ猭Ыㄆи-
ョΤ诀穦冈灿测钮-
種ǎ
и稱眏秸и-
さぱ癚阶琌舦兵ㄒ舦兵ㄒ弘琌︙玂毁舦Τ現┎屡兵ㄒいㄤ龟Ч粄-
Τ舦︗拜肈琌現┎︙┑︓ゅ眃約冀ЧΘ浪癚碞硂よи-
弧ㄢ現郸瞷"ぃ秸"薄猵硂ぃ秸薄猵и-
赣︙矪瞶и-
粄琂礛и-
さぱ璶矪瞶琌舦兵ㄒи-
獽﹚璶蝴翠碙舦瓣悔禜ぷㄤ琌и-
タ癸瓣悔肚碈и-
莱だ瞷翠癸醚玻舦碙
и-
灿み测钮坝㎝ゅ眃約冀種ǎ硂碭ぱㄓи-
穦ǎ-
ョだ钮-
種ǎ盢種ǎΤ闽よ坚睲и-
谋眔瞷瓣悔┦诀篶ぃ蹦ノ"絏"(encryption)Α笲膀セウ-
辨ㄤョ硓筁徖琍Μ笷"free to air"ヘ甧砛-
︑パ钡Μ竊ヘ硂弘セō琌辨獺镑約冀秨讽礛犁笲ぃ辨Τ虑硂よΑ獻管-
舦
ㄆ龟и-
祇瞷ぃぶ"SMATV operator"垒Μ禣ノ场だ"SMATV operator"Μ–め6じΤㄇ玥Μ–め25じ讽и-
盢硂拜肈筿癟恨瞶ЫЫ矗玥ボ穦Μщ禗矪瞶ㄤ龟硂拜肈祇ネ
畊丁瓣悔肚碈诀篶祇獺倒︗某獺ずョΤ闽瞶沮и-
粄и-
ゲ斗キ颗舦Τ痲㎝そ渤Μ筿跌竊ヘ痲и-
测钮蛮よ種ǎぃ谋眔硂锣跑穦腨獻甡芠渤痲硂玡矗и-
粄琂礛さぱ璶硄筁琌舦兵ㄒτ坝屡兵ㄒ絋粄舦Τ痲и-
莱赣荷е龟琁Τ闽兵ゅ礚惠单ゅ眃約冀ЧΘㄤ浪癚ЧΘ浪癚╯澈︙盢猭ㄒ矗е璶ㄢ篊玥惠璶3
畊セ略朝勉矗и-
タ
〆穦畊虫ヲ昂某既ゼ笆某タ
虫ヲ昂某и秨﹍┮弧и㊣苸︗ㄆ∕坝某и某セō籔坝某妓斑だ琌ネら戳τ
〆穦畊︗〆瞷碞坝笆某ぇタの碞虫ヲ昂某览矗ぇタ秈︽臛阶
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊Τ闽坝籔虫ヲ昂某ㄢ兜タи獺и-
琌璶瞏秆ウ-
竡の狦荡礚某琌ㄢ常﹚約冀诀篶ゼ竒絪絏矪瞶竊ヘ舦だ猍ぃ筁琌癬︽ㄏ硂妓舦τ狦Ч礚斗σ納瞷︽約冀現郸┪礟酚兵ン┪瞷カ初薄猵讽礛琌ぃ穦Τ拜肈
ㄆ龟瞷徖琍筿跌㎝ノぱ帹礟酚琌ぃ甧砛礟酚Τ芠渤Μ竊ヘ禣坝ョ弧眔睲贰礟酚ΤΜ块癳禣ノ硂現郸ノ種︙㎡ㄤ龟琌璶﹚礟酚Τ琌ш簍竊ヘ块癳à︹τぃ琌矗ㄑΜ禣筿跌狝叭硂琌璶
さΩ坝タ琌σ納ゅ眃約冀瞷タ秈︽浪癚┯空癸俱砰Μ禣筿跌秸俱┮坝盢硂兵兵ゅネら戳皌俱砰Μ禣筿跌現郸秸э硂琌瞶玂靡Τ琵カ初続莱ぃ钩Τㄇ┮弧Ч礚戳管舦局Τ舦兵ㄒ﹚-
琌局Τ舦虫ヲ昂某タΞ硂兵ゅネ硂穦盿ㄓㄇ睼睹礚絯侥戳薄猵ぇ局Τ舦約冀诀篶盢穦ミ︽ㄏ舦τ現┎盢穦砆э跑瞷現郸現┎琌礚匡拒ウ﹚璶э跑瞷現郸τΓの砆薄猵э跑獽﹚穦硑Θ睼睹ョま璓芠渤穕Μぃㄇ竊ヘ狦セ⊿Τ快猭続讽筁寸の逼穦ま璓芠渤Μぃ琘ㄇ竊ヘ讽礛и-
ぃ﹚┏穕甡芠渤计Τぶ﹚穦Τ芠渤穕よ徖琍筿跌ノぱ帹礟酚Τョ穦﹚≧阑硂琌ぃ醇Τ届琌チ囊竒盽弧-
闽み禣SMATV硂よ-
玱匡拒框斌玂毁禣痲êㄇ禣Μ跌琌砆耑и癸チ囊さΩミ初稰馋ㄤМ
虫ヲ昂某弧Τ砛約冀诀篶村弧獽砆弧狝-
村弧Τよぃ筁и粄瞶の瞶┦秆∕よ猭琌パゅ眃約冀硂現郸璽砫籔ㄢよ約冀のぱ帹礟酚Τ坝癚產笷Θそキτ蛮よ常钡ら戳ㄓ︽ㄏ硂穝兵ゅ堡瞷薄猵玱ぃ琌硂妓τ約冀そョΜ硄現┎竒∕﹚и-
龟ぃ砫┣-
は莱琌ゑ耕眏疨拜肈琌矪瞶よτぃ琌笵瞶よ約冀诀篶は莱ぃ莱赣и-
や虫ヲ昂某タ眖τ玠管Τ現郸э跑и-
莱倒ぉ瞶丁の蹦瞶˙艼и辨︗某镑や坝タи-
ぃа癘ヴ︙穝猭ㄒゲ斗璶Τ瞶筁寸戳璶玂毁痲ぇ緇臮のそ渤狝叭ぃ穕よиョ玃叫ゅ眃約冀荷еЧΘ浪癚ず龟琁硂兵ゅ
谅谅畊
綠產碔某璓勉畊и祇ēや虫ヲ昂某チ囊矗タ
畊и稱坚睲チ囊ゅ眃約冀よ芠翴タ虫ヲ昂某┮弧讽硂屡兵ㄒユミ猭Ыи-
谋眔陪ゅ眃約冀籔坝硂タよ琌ぃ秸產ゲ斗癘硂兵屡兵ㄒ琌兵﹛よ矗ㄓ﹛よ兵ㄒ﹛よ览兵ㄒセ⊿Τ睲贰瞶秆и-
ミ猭Ыㄓ常璶―ゅ眃約冀荷е璹ち龟悔τヘ环約冀現郸狦璶单︓и-
粄龟琌獶盽筐さミ猭Ы籔ミ猭Ы碞у蝶礚计Ωиぃ獺坝穦睝礚┮籇
硂拜肈安璝︑パ囊㏄辩睶┥у蝶и-
┛跌禣舦痲玂毁玥и稰ア辨の框狙и粄и-
キ颗禣舦痲の玂毁硂兵ㄒ礘翴琌舦copyright计琍戳玡㏄辩睶┥钮栏皘坝碞そ渤甌贾初┮兵ㄒタ┮は琈種ǎ獽眖穨紐納祇候㊣苸秨疭穦某и辨矗眶и-
–現囊常璶キ颗禣痲㎝穨痲碞さΩτēи粄チ囊钮穨種ǎョ闽猔禣舦痲讽礛и-
钮Чゅ眃約冀﹛種ǎи-
絋龟Τㄇ紐納┮紐納琌穦谋眔筁寸ぇSMATV禣礛Μぃ翠戈癟硂穦谋眔現獀Τэ跑硑Θē阶︑パэ跑︑パē阶恒и-
籔穨癚阶Чョ笵Τ12約冀诀篶玃叫∕舦兵ㄒタ畊и辨㏄辩睶┥某ぃ穦癸硂種ǎぃ拜ぃ籇и-
辨現┎硂拜肈秆さΩ陪琌坝籔ゅ眃約冀ア秸璓и-
某溃硂溃琌ぃそキ畊
浪癚㎝秆俱兵兵ㄒи-
谋眔и-
莱赣碙瞷硂兵兵ㄒ膀セ弘タ虫ヲ昂某矗筁иぃ稱狡硂琂琌舦拜肈ョ疉の禣舦痲и-
辨ゅ眃約冀荷е辅龟約冀現郸и獺狦痷硄筁虫ヲ昂某タ琌倒ぉゅ眃約冀溃ウ荷еЧΘ硂浪癚硂ㄨиご胔好ゅ眃約冀浪癚痷辅龟
畊セ略朝勉
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊綠產碔某矗のиㄢΩ┮и谋眔иΤゲ璶莱盢иさΩ碞硂拜肈σ納ゑ耕矗の闽栏皘坝狦礚礟莱1ず超拜肈и獺иぃ斗璶硂妓ゑ耕и-
某竒盽常癸よ溃礚阶琌穨┪蒥チよ常盽倒и-
溃и谋眔и-
某程璶琌眖笵瞶よσ納и-
ぃ琌﹚琌蝴臔琘よ痲и-
璶σ納笵瞶τи-
窾ぃ璶癸ㄆ玻ネ粇穦
瞷坝矗タぃ琌管約冀诀篶舦и笵Τㄇ約冀诀篶糶獺倒某ボ坝タ礚戳玠-
舦硂琌ぃタ絋璝⊿Τ硂兵兵ㄒ-
舦琌⊿Τ絋粄瞷Τ硂兵兵ㄒ玱﹚-
舦拜肈琌︙︽ㄏτ︓筁祘よи璶ㄇ坚睲и-
兵ㄒ〆穦┮Τ穦某琌そ秨SMATV礟酚Τㄓи-
兵ㄒ〆穦笷種ǎ筁祘琌そ秨ヴ︙ㄤ約冀诀篶常莱赣痙種ぇ現┎莱硂ㄇи-
笷種ǎず场吭高獽屡︙璶屡兵ㄒ㎡ず甧эㄤいず甧岿Τ拜肈ㄏ現┎ず场Τぃ秸屡兵ㄒ琌э钮そ渤и-
笷種ǎ現┎ず场ず甧琌Τ拜肈祇谋Τ拜肈獽э硂琌ぱそ竡ㄆ┮Τ┮Τ癸硂ンㄆΤ砍届そ渤常ㄓ钮钮ョ常ㄓи-
笷種ǎ弧硂琌瞯э琌ぃ讽琌ぃ癸
ㄆ龟現┎きるい阀きるらぇ玡竒∕﹚э現郸τи-
兵ㄒ〆穦琌や讽礚ボ钵某︓せる坝盢〆穦糵某顶琿タCSAユ倒и-
临⊿Τ或ボは癸ㄓCSAㄇ約冀诀篶獽秨﹍Τ種ǎ临禫ㄓ禫眏疨硂琌礚粄ぃ筁и﹍沧粄は癸羘ぃ莱琌∕﹚ㄆ龟Τ禣-
タΜSMATV-
セ礚猭舱麓癬ㄓ祇種ǎ-
礚祇羘и-
某璶σ納琌笵瞶и-
┏琌痷玠舦局Τ舦㎡ぃ琌и-
瞷弧琌︙Τ瞶筁寸戳ㄓ︽ㄏ舦┮и辨產粄睲贰┏硂琌或ㄆの粄睲贰狦礛や坝タ
虫ヲ昂某畊и氮臛琌虏祏
〆穦畊量絑Τ"セ畊穦叫虫ヲ昂某材Ω祇ē"〆穦顶琿〆材Ω祇ē┮иЧ⊿Τ弄ê杠ê杠琌ぃタ絋狦虫某稱祇ē祇ē
虫ヲ昂某璓勉и稱莱㏄辩睶┥種ǎ膀セ屡兵ㄒョボ碙約冀舦タ┮弧拜肈琌ネら戳碙舦琌玥㎝玡矗硂玡矗ぇ坝㎝ゅ眃約冀ぇ丁砛瞷ㄇぃ秸ウ-
碞ㄇм砃┦タㄆ龟ㄏ硂兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁ゅ眃約冀临Τ6る丁狦現┎璶暗ㄆ杠琌ごΤ6る丁и粄и-
ぃ琌ノ硂よ猭現┎妒玃ウеи-
荡礚硂種拜肈琌玥и-
瞶沮琌琂礛и-
琌酵阶舦兵ㄒτи-
ョ碙舦и-
獽莱旧ㄤм砃拜肈莱Ω璶﹚兵ㄒ玡坝莱赣籔ゅ眃約冀眔醚碞屡兵ㄒ紉高Τ闽穨の︓"SMATV operators"種ǎ瞷癸拜肈琌"SMATV operators"笷種ǎ坝矗タ琌Τ闽穨玱⊿Τì镑丁朝瓃ㄢよ瞶パ硂翴и谋ゑ耕框狙セЫㄆ⊿Τì镑丁钮臛阶砆矗のキ︽秈拜肈㎝箂扳坝種ǎ环耕и-
硂よ丁τи-
ョ钮ㄢよ種ǎ畊и稱Ω矗иタ籔坝タㄤ龟琌Τ翴ぃㄤ玥场妓ぃぇ矪碞琌ネら戳Τ闽ネら戳よи粄琂礛и-
谋眔璶碙舦琂礛场だ莱赣局Τ舦︙現┎临璶╈┑琿丁
谅谅畊и玃叫︗ㄆ∕坝タ
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, very briefly, I just want to put on the record that the proposal incorporated in my Committee stage amendment on clause 1 was first put to the Bills Committee in late April, which allowed the Bills Committee some one and a half months to consider the proposal behind the Committee stage amendment I have just moved.
As the Chairman of the Bills Committee has just said, the Bills Committee was an open forum. The Bills Committee, indeed any Honourable Member and any member of the Administration, is constantly in a listening mode, is constantly reacting and responding to comments voiced by members of the public as well as comments and opinions expressed to us by interested parties.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the Secretary for Trade and Industry's amendment put.
坝ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈坝碞材1兵笆某ぇタぉタ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Edward HO, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Miss Margaret NG voted for the amendment.
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, 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 LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 16 votes in favour of the amendment and 34 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ16は癸34琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊パ坝碞材1兵矗ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫虫ヲ昂某碞材1兵笆某タ
辩醇翬某璓勉畊и沮穦某盽砏材37兵材4蹿矗某璝Τ〆碞舦兵ㄒぇㄤ緇兜タ璶―秈˙翴∕ぇ砰〆穦斗翴∕牧羘臫癬1だ牧ミ秈︽Τ闽翴∕谅谅
Question on Dr LEONG Che-hung's motion proposed, put and agreed to.
辩醇翬某某ぇ某肈竒矗某窖∕莉硄筁
虫ヲ昂某璓勉セ笆某タ材1兵タず甧更祇癳︗某ぇゅンず
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材1兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
1.06 pm
と16だ
〆穦畊セ畊瞷既氨穦某獽︗秈と刊と刊丁1セЫ盢2確穦某
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
2.05 pm
と25だ
〆穦畊セЫ瞷確穦某セЫ瞷砰〆穦
Clauses 3, 6 to 9, 14, 15, 19, 26, 29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 42, 49, 51, 59, 60, 61, 65, 68, 76, 82, 87, 105, 108, 113, 118, 119, 127, 129, 147, 160, 164, 166, 193 to 203, 205, 206, 208 to 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 222 to 226, 228, 231, 234, 235, 239, 244, 246, 247, 249 to 256, 258, 259, 260, 264, 265 and 267 to 270
兵ㄒ材36︓91415192629333637384249515960616568768287105108113118119127129147160164166193︓203205206208︓212214215216218219222︓226228231234235239244246247249︓256258259260264265の267︓270兵
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments proposed by the Administration for these clauses are all technical in nature. Most of the changes needed are to deal with the consistency of the Chinese and English texts of the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンX
Clause 6 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンX
Clause 7 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材7兵ǎンX
Clause 8 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンX
Clause 9 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材9兵ǎンX
Clause 14 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンX
Clause 15 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材15兵ǎンX
Clause 19 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材19兵ǎンX
Clause 26 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材26兵ǎンX
Clause 29 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材29兵ǎンX
Clause 33 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材33兵ǎンX
Clause 36 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材36兵ǎンX
Clause 37 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材37兵ǎンX
Clause 38 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材38兵ǎンX
Clause 42 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材42兵ǎンX
Clause 49 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材49兵ǎンX
Clause 51 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材51兵ǎンX
Clause 59 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材59兵ǎンX
Clause 60 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材60兵ǎンX
Clause 61 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材61兵ǎンX
Clause 65 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材65兵ǎンX
Clause 68 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材68兵ǎンX
Clause 76 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材76兵ǎンX
Clause 82 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材82兵ǎンX
Clause 87 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材87兵ǎンX
Clause 105 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材105兵ǎンX
Clause 108 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材108兵ǎンX
Clause 113 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材113兵ǎンX
Clause 118 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材118兵ǎンX
Clause 119 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材119兵ǎンX
Clause 127 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材127兵ǎンX
Clause 129 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材129兵ǎンX
Clause 147 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材147兵ǎンX
Clause 160 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材160兵ǎンX
Clause 164 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材164兵ǎンX
Clause 166 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材166兵ǎンX
Clause 193 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材193兵ǎンX
Clause 194 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材194兵ǎンX
Clause 195 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材195兵ǎンX
Clause 196 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材196兵ǎンX
Clause 197 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材197兵ǎンX
Clause 198 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材198兵ǎンX
Clause 199 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材199兵ǎンX
Clause 200 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材200兵ǎンX
Clause 201 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材201兵ǎンX
Clause 202 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材202兵ǎンX
Clause 203 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材203兵ǎンX
Clause 205 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材205兵ǎンX
Clause 206 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材206兵ǎンX
Clause 208 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材208兵ǎンX
Clause 209 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材209兵ǎンX
Clause 210 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材210兵ǎンX
Clause 211 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材211兵ǎンX
Clause 212 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材212兵ǎンX
Clause 214 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材214兵ǎンX
Clause 215 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材215兵ǎンX
Clause 216 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材216兵ǎンX
Clause 218 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材218兵ǎンX
Clause 219 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材219兵ǎンX
Clause 222 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材222兵ǎンX
Clause 223 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材223兵ǎンX
Clause 224 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材224兵ǎンX
Clause 225 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材225兵ǎンX
Clause 226 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材226兵ǎンX
Clause 228 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材228兵ǎンX
Clause 231 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材231兵ǎンX
Clause 234 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材234兵ǎンX
Clause 235 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材235兵ǎンX
Clause 239 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材239兵ǎンX
Clause 244 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材244兵ǎンX
Clause 246 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材246兵ǎンX
Clause 247 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材247兵ǎンX
Clause 249 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材249兵ǎンX
Clause 250 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材250兵ǎンX
Clause 251 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材251兵ǎンX
Clause 252 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材252兵ǎンX
Clause 253 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材253兵ǎンX
Clause 254 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材254兵ǎンX
Clause 255 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材255兵ǎンX
Clause 256 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材256兵ǎンX
Clause 258 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材258兵ǎンX
Clause 259 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材259兵ǎンX
Clause 260 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材260兵ǎンX
Clause 264 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材264兵ǎンX
Clause 265 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材265兵ǎンX
Clause 267 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材267兵ǎンX
Clause 268 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材268兵ǎンX
Clause 269 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材269兵ǎンX
Clause 270 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材270兵ǎンX
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 3, 6 to 9, 14, 15, 19, 26, 29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 42, 49, 51, 59, 60, 61, 65, 68, 76, 82, 87, 105, 108, 113, 118, 119, 127, 129, 147, 160, 164, 166, 193 to 203, 205, 206, 208 to 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 222 to 226, 228, 231, 234, 235, 239, 244, 246, 247, 249 to 256, 258, 259, 260, 264, 265 and 267 to 270, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材36︓91415192629333637384249515960616568768287105108113118119127129147160164166193︓203205206208︓212214215216218219222︓226228231234235239244246247249︓256258259260264265の267︓270兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 35
兵ㄒ材35兵
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 35(3) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The proposed amendment is needed to clarify that an accessory work such as labels or instruction manuals for non-copyright products will not be considered an infringing copy under the Copyright Bill, and as such parallel importation of goods containing such accessory work will not be restricted under the Bill.
The amendment is technical in nature and I will move another Committee stage amendment to add a new subclause 6(a) to clause 35 to define the concept of an accessory work. The Bills Committee has discussed and endorsed the proposed amendments.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 35 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材35兵ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊坝独綺笽某の朝挪狶某だ箇ボ览碞材35(4)兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝独綺笽某の朝挪狶某だ碞材35(4)兵矗ぇタ
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝独綺笽某の朝挪狶某だ碞材35(4)兵矗ぇタ
〆穦畊法У地某琌砏祘拜肈
法У地某畊叫拜琌弧ㄢ︗某笆某タ材35(4)兵临琌材34(4)兵
畊狡Ω
法У地某и钮弄ㄢ︗某笆某タ材34(4)兵и胔好琌材35(4)兵
〆穦畊琌碞材35(4)兵矗タセ畊穦叫坝笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 35 subclause (4) be amended as set out in the paper circularised to Members.
The Government's Committee stage amendment to clause 35 subclause 4 has two effects. It serves to maintain criminal sanction for the parallel importation of copyright products during the 18 months after their first publication or release anywhere in the world. It also clarifies that the parallel importation of accessory work is not subject to criminal sanctions. Only the first part of our amendment is subject to debate.
As I explained during the Second Reading debate, the 18-month criminal sanction is part of a carefully-constructed package to resolve the issue of parallel importation. It is designed to strike a balance between the rights of copyright owners and exclusive licensees to exploit their works and investments on the one hand, and the interests of the import and retail traders and expectations of consumers on the other. We believe that the proposed 18 month period for criminal sanction is the correct and pragmatic balance in the circumstances.
I would strongly caution against changing it. Shortening it, as proposed by Dr the Honourable HUANG Chen-ya, would tilt the balance too much against the interests of the copyright owners and exclusive licensees. Prolonging it as proposed by the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam would be too much to the detriment of consumers, importers and retailers.
Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support Dr HUANG Chen-ya's amendment of stipulating different criminal sanction periods for different kinds of copyright products, that is, an 18-month period for films and a 12 month period for other kinds of copyright products. This would compromise our policy intention of offering copyright protection to all kinds of copyright products on a non-discriminatory basis.
Advances in technology also mean that copyright in one kind of product can very often be embedded in another kind. For instance, films are likely to contain literary works, sound recordings or even broadcast programmes that are themselves subject to copyright protection. Enforcement would be extremely difficult if the parallel importation of the film is no longer subject to criminal sanction but the underlying works are. I urge Members to vote in support of the Administration's amendments.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 35 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材35兵ǎンX
独綺笽某璓勉畊и笆某タ某ㄆ兵ゅ続ノ眖珇祇ぱ癬璸1戳丁τ筿紇珇玥Τ18る戳
ㄤ龟沮舦兵ㄒ絑и矗瓃筁キ︽砯讽セぃ斗璽ㄆ砫ヴ竒筁筿紇穨村弧現┎矗璶璹砞ミ18るㄆ砫ヴ戳︙璶琌18る筿紇︽穨Τ疭┦借蛤ㄤ舦局Τぃ埃筿紇ぇ赣︽穨临Τ筽甮紇盒魁紇盿单筿紇踞み狦ㄆ砫ヴ戳び祏筽甮紇盒㎝魁紇盿秈翠獽穦搭ぶ栏皘筿紇计耕ㄆ砫ヴ戳筿紇そ簍丁耕ㄣ紆┦筿紇耕甧逼
筿紇穨笲Τㄤ疭ぇ矪︽穨ずΤろ瞯τま璓拜肈璓翠芠渤礚猭琈戳丁┪祏戳ずㄉ场穝︓Τ璶单俱俱1┪丁Τ诀穦稱筿紇
瞷计だ羉Γ缓丁尺舧眖ㄆ砰て笆╯澈Τぶ痷タΤ砍届筿紇皘筿紇㎡硂琌拜肈腀種︑粄続讽冀紇盒猋洁筿紇┮ㄆ砫ヴ戳ずゴ衡硓筁紇盒┪魁紇盿猋洁筿紇獽斗璶单栏皘タ冀琈Τ闽筿紇┮-
獽璶单狦ぃ筿紇タ栏皘冀琈拜肈-
镑Ν猋洁ê场筿紇
芠渤硂妓单穦琌フ单よ常Τネ玻筿紇Τ场だ筿紇穦翠冀琈狦琘恼筿紇ぃ览翠冀琈ê或芠渤单穦⊿Τ挡狦琌禣礚猭笵恼筿紇穦翠冀琈筁ㄆ戳琌癸禣ぃそキ
ㄆ龟安⊿Τㄆ砫ヴ杠秈筿紇栏皘簍诀穦穦搭ぶパ场だ芠渤セ硓筁紇盒㎝紇盿猋洁筿紇獺籹坝穦踞み砯拜肈辨冀琈筿紇寥柬τ穦稼筿紇戳丁Ν盢筿紇癳翠冀琈禣矗Ν猋洁赣场筿紇硂妓癸禣ㄤ龟Τ矪
礛τи-
笵ㄆ砫ヴ戳Τだ璶狦碞琌腊セ籹坝耕Νи竒弧筁膀笲穦旧璓砯瑈癸籹坝ネ種硑Θ≧阑┮и纯竒弧硂兜猭ㄒ镑琿丁ず玂臔-
и玡弧筁м㎝娩挂锣跑穦盿ㄓ≧阑и辨筿紇σ納硂ㄇ跑てぃ璶ㄌ綼猭ㄓ玂毁-
陪筿紇穨瞯ぃ跑磷翠筿紇穨び≧阑チ囊谋眔砞硂18る戳琌程琵˙ョキ颗筿紇穨㎝禣舦痲и-
谋眔24る玥筁だ凹穨痲┛菠禣惠璶
︓膟筿福硁ンの佰и-
セぃヴ︙呸胯或璶18る硂或и-
谋眔硂琌Τ拜肈ョぃΤ惠璶砞﹚硂或戳и-
谋眔12る竒ì镑砛砞﹚祏戳堡〆穦讽セ⊿Τ诀穦冈灿癚阶硂拜肈
и辨現┎瞏╯秸琩ㄤ舦琌痷斗璶Τㄆ砫ヴτぃ琌チㄆ禗砠玂臔妓笷続讽キ颗и辨ら現┎穦秈︽瞏╯
程︓∕Ω㎝∕渡拜肈坝┮弧現┎い丁τи玥渡腊禣チ囊渡腊禣τ朝挪狶某タ玥渡腊穨膀∕Ω拜肈安現┎タゼ硄筁チ囊Τ穦ア毖┮チ囊伐ぃ腀種薄猵穦や現┎タ
朝挪狶某璓勉畊チ羛や坝盢ン珇瞴ヴ︙よΩ祇︽琘戳丁﹚ㄆ掉戳玥и-
粄盢18る戳秈˙┑甶︓24る琌︽硂玥籔現┎暗猭Ч璓
チ羛粄翠┎タヘ琌キ颗舦局Τ盡ノ疭砛Τの禣舦痲τ筿紇の佰穨穨ずョ粄狦碞玂毁翠盡ノ疭砛Τぷㄤ琌筿紇穨τē18る戳ぃì镑τ程瞶稱戳莱24る
и-
粄琂礛翠┎種ㄆ籃玥耕チㄆ禗砠ㄣ纞┦碞莱碙︽穨瞷笲薄猵の穨ず種ǎ盢戳┑τぃ琌酚︑璸衡﹚ㄆ砫ヴ玂毁戳穨ず璶―Τㄢㄆ掉戳ㄤ龟籔翠┎某玥Ч璓ョぃ穕甡そキユ┪そキ禩玥ㄆ龟瞷瓣悔ㄤΤ舦猭瓣產硂よ璹ㄆ砫ヴ琌礚戳畊セ矗┑ㄆ砫ヴ戳璶ヘ琌琵承の舦局Τ眔ㄎ玂毁硂贺玂毁ぃ虫ゎ癸翠醚玻舦局ΤΤ矪τ瓣悔舦局Τョ穦妓眔痲翠瓣悔禩穦ず莱赣ㄉΤㄎ羘臕パи-
砞﹚程ㄆ砫ヴ戳┮и穦現┎笆某タ18る戳∕觅Θ狦現┎タぃ莉硄筁и辨セЫㄆ镑やиタ盢ㄆ砫ヴ戳﹚24る
畊セ略朝勉
法У地某璓勉畊埃坝チ囊のチ羛〆常だ碞兵ゅ笆某タ︑パ囊玱⊿Τ碞硂兵ゅ笆某タ琌и-
Τ︑ǎ秆
癘眔ΤΩ砰〆穦秨穦產纯竒阶╯澈ぶる続讽㎡現┎程矗兵ㄒ璹Ч獶ㄆてЧ秨癸箂扳坝Ч続ㄓ竒筁穨ぷㄤ琌佰籹坝の筿紇村弧現┎谋眔璝盢ㄆン獶ㄆて盢穦癸赣︽穨穦硑Θ獶盽≧阑眖穨àㄓ程暗猭琌ッ┦ㄆてㄓ眖箂︓ッ┦禯瞒Μ現┎秈︽礷村弧現┎ョ纯栋穨箂扳癬秨蛾穦某淋叫某畊讽иΤ畊⊿Τ祇ēê畊穦某ㄢ贺ぃ種ǎ玱笷璓產常钡キ颗琌硂贺キ颗だ畓璝ヴ︙よ"は"獽穦"╃ㄢ床"
ㄤ龟硂Ω∕穦"╃床"或㎡狦и-
は癸現┎矗18る戳∕やチ囊矗12戳穦谋眔12る戳び祏穦∕硂兜タ钡ㄇ〆∕やチ羛矗24る戳穦Τ〆谋眔24る戳び挡狦タ穦砆∕狦3兜タ常ぃ穦莉眔硄筁ê妓薄猵穦だ菲絔兵ㄒ程穦確ㄓЧ獶ㄆて
猵и癘眔ΤΩи砰〆穦ず∕祇谋〆だΘ3уㄤいだぇ粄12る戳程だぇ粄18る戳程だぇ玥粄24る戳程︑パ囊谋眔18る戳程Τ弧и-
琌い丁辅茎砰〆穦ずだぇ〆舱Θ1舱3舱〆Τぃ種ǎ讽初ㄤいだぇや戳莱12るョΤだぇや戳莱ぶ24る传杠弧癸18る戳︗〆菠Τ醚瘤礛〆獶κだぇκ贾種や畒Τゼ把籔砰〆穦∕某и笿ǎ独綺笽某㎝朝挪狶某-
砛臮Ы常弧穦や現┎タи辨êㄇぃ妮ヴ︙囊〆┪êㄇ穦∕秈穦某芔某のチ囊┪︑パ囊某常穦は癸〆盢ㄆ薄睲贰辨產璓や現┎タ
〆穦畊セ畊盢坝ぇ某窖砰〆穦∕ぇ玡セ畊稱矗眶︗〆坝ぇ某莉硄筁ボ独某の朝某︑笆某ぇタぃ莉硄筁坝ぇ某綝∕セ畊穦叫独某笆某タ︓朝某琌笆某タ眔跌砰〆穦癸独某ぇ某┮ぇ∕﹚独某ぇ某綝∕パ朝某笆某タ璝独某ぇ某莉硄筁ボ朝某ぇタぃ莉硄筁
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ坝碞材35(4)兵笆某ぇタ莉∕独某┪朝某ぃ︑笆某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that subclause 4(a) to clause 35 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The proposed amendment is technical in nature and clarifies that customs border measures do not apply to parallel imported copyright works.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 35 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材35兵ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move the addition of subclause 6(a) to clause 35 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
As I have explained earlier, for the technical amendment to clause 35 subclause (3), subclause 6(a) defines an accessory work which will include labels, packaging, instructional materials and so on, attached to a product. It is also stipulated that the economic value of such accessory works should not be a major proportion of the total economic value of the product.
Mr Chairman, the proposals have been discussed by the Bills Committee and I am pleased that the Bills Committee supported the proposed amendments.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 35 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材35兵ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 35(7) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The proposed technical amendment is to clarify that a copyright work is not lawfully made when it is made in a place where the copyright in the work has expired but may still enjoy copyright protection in Hong Kong. This proposed amendment has been endorsed by the Bills Committee.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 35 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材35兵ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 35, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材35兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 110
兵ㄒ材110兵
〆穦畊坝の独綺笽某だ箇ボ览碞材110兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝の独綺笽某だ碞材110兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝の独綺笽某だ碞材110兵矗ぇタセ畊叫坝笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 110 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The Administration's Committee stage amendment to clause 110 seeks to clarify that, in relation to civil proceedings on parallel importation, exclusive licensees may not without leave of the court proceed with civil action against parallel importers unless the copyright owner is joined as a plaintiff.
This has already limited the rights of exclusive licensees because in civil proceedings for other kinds of copyright infringements exclusive licensees can take civil action when the copyright owner is either joined as a plaintiff or added as a defendant.
Dr the Honourable HUANG Chen-ya has proposed to change the word "proceed" to "commence". This may look innocuous. However, in practice, it translates into forbidding exclusive licensees to apply on their own for interlocutory injunctions against possible infringements to their rights in so far as parallel imports are concerned. We know all too well that one has to act fast in
protecting one's intellectual property rights. It would not be fair to deprive an exclusive licensee of speedy access to the useful remedy of interlocutory injunction when confronted with suspected parallel imports.
Mr Chairman, the Administration's amendment to clause 110 is part of the carefully-constructed package to resolve the issue on parallel importation. As I have explained during the Second Reading debate, all the concerned parties are prepared to accept the revised formulation as a pragmatic compromise. Dr the Honourable HUANG Chen-ya's amendment imperils the delicate balance that has been struck. It departs from the agreed consensus. Accordingly, the Administration does not support the proposed amendment.
Mr Chairman, I urge Members to vote for the Administration's proposed amendment.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 110 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材110兵ǎンX
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫独綺笽某碞坝ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶坝ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫独某笆某タ坝ぇタ莉∕ボ独綺笽某ぇ览某タぃ莉硄筁
独綺笽某璓勉畊坝秆睦筁иタ某碞琌盡ノ疭砛Τ斗羛舦局Τ碞獻デ舦秨﹍矗癬禗砠τ坝┮ノ泊琌"秈︽"иタ穦ㄏ盡ノ疭砛Τ笿螟硂琌ㄆ龟ㄤ龟ご礛矗癬禗砠τ蹦ㄤ猭︽笆盡ノ疭砛Τ莱Ν逼ㄏ舦局Τ玂臔︑舦痲τ蛤盡ノ疭砛Τ癬蹦羛︽笆ぃノ"羬╆︱竲"êт舦局Τ拜琌腀種蛤癬蹦猭︽笆и-
粄硂琌莱赣暗眔
舦猭竒倒ぉ盡ノ疭砛Τ戳ㄆ砫ヴ玂臔и-
硄筁戳18る︓チㄆよ蹦或︽笆и-
粄チㄆよ瞷︽猭ㄒ竒倒ぉだ玂臔┮и-
璶痙みぃ璶硂舦筁砆垒ノ舦τ炊硄砛Τиぃ琌盡ノ疭砛Τ┪虫だ綪坝粇︑碞琌盡ノ疭砛Τ︑舦碞琌ê或┮┪穦矗癬ㄇぃ続讽禗砠┪蹦ㄇぃ続讽猭︽笆
硂兜タㄤ龟磷ㄇぃゲ璶禗砠┮и叫―︗〆は癸現┎タㄏиタ眔やи粄硂妓玂臔のキ颗禣舦痲
〆穦畊︗〆瞷碞坝笆某ぇタの碞独綺笽某览笆某ぇタ秈︽臛阶
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊︑パ囊纯竒冈灿σ納硂ㄢぃタ礚粄だ碞琌狦坝タ莉眔硄筁疭砛"licensee"獽ビ叫窽穨ずぷㄤ筿紇穨の佰穨常眏秸讽砯笲翠狦-
ぃビ叫窽-
蹦︽笆┮Τ砯珇竒扳睲硂琌-
⊿猭ゎ┮癸-
ㄓ弧硂琌獶盽璶よ猭-
よ猭癸獶猭┪獻舦砯狦⊿Τ硂よ猭穦硑Θ讽紇臫
ㄇ猭坝玥莱ぃ紇臫и-
秆疭砛坝ビ叫窽斗璶竒筁ㄇ祘㎝煤禣ノ┮-
ぃ穦繦種蹦ノ硂贺も琿琌狦ぃビ叫窽杠ㄇ礚▆┪"ゴ村阑"秈坝ぷㄤ綟翠瓣產ǔ筽ぃの被φ块獻舦砯硂妓穦癸翠セ穨硑Θぃ紇臫穦癸俱︽穨盿ㄓゴ阑┮辨產镑や坝タ
2.40 pm
と240だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
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∕翴牧盢伙臫1だ牧
2.41 pm
と241だ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈坝碞材110兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
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, 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, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the amendment and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ28は癸23琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊独綺笽某パ坝碞材110兵矗ぇタ莉∕ぃ碞材110兵笆某览某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
Question on clause 110, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材110兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 115
兵ㄒ材115兵
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that subclauses (1), (2) and (3) of clause 115 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The proposed amendments are editorial changes which have already been endorsed by the Bills Committee.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 115 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材115兵ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊坝の法У地某だ箇某材115兵糤干材(5A)の(5B)蹿
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝の法У地某だ矗ぇ某材115兵糤干材(5A)の(5B)蹿
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝の法У地某だ矗ぇ某材115兵糤干材(5A)の(5B)蹿セ畊穦叫坝笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that subclauses (5A) and (5B) be added to clause 115 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The Administration has proposed to amend clause 115 by adding two new subsections to clarify in relation to criminal proceedings against parallel importation, the circumstances in which a defendant might claim that he has no reason to believe he has been dealing with infringing copies.
I appreciate that retailers have expressed concern but they sometimes have difficulty identifying the right owners or exclusive licensees and would need clarification on what reasonable steps they are expected to take before they can establish that they do not have a reason to believe that the goods they are about to be trading in are infringing articles.
Much as we are against tying the hands of the court by prescribing what constitutes a reason to believe, we have elaborated on the concept and provided indicative non-binding guidelines on possible steps for making enquiries. The wording proposed for clause 115 subclauses (5A) and (5B) have been drawn up after careful thought. We do not agree with the Committee stage amendment proposed by the Honourable Howard YOUNG to further extend the long list. This is neither necessary nor desirable. It risks tilting the balance too much in favour of the defendants and undermining the applicability of criminal proceedings on parallel importation.
Mr Chairman, I urge Members to support the Administration's amendments and to vote against Mr Howard YOUNG's amendment.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 115 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材115兵ǎンX
2.44 pm
と244だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫法У地某碞坝笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇタ祇ē埃獶坝ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫法某笆某タ坝ぇタ莉∕ボ法У地某ぇタぃ莉硄筁
法У地某璓勉瞶畊碞穝糤材35Aの35B兵τē瘤礛ㄤタㄓ︗ㄆョ纯ΜΤ闽獺ンㄆ龟硂タ玡场埃程ソЮ琿7︽ゅぇ玡场だ琌蛤現┎タЧセ笆某タ埃иぇ临Τ独綺笽某τи-
┮ノ泊常琌家妓產常谋眔硂Ω痷璶舦禣の箂扳坝ぇ丁キ颗ぃ熬腊ヴ︙よ
и-
ョ硄筁ㄢ兜タㄤい兜琌闽∕﹚12る18る┪24る戳碞18る戳ㄓ弧籔ㄓ屡兵ㄒゑ舦莱赣ㄉΤ玂毁產常や坝矗闽"秨﹍"┪"秈︽"泊臛阶挡狦ョ莉眔硄筁舦眖τ眔玂毁
硂и-
莱赣σ納琌莱琵箂扳坝ョ眔ㄇ矪㎡┮и-
谋眔現┎矗╰某琌Ч钡現┎ぃ筁矗肂砏﹚材(a)︓(d)兜弧砆沮硂兵ㄒ矗癬禗砠舦斗璶矗ㄑㄇ戈
и-
ぃ筁辨現┎某跑眔龟и-
粄舦┪舦局Τ琌Τ砫ヴ矗ㄑ戈琂礛︑嘿琌舦局Τ程ぶ莱赣矗ㄑΤ闽玻珇嘿舦局Τの︙秨﹍Θ舦单Τ靡τぃ虫ゎ繷弧弧獽衡┮и-
辨硂ㄇ兵蹿ぃ琌は癸現┎玡矗某м砃и-
ぃ弧琂礛и-
や現┎ぃи硂3兜タм砃и-
斗璶穝癸俱兵兵蹿タ┮иタ琌场蹦ノ現┎タ琌兵Юぺタ睲贰
ㄏ︗〆種現┎タи㊣苸現┎г礹 砛Τ穦ри暗猭跌璚ψ璸 叫︗钡и-
璶м砃ǐ材˙安︗〆は癸現┎タ礛やиタ挡狦獽穦
2.46 pm
と246だ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
虫ヲ昂某璓勉畊и-
祇谋舦局Τ筿紇坝の箂扳常Τ璶―и祇ē矗筁-
常璶―現┎笆璽砫いァ爹ㄏ舦局Τ┪┮孔盡疭砛(exclusive licensee) ┪箂扳坝Τいァ琩よ硂妓碞镑搭ㄢよ癸ミベ
и弧筁箂扳の穨常稱現┎璽砫現┎ぃ稱硂妓暗さぱ法У地某矗(e)(f)(g)硂3兜タ⊿Τ硂ㄇ砏﹚現┎獽ぃ矗ㄑいァ爹よ
琘矗ㄑ┮局Τ舦戈現┎莱璶―舦局Τ┪盡疭砛箂扳矗ㄑㄇ膀セ戈и谋眔Τ惠璶硂よ眔キ颗ㄏΤ硂ㄇ砏﹚現┎ぃ璶斌σ納ΘミΤ闽爹Ы┦ㄏ舦局Τ翠爹Τいァ爹のǔ硉琩よ
畊チ囊や法У地某笆某タ┮и㊣苸產は癸現┎タ
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и稱菠干琌,︑パ囊σ納硂拜肈,ㄆ龟跌続讽キ颗┮讽箂扳㎝и-
矗疭砛坝-
矗ㄑ戈Τ惠璶珹灿玥и-
谋眔狦疉の坝穨盞-
⊿Τ瞶パ璶―ㄤ矗ㄑ灿玥セ⊿Τ硂妓暗疭砛坝璶―ぃ瞶┮и-
籔箂扳坝坝癚纯竒ボぃΤ闽兵ゅ┮法У地某タず龟ぃ珹硂砏﹚и-
粄ㄤ璶―ㄒ璶―矗ㄑ疭砛靡┪Ω祇珇ら戳靡单常獶盽瞶
и-
粄法У地某タ琌瞶τ琵箂扳坝ぷㄤ琌そ猭箂扳坝睲捶笵ㄇ戈┮и㊣苸︗ㄆは癸現┎タ礛や法У地某タ
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I think it is appropriate for me to respond to the suggestion that has repeatedly been made by the Honourable SIN Chung-kai, which is the establishment of a central registry with statutory effect by the Hong Kong Government requesting copyright owners and exclusive licensees to register ownership or exclusive dealer-right of copyright works with the registry.
In the United States Library of Congress Copyright Registry, there is no up-to-date system to record copyright assignments or management arrangements. No country or economy to my knowledge has ever set up such a system. On the other hand, the representatives of the film and music industries in Hong Kong do
have an up-to-date database covering some 90% of the repertoire available here.
In view of this particular situation, the Administration does not consider it is cost-effective to use taxpayers' money to set up such a central registry as has been proposed by Mr SIN Chung-kai.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the Secretary for Trade and Industry's amendment put and negatived.
坝ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕綝∕
〆穦畊パ坝ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫法У地某笆某材115兵糤干材(5A)の(5B)蹿
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr Chairman, I move the addition of subclauses (5A) and (5B) to caluse 115 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 115 (See annex X)
兵ㄒ材115兵ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 115, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材115兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Heading before New clause 35A
穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈
New clause 35A
穝璹兵ㄒ材35A兵Defences
砫臛臔
Defence for the purposes of sections 30 and 31
碞材30の31兵τē砫臛臔
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
〆穦畊坝独綺笽某法У地某の朝挪狶某だ箇某セ兵ㄒ莱糤干穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材35A兵
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶坝独某法某の朝某だぇ某セ兵ㄒ莱糤干穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材35A兵
法У地某璓勉畊弧и-
3常笆某タи祇谋3タず甧常琌妓и笆某タ莉硄筁硂琌单坝タ㎡瞷矗夹肈τ夹肈琌続ノヴ︙兜タê或╯澈だ秈︽∕の臛阶Τ⊿Τ種㎡┪м砃Τ⊿Τだ
〆穦畊璝セ畊弧琌タ硂琌岿粇莱琌某琌4︗某赣某セ畊虏てウ-
矗猭τウ-
琌4兜が逼ジ某碞兜ㄆ薄璝匡拒杠ボぃ璶狦匡拒獽璶∕4兜匡拒ヒヒパ坝笆某セ穦∕璝綝∕璝辨硄筁玥璶∕摸崩硂薄猵ㄖ臛阶琌Ч続
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr Chairman, you said that the Secretary for Trade and Industry, Dr HUANG, myself and CHAN Kam-lam have separately given notice to propose the addition of heading before new clause 35(A) and new clause 35(A) to the Bill, which we have already just passed. Is it so that we are only talking about the heading, in which case I think it is only one word and all four of us seem to have the same word? I just want to know whether by voting for the Secretary for Industry and Trade's heading, which goes on to my amendment which is passed, whether that has any implications which will render either of them void.
CHAIRMAN: We vote on the clauses, the content of the clauses. But we do not read out the clauses, we read out the number and the heading of the clause. So, it is a technicality. The vote will be on the contents of the clauses that we add a new clause 35A to the Bill. But there are four alternative propositions as to how and what contents to add as new clause 35A. Is that clear?
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫坝祇ēの笆某弄ㄤ览某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that the Heading before new clause 35(A) and new clause 35(A) as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
The insertion of the new heading is non-controversial and appears in the proposal to be moved by the Honourable Howard YOUNG, Dr the Honourable HUANG Chen-ya and the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam.
The new clause 35(A) is proposed by the Administration to offer two new defences in civil proceedings against parallel importation. The first defence described in our new clause 35(A) subclause (1) and (2) clarifies the circumstances under which a defendant may claim that he has no reason to believe that he has been dealing with infringing copies. The second defence described, in our new clause 35(A), subclauses (3) and (4) stipulates that it shall be a defence for a person who imports a work without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee if the latter has acted unconscionably, that is, by withholding supply on unreasonable grounds or by agreeing to supply but on unreasonable terms.
Mr Chairman, the Bills Committee has deliberated long and hard on both provisions and heard numerous submissions from all the relevant parties. As a result of the Bills Committee's hard work and the co-operative approach adopted by all concerned, we have already achieved broad consensus in support of introducing the two defences. What remains is a matter of fine-tuning.
On the first defence relating to reason to believe, I have already explained in responding to Mr Howard YOUNG's Committee stage amendment to clause 115 subclauses 5(A) and 5(B) why we cannot agree to elaborate on the list of circumstances in which a defendant might claim that he has no reason to believe he has been dealing with infringing copies.
Mr YOUNG and Dr HUANG Chen-ya have moved similar Committee stage amendments to clause 35(A) to extend the very long list as applied to civil rather than criminal proceedings. I do not agree with these Committee stage amendments. Extending the list risks tilting the balance too much in favour of the defendants and undermining the applicability of civil proceedings on parallel importation.
On the second defence relating to unconscionable acts, the Administration has set out in clause 35(A) subclause 4 that in considering what constitutes an unconscionable act, the court shall take into consideration the established practices of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee for the orderly distribution of copies of that category of work. We consider this appropriate since this is, after all, a Bill to protect copyright owners and exclusive licensees which has been so repeatedly stressed this morning and up to now this afternoon.
Mr Howard YOUNG and HUANG Chen-ya have proposed inserting an extra section to oblige the court to have regard to the reasonable requirements of the retail traders and public. Dr HUANG Chen-ya has also proposed to amend the wording "established practices of the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee" as the "established practices of the particular trade". The Administration does not support these changes. They are not necessary. They upset the delicate balancing of the interests of copyright owners and those of the retailers. They overly and unnecessarily fetter the discretion of the court.
Separately, Mr CHAN Kam-lam has also proposed to amend clause 35(A) subclause 3(c) to the effect that the defence relating to unconscionable acts would not apply until after the expiration of 24 months of the first publication of a copyright work. This is meant to be in line with the other Committee stage amendments that Mr CHAN Kam-lam has intended to move to clause 35 subclause (4) were the Administration's Committee stage amendment to be defeated. This amendment or this proposal by Mr CHAN Kam-lam should no longer be necessary as the Administration's Committee stage amendment on the 18-month criminality period has just been voted in favour of by Members.
Mr Chairman, the Administration has already drafted clause 35(A) subclause 3(c) in such a way that the defence against unconscionable acts will automatically apply after the period of criminal sanction stated in clause 35 subclause 4(b), so there is no need to specify this period separately.
Mr Chairman, I urge Members to support the Administration's amendments to clause 35(A) and to vote against the amendments by Howard YOUNG, Dr HUANG Chen-ya as well as, Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
Thank you.
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫独綺笽某碞坝ぇ某のㄤセōぇ某の碞法У地某の朝挪狶某︑矗ぇ某祇ē独某祇ēセ畊穦叫法У地某の朝挪狶某祇ēㄢА碞兜某祇ēぃ筁独綺笽某法У地某┪朝挪狶某ぃ眔顶琿笆某弄某
独綺笽某璓勉畊砫臛臔琌竒筁礷阶眔挡狦и稰谅現┎程ご兜タ硂妓暗穦ゑ耕そキぃ穦熬ヴ︙︽穨τ┛菠禣の秈坝硂兜タ膀セ弘礚種獻デ盡ノ疭砛Τ舦痲ㄏ秈坝ぃ穦粇窽跋τ-
琂礛竒暗ìひ磷獻デ舦局Τ┪盡ノ疭砛Τ舦┮ぃ莱赣胓籃
矪瞶硂ㄆи-
祇谋Τ闽︽穨璹兵ㄒ種琌糤硓のミ郎单穨ずАи-
莱赣-
璓谅
иタ籔現┎タ斑ぃよㄤ龟琌材琿 "︽穨"蠢"舦局Τ"┪"盡ノ疭砛Τ"の糤材き琿のи-
臛阶筁法У地某タ材(e)(f)(g)琿斑ぃぇ矪琌法У地某圭腀玂痙現┎Τセ猭畑σ納舦局Τ┪盡ノ疭砛Τ︽琌薄瞶ぃ莱σ納舦局Τ┪盡ノ疭砛Τ痲莱芠σ納硂︽穨篋盽暗猭硂妓暗秈坝酚篋盽暗猭の眖タ盽坝穨àㄓσ納ぃ盢砯块τ禣ョぃ穦舦局Τ┪盡ノ疭砛Τ繦種籔渤ぃ┪縒疭︽璓禣舦痲穕
и-
谋眔現┎タ癸禣舦痲玂毁ご礛ぃì镑┮и粄иタ耕材き琿璶琌и谋眔猭畑埃σ納舦局Τの盡ノ疭砛Τ痲ョ莱赣σ納そ渤瞶璶―┮и材き琿硂ㄇ泊ㄏ禣à︹の舦痲ぃ璓玠τ礚猭ビ
法У地某璓勉畊и-
タ癚阶夹肈のㄇ盿ず甧и-
竒碞硂ㄇタず甧秈︽臛阶㎝∕ㄤい闽12る24るの18る戳阶Θ筁沮и秆朝挪狶某某夹肈籔24る戳Τ闽и-
竒钡18る戳璝瞷碞24る戳∕呸胯Τ拜肈
瘤礛現┎ぃ種材35兵ㄇ兵ゅ竒筁∕產竒钡ㄇ睲捶兵蹿產ョ碞現┎某夹肈∕﹚
独綺笽某秆睦筁タτи-
ョ碞材(4)蹿秈︽臛阶и-
ゼ睲贰狦穦︙и-
ぃ稱璹ㄓ材(4)蹿
硂薄猵∕抖闽玒瞷ゑ耕钡и笆某タ┮祘璶碞и某夹肈∕斗璶∕現┎の独綺笽某タ礛∕觅Θиタи粄︗莱∕は癸現┎某夹肈
〆穦畊法У地某セ畊ぃフ︙弧"夹肈"常琌材35A兵穝糤材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈琌"砫臛臔"τ材35A兵セō夹肈碞琌"碞材30の31兵τē砫臛臔"礛τず甧琌ぃ┮琘拇坝笆某弄碞琌弄某瘤礛琌妓夹肈琌ず甧ぃフ盾
セ畊弧硂ㄇ糤干穝璹兵ゅ某ぃ琌タ種琌弧碞兵ゅㄓ弧ぃ琌タ琌碞兵ㄒㄓ弧琌タ盢琘兵ㄒい兵ゅэㄤい琘ㄇ琘ㄇ琘ㄇ单┪盢兵ゅ埃ê摸碞琌タ琌糤干穝璹兵ゅ某碞兵ㄒτē常琌タウ盢セ兵ㄒい⊿Τ兵ゅ秈赣兵ㄒいヘ常琌タ俱兜兵ㄒ硂翴┪斗產坚睲
朝挪狶某璓勉畊и-
﹚舦猭璶ヘ琌玂毁承舦舦┮и粄┮Τ兵ゅ莱赣结ぉ舦局Τ程ㄎ舦玂毁18る戳琘祘琌钡и-
羆琌谋眔Τ翴ぃぃ摸
场だ〆矗﹚舦猭琌璶玂毁禣痲и谋眔и-
ぃ﹚兵舦猭籔禣キ颗猭硂妓暗穦盢俱兵舦猭眔獶苆獶皑ㄆ龟и-
酵舦局Τ┪盡ノ疭砛Τ莱赣眖俱砰痲σ納ぃ虫ゎ酵阶禣痲ㄢ痲常琌璓
硂拜肈チ羛粄莱臮承㎝禣痲玂毁承舦舦独綺笽某谋眔и-
凹穨иЧぃ種猭ヘ玡翠禫ㄓ禫ぶ承穨筿紇佰︽穨┪箂扳︽穨ずΤ计窾蝴ネ舦猭癸-
ㄣΤ獶盽紇臫
狦и-
ぃ倒ぉ-
続讽玂毁杠程沧ョ穦紇臫禣痲┮и癸硄筁18る戳ご礛稰框狙玱粄钡谅谅畊
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊Τ闽朝挪狶某タ矗舦局Τ┪盡ノ疭砛Τぃ薄瞶琌珇翠┪ㄤよ祇ぱ癬璸24る骸ぇ秈︽狦Τ闽ê24る戳ずぃ薄瞶⊿拜肈Τ禬筁24るぇぃ薄瞶痷砆跌ぃ薄瞶硂ンㄆセōΤ翴ぃ薄瞶朝挪狶某斗璶σ納τи辨產ぃ璶ボや
и笵兵ㄒずΤê或タ琌穦〆稰Τ翴睼睹砛и坚睲法У地某の現┎タ膀セ畉ぃЧ⊿Τだ埃subclause(5)癸ぃ癬畊subclause(5)いゅ或弧
畊莱嘿蹿clause琌兵subclause琌蹿蛤section㎝subsection妓
㏄辩睶┥某╯澈或璶材(5)蹿㎡и-
钡箂扳и-
矗ㄑ场だ種ǎ箂扳よ纯矗の稱盢穨ず暗猭ㄒ5ぱㄑ莱莱兵ゅずи-
σ納筁硂翴и-
谋眔ぃ莱赣猭ㄒ硂或祑┦の疷砏﹚┮и-
ぃ钡硂種ǎ琌и-
钡玥莱赣材(5)蹿或㎡
材(4)蹿い現┎﹚舦舦睲贰弧"斗盢舦局Τ┪盡ノ疭砛ΤΤだ祇赣摸珇狡籹珇......"传杠弧σ納蝴臔舦局Τの盡ノ疭砛Τ舦痲琌箂扳坝穦谋眔Τ闽兵ゅ⊿Τ弧ㄇ琌ぃ瞶瞶パ┪兵蹿獽アキ颗┮ゲ斗Τ摸砏﹚и-
钡硂弧猭谋眔Τ惠璶材(5)蹿
独綺笽某笆某タ材(4)蹿現┎矗兵ゅい癸︽穨篋盽暗猭σ納ㄓ蠢癸舦局Τ琂Τ篋盽暗猭σ納и-
谋眔狦材(4)蹿い癸舦局Τの盡ノ疭砛Τ琂Τ篋盽暗猭σ納獽穦アキ颗
и辨︗ㄆや法У地某タは癸現┎タ觅Θ兵ㄒず材(5)蹿
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I would like to appeal to Members to support the Administration's motion on clause 35(A) and I would like to highlight a feature that has just occurred to the Administration. And that is, if the Administration's motion is rejected, the voting will then go to the motions to be moved by Dr the Honourable HUANG Chen-ya, the Honourable Howard YOUNG and the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam. If the voting is split between Dr HUANG Chen-ya and Howard YOUNG's motions, Members will then have to vote on the third motion to be moved by Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
Since Mr CHAN Kam-lam's motion incorporates a 24-month criminal sanction period for parallel importation which is blatantly contradictory to what Members have just supported in the context of the Committee stage amendment to clause 35 subclause (4), we would have an extremely difficult and precarious situation. Were Members to vote in favour of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's motion, we would end up with an ordinance with two sections which are contradictory to each other because section 35 (4) would stipulate a criminal sanction period for parallel importation of 18 months whereas this particular new clause 35(A) would incorporate the sense that the criminal sanction period for parallel importations should be 24 months.
I fear and I apologize that this particular complication has only occurred to myself and my colleagues sitting here listening to Members' speeches just now. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to urge Members to avoid enacting a piece of legislation that contains blatant and inherent inconsistencies, and I appeal to Members to avoid this situation from happening by voting in favour of the Administration's motion on the new clause 35(A).
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
〆穦畊セ畊盢坝ぇ某窖砰〆穦∕ぇ玡セ畊稱矗眶︗〆坝Τ闽弄ㄤ某ぇ穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材35A兵ぇ某莉∕ボ独綺笽某法У地某の朝挪狶某︑矗ぇ某ぃ莉硄筁坝ぇ某綝∕セ畊穦叫独綺笽某笆某弄ㄤ某ぇ穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材35A兵︓法У地某の朝挪狶某琌笆某弄-
某眔跌砰〆穦碞独綺笽某ぇ某┮ぇ∕﹚
Question on the Second Reading of the Secretary for Trade Industry's new clause and heading put and negatived.
坝ぇ穝璹兵ゅの夹肈弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕綝∕
〆穦畊パ坝ぇ某ぃ莉∕セ畊瞷叫独綺笽某笆弄ㄤ某ぇ穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材35A兵
独綺笽某璓勉畊и笆某タ更祇癳︗某ゅンず
Question on the Second Reading of Dr HUANG Chen-ya's new clause and heading put.
独綺笽某ぇ穝璹兵ゅの夹肈弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Dr HUANG Chen-ya claimed a division.
独綺笽某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈独綺笽某某ぇ穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹35A兵ぉ弄
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG 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 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, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the motion and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某28は癸26琌ガタ莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
〆穦畊パ独綺笽某Τ闽弄ㄤ某ぇ穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材35A兵ぇ某莉∕法У地某┪朝挪狶某ぃ笆某弄ㄤ︑矗ぇ某
独綺笽某璓勉畊и笆某盢穝璹材35A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材35A兵兵ㄒず
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 35A (See annex X)
穝璹材35A兵ǎンX
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
Heading before New clause 85A
穝璹材85A兵ぇ玡夹肈
New clause 85A
穝璹兵ㄒ材85A兵Designs
芠砞璸
Corresponding design
莱芠砞璸New clause 85B
穝璹兵ㄒ材85B兵Effect of exploitation of design derived from artistic work
ノ眖美砃珇璴ネ芠砞璸New clause 85C
穝璹兵ㄒ材85C兵Things done in reliance on registration of design
ㄌ沮芠砞璸爹τㄆ薄New clause 123A
穝璹兵ㄒ材123A兵Protection of informers in criminal proceedings
癸ㄆ猭祘い祇玂毁New clause 182A
穝璹兵ㄒ材182A兵Groundless threat of proceedings in relation to parallel import
矗癬籔キ︽秈Τ闽猭祘礚瞶
Clauses 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
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that the heading before new clause 85(A) and new clause 85(A), new clauses 85(B), 85(C), 123(A) and 182(A) as set out in the papers circularized to Members be read the Second time.
The Administration's proposals seek to clarify the relationship between copyright and the rights for registered designs. It is stipulated that registerable but unregistered designs shall enjoy copyright protection for 15 years from the date of the first industrial application of such a design, whereas for a registered design the copyright protection for the design will run concurrent to the term of protection under the Registered Designs Ordinance to a maximum of 25 years. This proposal has been discussed and endorsed by the Bills Committee on both the Copyright Bill and the Registered Designs Bill.
Clause 123(a) is designed to protect the identity of informers in criminal proceedings and clause 182(A) to protect innocent parties from unwarranted and groundless threats of civil action. Both of these provisions have been discussed and endorsed by the Bills Committee.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the Second Reading of the clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that the heading before new clause 85(A) and new clause 85(A), new clauses 85(B), 85(C), 123(A) and 182(A) be added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
览某糤干
Heading before new clause 85A and new clause 85A (See annex X)
穝璹材85A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材85A兵ǎンX
New clause 85B (See annex X)
穝璹材85B兵ǎンX
New clause 85C (See annex X)
穝璹材85C兵ǎンX
New clause 123A (See annex X)
穝璹材123A兵ǎンX
New clause 182A (See annex X)
穝璹材182A兵ǎンX
Question on the addition of the Heading before new clause 85A and new clause 85A, new clauses 85B, 85C, 123A and 182A proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝璹材85A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材85A兵の穝璹材85B85C123Aの182A兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Schedules 1 and 5 were agreed to.
1の5莉眔硄筁
Schedule 2
2
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The proposed changes are all editorial in nature and deal mainly with the consistency of the Chinese and English texts of the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Schedule 2 (See annex X)
2ǎンX
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedule 2 be further amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Mr Chairman, when we were discussing all the amendments related to this Bill at a rather late stage we did have representations from influential members of the retail trade. They said to us that they had existing stocks in Hong Kong which they had already imported quite legally, but they were afraid that should this Bill be passed then immediately these existing stocks that they had would immediately come under this new Bill and therefore bear the risk of infringing the copyright law.
Whereas it can be argued, and I believe the Secretary for Industry and Trade did argue this morning that legislation is not retroactive, and by passing a law today you cannot relate back to existing stocks, the retail trade was still not very much relieved or content with this explanation. They said that if we do not add in something, like the subclause 4(A) which I am proposing, that provides clarity, then they said to one extreme they might have to pull out about 50% of this existing stocks from their stores now for fear of infringing the law.
As this request from the retail trade came up at a rather late stage, we do not have too much time to really go into details of whether this is a real threat or were they exaggerating the situation. However, they did put it to us very strongly and lobbied many Members to ask for some clarity and protection for what is really only existing old stock that had been imported into Hong Kong before this Bill comes into effect. Therefore that is the reason for my moving this clause.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Schedule 2 (See annex X)
2ǎンX
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I really cannot over-emphasize the objectionable nature of the Honourable Howard YOUNG's amendment, not only on copyright protection grounds but on legal policy and legal principle grounds.
In the consideration of the Copyright Bill there have been repeated requests that we should amend the transitional provisions as drafted and gazetted in Schedule 2 of the Copyright Bill to clarify the position of parallel importation under the existing law.
I would like to put the matter beyond doubt once and for all. I would like to state for the record that the transitional provisions as gazetted have been drafted in full accordance with established legal principles and legal policy. They stipulate clearly that acts committed before the commencement of the new law will be bound by the existing law. Acts committed after commencement will be subject to the new law. This is totally equitable and fair.
Therefore, a copyright article which has been imported before commencement of the new law and which has not infringed copyright under the law existing at the time of importation will remain not infringing. The subsequent possession and dealing in that article will also remain non-infringing notwithstanding the commencement of the new law. On the other hand, a copyright article which was imported under the existing law as an infringing copy cannot and should not be made non-infringing through a provision in the new law. The subsequent possession and dealing in this article should also remain infringing notwithstanding the commencement of the new law.
Whether an article has infringed copyright under the existing law is for the courts of Hong Kong to decide, having regard to how that law was drafted. It would be a grave mistake for the legislature to attempt to impose on the courts an
interpretation of the existing law in favour of a particular category of parties through an amendment to Schedule 2 of the Copyright Bill, and this is exactly what Mr Howard YOUNG's Committee stage amendment would bring about.
I understand this amendment has been triggered by the consideration that the existing law is not clear on whether goods imported in breach of the terms of exclusive licence agreements constitute an infringing copy. That may be so but we still have to leave the interpretation of the existing law to the courts. The legislature should not legislate retrospectively to the effect that the terms of exclusive licence agreements should be disregarded. This unfortunately would be exactly the outcome if the Committee stage amendment on Schedule 2 of the Copyright Bill introduced by the Honourable Howard YOUNG was approved.
As retrospective legislation this would have significant and far-reaching consequences. I am duty-bound to explain the impact in some detail for Members' careful consideration. To legislate in the way proposed by Mr Howard YOUNG could be ruled unconstitutional because it amounts to taking away vested property right from exclusive licensees retrospectively. It amounts to legalising the existing stock of infringing copyright articles retrospectively. It means that parallel importers need not be answerable to their widely-believed potential civil liabilities and their potential criminal liabilities.
Having just voted in favour of clause 35 of the Copyright Bill which subjects parallel imports which are in breach of exclusive licence agreements to limited term criminal actions and full term civil actions, it would be irrational and contradictory for the Council to support Mr Howard YOUNG's amendment. This is because the amendment has the effect of asking the courts to disregard the exclusive licensee's existing interests and to exempt parallel imports from both civil and criminal liabilities.
I suggest to Members that the courts would be extremely confused about the contradictory provision in clause 35 of the Copyright Bill as approved by this Council just now and that in Mr Howard YOUNG's amended Schedule 2, should it be approved. This is because clause 35 explicitly states that exclusive licence agreements are relevant to the determination of what constitutes an infringing copy. However, the proposed amended Schedule 2 suggests exactly the opposite. It suggests that the terms of exclusive licence agreements are to be disregarded when clause 35 and the proposed Schedule 2 are read together. The courts will not know what the legislative intent is.
Mr Chairman, we accept that the existing law may not be too clear on whether an article imposed in breach of an exclusive licence agreement is to be caught as an infringing copy, but the new law, and clause 35 of the Bill in particular, will put the Government's policy intention which is supported by this Council, beyond doubt. We have made clear that parallel imports which are in breach of exclusive licence agreements should be restricted. Schedule 2 to the Bill also draws a clear dividing line between acts done under the existing law and those to be committed under the new law. As explained, acts done under the existing law will be subject to the ruling of the existing law, not the new one. Further amendments to this Schedule will only cloud the issue. They are not necessary and they are extremely unfair.
Mr Chairman, I appeal in the strongest terms to Members to support the Schedule 2 to the Bill as proposed by the Government and to vote against Mr Howard YOUNG's amendment.
3.44 pm
と344だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶〆穦畊辩醇翬某既穦某
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉瞶畊坝ēㄆ薄ぃ┮弧腨ㄤ龟璝法У地某タ2タぃ莉硄筁兵ㄒゼ硄筁ぇ玡好拜獽穦膥尿ㄒ沮璣瓣猭ㄒゼ竒疭砛疭砛┪笻は疭砛τ秈砯珇琌獻舦︽㎡硂よ琌Τ好拜瞷薄ぃ琌猭ㄒㄓ﹚硂琌獻舦︽瞷穝猭ㄒ硄筁碞ぃ衡琌獻舦︽薄猵荡癸ぃ琌硂妓и-
タ癚阶╯澈猭ㄒ┕獻舦︽临衡ぃ衡琌獻舦︽㎡
硂好拜ㄏ秈坝の箂扳坝磓沧らは滦秖-
玡秈砯珇┏Τ⊿Τ獻舦坝弧Τ材35兵砏﹚玡好拜碞ぃ瞷璶笻は疭砛獽竒琌獻舦︽琌玡秈砯珇琌ぃ硂﹚竡┮и-
璶絋弧兵ㄒ硄筁ぇ玡竒秈砯珇ぃ硂﹚竡坝ぃノ好納耑ㄆ龟-
Τ竒秈砯珇ご礛砯い
沮現┎弧猭瘤礛硂ㄇ坝秈砯珇ら戳琌兵ㄒ莉硄筁ぇ玡讽-
扳芥硂ㄇ坝珇穦牟猭㎡┮穝猭ㄒネぇ-
ご礛穦Τ好拜
狦и-
钡法У地某タ坚睲硂贺ぃ睲捶┪ま璓禗砠薄猵眖ゑ耕叭龟àㄓ瞷秈砯珇琌キ︽秈よΑ秈ヘ玡ゎ⊿Τ沮瞷︽猭ㄒ嘿-
獻舦⊿Τ北-
或и-
ぃ穝猭ㄒず盢ぃ睲捶┪好ㄆ秆∕㎡ヘ玡ゎ⊿Τ蹦猭︽笆⊿Τ矗癬禗砠⊿Τ疭砛坝猭畑癚そ笵琂礛或ぃ猭ㄒず睲捶更ㄇ筁寸┦兵ゅ盢続ノ兵ㄒ硄筁ぇ玡秈砯珇砏﹚睲捶よ獽產宽碻
坝矗發饭拜肈и谋眔琂礛瞷竒沮Τ猭ㄒ﹚硂ㄇ砯珇竒獻舦┮ぃ疉の發饭拜肈и-
莱盢好拜坚睲沮穝砏﹚暗ㄆ
谅谅瞶畊
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr Chairman, I would like to say I entirely agree with the Secretary and appreciate very much the strength of her argument, the clarity of her view, the comprehensiveness of her understanding and her moral rectitude, and I find her arguments entirely convincing and intellectually powerful, with particular reference to retrospectivity.
独綺笽某璓勉瞶畊セチ囊钮筁穨種ǎョ谋眔Τ惠璶Τ筁寸兵ゅ逼┮и-
セや法У地某タ琎ぱと現┎﹛ǎチ囊ㄆ矗の坝祇種ǎ現┎﹛矗硂Τ笻舅猭弘猭ㄒ砏﹚ア發饭┦舦局Τの盡ノ疭砛Τ⊿猭碞獻デ舦狡籹珇癚そ笵┮チ囊谋眔﹚璶タ跌硂拜肈
琎ぱとи纯癸法У地某弧チ囊璶穝σ納硂拜肈┮琎ぱ边и-
ミ碝―猭種ǎ过╯硂兵ゅи-
眔猭種ǎ琌硂兵ゅㄤ龟⊿Τ玠舦Τ┪盡ノ疭砛ΤΤ舦痲ㄤ龟硂タ弧兵ㄒネぇ玡竒块⊿Τ獻デ舦狡籹珇拜肈チ囊穦膥尿や法У地某タ
法У地某璓勉瞶畊иだ痙み钮Τ闽坝タ臛阶иゑ耕腀種眖瞷龟àㄓ癸妓秆∕Τ砯拜肈и谋眔ゼゲ斗璶乎帹弧硂琌舅┪舅猭拜肈и粄パミ猭Ы酚猭﹚祘硄筁猭常琌舅
硂兜タ種ぃ琌稱盢筁ぃ猭ㄆ猭ては琌辨盢筁⊿Τ笻は猭ㄆぃ穦礚珿跑ぃ猭箂扳坝礚┮続眖
埃猭㎝畍纯и-
秆睦ぇ翠Τ紇臫箂扳坝常赤羪癸и-
弧"狦硄筁硂兵ㄒΤ闽砏﹚ごぃ睲贰杠и-
ぃ幢玙繧暗デ猭ㄆ┤и-
痷璶盢┍鏓ず瞷Τ砯綪反"-
谋眔硂暗猭癸-
獶盽ぃそキ-
璶―兵ㄒだ睲贰﹚弧玡猭秈砯ぃ穦硄筁セ兵ㄒτ跑Θぃ猭
㏄辩睶┥某タ絋︓瞷ゎ常⊿Τヴ︙﹙禗砠琌パ現┎北秈坝秈獻舦砯狦Τ現┎北и-
临弧硂兵ㄒ猭畑掉∕ㄆ龟瞷⊿Τ硂摸τ筁⊿Τ砆北ぃ筁箂扳坝ご礛だ辨セ兵ㄒ癸ㄤ瞷Τ砯睲捶﹚
и-
ご礛绊辨產や硄筁硂タ
3.53 pm
と353だ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
Question on Mr Howard YOUNG's amendment put.
法У地某笆某ぇタ窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈法У地某笆某ぇタぉ弄
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr Henry TANG, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Mrs Elizabeth WONG voted against the amendment.
Dr Philip WONG abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 39 votes in favour of the amendment and 14 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ39は癸14琌ガタ莉硄筁
Question on Schedule 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ2ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Schedules 3 and 4
3の4
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedules 3 and 4 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
All the proposed amendments are editorial or technical in nature and have been endorsed by the Bills Committee.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Schedule 3 (See annex X)
3ǎンX
Schedule 4 (See annex X)
4ǎンX
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Schedules 3 and 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ3の4ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY reported that the
坝厨孔
COPYRIGHT BILL
舦兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1997
兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 April 1997
確るら笆某弄臛阶
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, I rise to speak as chair of the Bills Committee on the Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1997. This Bill seeks to introduce further measures to control the use, sale and promotion of tobacco products. In parallel our committee also studied a Member's Bill introduced by the Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung. This Bill seeks to extend the prohibition of all forms and manners of tobacco advertising and to extend the scope of the designated no-smoking areas.
The Bills Committee held five meetings, four of which were attended by the Administration. The Bills Committee received over 100 written submissions, many lobbying postcards and signatures from a campaign. We also met deputations from 38 organizations. These included representatives from smoking prevention groups, medical and health associations, the tobacco industry, advertisers, the media, sports and arts groups, event marketing agents, restaurant owner associations as well as other parties.
Members note the strong support for Dr LEONG's Bill from both local and overseas smoking prevention and medical groups. Members also note the opposition to Dr LEONG's Bill from the tobacco and advertising industries in particular. The Committee also recorded the concerns by other organizations regarding the possible difficulties created for them in the implementation of both the Government's and Dr LEONG's Bills.
In view of the time constraint, and to facilitate discussion of the two Bills, Dr LEONG proposed at the beginning of our deliberation that the Government's Bill should be used as the basis for discussion, and he would propose amendments to make the Bill more effective and that he would consider withdrawing his Bill if he was satisfied with improvements to the Government's Bill. Members supported his suggestion and to this end Dr LEONG and other Members will be raising various amendments today.
I will now briefly describe the main issues considered by the Bills Committee.
The first issue concerned whether both Bills contravened the Bill of Rights as they both seek to restrict advertisement. Members noted a 1995 Canadian court case cited by the tobacco industry in support of their claim that the Bills interfered with freedom of expression. The Administration argues that its Bill does not contravene Article 16(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. Our own legal advisor agrees for two reasons. Firstly, the Government's Bill does not seek to ban advertisement completely, and secondly, under Article 16, the freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions which are provided by law and are necessary for the protection of public health.
The Committee notes that the Canadian case concerned a total ban on advertisement which is not the case with the Government's Bill. The Committee further notes that the Canadian Supreme Court was unanimous that the protection of health of young persons from inducement to use tobacco products were of sufficient importance to warrant overriding the freedom of expression provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Some Members highlighted that even in the case of imposing a total ban on advertising there are existing legitimate businesses which are not allowed to advertise because of public interest or professional ethics. Thus, even for Dr LEONG's Bill it cannot be said for sure that it contravenes our Bill of Rights.
The second issue, Mr President, concerns designation of no-smoking areas. Currently cinemas, theatres, concert halls, public lifts and amusement game centres are designated no-smoking areas. Clause 3 of the Bill empowers the manager of any premises specified in Schedule 4 to designate any such premises or part thereof as a no-smoking area.
The premises included in Schedule 4 are restaurants, department stores, shopping malls, supermarkets and banks. The Administration explains that the present proposals are targeted at sizeable enclosed areas open to the public. In response to a proposal made by Dr LEONG the Administration will move an amendment to add schools and other educational institutes in the proposed Schedule 4. Some Members consider that karaoke establishments should be included alongside restaurants. Some Members believe that supermarkets, department stores and restaurants should be included in Schedule 2 instead of Schedule 4.
Members generally share the view that the designation of no-smoking areas will be a problem for small restaurants with only a few tables and they should be exempted. In order to protect the health of non-smokers, Members of the Democratic Party consider that for restaurants exceeding a certain size at least 50 percent of the public area should be designated no-smoking area unless the whole restaurant is used for a private function, such as a banquet. Function rooms with separate air-conditioning units may also be exempted. The Democratic Party will move an amendment in this regard. The Administration considers that more
time is required to refine the concept of designated no-smoking areas and will consider any further proposals for future implementation only.
The third issue concerns tobacco advertisements in printed publications. Clause 10 repeals the exemption granted under section 11 to local newspapers with a circulation in Hong Kong of less than 10 000 copies and which constitutes not more than 20 percent of the paper's total circulation. In addition to the health warning already required the advertisements will also be required to show the tar and nicotine yields instead of just the tar group designation.
Dr LEONG considers that the proposed arrangement will not be able to meet the tobacco advertising-free target by the year 2000 set by the World Health Organization Western Pacific Region. The Administration indicates that it prefers to adopt a gradual approach with no specific time table set for the next move. In view of the lack of commitment on the part of the Administration to meet the 1999 deadline, Dr LEONG will move an amendment to prohibit tobacco advertisement in printed publications by the 31 December 1999. The exemptions under the existing section 11(3)(A) will be retained. In addition those publications printed in Hong Kong but are for circulation outside Hong Kong will also be exempt.
The next main issue concerns prohibition of display of tobacco advertisement. Clause 11 amends section 12 to prohibit the display of any tobacco advertisement in writing or in other permanent or semi-permanent form. The Administration proposes that this clause takes effect 24 months after the passage of the Bill. Members have divided views on the effective date. In this
connection Members note from examples in countries such as China, Mongolia, Norway and New Zealand the usual lead time for tobacco control legislation to implementation is six to 12 months.
A few Members consider that as most advertisement sign contracts are for three years, a three-year period should be allowed to avoid contractual difficulties. Both the Administration and the Bills Committee's legal advisors have pointed out that under common law any contracts rendered illegal or unenforceable due to change of legislation will become voidable contracts with no legal obligations on either side. The Administration maintains the view that two years is a reasonable period, however Dr LEONG believes the period is too long since the usual lead time in other countries is six to 12 months.
A Member considers that the requirement for health warning and tar and nicotine yields should extend to tobacco advertisement in the premises of any manufacturer of tobacco products or any wholesale dealer of tobacco products in order that the staff concerned may also be made aware of the warnings and for consistency with other improvements. Some Members support his view in principle, but some envisage that it will cause operational difficulties.
Mr President, the next main issue concerns display of advertisement at point of sale. Members note that small individual cigarette retailers are hard-hit by competition from contraband cigarettes and they need the six to seven thousand dollars monthly subsidy in the form of small advertisement gifts and for displaying flags or an umbrella showing the brand name at their stalls. Members are sympathetic to their plight and one Member has proposed that display of advertisement at point of sale should be permitted. As point of sale includes convenience stores, supermarkets and department stores as well, most Members consider that the term is too wide.
The Administration points out the display of an umbrella showing the brand name will be considered as an advertisement. It considers that such an exemption will give rise to many loopholes and will reduce the effectiveness of the ban. To accommodate the small group of small individual retailers, the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW will move an amendment to allow the display of tobacco advertisement in or upon a retail outlet where tobacco products are sold. Dr LEONG will move amendments to exempt advertisement at any stall or pitch of a licensed hawker selling tobacco products in or upon any premises of a retail dealer dealing in commodities including tobacco products and employing less than two persons, provided that it bears a health warning in the prescribed form and manner.
Members are also concerned about the proposed amendments to section 14 to refine the meaning of tobacco advertisement and to provide for exemption. In response to the concern expressed by the electronic media the Administration has reviewed the provisions in new sections 14(1)(c) and (2), but it considers that new section 14(3) already provides sufficient protection to address their concerns as it states that, and I quote, "any accidental or incidental appearance of any tobacco product or the trade mark, trade name, brand name or logo of any tobacco product where no valuable consideration has been or is intended to be given for such appearance is not a tobacco advertisement".
The Democratic Party expressed concern regarding the provision in new section 14(2)(iii) which allows the name of any company or any name associated or identified with any tobacco products to be used as the sponsor of any event, or in congratulating another person or some thing on an achievement, and asked the Administration to review the need for the provision relating to messages of congratulation. While the Administration wishes to retain the provision, Dr LEONG proposes to limit it only to the name of the company or body corporate as the sponsor of an event and will move an amendment to this effect.
Finally, the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung is presenting an amendment which the Bills Committee did not have any opportunity to discuss with him. This was an amendment that was put through at the very last minute, so I am unable to make any comment on it on behalf of the Bills Committee as a whole.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Members of the Bills Committee, the Administration and Legislative Council Secretariat for their hard work in completing the task of scrutinizing this quite contentious Bill within a very tight time table. I would like to, of course, thank all the interested organisations and individuals who wrote to us profusely and who were willing to come before the Council for many hours to help us scrutinize the Bill.
Before I close, Mr President, I would like to add a few of my own personal remarks. I know that Members were wary of the generality of Dr LEONG's original Bill when it was first introduced. It should be clear, however, that much has happened since then. The Bill before us today is a carefully formulated proposal which contains measures that are already widely implemented elsewhere. It is by international standards, Mr President, a very mild Bill. The fact has been underscored by the settlement reached in the United States America only a few days ago in which the tobacco companies agreed to many of the most stringent measures imposed by this Bill.
There is probably no other legal product that kills so many people with such grim regularity as tobacco, and Mr President, I would advise you to stop smoking yourself! Though we may not be accustomed to think of it in these terms, tobacco is in fact both addictive and toxic and the anomaly is that it remains a legal product at all rather than a strictly regulated one. It poses an international health problem of terrible magnitude, the cause of which is well established and yet in Hong Kong we are only beginning to take the first serious steps to combat it.
What steps should we take? This is the crux of the Bill of Rights argument made against this Bill. Even the tobacco industry does not have the temerity to argue that their right to commercial speech overrides the public health hazard posed by their product. Instead they argue that the effectiveness of advertising bans has not been established and that such bans, therefore, cannot be regarded under the Bill of Rights as necessary to protect public health.
It is a clever argument. It suggests that we need to know exactly why people take up such a fatal habit before we can take action to stop them doing so. This raises questions about human motives that are perhaps best left to philosophers. Certainly science cannot provide absolute answers in this area. No one will ever run a controlled test, for example, in which they expose young people to advertisements for a lethal product and count how many become addicted. There would, therefore, always be room for the tobacco industry to cast doubts on the evidence.
But we must not allow ourselves to be paralysed by such well-funded doubts. We do not need absolute evidence before we can do something. Nor is there any realistic alternative to advertising restrictions. Public health education by itself simply cannot work so long as the social environment remains saturated with direct and indirect tobacco promotions. Realistically the measures contained in this Bill are a prerequisite to effective public education. Whilst I take the Bill of Rights very seriously I do not believe that the Bill of Rights' objection to this Bill merits serious consideration.
I urge Members to support Dr LEONG's and other Members' amendments to the Bill.
朝篴篱某璓勉畊и-
フ礚阶琌废临琌"も废"常穦妓穕甡ō砰胺眃玂毁獶废┪废︓ゥ包㎝胺眃羛穦觅Θ"は废"
瞷現┎よ肚┚カチ粄醚废甡矪よ玥搭废約护ㄏカチ诀穦癸废摸坝珇杆綪扳︓約肚单常Τ腨砏﹚㎝現┎矗1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒまㄇ惫琁璶秈˙恨废玻珇ㄏノ扳芥㎝崩約膀セ羛穦癸硂翴ボ觅
パ"は废"疉の都︽穨и非称碞赣︽穨闽猔㎝紐納量瓃ㄇ種ǎ現┎兵ㄒ材3兵结舦皊加竩单矪┮恨瞶﹚赣单矪┮┪ㄤヴ︙场だ窽ゎ废跋ボ竩恨瞶紆┦矪瞶砞ミ窽废跋ㄆ﹜都穨癸硂翴ボ舧粄琌龟ㄆ―琌暗猭琌霉璓某笆某タ玱某"僚埃╬ㄆ叭縒Τノず畊︗矗ㄑ筁200畊︗繺繻ㄤ恨瞶惠﹚ぃぶだぇ縩窽ゎ废跋"玥恨瞶獽妮笻猭竒﹚竜矪材籃蹿璝и⊿Τ癘岿杠沮瞷︽夹非琌籃蹿翠刽25,000じ
畊セ皊┍の都穨ボ眏疨は癸霉璓某ぃび睲贰㎝秆都︽穨薄猵┮禩礛某龟︽穝惫琁ミ猭眏竩砞ミ窽废跋崩約┪崩笆は废霉某セ⊿Τσ納ㄣ砰笲螟㎝酚臮赣︽穨ネ拜肈の癸都穨竒犁┮盿ㄓぃ紇臫竩稱暗ネ種ゲ斗琵臮稰滴続骸種ぃゴ耑竒盽璶荷ㄤ荷ㄤノ霉某某璶―矗ㄑ筁200畊︗竩购﹚ぃぶだぇ縩窽废跋籔竩龟悔笲ぃ皌螟龟︽盢穦紇臫竩タ盽笲癸竩恨瞶τēよ┮竒犁﹚穦Τ螟τ癸ㄓ弧⊿Τ斗ミ猭眏ゲ璶
瘤礛霉某笆某瓃タぇ玡纯セ筁吭高讽⊿Τ絋ちタず甧㎝砏﹚и纯霉璓某矗辨蔼╋禥も笆某タ癸都穨紇臫荷秖罽ミㄒ眏都穨砏﹚购砞窽ゎ废跋ㄆ莱碻亥秈˙˙ǐㄒ犁穨縩耕竩砏﹚惠璶砞ミ窽ゎ废跋ㄏい竩ぃ璓兵ㄒ硄筁τ綝紇臫
霉某タ矗Τ200畒︗竩獽斗璶砞"窽废跋"砏﹚タ紇臫计渤い皊加竩戳セぃ耞Μ都穨種ǎ-
癸霉璓某タボ眏疨は癸-
ノ畒︗计秖ㄓ络﹚琌斗璶砞ミ窽废跋琌ぃ︽磅︽Τ﹚螟и穦砰〆穦糵某顶琿祇ē疭硂翴
畊辨搭ぶ废┪崩︽"は废"莱蹦弧狝毙▅肚废癸胺眃甡矪セ琌苂洁現┎硂兵兵ㄒウ琵都穨Τ紆┦购﹚窽废跋ㄤ龟現┎废そ渤徖ネ兵ㄒ︑龟琁ㄓ贺肚毙▅崩約セ獺τ砛ョΤ龟悔计沮陪ボㄓ废计陪砛盡產倒ぉㄇ種ǎㄒ沮и┮瞷59︗ミ猭Ы某い废Τㄢ︗畊硂よ计穦ゑи睲贰セЫ睲贰某ㄇ遁
筿紇栏皘ご购だ獶废跋セ竒盽潦布筿紇セ瘤礛ぃ琌废и尺舧购︗Г废跋畊иぃ琌尺舧"も废"τ琌废跋辨礚悔ぶ咀跌帹潦布Г"废跋"归归计┮и尺舧ê娩Г瞷Τㄇ繺芔砞Τ"废跋"妓"废跋"ず计琌ゑㄒ伐ぶΤネ種穦骸畒Τ废㎝獶废舧绑瞷禜硂琌產Τ竒喷ぃノи弧ㄓミㄒ眏︽砏﹚都穨璶购窽废跋┪废跋琌ぃゲ璶ョぃ斗びノぃ畕糤都穨竒犁螟㎝陈沸τ瞷禥薄猵璝皊加场だ畒︗竚ぃだノ癸都穨ㄓ弧琌贺ゴ阑瞷皊加竩计禟セ┍砞Τ废跋┪セ┍砞Τ獶废跋夹粁倒臮︑パ匡拒琌臮硂丁竩硂よ猭笲▆龟⊿Τゲ璶э跑瞷笲家Α
畊и都穨弧杠都穨ぃ琌は癸砞窽废跋τ琌莱Τ糴肞㎝睲捶猭ㄒ都穨踞み狦Τぃ瞶穦籃玥牡ぃ钡竩官璸┪磅猭腢畴绊废繦穦珼癬縤揽㎝硂琂都穨眖穨璽踞τ临穦甡璚竩竒犁
畊瞷竒犁都︽穨竒獶盽螟產笵瞷璶澄基渡綪Τㄇ锣琌羬疭跋匡現獀猑铆﹚硈盿都穨砍ㄇぃ筁竒犁ご礛螟狦㎝竩ぇ丁㎝坑闽玒綝瘆胊硑Θ瑈ア墩盢都穨ネ種↖ゴ阑碩犁穨肂丁钡ゴ阑碞穨诀穦セ赖叫︗某は癸霉璓某タ
畊セ略朝勉は癸タや現┎兵ㄒ
霉璓某璓勉畊硂兵さぱ確弄1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒの祔硈﹃タ┮疉の渤ミ初猭だ猂の贺贺拜肈セЫ耕Ν玡硄筁辩醇翬某┮矗某臛阶ㄤ龟常竒量瓃筁┮さぱ硂Ω磒弄臛阶ずи辨镑荷秖弘虏哪猂и-
癸硂拜肈ㄇ膀セミ初
и-
チ囊癸は废拜肈┪琌︙琘ㄇ初┮ず废τま璓ㄤ"も废"拜肈膀セ琌Τㄢ玥材琌約よ玥и-
玥辨荷秖搭ぶ約癸ぃ废ま疭琌癸獵ぶま糤-
废诀穦材玥琌荷秖搭ぶ"も废"癸ぃ废紇臫癸︙磅︽硂ㄢ玥σ納ㄤ龟琌讽狡馒и-
璶σ納材拜肈琌約碞琌и-
龟琁穦紇臫ㄇΤ闽犁穨の穦祏戳ず盿ㄓぃゲ璶続莱拜肈┪螟続莱螟ㄒ疉の㎝竨ノ单拜肈よи-
璶σ納琌и-
琌р废单瑀㎡瞷洛厩竒﹚废癸废の"も废"胺眃Τ胊紇臫俱砰穦︓さごゼ跌废琌瑀︽┮и-
璹俱砰現郸ゲ斗玂続讽キ颗
セ兵ㄒ埃疉の約拜肈疉の窽ゎ废跋┪獶废跋单拜肈闽チ囊玥粄┮Τそ渤初┮狦琌ず杠膀セ琌莱赣场窽ゎ废狦硂ㄇず初┮镑Τ丁縒ミτだ秨┬丁砞Τ縒ミ秸竊购废跋タи-
ミ猭Ы加琌Τ臥Τ┬丁琵ㄆㄤず废τ俱畒加玥窽ゎ废妓и-
粄莱赣绰硂弘よǐぃ筁癚阶兵ㄒи-
秆狦瞷顶琿碞現┎兵ㄒ笆某タ盢穦琌畉ぃ180э糶疉の╯の︽τ眔σ納よи-
硂Ω⊿Τ笆某タぃ筁и-
辨らΤ闽獶废跋┪废跋拜肈祇甶よ常琌そ渤初┮ず窽ゎ废τ猭ㄒ甧砛Τ场だよ购废跋タ朝篴篱某Ω矗の砞ミ废跋拜肈ゑ砞ミ窽ゎ废跋拜肈临璶パさΩ兵ㄒΤタ磷狡и瞷顶琿ぃ穦冈灿量瓃и-
癸–兜璹ㄆ兜ミ初㎝猭︓êㄇ璹タΑ笆某и穦秆睦и-
ミ初ぃ筁嘲糠某矗ユ厨矗翴и辨ぶ砛坚睲龟悔朝篴篱某竒量瓃и-
Τ闽竩ず砞ミ獶废跋拜肈膀セミ初戳и-
絋琌辨ㄇ耕竩ずрぃぶよ砞ミ獶废跋ぃ筁竒σ納朝篴篱某種ǎи-
盢ぇ秸俱だぇ辨碻亥秈崩︽и-
戳篶稱ぃ琌200畒︗и-
程稱猭琌50畒︗ぃ筁竒σ納ㄤ種ǎи-
粄莱赣瞶秸どㄏ砏家耕竩ぃ穦ぃゲ璶螟┪癸挂
俱砰ㄓ弧チ囊や現┎硂兵兵ㄒ┮矗約籔耎惗獶废跋絛瞅某辨︗ミ猭Ыㄆ镑や兵ㄒ確弄谅谅畊
MR PAUL CHENG: Mr President, I have been criticized by the tobacco and advertising companies for not representing the commercial interests of my constituency because I raised a question of conscience during one of the Bills Committee's sessions. I represent the Commercial First Constituency, a constituency made up of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. Member companies are involved in a wide variety of businesses and deliberating any particular issue I must take into consideration divergent views and then decide what is best for the community. As legislators, our primary allegiance must be for the well-being of the community and not just the interests of one functional constituency, not to speak of one specific sector within the constituency.
Today, we are talking about health as well as life and death. It cuts across all sectors and all walks of life. It is proven beyond doubt that smoking is harmful, not only to smokers but also to those exposed to the polluted environment created by smokers. This is why governments around the world require tobacco packages and advertising materials to carry warning statements. When it comes to health no amount of profit is worth protecting. There can be no economic justification.
The tobacco industry, in using the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression to argue its case, simply shows how desperate the industry is. The Attorney General has stated that the proposed Bill does not violate Hong Kong's Bill of Rights. The recent settlement between the United States Government and the tobacco industry only underscores the fact that even the industry itself had to admit they were involved with not only a harmful product but also a product which can be addictive.
As legislators, it is our responsibility to discourage our young people to pick up this dreadful habit. We need to do everything possible to decrease the number of smokers over time. How fast we should phase in the laws and regulations and the scope of coverage colleagues in this Council will need to decide for themselves. We are dealing with our health and the health of future generations. We cannot be hypocrites. We must vote with our conscience.
I should mention that I have received close to 150 deputations supporting total ban on all forms of tobacco advertising and promotional activities. In representing the General Chamber of Commerce I am also obligated to report that
the General Committee of the General Chamber of Commerce unanimously supported the ban on tobacco advertising at its last meeting earlier this month. The majority of the members of the General Committee, however, supported allowing tobacco brands to continue to sponsor arts and sports events.
With these comments, Mr President, I intend to support the Bill and most of the Committee stage amendments.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr President, I seldom see eye to eye with the Honourable Paul CHENG on many, or on any, controversial issues in this Chamber, but on this occasion not only do I see eye to eye with him, I like to think lung to lung, clean lungs to clean lungs.
But, Mr President, I have been urging Honourable Members not to smoke in this building at all. My vision is to see this building smoke-free, not even one or two or three rooms now, at least, even though in law there should be only one smoking room. I am afraid the President's Room is also, has somehow become, a smoking room.
Mr President, I have actually appealed to the Chair, shall I say, by even demonstrating before you I inhale smoke and thereby injure myself. I exhale smoke and thereby injure others. But if I inhale smoke it is a free choice, but if I exhale smoke I am not giving anybody any chance. So, how long should we continue to smoke? Until we die of lung cancer or heart disease? But perhaps before that happens there would be many around us, those dear to us, who may come to an untimely death even before us.
So, Mr President, I hope, I pray, that this will not only become a smoke-free chamber and a smoke-free building, but that everybody in it will not smoke. Perhaps it is ironical that our Deputy Chairman is a non-smoker and has been fighting all his life against smoking, and on this occasion I agree with him and not you, Mr President. Now, I switch over to the Chinese channel.
畊ㄤ龟и┕纯蹦ノ硂妓Α秆睦–讽и-
废и-
琌Τ匡拒端甡︑讽и-
糛废и-
┮端甡玱琌ō娩ㄤ-
琌и-
︓克狟ね┪ㄆ琌и-
⊿Τ倒-
诀穦匡拒-
セ碞⊿Τヴ︙匡拒и废и甡︑и糛废и甡и临璶暗硂ㄇ甡甡ㄆ︙氨ゎ㎡琌ぃ琌﹚璶︑砾┪み臖痜氨ゎ㎡硂戳丁и-
克ね常竒瞒
畊┮и辨︗ㄆ荷и-
┮や現┎硂兵1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒ硂妓怇絏荷秖搭ぶ獵砆まΘ废诀穦и-
フ狦硂兵兵ㄒ莉硄筁穦Τㄇρ產穦τア穨癸硂ㄇρ產и-
讽礛琌だ薄и-
镑硄筁-
琌礚ーもτ硑Θ硂妓礹璚端甡ê或獵㎡
畊и略朝勉や弄
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I thank the Honourable Martin LEE for his usually very eloguent speech. But I would like to remind him that the only way that he could have lung to lung contact with the Honourable Paul CHENG is something that perhaps you, Mr President, will not allow in this Chamber.
Mr President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Bills Committee, the Honourable Miss Christine LOH and all those who actually appeared in this Chamber and at the Bills Committee expressing one way or the other either lobbying for tobacco smoking or otherwise. Members would agree that we had a very good educational session. And I think all of us left the Bills Committee much richer not in tobacco smoke but richer in our knowledge. I, personally, of course, would like to thank all those who supported strongly against tobacco as some of them are obviously in the gallery watching our progress. Well, I am sure Members are aware that we are now looking at actually two amendment Bills on anti-smoking before the Council today. Both ask for one thing and one thing alone, that is, do not allow the public, in particular, the young non-smokers to be lured into this despicable habit of smoking and the indisputable bodily harm that smoking will bring. But, let me clarify to Members in this Council that what we are looking at today at this point in time is the Government's Bill, not the Bill that I put forward that Members are so worried or afraid about. Mr President, I would like to quote that "the tobacco industry has the most irresponsible corporate record of any industry in the United States". I did not initiate these words although I would gladly do so. It is actually a summary report of the recent settlement between the United States Attorney General and the Tobacco Industry where the tobacco industry has to pay something like 360 billion US dollars over 25 years and something like 60 billion dollars more in lieu of punitive damage for past conduct. I like that word "punitive" damage for past conduct. Why does the report make this remark? It is very simple. For years the industry knows that smoking is a cause of cancer of the lung. Yet they deliberately shielded off the incidences. For years, the industry realizes that the nicotine content in tobacco is addictive. Yet it is only recently that the industry concedes in the face of mounting litigations. Let me stress, nicotine in tobacco is addictive similar to heroin. Now the industry says that tobacco advertising aims only to lure smokers to switch brands, do not smoke Marlboro, smoke Kent, not to induce non-smokers to smoke. They want proof. But have we not heard this before?
Hard Facts of Smoking Addiction
Mr President, let me repeat to ad nausea that the following facts are indisputable and agreed even by the tobacco industry:
1. Smoking is a cause of lung cancer.
2. Nicotine in tobacco is addictive the United States Attorney General has actually authorized the Food and Drug Agency to eventually eliminate nicotine entirely from tobacco products, if it is possible.
3. There is a rising trend and number of smokers among young people, and females, round the world and also in Hong Kong. Yes, the Honourable CHAN Wing-chan was right that perhaps the adult population has decreased as far as adult smoking population is concerned. But, we are looking at an increased number of young people. People who has never smoked before, are now picking up the habit.
4. The health of non-smokers are affected by second hand smoking. It has been known that lung cancer is actually higher in women who do not smoke but whose husbands do. Perhaps that is a way to kill one's wife.
Tobacco Ads recruit New Smokers
Mr President, I am sure the tobacco industry and its advocates will say hey, we are talking about tobacco advertising and our aim in advertising is to induce people to switch brands only, not to lure non-smokers to smoke. Prove it, LEONG Che-hung, if you think otherwise.
Mr President, but what nonsense is this? There are more than 300 scientific studies round this world to prove "otherwise". We have reports to show that even tobacco company executives admit that they are targeting non-smokers, in particular, young children. Not too long ago, we had, in this very Chamber, a former consultant of a large tobacco company who openly admitted that the claim that advertising is only for switching brands is only part of the truth but not the whole truth. I salute him. I commend him for his bravery to save the world after having seen the dark side of the tobacco industry. Mr President, I have with me letters, one of them, a letter from the Minister of Health of the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Health, and I quote: "there is no doubt that the Norwegian advertising ban has had a clear and substantial positive influence both on total tobacco consumption in general and smoking rates among school children in particular." I have also a letter from the Ministry of Health from the British Government and I quote what it said, "it is anachronistic to continue to allow media advertising to create a false image which links tobacco to healthy activities and suggest social acceptance".
Yes, it can never prove possible as we have just mentioned in our reality world to conduct a scientific study using a double blind method to prove that tobacco advertising induces smoking, which requires comparison of two groups of children one being exposed repeatedly for a long time to all sorts of tobacco advertising, whilst the other being barred from any contact with tobacco ads. This is neither physically nor morally possible. Nor should this be ever done by any responsible government or society!
Furthermore, if the tobacco industry is responsible, even inducing people to switch brand is wrong. Instead, they should curtail people from smoking entirely now that they subscribe to the fact that smoking is equivalent to lung cancer; smoking is addictive.
Economy and Livelihood Not Affected
Mr President, the advocates of tobacco advertising will bring in the economic issue and the emotional livelihood issue as they have done over the last two days outside our carpark. But most of these are misrepresentations and in many areas the industry are pulling wool over the eyes of the public and the legislators here.
To wit, in December 1990, when the Government banned tobacco advertising in television a very good thing, advertising agencies cried wolf, saying that Hong Kong's TV stations would lose $100 million. Yet, in the years that followed, revenues from advertising for our two TV stations surged. Revenues in the year of 1993, for example, was already up by 50% than in 1990. In Singapore and Thailand, when tobacco advertising were banned completely, within months, revenues from advertising increased. Mr President, where tobacco advertising leaves, others quickly come in to fill the vacuum! Why should it be different in Hong Kong.
Mr President, the tobacco industry has brought on a whole team of old grannies and small retailers this morning and yesterday to apply an emotional approach to influence legislators. The tobacco industry however has pulled wool over these same small vendors' eyes. The industry has not told them that at least in my amendments, I have specifically exempted the control of display advertisements from those hawkers and small vendors. This is to balance the need to curtail smoking and the immediate livelihood of these small vendors involved. This demonstrates yet another irresponsible act of the tobacco industry!
Tobacco Ads in Disguise of Sponsorship
Finally, the industry recruited the support of sports and cultural organizations, and shamefully, even rehabilitation organizations, tricking them into believing that the Bill bans sponsorship. Mr President, nowhere in this Bill nor in any of the amendments suggested banning sponsorship. What is suggested is to ban parts of sponsorship advertisements, or more accurately, advertisements under the blatant disguise of sponsorship, call a spade, a spade if they want to do so!
Mr President, this Bill before us and its amendments address one thing and one thing alone health for us, for all of us and our future generations. It asks for curtailing young people from smoking; it asks for protecting non-smokers from the deleterious effect of smoking; it asks for improving our endangered environment. Vote for this Bill and my amendments, and you will be proud in the years to come that you have contributed to the improvement of our society.
Finally, Mr President, I was asked repeatedly why I did not move to ban tobacco smoking completely. I would have gladly done so and I am sure any government would have done likewise, if when tobacco was first introduced, the cancerous effect and the addictive effect were known and not shielded by the tobacco industry. It has been wrong to label tobacco and cigarette as a legal product! The least we can do now is to protect those who are not yet influenced by the luring effect of attractive but expensive advertisements brought forward by our Goliath the Tobacco Industry!
Let us vote, and I quote the Honourable Paul CHENG's words, "with our conscience". May I also take this opportunity to salute Mr Paul CHENG and the General Chamber of Commerce. With those remarks, I support the Second Reading.
馋莱某璓勉畊и獶盽蔼砍辩醇翬某笆某╬兵ㄒ硂妓ㄏ現┎笆某1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒ玥痷ぃさ┪セミ猭ЫΤ诀穦矪瞶硂兵Τ闽废兵ㄒ癸現┎硂兵兵ㄒチ膀セ琌や硂镑ㄏ翠は废笲笆硂よΤ秈˙祇甶琌才и-
チㄓゑ耕種秈祘碞琌碻亥秈耕放㎝崩︽は废笲笆
程и︑痙種獵废疭┦ぃ筁и璶硂ビ翴и獶┦猍跌и︑ゑ耕踞紐иǎ烦废そ堕狥单よ瞷陪硂薄猵竒跑Θ翠瞷镣墩㎝奸瑈琘ㄇ獵粄硂琌"Τ"瞷硂琌獶盽眔и-
翠┪ミ猭Ы牡抱ㄆ龟洛厩き纯竒秈︽兜秸琩祇瞷翠3窾计い19%┪5 600琌籔废Τ闽τ︳璸–璶ノ货じ洛獀êㄇ废┪籔痜Τ闽痜チ常粄は废︽笆琌莱赣崩︽
ぃ筁Τи癸废ㄒ畊Τぶ砛蠢-
踞紐㎝Τぶ砛薄废琂紇臫ō砰τ废钩デ竜妓よ常ぃ舧и癘眔筁场パ砛玜ゅ簍筿紇筿紇い废璶硄筁甶︓鹅溅筹恨р废糛倒и禜碞钩废琌デ竜妓タ霉璓某弧瞷穦⊿Τ跌废瑀カチ︑パ废刁禦废废玱钩砆跌ぃ︽Τ硂妓ベ琌废衡琌摸Τㄓ眣贺ネ策篋弧琌废坝Θタパ-
絋龟癩动墩τ废硂策篋┑尿︓さご⊿Τ癶搭镣墩瘤礛翠は废笲笆〆穦计瞷и-
玱薄猵碞琌獵ぶ废计ゑρ┪耕临璶癸ミ猭よи-
チ粄莱赣Τ碻亥秈筁祘硄筁ミ猭の毙▅硋˙崩甶は废種醚и-
琌種㎝や硂よ辨硄筁硂兵ㄒㄏㄇ坝穨疭废坝ぃ璶琵废膥尿獂垒
︑и把ミ猭Ы兵ㄒ〆穦ㄓ硂兵兵ㄒ〆穦┮Μ種ǎ程痷琌獶盽ぇ┮Μ種ǎ琌ㄓ︑よタはㄢよ種ǎ常Τ讽礛は癸废Τは癸废種ǎやΤや種ǎ龟悔琌獶盽だ猍и-
チ盢穦膀计玥碞祔弄∕∕﹚τи-
琌﹚穦や弄︓兵ㄒず兜タи-
穦硂计兜玥∕材玥琌碻亥秈崩約は废獺材琌続讽酚臮坝穨┪箂扳坝瞷Τ痲и-
ぃ辨Τ玃э跑ㄏ-
礛丁綝玠搭痲材玥琌闽ゅ甌眃贾笆┪砰▅笆觅и-
ご礛辨倒ぉ废坝続讽丁τи-
琌穦や硂よタи-
辨セЫ镑胺眃睲穝薄猵Τ秈甶薄猵硄筁硂兵兵ㄒ程и辨硂畊腢辨のΝз废
谅谅畊
独綺笽某璓勉畊"废甡胺眃"琌ぃㄆ龟狦废琌兜穝玻珇и獺硂贺穦ま璓舽ㄏ眞み纽痜福いま癬筹砾砾单砾痝玻珇﹚穦砆窽┪徖ネ竝ゲ斗菏恨繧媚珇讽и-
σ納甧砛废Τぶ約拜肈獶琌戈癟︑パ拜肈┪坝珇拜肈τ琌贺セ莱赣恨媚珇Τ琌盢ㄓ恨媚珇莱赣莉眔ぶ肚㎝約и-
ぃ穦甧砛屡弘艶ecstasy┪陈芥約废莱莉ぶ約丁赣ノへㄓ
计ぱ玡瓣废坝㎝羛ü現┎笷Θ某废坝腀種竭纕τ钡FDA媚恨瞶Ы菏恨のそ渤よ窽ゎ废硂兜砏﹚ǎ稼废坝竒絘硚ソ隔瞷俱郸菠獽琌盢块ㄈ瑆钩150玡緙驹盢緙废笲ㄓㄈ瑆寥窥ぃ堡甡ㄈ瑆チ胺眃妓
埃钡約废坝稱硄筁觅兜笆废籔Θ胻舩蔼禥懂給单禜羛么癬废坝笵废琌獺废"Τ"窽ゎ废約琌镑痷タ搭ぶ废靡沮琌だ陪窽ゎ硂ㄇ废約琌Τ腊搭ぶ废兵ㄒ〆穦Μ硂ㄇ靡沮礚斗狡陪τē废そ獶虫綼タ钡約ま护废τ琌硄筁丁钡約τ秈︽觅蔼郎玻珇┪笆羛么癬ㄓ帮Θ废琌"玒玒墩""Τ"禜痙獵ぶ竤い硂ㄇ禜種├ぃ穦繦約砆窽τ皑ア窽ゎ贺废約琌贺搭ぶ废よ猭ㄤい贺狦ョ璶籔ㄤ惫琁皌τゲ斗安ら穦陪帝ぷㄤ琌瞷废坝辨ゴい瓣蒥初盢12货チ跑Θ废チ翠瓣ずみい琌Τ﹚︗┮废坝辨硄筁盢翠硂禜籔废羛么癬ㄓτ瓣ず璏粄废"ΤΤ蹿"┮狦產痷癸い瓣Τ稰薄癸い瓣チΤ稰薄碞莱跌は废硂妓ぃ腊翠腊い瓣и-
礚猭や辩模﹙某笆某タ硂獶戈癟︑パ拜肈τセ琌ヘ眎義硄筁觅ㄓ肚废玻珇礟約
计丁筿跌纯竒ボ踞紐硂兜1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒ硄筁Τㄇ籹獽牟デ猭拜肈ㄒ粿薄いΤ废Τ闽废穨穝籇纯竒废珿ㄆ菌珿ㄆ┪琌穝籇㎝魁い瞷籔废Τ闽描繷穦牟デ猭ㄒ肚碈笲螟и笵現┎┯空祔簍勉い秆睦睲贰種┪盿瞷⊿Τ基描繷ぃ衡琌約祔徖ネ褐莱赣穦秆睦睲贰琵肚碈搭ぶ硂よ踞紐
"も废"陪琌穦端甡胺眃禫そ渤よ窽ゎ废癸蒥チ胺眃禫チ囊粄蝗︽禬蒥初坝初のㄤそ渤よ常莱赣窽ゎ废程琌钩瓣妓场そ渤よ窽ゎ废硂ㄇよ蒥チ胺眃穕
琌竩よチ囊粄讽Ы璹ㄆ兜ぃ衡琌瞶稱ゼだ玂臔獶废舦痲都穨矗磅︽螟琘ㄇ繺ず废ぃ﹚碙ㄤ胺眃硑Θ阶狠チ囊笆某タ弧琌矗程璶―τи辨產フ硂琌倒ぉ丁都穨続莱э跑獽ら糤砞ミ獶废跋笷璓は废チ囊碞竩砞獶废跋笆某タ琌程琵˙琌だ钮朝篴篱某┮矗種ǎ琵˙狦临璶琵˙и-
粄琌穦碾獶废痲
瞷ㄇ坝珇籔废坝夹禜砞璸┮硄筁硂ㄇ坝珇ョ腊废崩綪и獺窽ゎ硂ㄇ玻珇籔废Τ筽杆ぃ穦端甡硂ㄇ玻珇︽綪堡硂Ω兵ㄒ〆穦丁龟びΓ礚猭硂よ秈︽冈灿だ猂螟糶続讽猭兵ゅ辨痙Ω璹矗
废策篋絋Τ菌窽ゎ废約㎝砞ミ獶废跋礚磷紇臫ぃぶㄌ綼扳芥废蝴ネネ璸┮さΩミ猭程螟碞琌璶矪瞶は废ㄇ竒蕾狦㎝チネ紇臫τ礚猭抖笷璓窽废ノ瞷礚猭窽ゎそ渤よ废礚猭窽ゎ废約ョタ琌硂兜螟
и辨現┎ぃ穦骸ìさぱ挡狦τ莱–浪癚–候窽ゎ废約窽ゎそ渤よ废и辨現┎浪癚戳丁穦材σ納盢废跌媚珇耴徖ネ竝砏恨材發癚废穨ま癬癸そ洛励禣ノや
谅谅
辩模┚某璓勉畊ㄤ龟и籔セЫㄆ妓常琌獶盽は癸废и洱洱る痜璶秈痝璶琌或㎡琌齿ぃ㊣и-
⊿Τ快猭獽璶ミр癳痝洛ネ弧程璶痜琌竒ア旧璓恨㊣獶盽螟眞硂痜и-
ㄤ龟Ν笵程虏虫琌筁ぃ耞废ぃ瞒も瘤礛程硂计竒з废堡パ戳废闽玒痷胊眔腨ぃノヴ︙媚毕ㄓ┮瞷璶ぃ耞癸齿硂贺稰ǒ璚痜痝и獺竒盽废边常穦笿硂拜肈и洛皘ǎ薄猵痜иㄤ龟蠢硂ㄇ稰だ螟筁-
淮⊿Τ稱筁废癸-
紇臫τぃ耞废旧璓ō砰ら痲穕胊⊿Τ快猭毕筁ㄓ┮硂竒喷辨瞷废痷璶牡谋-
さぱご礛胺眃盢ㄓ獽穦瞷妓国痜既临诡谋ぃ琌留旅礚猭笵笵边
畊иセō琌毙畍и揭竒盽腢厩ネ闽猔獵ぶ拜肈и躬纘-
痷ぃ废废痷穦紇臫-
沧ネ碞钩瞷約腢獵ぃ璶瑀妓ㄢ妓常琌穦紇臫沧ネиぃ躬纘厩ネぃ璶废临盿烩-
把は瑀笆躬纘-
ぃ璶瑀и粄废籔瑀常穦甡胺眃琌獶盽腨讽и-
σ納拜肈琌硂妓腨и-
獽穦σ納莱赣妓腊-
ㄆ矗筁τи種и-
莱赣渤胺眃àㄓσ納︙废и︑獶盽觅砏﹚そ渤初┮ず砞Τㄇ废跋の璶―废約ゲ斗Τ"废甡胺眃"┪"废璓㏑"单牡ぃ筁и-
妓ゲ斗みぃ镑玠搭舦猭Τ闽ē阶㎝笷︑パ玂毁ㄏ琘ㄇ琌Τ瞶ヘㄒそ渤胺眃单莱赣猔種絛瞅ぃ筁┪禬禫ㄓヘ疭琌疉約の废そ觅笆单よぷㄤ璶み瘤礛現┎兵ㄒ〆穦い礷眏秸セ兵ㄒ才舦猭玂毁Τ︗ㄆ矗の硂翴иご礛粄礚阶︙и-
琘ㄇよ临琌斗璶瞏σ納㎝坝篹碞Τ闽翠舦猭材せ兵砏﹚
Τ玂種ǎぃ箇ぇ舦
Τ祇︑パぇ舦贺舦珹粂ēゅ┪美砃┪︑匡拒ぇㄤよΑぃだ瓣碝―钡の肚冀贺の稱ぇ︑パ
セ兵材兜┮更舦ぇ︽ㄏΤ疭砫ヴの竡叭珿眔ぉ琘贺贺竒猭砏﹚兜┮ゲ璶
ヒ 碙舦┪臕┪
玂毁瓣產┪そ┪そ徖ネ┪て
畊舦猭材せ兵┮玂毁ē阶の笷︑パ珹ヴ︙Α肚冀ヴ︙獺瓣ㄒ睲贰Τ闽兵ゅ玂毁絛瞅琌続ノ坝穨┦戈癟ㄒ約单坝珇約ノ埃ま禣潦禦┮肚玻珇蔼膙穦讽い虑肚ず甧τは琈ぃ礟坝珇祏纔ぇ矪硂琌禣疭猔種翴琌獶盽Τノ讽礛產穦そ徖ネ瞶パτ盢Τ闽瞶てиぃ琌璶は癸玂毁そ徖ネи琌璶拜睲贰硂ㄇ琌痷籔そ徖ネΤ闽玒τゲ斗㎡硂ㄇㄤ龟琌﹚籔そ徖ネΤ闽璶τ琁︓ゴ阑笷︑パ舦㎡讽礛и伐ぃ辨獵ぶ废︽и璶ňゎ礚禿"も废"τ旧璓ō砰胺眃穕讽и-
璶砞ミ兜Τ闽惫琁и﹍沧璶拜и-
琌痷斗璶腨废約㎝废坝ぃ眔觅琘ㄇ笆┪琘ㄇ笆い秈︽約肚㎡狦璶硂妓暗ㄤ龟癸そ徖ネ㎝そ渤胺眃穦盿ㄓ或痷タΤ腊㎡и龟ぃㄢぇ丁Τヴ︙ゲ礛闽玒㎝挡狦
畊タ瓃иゴ衡砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某兜耕放㎝タㄏ废坝觅ゅ眃笆赣兜笆秈︽肚ㄏ兵ㄒㄓ才舦猭и獺舦猭竒龟琁ボАㄉΤ赣单舦礚阶觅Θ┪ぃ觅Θ琘摸獺┪芠├ㄤ常Τ︑パ肚冀摸獺︑パの舦и璶ビヴ︙癸ē阶┪笷︑パ琌ゲ斗才ゑㄒぃ莱赣び筁だ筁琘ㄇ肚┪約笆и粄穦硑Θ狦碞琌Τêㄇ竒┪砏家废そ┮玻废膥尿ネτ"基废"玥穦砆逼澜ぃ筁硂妓临琌ゼЧ秆∕废拜肈
и粄埃獶產痷钩独綺笽某┮弧妓р废籔瑀Ч妓玥常ぃ秆∕废拜肈狦產痷璶硂妓杠и獽礚杠弧и-
瞷ぃ弧废Ч钩瑀妓玱ぃ耞废坝約笆и粄硂龟琌筁だ管-
舦и临眏秸纯竒矗翴碞琌ㄏ废坝ぃ眔秈︽肚笆癸êㄇ瑈︽礟ㄓ弧赣贺废穦ぃ耞肚ê礟ㄏㄤ臮ぃ耞糤硂穦ㄤ礟超ぃ腊秆∕废拜肈êΤ或矪㎡┮и辨產镑眖よσ納硂拜肈は癸废琌常觅セ兵ㄒ┮矗琌痷琌程よ猭㎡辨產穝σ納
畊セ略朝勉
肅繟某璓勉畊現┎硂兵1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒ瘤礛琌某伐窗玃矗衡琌ㄓ癸⊿Τ猭某臛阶Ω耕縩伐莱
チ羛闽猔废癸翠カチ疭琌獵ぶ胺眃紇臫硂ㄇ闽猔翴兵ㄒ癸废約の癸ㄏノ扳芥废玻珇琁秈˙崩秈は废琌窽ゎ钡废約耎窽废跋硂ㄇ惫琁よチ羛粄現┎┮暗惫琁ご礛ゼ镑秈τ疉のㄇ坝砪舦痲よΤσ納ぃ㏄よ
タи-
某臛阶い┮弧チ羛觅窽ゎ钡废約翠現┎徖ネ舱麓Θ笷璓﹁びキ瑅跋そじ箂箂箂ミ礚废約跋︽笆ヘ夹癸窽ゎ废玻珇钡約琌砫礚禪翠┎さΩ兵ㄒい玱┶荡笷璓硂ヘ夹﹚ㄣ砰ち龟璸购ぷㄤ琌セ厨祅废約よ﹟⊿Τ﹚丁硂ㄇゼま狙
耎窽废跋よ兵ㄒ逼㎝瞷︽セぃ癸玂毁そ渤胺眃磷"も废"猖瑀ゼ癬龟借ノチ羛粄莱赣秈˙耎窽废跋絛瞅τ癸êㄇ獵ぶ竒盽初┮ㄒ厩そ渤笴贾初莱赣Τ诀砞ミ猭﹚窽废跋
狦硄筁現┎兵ㄒ程钡紇臫穦琌ㄇ扳芥废㎝ㄤ坝珇砪-
ら盽ΜΤ场だ琌パ甶ボ㎝废Τ闽夹粁τ眔废そ戈狦ち窽ゎちΑ甶ボ約玥硂ㄇ坝砪Μ盢紇臫﹚猭ㄒぃ莱臮チネ僚硂ㄇ坝砪琌抖瞶Θ彻
チ羛祔砰〆穦糵某顶琿盢穦ㄌ酚┮矗玥∕﹚や场だ璹ㄆ兜
畊翠璶箂箂箂笷璓礚废約跋ヘ夹ご礛Τ琿隔璶ǐ琌и-
ミ猭玃秈は废ぃ筁ちτ┛菠穦毙▅チ羛硂诀穦Ω窗玃現┎候矗蔼は废穦種醚▆穦膀娄㎝渤や猭ㄒ磅︽︑礛措Θ
畊セ略朝勉
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊セЫ–Ω碞废硂拜肈秈︽癚阶﹚穦ま癬縀疨癸ゑ種ǎи癘眔玡琖皇某籔讽ご眎挪瑄某セㄓ衡琌酵眔ㄓ狟ね–讽癚阶废拜肈-
獽眔φ荐ㄤい︓穦ǐ穦某┬丁碞琌硂妓緓
ぃ或废拜肈琌讽稰┦谋甧跑眔ぃ瞶┦瑈侥笆σ納拜肈и-
さぱ癚阶拜肈膀セ獶弧废琌┪琌琵街废и钮辩醇翬某ノ"幵"硂迭и笵は莱琌だ眏疨琂琌洛ネ癸и-
胺眃獶盽闽猔ぃ筁狦弧废琌"幵"硂獽琌笵紈у笵紈耞废ぃи-
ぃ尺舧ウぃ︓"幵"и獺產種и-
ぃ稱獵ぶ废ぃ稱-
粇旧獽緄Θ硂贺產粄琌ぃ胊策篋琌и-
ぃа癘硂盧﹟︑パ翠痷琌獶盽盧﹟︑パ穦ΤΘи-
竒盽弧︙碙硂ㄇΘ︑匡拒弧и-
︙堡ē阶︑パ祇︑パ戈癟︑パ坝穨︑パ贺︑パ单讽и-
酵硂ン癸礚痲ㄆ玱或︑パぃ璶稱
︓ヘ玡ゎи-
穦甧砛废ョゼ跌废デ竜废ゼ璓デ竜畉ぃ馋莱某弧畉ぃ琌琵稰谋デ竜ゼ璓ま沮猭ㄒ弧デ竜τ废ぃ琌笻窽珇ぃ筁ㄏぃ琌笻窽珇и-
玱稱腢畴ぃ废莱赣︙眔キ颗㎡и粄и-
穦钡ㄆ龟碞琌Τ碈ざ筿碈ざ種醚篈Τエ紇臫┮и-
盢硂ㄇ碈ざま旧废紇臫ぃ筁Τㄤ粄ぃ莱废珹辩醇翬某ず弧硂ㄇぃì镑莱赣Ч琵ぃǎ废琌程拜肈琌и-
よ盧﹟︑パよΤ硂ㄇê或眏疨種ǎ薄猵и-
琌莱赣痷タ睲贰癸約眏疨窽笷и-
┮辨狦иぃ稱酵计よ拜肈ㄆ龟Τㄒ矗ㄓ沮и┮秆Τㄇよ竒窽ゎ甶ボ废約ㄒ︑き秨﹍秨﹍窽ゎ甶ボ废約き计沮ㄒ赣瓣獵ぶ废计κだゑ耕翠蔼翠ご礛ΤΤ废約瘤礛⊿Τ玱Τ26%獵ぶ废翠计琌3.8%и矗硂ㄇ计沮は废︑礛Τ秖计矗弧薄猵琌はи矗硂ㄇ计沮ヘ琌璶ぃ荡癸弧Τ废約獽旧璓獵ぶ废
Τ闽約よ筿肚碈甶ボ废約竒琌窽ゎ約よ狦Τㄇ琌疭獵ぶ┷も疭璶ま护-
废и讽礛荡ぃ觅Θ籔и粄и-
璶玂毁Θ钡獺︑パ碞瓣ㄒ產笵程瓣废坝璶货じ基ㄓ瓣Τ⊿Τ窽ゎ祅废約㎡⊿Τ琌獶盽猔吏玂㎝そ渤徖ネ瓣產ぃ荡癸窽ゎ废芥約и粄產﹍沧琌斗璶тキ颗
ㄆ龟废琌и-
瞷龟ネ场だτ綝ㄤ紇臫ぃ虫ゎ琌废临Τ"も废"硂琌и荡癸種镑倒ぉキ颗琌莱赣Τ讽笷瞷璶皊加祘獽穦紇臫皊加竒犁ぃ︙都穨羆琌ê妓鸡或ㄆ皊加ㄓ"秨"γ矪瞶拜肈竒都穨礹璚獶盽瞷倒ㄓ"秨"礛τチ囊笆某タ琌痷ê或Τ㎝︽㎡临Τ拜肈琌enforceable磅︽㎡硂琌и-
斗璶σ納
璶眔σ納拜肈琌癸都穨竒犁紇臫ㄆ龟Τ闽艶┦┮癸都穨紇臫衡琌讽τ赣︽穨硂よи-
笷種ǎ
и箂扳у祇讽礛璶-
祇ēぷㄤ琌箂扳坝よ種ǎ笵瞶箂扳翴甶ボㄇ約ぃ筁琌珇厨单膀セ穦甶ボ硂ㄇ珇獽穦ㄏ眖ぃ废跑Θ废㎡玡┕êㄇ箂扳翴︑礛琌废猵Τ猭ㄒ坝砪ぃ扳芥废ぉ18烦獵ぶㄤ龟琌ì镑玂毁硂ㄇ約临璶废穦甡胺眃单よ┚竒ぃ穦ま穝废璝ê﹚穦癸坝砪硑Θ螟иぃゴ衡冈灿弧祔临Τ诀穦弧ぃ筁и辨產癚阶箂扳翴ぃ璶计┪縩ㄓ购だ膀セ瞷箂扳┍砏家常琌璝猭ㄒび祑┦砏﹚计よ碞穦Τㄇゑ猭ㄒ┮砏﹚祔翴砏家坝砪穕и辨產祔やи硂よタぃ璶や辩某タ
羆珹τēи﹍沧辨產镑秆и-
﹚璶Τ続讽キ颗の臮穦よ惠璶ぃゼǎㄤǎㄤ甡薄猵ご礛蹦ㄇ惫琁甡ㄤ盿腨紇臫
谅谅畊
独岸藉某璓勉畊セㄓи⊿Τ非称祇ēぃ筁パ朝篴篱某祇ēΤ琿弧杠и妓稱稱ぃフ┮瞷璶ㄓ蛤朝篴篱某酵酵矗のは癸霉璓某タ琌200畊︗繺繻獽璶рぃぶだぇ縩购窽ゎ废跋某朝某粄庢琌癸瞷竒蒥笵ぃび都穨ㄓ弧衡琌秈˙ゴ阑и獺朝篴篱某琌都穨舦痲硂翴и-
常睲贰ぃ筁硂甅瞶阶玱ゼゲ腊都穨纯弧筁繺繻尺舧Г废跋ぃ筁眏秸ぃ琌尺舧êㄇ"も废"ぃ尺舧êㄇ"废"τ琌尺舧êΤ丁
朝篴篱某畊и⊿Τ弧筁Г竩废跋τ琌筿紇栏皘废跋и琌弧筿紇栏皘畊独岸藉某まノ岿粇
畊セ畊朝篴篱某坚睲弧栏皘
独岸藉某癸ぃ癬琌и钮岿癸ぃ癬ê或и獽ノ筿紇皘ㄒ朝篴篱某弧筿紇皘尺舧匡拒废跋畒︗êぶ琌朝篴篱某Τ稱筁╯澈或废跋硂妓ぶ㎡陪琌场だぃ尺舧Гê跋ぃ尺舧Гê跋琌êㄇぃ尺舧"も废"废跋獽Τぶ硂タ陪ボи-
翠蒥チ琌甡┤"も废"и獺朝篴篱某Τ矗のセЫΤ计︗某废τ沮┮ま瓃穦ぃ琌Τび废и-
粄莱赣璶玂毁蒥チぃ砆"も废"獻甡
畊废そ渤初琌Τ︑匡拒-
匡拒废匡拒ぃ废狦-
尺舧废-
т琌妮-
よ盞超┬丁ず"镑""疭"秈︽-
篊┦︑炳︽⊿Τ穦疉-
ぃ废砆"も废"玱⊿Τ匡拒舦-
Гê⊿匡拒舦埃獶-
匡拒瞒秨赣初┮そ渤初硂妓癸-
琌そキ㎡┮程Τ常弧废ㄤ龟琌穕τぃ︽и獺セЫㄆ常ぃ辨暗ㄇ穕τぃ︽タ朝篴篱某ま瓃筿紇皘ㄒㄤ龟妓薄猵瞷ヴ︙そ渤初珹竩ず狦Τ蒥チぃ尺舧籔废Г癬τ赣竩ずΤ畒︗琌购废跋杠獶废獽ぃ穦ê臮硂妓癸赣竩ネ種ㄓ弧穦硑Θ﹚ぃ▆紇臫瞷霉璓某タㄤ龟琌竒筁Т程篶稱琌Τ50畒︗竩竒璶砞窽废跋琌璶рよ购窽废跋瞷竒琌Τ┮Ти-
ㄆ珹朝篴篱某狦痷辨腊都穨ㄤ龟ぃ虫ゎ璶や购﹚窽ゎ废跋莱赣や窽ゎ废硂妓ま甡┤"も废"蒥チ臮êㄇ竩и硂辨︗ㄆやΤ闽兵ㄒ㎝タ畊セ略朝勉や兵ㄒ
綠產碔某璓勉畊癸さぱ硂兵1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒ確弄и獺常穦у蝶チ囊︑パ戈癟┪約よミ初弧и-
よやチ璶Τ戈癟︑パ琌酵硂拜肈碞у蝶и-
┕┕琌贺匡拒┦
и稱碞︑パ囊㏄辩睶┥某祇ē莱讽赋疭矗ê临碿猭吭高ゅン赋疭眏秸璶穦﹚︽︑パ碞璶祔瞷穦⊿Τ笆历︑パ囊玱や赋疭硂临碿猭某璶恒︑パ琌瞷Τ礚计厩沮靡龟废穦甡胺眃Τ瓣悔舦そ粄そ渤徖ネ莱赣︽и-
粄莱赣菠斌翴︑パㄓ传そ渤胺眃-
玱弧璶碙︑パ
и琌辨︗某現ㄆ癸ㄇ拜肈彼镑眔翴碞琌и-
渤チネ稱肅繟某弧硂琌坝砪拜肈и-
ぃ莱赣臮坝砪痲и稱叫拜肅某琂礛矗のチネ弧チネ琌坝砪ネ璸и-
璶臮и稱拜╯澈チネ﹚竡琌或㎡и玥粄チネ琌ぃ琌臮技坝砪竒蕾痲τ璶斌场だ胺眃︓腳禥ネ㏑㎡畊и-
弧"ぃ︑パ礚圭"碞硂某肈и稱弧"ぃ胺眃е獽穦"硈胺眃⊿Τ硈ネ㏑⊿ΤΤぶ竒蕾痲⊿Τノ
и粄さぱ硂臛阶Τ翴稰薄て琌闽–胺眃и-
胺眃腨紇臫產﹚穦Τ翴稰薄ノㄆ独篿某и-
街ぃ端稰㎡辩模┚某矗のダ克洛皘街ぃ穦ρ產废旧璓胺眃Τ拜肈τΤ翴端稰㎡畊иǎ牧и笵и-
常穦独篿某發辣蓟и穦е挡簍勉и璶Τㄢ阶翴辩模┚某竒阶の舦猭碞琌そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そそゅ竒糶眔睲贰そチ舦㎝現獀舦常琌τ砞ミτ祇︑パ玥ぃ莱赣珹ヴ︙坝穨種ǎ玂毁舦㎝膀セ舦兵粄﹚璝瞣疉胺眃︑パ碞惠璶
畊и眖穝籇厨笵笵玂囊癩瞒秨﹛斗璶ノ瞺糛铭警ㄓ睲间赣﹛琵囊癩滴続︘畊е璶瞒秨硂ミ猭Ыи纯竒筁快そㄢΩ–Ωи常稰螟ぃ笵ゼㄓ畊Τ︙稰┪砛Τ诀穦ヴ畊碞⊿Τ拜肈琌ゼㄓ畊惠璶ノ瞺糛铭警埃ê贺﹍沧废琌穦㏄瞅吏挂紇臫狦и筿辫ず临Τ废杠и獽痷琌稱祇贺暗"Ь诀"狥﹁蛤ゑ礷и粄硂贺糛ㄓ"も废"端甡ぃ阶琌薄稰临琌胺眃ㄓ弧и常粄и-
璶ゎ
畊セ略朝勉
5.37 pm
と537だ
畊セЫ既氨穦某きだ確
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
7.22 pm
と722だ
Council then resumed.
セЫ穦某確
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊チ囊吏玂祇ēи稱3翴虏虫莱
材癸朝篴篱某"臮臮ッ环常癸"ē阶иΤㄇ種ǎи稱竒犁ネ種﹍沧常莱盢ネ㏑程璶︗竚硂珹废︓獶废ネ㏑ず畊и稱程璶拜肈琌╯澈ネ種璶临琌ネ㏑璶и稱產みヘい常Τ氮
癸竒犁ネ種ㄓ弧程璶琌砞竚獶废跋穦旧璓ネ種搭ぶи稱硂ゼゲ荷礛砞Τ獶废跋竩ぃ单ぃま臮疭琌废
╯计沮陪ボ翠ΘΤ14%琌废獶废Θ荡计朝篴篱某矗芠翴ê獽琌Τㄇよ栏皘ぺ竒ぃ废и稱疭琌诀㎝翠丁硈玛е繺┍常场购獶废跋そ㎝硂丁硈玛е繺┍琌ê或稭琋砞ミ獶废跋τぃ瞶穦ネ種㎡и粄荡癸ぃ琌坝程璶琌寥窥寥窥ぇ緇︓ぶΤ琘祘笵紈夹非и-
獺硂ㄇそ㎝е繺┍﹚秈︽筁秸琩絋玂ネ種肂ぃ穦穕┮硂"臮"瞶阶琌ぃΘミ
材朝篴篱某矗磅︽よ穦瞷拜肈粄琂礛⊿Τ拜肈︙瞷璶秆∕㎡传杠弧竩⊿Τ獶废跋硂碞钩狦Τ兵琘矪何и-
獽ぃ璶巾╡ㄆ龟硂兵鸡も废㎡
チ囊程膀セ弧琌程璶―獽琌玂毁獶废舦朝篴篱某弧⊿Τ拜肈ㄤ龟ぃ琌⊿拜肈τ琌Τ拜肈ぃ筁硂ㄇ拜肈⊿Τ腀種矗のτ硂ㄇ拜肈琌ネ痜砾痝㎝拜肈硂ㄇ常琌и-
斗璶癸ㄏ磅︽よΤ拜肈┪竩蝴獶废跋よ笿螟и稱и-
ご琌璶璽砫篈稱快猭秆∕硂ㄇ螟τぃ虫ゎ琌щ布は癸
畊程㏄辩睶┥某Τ種礚種ノㄢΩ"废"硂泊ぃ琌蠢废坝崩綪
畊废ぃ琌废琌
法У地某璓勉畊さぱ臛阶﹚祘疉のㄤ︽穨Τㄇ某祇ē矗の都穨箂扳穨иぃЙ產锣笷ㄇи笴┮钮種ǎи硂妓翴ぃ祡и-
ㄓ︑舱某﹚穦闽猔ㄤ︽穨癸琘ㄇ拜肈猭
畊セ翠Τ眖ㄆ笴穨τ笴疭翴琌眖ㄆ硂︽穨Τ诀穦筁よㄤい珹狥﹁よ辅跋秈よ㎝祇笷瓣產絋Τよ癸废蹦耕腨糉恨惫琁產莱赣粄醚瞷и-
┮弧废ぃ琌緙驹緙瞷废⊿Τ砆獶猭坝珇硂薄猵и-
ぃフ︙璶蹦筁だ璙ㄨ话荷炳荡暗猭
沮и┮瓣﹁场Τㄇカぷㄤ琌罠㎝每カ癸废蹦だ腨糉篈瘤礛每カ诀初甧砛琘ㄇよ废ぃ琌窽ゎ废
谅ッ闹某ョ矗のそи稱矗氮臛そ窽ゎ废獶┮Τそ常硂妓暗そ斗σ納琘兵帹┯ㄒ翠Τ会そ窽废ㄆ龟獶ㄒ翠らセ帹⊿Τ窽ゎ废膀硂兵帹废策篋そ粄ぃ祏戳ず蹦ゑ耕伐狠惫琁ㄏ丁獶翠膀τ┕翠㎝窗そ–ぱㄢ痁诀い痁琵废痁玥ぃㄤい琌р畒︗だ秨┮и-
斗跌璶―σ納硂拜肈
и辨翠┮蹦惫琁ぃ璶籔綟跋┪ㄤ瓣產璶カ畉び环翠–АΤ筁窾ㄓ︑笴砐︽ゑ耕策篋セ瓣猭㎝策篋癸㎝ぃ暗ㄆ︑Τ﹚非玥狦翠砏玥籔瓣禯び环┪伐璙ㄨ笴獽穦谋眔ぃ碞禴秈炒ɡ讽礛иぃ琌弧笴废τ琌-
策篋或よ砞Τ废跋┪獶废跋-
穦盢翠籔ㄤ瓣產ゑ耕┮и渡蹦放㎝惫琁
闽觅砰▅笆拜肈笆庢快纯竒иは琈讽礛-
セō常ぃ尺舧废и琌ぃ废τョぃ尺舧废琌瞷龟ネいぃ阶琌Τ笵瞶Τㄇ笆絋龟琘贺祘觅ぃ阶眖セ翠カチ甌贾àㄓ┪琌眖翠笴翴まàㄓ硂ㄇ砰▅笆常琌癸翠Τ矪┮Τ匡拒タи﹍沧渡蹦玡陇耕放㎝隔帹︓琌ㄇ兵蹿и獺㏄辩睶┥某穦︑パ囊量瓃и-
芠翴
綠模磁某璓勉畊,иビ厨и琌ぃ废ぃは癸废
独岸藉某㎝谅ッ闹某碞朝篴篱某癸废拜肈疭琌竩ず废拜肈矗篕и璶眏秸и-
ぃ種霉璓某タ硂兜タ莉硄筁磅︽穦伐螟疭琌璹兵ㄒ璝莉硄筁废㎝獶废︓竩ぇ丁ベ盢穦禫簍禫疨┮и-
ぃ觅Θ硂贺祑┦砏﹚
沮独岸藉某㎝谅ッ闹某癸废拜肈だ猂废ゲ﹚穦甡ō砰胺眃硂翴и觅ぃ筁癸窽ゎ废и粄莱赣蹦碻亥秈よΑτぃ琌蹦ノ"ち"よ猭
タ霉璓某暗猭タ独岸藉某㎝谅ッ闹某ē阶常琌產竒Т挡狦安薄猵钩独某㎝谅某┮弧ê或腨и獺-
﹚穦癸霉璓某タщは癸布琌иぃ獺-
穦硂妓暗ぃ獺-
幢щは癸布
иビ翴狦硂ㄇタ獽穦硑Θ竩㎝ぇ丁縤揽㎝ベ
畊セ略朝勉
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I would like to thank members of the Bills Committee, and in particular the chairperson, the Honourable Miss Christine LOH, for the hard work they have done within such a tight schedule.
As mentioned by Miss Christine LOH, many different views were expressed by Members during the Bills Committee meetings. Amendments have been proposed to our Bill and I look forward to addressing them later on.
Let me start by explaining and elaborating once again the policy objectives of the Government's Bill. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of ill health and premature death. Because of this it has been Government's long-established policy to discourage smoking in order to protect public health. The
Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance was enacted in 1982 to provide a regulatory frame work for the control over the sale, use and promotion of tobacco products and to facilitate the setting up of no-smoking areas.
With more and more medical evidence indicating the hazards of smoking it is all the more clear that Government has been correct in taking active intervention measures. We are particularly concerned about youth and women smoking. Young people are most susceptible to the inducement to smoke and overseas experience has indicated that the smoking rate among women is linked to a territory's economic development. Tobacco advertising aims to encourage smoking among young people and women in particular in order to replace consumers who die or quit smoking because of ill health.
The earlier one starts to smoke the more difficult it is for him or her to quit and the greater likelihood of premature death. Smoking claims over 4 000 lives in Hong Kong each year. It incurs medical costs estimated to be up to $1 billion per year and social costs of up to four times as much.
Many countries have already recognised the harm of smoking and have imposed stringent controls over tobacco sale and promotion. Many more are following suit. The latest examples which Members have also alluded to is that of the United States. On top of the regulations already imposed by the United States Food and Drug Administration this year the United States tobacco industry has agreed to a ban on tobacco brand name sponsorship and outdoor display tobacco advertisements and to eliminate Internet advertising and commercial placement of tobacco advertisements in movies and on television. The United States proposals are quite similar to what we are proposing now. Given that the biggest exporting country of tobacco products has decided to introduce such measures we should not lag far behind.
We have already banned tobacco advertising in the electronic media. We are now proposing a complete ban on display advertisements which are pervasive and have a long-term visual effect on passers-by. In view of the various promotion methods which the industry uses we propose to ban the giving of free
samples and the use of gifts to entice people to buy tobacco products. We are also introducing a new mechanism to facilitate the setting up of no-smoking areas to protect the public from passive smoking.
Our proposals tidy up the existing provisions but do not seek to change the policy intent regarding sponsorship. Tobacco corporations and non-tobacco product manufacturers will continue to be allowed to sponsor events in their own name.
When the subject was last debated in this Council on 15 January 1997 I was encouraged by the positive tone of Members' speeches to press ahead with my current proposals. I am even more encouraged by the thoughtful manner in which Members have spoken today. There can be no disagreement with the policy objective of safeguarding public health. Most Members also accept that there is a need for further legislative measures. Any disagreement concerns only the pace, not the direction of steps to be taken. As mentioned by Miss Christine LOH, our proposals also have the wide support of the medical community and smoking prevention groups. They support us because they share our concern over public health, unlike those who oppose the proposals for their own commercial interests.
I would also like to reiterate that our proposals do not contravene the Bill of Rights Ordinance. This explicitly states that the protection of public health is more important than advertising freedom. When considering this Bill and the amendments to be moved to the Bill, I hope Members will share the same concern to protect the people of Hong Kong from illness and death and not be distracted by spurious arguments. This is a matter of public health and public health alone.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕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
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1997
1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒ
Clauses 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19 to 22, 24 and 25 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材578912161719︓2224の25兵莉眔硄筁
Clauses 1 and 10
兵ㄒ材1の10兵
〆穦畊霉璓某の辩醇翬某だ箇ボ览碞材1兵矗タ赣兵糤干材(2A)蹿
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶辩醇翬某の霉璓某だ矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶辩醇翬某の霉璓某だ矗ぇタセ畊穦叫辩醇翬某笆某タ戈耕瞏
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman, I am also older! Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be amended by adding subclause (2A) as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
The result of adding subclause (2A) to clause 1 would mean that if the Bill is passed, any public display other than those that will be discussed at our later amendments would have to take effect or banned completely by the first anniversary of the passage of this Bill.
Mr Chairman, the fact that this Bill passed a second reading without any opposition only means one thing, that Members of this Council do realise the fact that display of tobacco in the form of tobacco advertisement is a dangerous issue. It should be banned completely because it will definitely lure people who do not smoke to acquire that habit.
If that be the case, then I would submit to Members that the earlier this takes effect the better. If you look around our neighbours, those who have actually banned tobacco advertising display, you realise that one year's grace period is already a very, very generous one. If you look towards the north of the border, our future sovereign, China passed an anti-advertising law on tobacco back in October 1994 and the bill took effect by the first quarter of 1995. Similarly in New Zealand, we have seen that it took about four months before the bill took effect.
Actually, even in Hong Kong when the Hong Kong Government banned electronic media, it took thirteen months to take effect. So, Mr Chairman, I do feel that one year would be a good compromise to ensure that this harmful effect of display should be banned completely to ensure there will be a safe environment
for our future population.
With those remarks, Mr Chairman, I would like to move.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンXI
Clause 10 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンXI
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫霉某碞辩醇翬某笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶辩某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫霉某笆某タ辩醇翬某ぇタ莉∕ボ霉某ぇ览タぃ莉硄筁
霉璓某璓勉畊и矗タ程璶琌膀辩某タ材よ,и-
σ納磅︽Τ闽兵ㄒ甶ボ废約硄㎝磅︽よ螟
セ兵ㄒ秈︽癚阶現┎ボゴ衡ㄢず龟琁Τ闽兵ㄒ磷現┎らぃゲ璶┪ㄤ溃璓龟琁ら戳礚戳╈┑и-
玥種辩某矗タ弘盢ぉ砏﹚
琂礛и-
矗兜Тタよ才現┎種腀よ璹砏ㄢи-
辨︗ㄆや硂兜タ
谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, while I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments I just wish to add that it is Government's intention to bring the display ban in section 11 into effect after two years. As in the past, this will be done by way of commencement notice. This two year grace period will allow sufficient time for the affected parties to make the necessary arrangements.
Question on Dr LEONG Che-hung's amendment put.
辩醇翬某ぇタ窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Dr LEONG Che-hung claimed a division.
辩醇翬某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈辩醇翬某碞材1兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Dr LEONG Che-hung, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr LEE Kai-ming and Miss Margaret NG voted for the amendment.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted agianst the amendment.
Dr HUANG Chen-ya and Mr Ambrose LAU abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were eight votes in favour of the amendment and 37 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ8は癸37琌ガタ綝∕
辩醇翬某璓勉畊иぃ琌璶ビ厨痲璝弧⊿Τ惠璶и獽沮穦某盽砏材37兵材(4)蹿笆某璝Τ〆セΩ穦某碞1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒㄤ緇兜タ璶―秈︽翴∕砰〆穦斗翴∕牧羘臫癬1だ牧ミ秈︽翴∕
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊セ〆穦穦某畊碞1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒぇㄤ緇兜某秈︽ぇ翴∕翴∕牧羘パ3だ牧搭︓1だ牧
〆穦畊パ辩醇翬某ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫霉璓某笆某タ
霉璓某璓勉畊и笆某タ材1兵赣兵糤干材(2A)蹿タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンXI
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be further amended by adding subclause (2B) and that clause 10, which is related, be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The effect of these two amendments would mean to say that there will be a ban of advertising in printed media to take effect by 31 December 1999, in other words, by the year 2000, giving a grace period of some 30 months.
Mr Chairman, this is basically in line with Government's agreement and commitment to the World Health Organization (WHO), Western Pacific Region in that all tobacco advertising to be banned by the year 2000. I have no doubt that the tobacco advocates in this Council will say that the decision of the Hong Kong Government to the WHO has no legal binding, yet as an accountable member of the, or rather an associate member of, the WHO any agreement this Government has with the parent body must be respected.
Needless to say the advertising agencies will also cry foul. They will say that their revenue will be drastically decreased. Yet time and again, Mr Chairman, in this Council, not only today but in the last debate, it has been shown that the revenue, after banning any form of advertisement, has shot up. In Hong Kong for example, as I mentioned just now, in our two television stations after the banning of advertising their revenue shot up by 50%. In our neighbouring countries, it has been shown that after banning advertising in the printed media the advertising revenue also shot up. And I do not see why the same thing will not occur in Hong Kong.
Now, in the debate, second reading debate, Mrs CHOW was saying that, "look, why should we interfere with adults who want to smoke?" But Mr Chairman, I would like to put it to you and this Committee, that we are not trying to stop adults from smoking. Basically, what we are saying is "do not induce those people, especially young people who have not smoked, to take up this habit". We are saying that, "look, there are also the non-smokers who should not be exposed to the danger and the side effects that other people's smoke would introduce.
Now, Mr Howard YOUNG also said just now that, "look, let us, do not be different from our neighbouring countries". This is exactly what we should do. Our neighbours have all banned tobacco advertising. We are standing out like a sore thumb in all this by continuing with tobacco advertising.
With those remarks, Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンXI
Clause 10 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンXI
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и稱洪弧杠ê獽琌瓣癸废秈︽硂或約獂そ渤毙▅のよ琌辨荷秖毙▅-
ぃ璶废τぃ穦窽ゎ祅更废約ぃ┋谅ッ闹某瞷ぃ硂и獺废碞"ě籊"妓琌⊿Τヴ︙角┪禨種竡
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, regarding Dr LEONG's amendments to ban tobacco advertisements in printed media, I would just like to add that it is our policy to adopt a step-by-step approach in respect of anti-smoking measures, having regard to experience and the sentiments of the community.
We are not proposing a ban on tobacco advertisements in the printed media at this time but we will review the situation seriously after the display ban has been brought into effect to see whether further measures are required.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: The Secretary mentioned that the Government's approach is a step-by-step approach. I would like to appeal to this Council and to inform the Government that my proposed ban should take effect by 31 December 1999, 30 months from now. To me, it is already too slow a step but I do respect the agreement between our Government and the World Health Organization and therefore I extend it to that period in time. I do hope Members will support this very important move and a very important step towards banning tobacco advertising.
Thank you.
Question on Dr LEONG Che-hung's amendment put.
辩醇翬某ぇタ窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought that the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈辩醇翬某碞材1兵の10兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, 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 CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted for the amendment.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Miss Margaret NG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 37 votes in favour of the amendment and nine votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ37は癸9琌ガタ莉硄筁
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
Clauses 2, 3 and 4
兵ㄒ材23の4兵
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
These are technical amendments. We propose to change the Chinese wording of "restaurant" in order to match the wording used in the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap.132) to which this Ordinance makes reference.
We also propose to remove the definition of "restaurant" from the existing section 6(A)(4) to section 2. This is so that all references to restaurants in the Ordinance will be defined and not just those in section 6(A).
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンXI
Clause 3 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXI
Clause 4 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンXI
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move my proposed amendment in paragraph (b) of my amendment to clause 3 by adding subclause (1) as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The purpose of this amendment is to simplify the procedure of designating no-smoking areas for section 3 purposes. This simplification will shorten the time needed before such areas can become smoke-free.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXI
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊霉璓某箇ボ览碞闽ぇ材23の4兵笆某タ徖ネ褐ョ箇ボ览碞р材3兵ぇ兵Ωэ材3(2)兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶霉璓某碞材23の4兵矗ぇタの徖ネ褐碞р材3兵ぇ兵Ωэ材3(2)兵矗タ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶霉璓某碞材23の4兵矗ぇタの徖ネ褐碞р材3兵ぇ兵Ωэ材3(2)兵矗ぇタ酚穦某盽砏材25兵(4)蹿セ畊穦叫霉璓某笆某タ
霉璓某璓勉畊и笆某タ材23の4兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
〆碞硂ㄇ兵ゅ秈︽冈灿臛阶闽︙矪瞶竩砞ミ獶废跋拜肈独岸藉某の谅ッ闹某碞朝篴篱某種ǎ莱┮и硂虏祏ㄇ酵酵硂拜肈
Τ闽竩拜肈и-
200传杠弧甧200竩獽斗砞ミ獶废跋и-
程秈︽癚阶纯某﹚ぃぶ縩购獶废跋瞷產竒筁┮孔Тэぃぶだぇ縩琌и-
临Τ灿竊拜肈斗ㄆ秈︽癚阶ê獽琌Τ闽硂ㄇ竩"耚皊"︙矪瞶и-
獶盽フ産穦癸皊加ㄓ弧琌獶盽璶┮и-
粄讽竩庢快産穦莱碞獶废┪废拜肈倒ぉ僚琌览タи-
笿螟肈ê碞琌或衡琌╬笆㎡產瞅癬逗弧琌╬逗狦╬笆眔僚杠ê或畉ぃ–常眔僚┮硂琌讽螟矪瞶拜肈ぃ筁竒筁σ納и-
程粄硂ㄇ╬産穦ぃ恨计Τぶ璶丁筳琌パ┑甶︓ぱ狾獽┮и-
タΞ僚êㄇ蔼丁筳筳秨琘兜╬笆盡ノ畊︗ぃ阶赣单丁筳琌笆丁筳ы┪㏕﹚丁筳ㄤ緇よ甧200畊︗獽斗盢ぃぶだぇ縩购獶废跋
︓朝篴篱某矗磅︽よ笿螟и獺璶磅︽ヴ︙兜猭ㄒ┪ヴ︙ンㄆэ跑Τㄇ琘祘琌斗璶続莱︓斗璶癸ぶ砛螟计玡讽現┎弧璶窽ゎ繦佛и獺讽妓癸摸螟狦讽現┎⊿Τ窽ゎ繦佛獺さぱ臮穦皊加㎝竩菲┮и粄σ納硂拜肈窽ゎ繦佛㎝窽ゎ废琌讽礛и獺瞷窽ゎ废穦笿ㄇ螟讽Τ闽猭ㄒ龟琁琿丁瓃螟獽穦硋亥ア
и辨某镑やセタ谅谅畊
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンXI
Clause 3 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXI
Clause 4 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンXI
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫徖ネ褐碞霉璓某笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇタ祇ē埃獶霉璓某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫徖ネ褐笆某タ霉璓某碞材23の4兵笆某ぇタ莉∕ボ徖ネ褐碞材3兵笆某ぇ览某タぃ莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, my proposed amendment is a technical amendment to cater for our addition of clause 3(1) only, which concerns about the deletion of the reference by order in the gazette from section 3(1A) of the Ordinance.
As regards Mr LAW's amendment, I would like to draw Members' attention to the management and possible enforcement problems posed by his proposals. The amendment as drafted means that no smoking areas might change from meal to meal and from day to day. Areas reserved for such private functions will also vary. This constant rearrangement will make it difficult for restaurant operators to delineate a smoke-free zone as required.
Apart from such practical difficulties it is also open to argument what a private event means, given that it is not defined in the Ordinance. This proposal, therefore, makes it practically impossible to set aside a permanent no-smoking area.
If the Government's proposal of giving the managers a free choice to designate any area they wish can proceed the managers will find it easier to devise a workable plan. Indeed, I hope that they will take account of the wishes of the 85% of their adult patrons who do not smoke by designating large smoke-free areas voluntarily. Overseas experience shows that after designating a no-smoking area the volume of business is not reduced.
币某璓勉畊и瞷碞朝篴篱某矗都穨拜肈3翴莱
材Τ︗某莱朝某祇ē弧砞ミ獶废跋硂兜惫琁穦舧竩ネ種穦璝琌и-
︙ゲ璶ぃ硓筁︑パ竒蕾︑笆秸竊タ現┎┮弧璶砞ミ獶废跋獽τ礚惠计よ
材琂礛废计ヘΘ14%и-
︙璶砏﹚だぇ︙ぃ14%τだぇ
材產笵皊加蹦ノ笆丁筳狦丁筳斗璶眖┑甶︓ぱ狾獽穦跑Θ"别┬"и-
临Τ磅︽よ拜肈ê獽琌"齘"繦锣传"齘"и-
︙蝴200畊硂ゑㄒ㎡硂ㄇ常琌都穨磅︽よ笿拜肈
セは癸霉璓某タや現┎タ
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и︑パ囊は癸霉璓某タи弄祇ē竒矗筁ㄇ種ǎぃ筁霉璓某弧龟悔薄猵龟螟暗矗の╬笆盡ノよ璶パ︓ぱ狾筳秨拜肈琌皊加蹦ノ丁ê或硂ㄇ皊加衡ぃ衡デ砏㎡パ硂ㄇ常ぃ琌甶ぱ狾ê琌衡琌デ砏㎡и谋眔硂弧猭セ艶┦畕皊加盿ㄓ拜肈ㄇ皊加穨疭琌竒犁い瓣Α皊加癸и弧-
皊加竒盽耚砞尺産τ硂ㄇ産穦ゼゲ盢齘筳秨┮-
眖龟悔磅︽àㄓ龟螟Τ恨瞶
膀瓃瞶パи辨產秆皊加疭琌い瓣Α皊加セ⊿Τ㏕﹚﹚だぇ縩笷霉璓某タ璶―┮и辨產は癸霉璓某タ玂現┎览某艶┦パ恨瞶よ∕﹚皊加莱妓砞竚獶废跋
朝篴篱某璓勉畊弄独綺笽某祇ē碞都穨砏﹚购砞獶废跋タボ癸セ琵˙霉璓某祇ēョボ程σ納タい砏﹚50畒︗竩獽斗璶砞竚废跋竒吭高セ種ǎэ200畒︗礚阶︙硂よи癸独某㎝霉某ボ谅種
︓チ囊独岸藉某㎝谅ッ闹某癸и弄祇ē矗ㄇ好拜иぃ稱硂粇產丁辨-
Τ诀穦测钮ミ猭Ы魁盿魁盿睲捶秆氮ㄢ︗某拜肈
и稱翴皊加竩禥薄猵狦–ぱ畒︗﹚丁瞷竚瞯蔼薄猵癸都穨ㄓ弧琌贺ゴ阑и弄穨都穨ぃ眏疨は癸砞竚窽废跋и祔ョ穦膥尿癸硂翴干
畊霉璓某タ砏﹚畒︗计秖∕﹚琌斗璶砞ミ窽废跋硂琌ぃ︽磅︽穦笿螟猭ㄒΤろ睲捶ゲ礛穦ま癬某┪阶璓硑Θ睼睹庢ㄒㄓ弧霉某タ砏﹚200畒︗獽斗砞竚獶废跋皊加硄盽砞Τ190畒︗狦ネ種祔砍┪笿安戳┪竊ら產玡ㄓ臮盿计獽璶肂耚砞计眎慈硂丁キらぃ斗砞獶废跋皊加獽牟デ猭ㄒ硂琌ㄒ
ㄇ砞Τ禬筁200畒︗竩穦ㄨ種р计眎慈Μ旅癬ㄓ┪繦"ǐ碍"発磷猭ㄒ恨讽礛ō某иぃ穦躬纘硂贺暗猭街義幢弧ぃ穦祇ネ硂贺薄猵㎡硂ㄇ薄猵琌ぃ箇ǎ
陪τǎ霉璓某竖タ﹚η︹盿磅猭螟霉某⊿Τ灿みσ納都穨竒盽祇ネ薄猵иぃ﹚и弧琌临Τㄤㄒ霉某⊿ΤΤ灿み芠诡都穨┪秆ㄇ竒拜肈兵ㄒス莉眔硄筁皊加竩硂ㄇ猭ㄒτ硑Θ某㎝ゲ礛礚ら礚ぇま璓睼睹獶盽и辨︗ㄆは癸霉某タ
畊иビ翴穨荡ぃ琌は癸砞ミ窽废跋琌辨祔糴肞㎝碻亥秈よ猭矪瞶
畊叫甧砛иまノ"琵场だ碔癬ㄓ"硂ē琌綡キネ┮弧畊и辨甧砛иまノ硂杠い瓣秈︽秨э矗琵场だ碔癬ㄓ讽иぃ獺ボぃ獺硂琌ㄆ龟瞷ゑ玡碔肝硂琌渤┮㏄и谅谅畊ир杠肈ц眔硂或环и┤畊ぃ甧砛и硂妓弧иまノ硂ㄒ琌и觅Θ現┎某镑都穨﹚兜糴肞猭ㄒ琵恨镑砞竚窽废跋の︑︽∕﹚或よ砞竚窽废跋硂琌碻亥秈暗猭
渤┮㏄瞷繺芔砞Τ獶废跋㎝废跋τиョ矗筁都穨癸現┎斑㏑琌眖いΑ都穨盢穦猭硂妓暗さぱ琌﹁繺芔ぱ琌いΑ都穨琂礛竒笷ヘ獽礚斗硂︑パ穦矪矪琁ス弧舦︑パ㎝チ︙ぃ镑琵废繦種翴㎡穨狦猭ㄒ砏﹚砞獶废跋獽莱皊加竩犁穨縩夹非и竒矗筁200畒︗琌计ヘ縩ぃ穦繦跑6 000キよ獽琌6 000キよ畊種盾縩琌ぃ耎埃獶琌рウ罽1窾キよ獽琌1窾キよ硂琌絋龟计ぃ穦繦跑狦┮弧畒︗计ヘ璸衡玥繦э跑癸硂妓Τろ睲捶猭ㄒи辨︗某щ▆み┪タ絋布┮щ布琌璶ウ紇臫丁竩㎝20窾眖穨叫某︑∕﹚иぃ穦"オ"某∕﹚
㏄辩睶┥某弄祇ē弧都穨砆"秨"弧硂杠痷非絋牟デ废そ渤徖ネ兵ㄒ砆籃25,000じ璝ぃ才吏挂玂臔竝砏﹚デ砆籃30窾じデ玥砆籃40窾じ畊眖ㄆ都穨挂猵耕砪临璶篏Τㄇ︓弧ゑ暗搁临璶篏-
篏猵琌痷窾絋иぃ稱禣產丁
霉璓某タη︹盿琌皊加竩恨瞶琌斗购砞窽废跋τぃ斗璶瞶穦窽废跋ず废㎡狦猭ㄒ砏﹚璶砞ミ窽废跋玱ぃ宽τ窽废跋ず废竩恨瞶琌斗璶瞶穦璝琌ぃ惠璶杠砞竚窽废跋ヘ︙ê癦ぃ琌店砞タ癸⊿Τ﹚窽废跋畕璽店璓猭ㄒ螟磅︽狦猭ㄒ莉眔硄筁籔ぇ丁の籔竩ぇ丁ゲ礛穦祇ネ某┪磅ゲ礛穦祇ネ縤揽狦璓璶牡よ庢厨玥穦磅猭痟゜㏑
セ赖叫︗某は癸霉璓某タ
畊セ略朝勉谅谅畊
法У地某璓勉畊沮и┮材砞ミ废跋㎝獶废跋︽穨ぃ琌皊加ぃ琌栏皘τ琌そ瘤礛硂菌眣碭玡竒絋ミ︓さぱ砞ミ废跋㎝獶废跋诀篶ご斗琌砞竚窽废跋よㄉΤ艶┦玥獽螟竒犁谅ッ闹某弄臛阶矗のそτи┮そ诀购砞┮孔獶废跋ぃ琌祑┦砏﹚τ琌筿福店帹硂ㄇ店帹繦跑┮竒犁惠璶艶┦ぃ单Τ艶┦獽穦废┪ボ⊿Τ秈˙ヴ︙Τ瞶醇竒犁常穦竒盽痙種策篋穦笵琘兵帹琘ㄨ琘痁诀琌Τ废策篋Τㄇ帹废计ヘぶ︓ぃ砞废跋Τㄇ帹獽ぃ硂妓暗钩┕翠㎝らセ痁边パらセ╄翠︽刮ョ淮﹡┮废跋畒︗ゑ耕ぶ琌琜诀狦琌Ν╄翠穦琌犁坝废跋畒︗穦ㄇ狦竒犁艶┦獽螟膥尿竒犁
и獺ㄤ皊加单︽穨穦蛤繦カ初э跑狦祇谋そ渤ら亥钡搭ぶ废︓ぃ废硂ㄇ︽穨︑礛穦蛤繦奸瑈醇∕﹚и-
穦獶废跋ら亥耎┮иや現┎甧砛竒犁ㄉΤ耕艶┦暗猭
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊癸硂拜肈иセㄓぃ非称祇ē碞Τ闽砞ミ废跋ㄓ弧チ羛谋眔莱赣叭―ぃ废┮紇臫┮и-
粄砞ミ废跋穦癸そ渤Τ矪チ羛朝篴篱某︽穨拜肈チ羛ビ叫僚τи-
钡ビ叫
и-
钮筁朝篴篱某築磏朝勉ョ灿み钮筁霉某簍勉璶崩︽硂兜兵ㄒ会拜肈ョゼゲ镑ぉ磅︽チ羛盢穦щ斌舦布
霉璓某璓勉腑瓣辆某莱赣フ祘倒и丁氮臛礛σ納э跑種某矗の螟拜肈и瞷沽刚秆氮產みい好螟
法У地某矗闽紆┦拜肈и谋眔璝硂猭獽莱赣やи某タ币某矗废14%或眔だぇよ购獶废跋窽ゎ废跋龟悔莱84%だぇ琌程キ癸来眔暗ネ種ㄓ弧莱赣﹚84%窽废跋и-
﹚だぇ獽琌辨倒ぉだ紆┦ゑㄒㄇ琌琌だぇ琌80%и-
某だぇ獽琌辨倒穦獺êㄇぃ稱"も废"砞ミ窽废跋琵-
Τ匡拒и-
粄暗ネ種琌莱赣﹚蔼翴ぃ筁碞ミ猭ㄓ弧и-
┮璹夹非だ
タ朝篴篱某┮弧眖ㄆ都穨常钮杠и-
現┎ミ猭诀闽﹚猭и獺-
ョ穦だ腀種宽硂ㄇ猭Τ闽╬よ㎝蔼拜肈и祇ē弧眔びе秆睦眔ぃ睲贰ㄆ龟и-
セㄓ稱﹚だぇΤㄇ穨ず粄Τ螟俱芔ㄑ耚砞尺産ㄒ废穦耚砞尺産и-
⊿Τ瞶パぃ倒琌и-
獽璶稱稱妓秆∕硂ㄇ拜肈ぃ阶耚砞尺産废籔и程祇ē矗и-
璶だ侩或衡琌╬産穦ㄒиネら讽ぱ横秨ㄢ畊叫и﹏ゝ逗嘿ぇ╬産穦┪琌產碭逗ョ衡琌╬籈穦ê或и-
┏︙﹚㎡龟悔タ翴╬笆よ盢だぇ縩窽废跋ê或或衡妮"╬"㎡狦弧琘妮╬┦借杠獽﹚璶рウだ筳秨ㄤぃ紇臫杠╬よ废琌璶だ筳秨獽ê或或璶弧琌蔼丁筳㎡琌Τミ猭螟狦琌弧琌獽琌3┪琌6и-
︙﹚㎡
и-
程弄祇ē矗и-
セヘ琌璶场窽ゎ废狦Τ惠璶杠獽臥よ倒废絋玂ㄤ胺眃ぃ穦紇臫瞷弧琌Ти-
璶―琌程ぶ璶Τだぇ窽ゎ废跋硂┮孔"╬"拜肈ㄆ龟礚斗疭ぉ﹚璶恨瞶粄琌╬よ┪╬産穦獽р筳秨狦ぃ硂妓暗杠ぃ筁斗璶рだぇ縩购窽废跋τタ┮弧84%琌ぃ废┮盢だぇ縩购窽废跋﹚ぃ穦瞷龟悔螟
闽紆┦拜肈朝篴篱某拜或и-
ぃ縩τ畒︗计ヘㄓ﹚㎡產璶痙種ビ叫皊加礟酚惠璶ユ瓜(floor plan)ず酶礶甧ぶ畒︗瘤礛竒犁らр畒︗穐簿琌ビ烩礟酚竒Τㄇ砏﹚碞朝篴篱某┮弧甧190よ┛礛甧11и踞みぃ琌Τ笻はセ兵ㄒиはτ踞みΤ笻は礟酚┮更兵ㄒ┪ㄤň兵ㄒ甧190よ┛礛Г250硂穦篶Θ拜肈㎡ぃ筁硂拜肈ぃ闽さぱ硂兜某程璶琌ビ叫礟酚┮ユê瓜玥非玥狦琘竩セㄓΤ200畒︗瞷逞150ê或沮иタ獽竒礚斗璹だぇ縩窽废跋┮и矗タ琌だ糴肞ㄆ龟Τи稰琌Μ候ㄇ
狦Τ牟デセ兵ㄒêㄇ磅︽莱妓暗莱厨牡琵牡よ秂㎡и獺程ㄆ莱Τだ竩本ボ礟┪高拜琌废┪琌匡拒废跋膀セ盢"だ瑈"狦琌废獽Τだぇよㄑ匡拒讽礛Τㄇ琌尺舧㎝癸弧琌獶废Г獶废跋琌祑璶废ê或и-
莱或快㎡タ矗繦佛拜肈讽礛狦稱眔伐狠ㄇヴ︙デ猭ㄤ常Τ砫ヴ牡よ庢厨ぃ筁讽礛硂斗跌吏挂琌馋獶ǎ遏繷ō猌竟弧﹚废璶厨牡盾ê讽礛璶跌琌σ納厨牡ぃ筁и粄﹍沧磅︽硂ンㄆぃ琌痷硂或螟タ┮弧螟笵и-
ヴパ繦佛盾┪ヴパデ猭盾┮璶и-
镑睲贰购﹚窽ゎ废跋祇睲捶獺禗琌窽ゎ废跋废и獺琌ぃ穦Τ或螟埃獶场璶废ê或﹚穦祇ネ螟﹚穦瞷朝篴篱某┮弧薄猵狦┮Τ璶废τ-
祑璶êだぇよГΤ或拜肈㎡ぃ筁狦场だぃ废и獺ê购窽废跋だぇよе獽穦骸畒逞ㄓ獽琌ㄤ緇だぇ甧砛废よ硂薄猵и稱祑璶废遏繷﹚ぃ穦绊璶Г窽废跋狦產稱睲贰硂闽だぇ拜肈セ玂毁磅︽癸螟拜肈
и辨镑秆氮產癸и矗タㄇ好碽ㄆ龟и-
瞷琌碻亥秈璹だぇи痷辨ら镑窽ゎ废埃ㄇΤ疭丁筳㎝砞Τ秸よ钩ㄇㄑ縉疦竩縉疦膌琌砞Τ┾猳废砞称и獺ら狦皊加穨眔场だぃ废獽斗砞ミㄇ窽ゎ废跋硂妓暗癸ネ種穦Τ腊
и辨產倒иや谅谅畊
Question on Mr LAW Chi-kwong's amendment put.
霉璓某タぇ某肈窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈霉璓某碞材23の4兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗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 Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Miss Margaret NG voted against the amendment.
Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the amendment and 15 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ26は癸15琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊徖ネ褐パ霉璓某ぇタ莉∕ぃ碞р材3兵ぇ兵Ωэ材3(2)兵笆某览某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
Question on clauses 2, 3 and 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材23の4兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clauses 6, 13 and 15
兵ㄒ材613の15兵
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendment to clause 6 is purely technical so as to make the term "tar yield" consistently used throughout the Ordinance.
The amendment to clause 13 exempts Internet service providers and private correspondents from being caught under section 13(b)(i). We want to catch only those users who place tobacco advertisements on the Internet, not the service providers.
The amendment to clause 15 adds a due process for relevant parties to make representation before the magistrate can order disposal of illegal tobacco display advertisements.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 6 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンXI
Clause 13 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材13兵ǎンXI
Clause 15 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材15兵ǎンXI
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 6, 13 and 15, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材613の15兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 11
兵ㄒ材11兵
辩模┚某璓勉畊и笆某タ材11兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊タタ某材12兵材场だ洪琌м砃┦タ璶琌"Α┪ㄤ"单泊
材场だタ琌甧砛废觅坝ㄤ觅笆戳丁甶ボㄤ坝穨嘿┪礟嘿約τ赣約琌赣笆肚
и辨︗ㄆ疭猔種и矗タ琌"废玻珇約肚"竒筁籔ㄤ刮砰钡牟眔废坝⊿Τ眏疨ボ斗废玻珇約肚┮程и∕﹚эиタ狦︗ㄆ盿ㄓぃ獽и笵簆
и辨坚睲Ω瞷タ甧砛废坝ㄤ觅笆戳丁甶ボㄤ坝穨嘿┪礟嘿約τ赣約ゲ斗赣笆肚
и辨︗ㄆ镑やиタ畊и辨ΩΩ坚睲ヘ玡и硂兜タず甧璶ヘノ4ㄓ甧蝴瞷︙蝴瞷獶и觅Θ膀セ猭蝴瞷τ琌筁ヘ玡笲⊿Τ瞷拜肈疭琌螟靡ヘ玡笲穦芠渤钮渤┪把籔赣笆赣約肚甶ボτ旧璓ㄤパぃ废跑ΘΤ废策篋硂薄猵и辨產やиタㄏиタ莉眔硄筁
畊セ略朝勉
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 11 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンXI
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman, I rise to speak against and strongly against the amendment moved by the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung. I think this is a big retrograde step backwards in promoting tobacco smoking.
Two points are being raised by Mr LEUNG. The first point is that he does not believe that using brand names and otherwise in events will detract people from smoking. Let me ask him if it does not bring on that effect, why does the tobacco company spend so much money to do this? Why? Why do they want to do that?
Let me ask Mr LEUNG as regards another example. If in front of a whole package of cigarettes, Marlboro or whatever it may be, there is Michael CHANG holding a tennis racket, how would that affect a young, keen tennis player of that young age?
Let me give him another example. If our Governor, Chris PATTEN, has a lot of fans I do not know how many he has and see him with a big t-shirt (and which he has done so once) with the word "Marlboro" on it. How would that affect those fans who follow him?
As I mentioned just now, Mr Chairman, in the Second Reading debate, there are over 300 literature research articles to prove that tobacco advertising in any form is really luring young people in particular to smoke and we have got examples from ministers of health from different countries, from Norway, Mrs CHOW just quoted that it does not happen, but I have in my hand a letter from the Norwegian Minister of Health to prove that this is the case, and another one from the British Minister of Health.
I do hope Members will vote against this because I really consider this as a great retrograde step backwards.
Thank you.
霉璓某璓勉畊闽硂兜タチ囊ぃボや程璶タ辩某┮弧琌и-
谋眔硂兜タョ琌癶暗猭碞チ囊τē膀セ程琌ヴ︙觅笆常琌莱赣窽ゎ硂ㄇ废約ぃ阶琌丁钡┪钡ぃ筁и-
σ納拜肈碞琌ささら現┎ご礛ゼщ戈や硂ㄇゅ甌眃贾笆и-
谋眔ミ盢ㄤ窽ゎ琌穦Τㄇ螟┮癸現┎兵ㄒず┮矗タи-
谋眔常琌竒秈˙Τ闽約︓辩模┚某タㄆ龟琌êへ眔び筁糴硂琌и-
ゑ耕螟钡环ㄓ弧и-
琌辨現┎粄痷σ納窽ゎ┮Τ钡┪丁钡約τ矗ㄑΤ闽戈方琵硂ㄇ笆眔庢︽辨產镑は癸硂タ
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the existing section 14 of the Ordinance deems an advertisement for a sponsored event to be a tobacco advertisement if the advertisement bears a tobacco brand name which is not used in association with a non-tobacco product.
The amendment proposed by the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung will have the effect of allowing any sponsorship advertisements bearing a tobacco brand name or logo to be displayed in the venue of the event and without any health warning. This defeats the purpose of banning display advertisements and represents a regression of the existing policy and is therefore totally unacceptable.
I urge Honourable Members to vote against it.
辩模┚某璓勉畊︗某常粄иタ癶и粄︑琌今疉ぃ︑癶и琌蝴瞷薄猵瞷暗猭弧癶㎡琌ぃㄆ龟薄猵τ
材よи矗螟靡盢策篋ぃ废跑废и纯矗翴┮辩醇翬某矗安⊿Τノ或璶暗肚㎡и稱弧琌暗肚琌よΤㄇ沽刚ㄏノ琘礟﹟ゼ眏獺みτぃ耞暗肚糤眏臮癸玻珇獺み硂妓ぃì琌иぃ逼埃Τㄇ穦硂妓暗τ计沮よ琌螟靡и稱睲贰弧瞷ノ"A"礟"A"笆τぃ琌弧р"A"废秈硂妓琌蝴瞷暗猭τ
畊セ略朝勉
Question on Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment put.
辩模┚某タぇ某肈窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought that the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung claimed a division.
辩模┚某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈辩模┚某碞材11兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
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 Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 22 votes in favour of the amendment and 28 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ22は癸28琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊Τ某高拜セ畊穦某︙Ч拨セ畊螟箇璸璝拜セ畊穦矪瞶兜兵ㄒセ畊ㄓ璝產簍勉ぃび斗1рセ兵ㄒ癚阶Ч拨ê盢既氨さぱ穦某セ兵ㄒま癬獶盽荐疨癚阶硂琌獶盽セ畊稰砍届堡セ畊ぃ祇ēセ畊琌Τ翴ぃフΤ都Τ废诀琌砆跌皊加渤
琖皇某祔獽穦钮渤
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman. I move that clause 11 be further amended by adding subclause (1A) as set out in the paper circularized to Members, and if you allow me, Mr Chairman, I will also speak on another addition of subclause (1B) because they amount to the same thing.
Now, Mr Chairman, when I speak on these two amendments that I want to introduce, I do so with a bit of embarrassment because I am sure Members will say, look, I am taking a slight retrograde step compared with what the Government Bill intends. The Government Bill intends and I beg forgiveness from those anti-tobacco people up there who is now throwing daggers at me using their eyes the Government Bill bans display completely but I have taken into consideration of the hardship and the livelihood issue of people who have actually presented their case to the Bills Committee at the Bills Committee meeting, people who are selling cigarettes, people who are at the side streets, perhaps under the staircase of buildings, who feel that the fact that if we ban all these completely they will lose the few thousand dollars which is essential for their livelihood associated with the money they get for advertising for the tobacco company.
It is because of that, therefore, Mr Chairman, I move two amendments. The first amendment which is to add subclause (1A) is to exempt hawkers and allow them to advertise, to display obviously legally in relation to the fact that there has to be health warnings.
I will also be introducing subsequently subclause (1B) which takes into consideration and exempts small retailers who do not employ more than two employees. I thought this would be perhaps a balance between the need to move along in, banning tobacco advertising, at the same time, taking into consideration a progressive step and the livelihood of a lot of people who may be affected by this.
With those remarks, Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 11 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンXI
㏄辩睶┥某畊闽砏祘拜肈辩醇翬某弧闽箂扳翴拜肈иョΤ兜タ瞷種琌ぃ琌ㄖ癚阶临琌だ秨ㄓ矪瞶㎡
〆穦畊沮量絑逼笆某材(1A)蹿辩醇翬某莱笆某赣蹿ぃ筁琂礛ョ盢穦笆某材(1B)蹿┮矗の硂琌ぃ癸ㄌタ絋矪瞶よΑ莱矪瞶材(1A)蹿礛矪瞶材(1B)蹿辩醇翬某タ㎝籔ㄤΤ闽ぇ㏄辩睶┥某糤干材(4)蹿タㄢ穦ㄖ臛阶
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman, I did say that I only wanted to move to amend clause 11 by adding subclause (1B). But I said that if I had your permission, I would like to speak also on (1B). But I were not moving that yet.
〆穦畊セ畊笵⊿Τ笆某材(1B)蹿τ璝矗のセ畊獽穦叫氨ゎぃノ踞みセ畊稱︗〆秆睦瞷琌矪瞶材(1A)蹿材(1A)の(1B)蹿АΤタ璝и祔矗のョ礚Й狦蹦ノㄖ臛阶ê或讽癚阶材(1B)蹿薄猵獽穦睼睹瞷秈︽材(1A)蹿臛阶
霉璓某璓勉畊и祇ē璶琌皐癸(1A)琌笵瞶琌続ノ(1B)の㏄辩睶┥某┮矗タ碞琌狦眖и-
チ囊猭龟膀セи-
獶盽ぇや現┎瞷璹ê某τ辩醇翬某┮矗タ┪祔㏄辩睶┥某┮矗タ常穦盿ㄓㄇи-
穦踞み穦祇ネㄆ薄碞琌硂摸約獂垒拜肈
ぃ筁ㄢㄤ淮辩醇翬某タ耕钡讽礛и-
ョΤσ納狦現┎兵ㄒ璹ぇ癸ㄇ砪坝┍┪Μ穦籹硑ㄇ獶盽螟讽и-
キ颗胺眃の硂ㄇ竒蕾螟и-
渡ゑ耕凹胺眃拜肈或и-
沧∕﹚や辩醇翬某タ㎡硂琌パи-
紐納狦и-
ぃや辩醇翬某タ祔㏄辩睶┥某タ硄筁杠ê瑌獽穦珿и-
圭腀ê瑌灿翴и-
沧∕﹚や辩醇翬某硂タの钡タ谅谅畊
朝胞糭某璓勉畊и-
碭羛穦ㄆや辩醇翬某タи-
や璶琌σ納拜肈獽琌и-
笵êㄇ扳芥废砪êㄇ舥郎タ辩醇翬某矗疭翴琌ㄢ沟и粄璶σ納ㄢよσ納坝砪約⊿Τ废┍綫ê或陪臩τ癸┍綫ㄓ弧璝ぃす砛-
甶ボ﹚約㈱フ弧癸硂竤眖ㄆ扳芥废坝砪ㄓ弧穦紇臫-
ネ璸и︑琌箂扳κ砯穦畊-
ищ禗粄安璝⊿Τêㄇ約杠膀セ獺穦癸-
垦ネ硑Θ螟タ硂翴и瘤礛や崩笆窽废琌硂筁祘讽い眔σ納疭竒蕾猵ぃ瞶稱安璝硂兵ㄒ紇臫ぃぶ硂ㄇ扳芥废砪ネ璸杠и-
獽ぃ稱Τ硂薄祇ネ
и-
や辩醇翬某タ
琖皇某璓勉畊硂セЫ碞程尺舧"锣浹"琌и-
チ囊さΩㄤ龟琌и礹み∕﹚や辩醇翬某タ∕﹚ㄤ龟и-
碞胺眃硂よㄓиぃ瞶穦琌诀篶芥废┪琌坝┍︓竒犁砪芥废废ぃ虫ゎ癸︑Τ甡癸ㄤΤ甡┮и-
眖胺眃ミ初ㄓセ碞⊿Τ瞶パぃや現┎琌︙и-
チ囊瞷璶や辩醇翬某㎡ㄤ龟Τ瞶パ碞琌辩某禗и璸衡筁狦и-
ぃや辩洛ネ現┎兵ㄒ碞セぃ镑硄筁琌膀硂玥и-
琌ッ环ぃ穦斌硂ê或璶玥┮и-
琌礹みや辩某タи-
ぃ稱"锣浹"琌甡┤块辩某禗иぃや碞﹚块⊿Τ快猭瞷暴Τ硂∕﹚
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и-
讽礛琌や甧砛Τ礟砪甶ボ废約и-
籔辩醇翬某猭だ猍ǎタ硂兜タи-
琌や
法此某璓勉畊и-
チ囊癚阶兵ㄒ硂场だ冈灿癚阶の竒筁礷泵ゃ琖皇某矗のи-
绊玥ê翴琌Τㄇㄆ矗そそ盋盋ぃ筁琌竒犁丁灿ぶ坝┍τ攫ミ約礟琌-
场だ璶Μ安и-
ぃ-
硂妓暗杠-
獽璶ビ叫侯穿τ硂ㄇそそ盋盋獶盽辨綼︑蝴ネぃ辨綼現┎侯穿硂琌だ才и-
翠骋眔弘┮и-
∕﹚琌膀硂ㄢ玥の砰穦硂ㄇρ㎝ㄇ竒犁兵ン耕畉砪讽礛σ納琖皇某┮矗薄猵琌и辨и-
琌だ臮のêㄇ兵ン耕畉砪硂翴琌и-
癚阶い砛ㄆ矗┮獶琌洪布方谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, while I appreciate the many good intentions raised by Members towards hawkers and other small retailers, I must emphasize that we envisage enormous enforcement difficulties if this exemption proposed by Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung were granted.
There are some 770 hawkers in the Urban Council area who have their licence endorsed to sell tobacco products. In the Regional Council area, I understand that no hawkers have their licence so endorsed. This would mean unequal treatment to hawkers in different parts of the territory.
Even in the urban area, we cannot tell by sight which hawker is licensed or unlicensed or whether his license is endorsed or not. It is therefore impossible to ascertain whether a hawker commits an offence until we can look up the records. Apart from being cumbersome, this has resource implications and we therefore object to this exemption.
On his other amendment which tries to exempt tobacco retailers employing not more than two persons from the display ban, this will again impose very great enforcement difficulties because we have to ascertain how many staff a retailer actually employs in order to determine whether they are exempted or not.
On these two amendments, we must object to this exemption.
辩醇翬某璓勉畊и稰谅碭︗ㄆ祇ēや硂タタи秨┮弧иま硂ㄢ兜タㄤ龟琌竒筁泵ゃ硂ンㄆиョ谋眔Τぶ砛篎穃洛臔崩笆窽ゎ废璶矗硂妓兜タㄤ龟琌羮螟の礹み暗猭
咎▆み量и-
琌钮筁ㄓи-
硂兵ㄒ〆穦и-
量瓃-
ら盽ネ羮璚琌惠璶硂よ硂妓暗┮и程矗硂兜タиョ辨ㄆや硂ㄢ兜タи硂ㄢ兜タ程ぶぃ穦盢ê秨眔び狦盢ê秨眔び碞まㄓㄤΤ闽废約拜肈
иョ璶現┎璓簆陪иョ種硂兜タま癬笲の磅︽螟ぃ筁ㄤ龟現┎┮ま兵ㄒΤ磅︽螟ㄒ窽ゎ18烦禦废硂妓磅︽㎡琌牡诡–废郎娩緉㎡┮-
ョ璶σ納硂翴ぃ筁程礟酚拜肈ㄒ砪砪芥废礟酚ㄢ蒥現Ы祔ョ璶╯硂ンㄆ
谅谅畊
Question on Dr LEONG Che-hung's amendment put and agreed to.
辩醇翬某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊セ〆穦ご膥尿矪瞶材11兵辩醇翬某箇ボ览材11兵糤干材(1B)蹿㏄辩睶┥某ョ箇ボ览材11兵糤干材(4)蹿τ硂籔辩某ぇ某琌Τ闽硈
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶辩醇翬某の㏄辩睶┥某碞材11兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶辩醇翬某の㏄辩睶┥某碞材11兵矗ぇタ酚穦某盽砏材25兵材(4)蹿セ畊穦叫辩醇翬某笆某タ
辩醇翬某璓勉畊и笆某秈˙タ材11兵赣兵糤干(1B)蹿タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンずи冈瓃ぃ稱禣︗丁谅谅
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 11 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンXI
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫㏄辩睶┥某碞辩醇翬某笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶辩醇翬某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫㏄辩睶┥某笆某タ辩醇翬某ぇタ莉∕ボ㏄辩睶┥某ぇタぃ莉硄筁
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊иタㄤ龟籔辩醇翬某タだぃびぃ筁и辨ㄆ猔種碞琌辩醇翬某タ弧箂扳坝竨ノぃㄢ沟琌ê祑┦砏﹚眔候ㄓ弧セ竒犁ネ種常ぃ筁琌パ5竒犁τи-
癸沟﹚竡常琌パ5竒犁沟ㄤ龟êㄇ常琌ㄇ獶盽砏家ㄇ竒犁
琌狦辩醇翬某硂或祑┦砏﹚и獺瞷磅猭拜肈膀セиョ常秆箂扳翴常琌セ竒犁琌獶盽沟┮и辨產镑やиタぇ緇碞琌跑Θは癸辩醇翬某タㄤ龟膀セやиョ琌やㄇ坝砪ㄏ-
眔镑ご礛笲狦硂或祑┦砏﹚癸ㄇΤ34沟硑Θ紇臫珿辨產は癸辩醇翬某タ祔やиタ
辩醇翬某璓勉畊㏄辩睶┥某粄иタ讽紆┦и種硂弧猭琌场だ坝┍Τ56τ-
计琌克妮竨叫23и踞み琌碞㏄辩睶┥某矗タτēи笵祇翴琌糤紆┦程玱穦ま璓ォ传ēぇ瞷禬カ初そ璶-
┍ず扳芥废獽擆怠甶ボ废約и粄硂贺薄猵ゑ瞷罺и-
は癸êㄇそ秨約璝废約坝р硂ㄇ窥禣そ擆怠約и粄硂妓狦穦ゑ瞷薄猵畉
谅谅畊
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и獺и-
兵ㄒ〆穦い纯碞硂翴癚阶ㄤ龟產常睲贰笵瞷禬カ初┪κ砯そ扳芥废セ琌荡礚度Τ┮Τ箂扳翴常琌砏篘琌稱潦禦废ぃ穦禬カ初禦废珿瞷箂扳翴碭琌㏕﹚计ヘぃ穦跑τ荡场だ常琌砏家
и辨現┎倒ぉ艶┦ぃ璓ㄇ坝砪┪セ竒犁沟紇臫谅谅畊
琖皇某璓勉畊セㄓиぃ稱祇ē钮筁㏄辩睶┥某祇ēи笵﹚璶や辩醇翬某ē阶
琂礛废チぃ穦臮砏家砪芥翴钩и-
チ囊瞷や"ㄈそ""ㄈ盋"单㏄辩睶┥某玱弧や坝め璝ぃ臮坝めτ甧砛坝め約肚穦р禫秨禫チ囊﹚や辩醇翬某辨ぃ斗癚阶㏄辩睶┥某タ
畊㏄辩睶┥某琌砏祘拜肈
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊琖皇某Τぶ砛粇穦и種羆琌眏秸"ぃ惠璶"и獺钮簗и场だ祇ē
辩醇翬某タ"ㄢ沟"猭ㄒ硂砏﹚龟琌獶盽"祑┦"璝セ竒犁沟ノ3官璸獽ぃ砏﹚灿ㄤ龟暗硂贺ネ種-
砏家讽τ伐ㄌ苦約干禟-
Μи-
辨Τ硂艶┦и荡獶璶―盢ウ糤約ㄆ龟ヘ玡箂扳翴常琌砏家竒犁
琖皇某и钮眔睲贰и临琌尺舧辩某┮弧"ぶㄇ""耕ぶ砏家""芥ぶㄇ废"癸酚ぇゑ"耕砏家""芥ㄇ废"搭ぶㄇ炳端
畊辩醇翬某琌璶―坚睲
辩醇翬某ㄤ龟и祇ē畊
畊璶ぃ琌狡阶翴獽
辩醇翬某㏄び弧眔癸瞷禬蒥初τē废ぃ琌-
程璶砯珇讽礛-
ぃ穦芥約さΩ硂兵兵ㄒ窽ゎそ秨祅約讽废坝璶芥約τ-
⊿Τよ芥約-
穦︙㎡-
穦碞禬蒥初ゴ種硂よ芥約㎡и獺ㄆ璶癘硂翴港礛и︑種瞷废ぃ琌禬蒥璶砯珇ぃ幢弧废琌ぃ琌讽废坝ぃㄤよ芥废約碞穦-
もи辨ㄆ穦硂翴は癸㏄辩睶┥某タ
バ玊某璓勉畊碭︗某祇ēㄓㄓ常弧狦琌ㄢ沟êㄇ碞﹚琌"ㄈ盋ㄈ"弧鸡チ囊碞弧や辩某弧硂ㄇ鸡"ㄈ盋ㄈ"碞琵倒-
芥иぃ尺舧废は癸废碞は癸︙т瞶パㄢ沟碞﹚琌"ㄈ盋ㄈ"ㄢ沟ぃ琌"ㄈ盋ㄈ"碞妓芥废は筁ㄓ弧Τ5沟坝めㄇ玱ゼゲ﹚碔肝琌5產畑暗硂ネ種ゑㄢ沟坝腹临璶砲絘硂瞶阶龟琌畉ぃ璝琌や杠5沟㎝ㄢ沟セ礚だ妓琌扳芥废︙щ布⊿Τ拜肈璝孔やㄢ沟τぃや5沟и谋眔笵瞶琌ぃΘミ
朝岸穨某璓勉畊и稱バ玊某ぃび瞶秆辩醇翬某タず甧膀セ產畑Θ琌ぃ璸衡沟ずê產畑ΘΤ碭ㄢ沟碞珹ず┮筁碭るи︑ョ穦ǎ筁ぃぶ跋砪坝砪┪よ璽砫膀セ硓筁辩醇翬某硂兜タ莱赣玂毁ㄇ竒犁產畑Α坝┪ㄇ砪礟┪厨砪礟扳芥废и獺癸-
Τ﹚玂毁讽礛タ琖皇某玡┮弧玥常莱赣ぃ琌狦癸场だ篶Θびゴ阑硂兜タ琌Тタ
辨︗某や硂兜タ
独綺笽某璓勉畊矗筁チ囊セ辨窽ゎ硂よ約ぃ筁紇臫ㄌ苦硂ㄇネ種ネ璸┮甧砛Τ硂タиや辩醇翬某ぃ筁и辨硂ㄇ砪㎝êㄇ竒犁ネ種莱癘眔硂兵隔︽ぃ硄и-
琌矗ㄑ筁寸丁诀穦ㄏ-
眔続莱のゼт穝ネ璸玡莉眔硂妓逼現┎程沧穦超硂"簗瑌"玥ぃ废坝獽穦ノ硂簗瑌ま护废и-
ぃ辨祇ネ硂贺薄猵
琖皇某璓勉畊и種辩醇翬某弧杠璝и琌废そそ闽и獽穦稬"碞硂妓碞盢そそ盋盋常眔腞︾狝翧艫ぃ眔ま猔種芥废倒淮"ㄤ龟и琌踞みぃ筁癸иτēㄤ龟バ玊某弧眔癸呸胯琌種琌璶Ч窽ゎ辨現┎穦痙種辨ミ猭Ы材ミ猭穦穦痷痷タタ硂よ礷ひ
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I have already spoken about Dr LEONG's proposed amendments. I would like to address the Honourable Selina CHOW's amendments.
Mrs CHOW's amendment to exempt such establishments poses again enormous difficulties for the Administration. We therefore object to these exemptions.
It is not difficult to envisage big supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants, grocery stores, other stores being flooded with all kinds of tobacco advertisements and the sizes of these tobacco advertisements are not specified in the amendments. This is totally unacceptable and defeats the purpose of imposing a display ban. Therefore we must object to this exemption.
Question on Dr LEONG Che-hung's amendment put.
辩醇翬某タぇ某肈窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈辩醇翬某笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗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 Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, 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 CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 38 votes in favour of the amendment and nine votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ38は癸9琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊㏄辩睶┥某パ辩醇翬某ぇタ莉∕ぃ碞材11兵笆某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
Question on clause 11, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材11兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 14
兵ㄒ材14兵
〆穦畊徖ネ褐辩模┚某の辩醇翬某だ箇ボ览材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(2)兵笆某タ
セ畊某︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶パ徖ネ褐辩模┚某の辩醇翬某碞材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(2)兵笆某ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶パ徖ネ褐辩模┚某の辩醇翬某碞材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(2)兵笆某ぇタ酚穦某盽砏材25兵(4)蹿セ畊穦叫徖ネ褐笆某タ
叫琵セ畊秆睦翴穦某盽砏材25兵材(4)蹿﹚ΩΤセ畊琘︗某戈耕瞏┪パ琘︗﹛笆某琌パ產笆某絛瞅ㄤ玥∕﹚Ω
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that section 14(2) in clause 14 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
This is a tidying-up exercise. The policy intention remains the same as the existing provision, that is to say, we deem any advertisement which induces smoking, depicts a tobacco product, contains a tobacco brand name or logo as a tobacco advertisement.
The amendment aims to catch objects such as lighters or stickers which are not advertisements in the traditional sense but have the effect of promoting smoking or tobacco products. We also aim to clarify what is exempted.
As regards sponsorship advertisements, we will continue to exempt sponsorship in the name of a tobacco corporation or sponsorship using a name identified with a tobacco product but in association with non-tobacco product.
There is some concern that the television broadcasters will be caught by showing any smoking scene or tobacco product or brand name in their programmes or documentaries. I can assure Members that the exemption granted under subsection (3) will give sufficient protection to those concerned. We will not initiate prosecution action just because a news report or television programme shows such a scene accidentally or incidentally.
For example, if a sports programme showing an overseas event where a banner in the venue shows a tobacco brand name or logo, or if the interviewee in a news or documentary is smoking while interviewed, such appearances are regarded as accidental or incidental to the programme. As long as no valuable consideration has been given for such accidental or incidental appearance, they will not be treated as tobacco advertisements.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 14 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンXI
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫辩模┚某碞徖ネ褐笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇタの辩醇翬某ぇタ祇ē辩模┚某祇ēセ畊穦叫辩醇翬某碞兜览某タ祇ēぃ筁顶琿ぃ眔碞辩模┚某┪辩醇翬某ぇタ笆某ヴ︙某
辩模┚某璓勉畊闽硂兵兵ㄒи盢穦矗タ程璶ず甧琌材14(2)兵砏沮瞷︽兵ㄒㄒ甶ボA礟废約琌ぃ琌狦A礟壳觅笆碞ㄆ龟琌ぃ穦硂妓A礟废ぃ穦戈A礟壳そ觅兜笆硂妓暗琌Ч⊿Τ種竡τиタ碞琌弧狦琌A废そ觅兜笆杠ㄒ瞴辽碞甧砛ウ嘿A瞴辽иタず甧碞琌硂或虏虫辨產フ硂笵瞶琌弧Aぃ琌A废τ琌A瞴辽籔瞷薄猵畉ぃ辨︗や
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman, the whole amendment here is on sponsorship. I think there is a lot of misnomer and I would like to make this clear, and that is nobody, not in the Bill, is against sponsorship, or banning sponsorship. What we are banning is advertising in the disguise of sponsorship. Let me perhaps spend a little bit of time to explain what the situation is like now with the current law, what the Bill introduced by the Government will bring about, what Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment will bring about, and what my amendment would bring about.
The current situation, and I do hope the Secretary for Health and Welfare would correct me if I am wrong, is that if you use the words, let us take an example, Marlboro, if you say "Marlboro Tennis Match" it is actually against the law at this point in time, but the fact is that it is not refined enough that
you can actually implement to take effect.
What the Government intends to do is to tighten loose ends, as it were, so that it could actually implement the law properly. But, at the same time with the Government's Bill, if you say "Marlboro Classic Tennis" or you say "Kent Holiday Rally" then you are alright. The fact remains in that situation you still
see the word "Kent", the word "Marlboro", the word "Camel" or whatever it is which in the blatant eyes of the young people would be attracted by all these attractive advertisements.
Mr LEUNG's amendment is even worse. Mr LEUNG says, "look, it does not really matter. You can actually even say "Marlboro Football Match". You do not even need to add the word "Marlboro Classic Football"". It is a direct approach to indicate that this is actually a secret and nothing else.
Now, what I intend to introduce is an amendment to allow only corporate sponsorship. In other words, I will not allow brand names. I will only allow "British American Tobacco Company" or "RJ Reynolds", who is the originator of Camel. That is actually basically what it is.
Now, I do agree and I think I do agree that because of all this sponsorship business and because of all these issues about banning sponsorship, the cultural people, the sports people and shamefully even the rehabilitation organizing people are being drawn in to support the so-called advertisement in the disguise of sponsorship. Well, I can understand why. Very simply, they need the money to keep them in function and we need to see the good culture aspect in Hong Kong, the good sports and to support the rehabilitation organizations.
But be that as it may, let us look at it from two angles. The first angle is that our friends who appeared in the Bills Committee actually told us that the whole year of cultural, sports, perhaps even rehabilitation, support from the tobacco company amounts to around $5 million . This is about 1% of the interest of Hong Kong's fiscal reserve. I would appeal to the Government that if my amendment goes through, the Government should take the initiative of taking a positive step to setting up funds, for example, or introducing a tobacco levy tax, for example, to support this. Other countries have done it. Victoria has done it with very good effect. I do not see why with all our enormous reserve in Hong Kong we cannot move in this direction to want to promote sports and culture activities and at the same time ban the harmful effects of tobacco.
So with that, Mr Chairman, I do hope Members would vote for my amendment and reject the two amendments moved by the Government and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung. Thank you.
〆穦畊︗〆瞷碞徖ネ褐碞材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(2)兵笆某ぇタの碞辩模┚某の辩醇翬某︑矗ぇタ秈︽ㄖ臛阶
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и獺и-
瞷琌癚阶辩醇翬某膀セノ话荷炳荡よΑ窽废⊿Τì镑弧狝┮矗の琌約安ê約洪琌陪ボ┮孔"礟"(logo)︙ま废㎡и谋眔璶耚"logo"︑パ礚粄琌玱弧ぃㄤ芠翴瞶沮
兜笆τē安琌パ琘唉礟坝珇觅τ琌陪ボ琌パ赣坝珇觅杠ê妓︙穦ま旧废㎡讽礛タ辩醇翬某ョ┯粄琌璶话荷炳荡ê或獽礚杠弧程碞琌或常ぃǎ程碞琌盢┮Τ废綪反奔钩綪反緙妓癸"废"ミ初琌荡癸拜肈琌猭坝珇τē︙靡陪ボㄤ"logo"獽穦ま旧废㎡狦ぃēぇΘ瞶︙璶硂妓㎡︙τêㄇ笆⊿Τ┪礚猭庢︽㎡讽礛璝現┎そ┊戈獽程璝現┎ぃ矗ㄑ戈笆セ礚猭庢︽硂妓琌穦穕甡琘ㄇ笆τ琌莱赣痷璶硂基㎡и辨︗ㄆは癸辩醇翬某タや辩模┚某タ
霉璓某璓勉畊チ囊や現┎タ︓辩模┚某タи-
谋眔琌⊿Τゲ璶闽辩醇翬某タ弧琌иチ囊徖ネ祇ēㄤい兜程螟
俱废拜肈τē產常笵琌獶盽ㄣ某┦τи-
囊ず琌パ程伐狠 程或常ぃ窽 ︓或常璶窽芠翴常Ττ辩醇翬某硂兜タョ琌и-
囊ず程ㄣ某┦иョぃЙ弧ㄓ倒產笵ぃ筁и-
囊程∕﹚粄辩醇翬某硂兜タぃ才и-
囊猭┮и-
ぃ镑やи獺硂ョ琌キ颗拜肈
ㄆ龟玡祇ēずи-
ョボ龟悔и-
辨秈˙辩醇翬某タ弘и-
チ囊琌やタ玡矗の螟狦現┎ゼ镑щì镑戈方觅笆瞷顶琿и-
チ囊琌螟や硂ンㄆぃ筁и-
獺璶現┎ì镑港種戈硂ㄇ笆杠チ囊ら穦獶盽贾種獶盽蔼砍やΤ闽タ谅谅畊
綠產碔某璓勉畊碞チ囊ゅ眃約冀現郸よの吭高現郸よи辨皐癸現┎㎝辩模┚某タの㏄辩睶┥某癸約猭笷ㄇ種ǎ
и兵ㄒ〆穦纯碞赣拜肈笷種ǎêㄇ約坝┪废坝竒盽弧-
┮甶ボ約獶辨ま-
废ㄏ琌硂妓杠⊿Τ靡沮靡耚"logo"碞穦ま废ㄤ秖穦まêㄇΤ废策篋锣传礟иだ睲贰癘眔独繪ネ︗獶盽約籹┮弧杠材崩綪"廥芉"約矗の妓ㄏ-
尺舧都ノ硂"廥芉"稱挡狦稱"滴狝盼"硂弧杠ま翠秨﹍ノ"廥芉"瞶阶琌約セパ﹍︓沧碞琌璶ま潦禦ê坝珇
畊и痷ぃ钡êㄇ废坝祅約┪ㄤ礟觅竊ヘㄤ龟琌觅ぃ琌辨潦禦赣坝珇阶翴璝礛杠и痷ぃフ-
︙禣ê或掸窥暗約︓辩模┚某タ膀и┮弧и粄ゲ﹚穦ㄏぃぶ翠疭琌獵紇臫畊瞷砛觅笆疭琌砰▅笆龟癸砛獵硂よΤ莱狦安拜иΤ︙钡闽玒и獺ぃぶ╯靡龟琌Τ闽ぃ筁拜肈琌废坝ぃ穦籔и-
酵阶硂ㄇ拜肈τ琌籔и-
酵阶ㄇЧ⊿闽玒ㄆ薄
闽ゅ眃約冀よΘミ膀┪砰▅膀┪┾废祙挤ㄇ窥崩甶ゅ甌眃砰祇甶и-
癚阶砛–Τ18货じ废祙ㄓ璸衡и-
狦ラ緿瑆1%暗猭–Τ1,800窾じ赣计ヘ龟琌獶盽胑狦и-
镑今硂材˙セ現┎硂兜某︓琌辩醇翬某某и-
チ囊幢やぃ筁拜肈琌安やぇ瞷琂⊿Τ紉Μ废祙砞ミ膀и-
獽盢璶┯ㄓ︑ゅ甌眃贾刮砰溃琌и-
琖皇某┮弧Ω璶癶˙钡現┎硂兜タ辨硂兜タ痷篊篊腊废坝瞷糶約ぃ眔矗の废玻珇礟и-
粄辨庢秈˙ゴ阑废坝約程琌穝ぃ穦废
畊セ略朝勉
琖皇某璓勉畊废そそ闽琌Μ程蔼厨筍-
净繷琌程Τ弧杠碞痷琌玍癲и-
醇紌-
弧約獶琌辨まㄓぃ废废琌璶废锣传礟τ硂痷琌ぱ丁抡螟笵Τ禦废-
穦拜"ネ┕筁废盾ゼ筁е翴產絵ぃ璶禦и-
芥倒êㄇ稱锣礟"ê穦Τ獺㎡и-
チ囊竒盽暗肚Τ刁芥約フ翭夹粁ㄓê或и-
碞琌フ翭囊琌盾ま或㎡ゲ﹚琌辨瞷や︑パ囊チ羛êㄇ场やチ囊琌Τㄇ穝匡チ螟笵ぃ-
-
產ぃ璶щ布盾┮废坝弧杠痷琌腇3烦琌4烦獽ぃ︽┮и-
窾ぃ璶钮-
弧杠钮钮临みい笵-
琌弧晾
㏄辩睶┥某弧甶ボêㄇ礟"logo"穦ま废狦Τ把芠筁êㄇ呼瞴辽獽笵-
セ琌淋叫废ぃ琌琌癳ンT倒┪癳郴碪倒拦ê妓虏虫-
Ч琌盢禣废玡璝狦Τゼ筁废刚螟笵-
穦ぃ璶盾┮弧硂礷弧杠и痷ぃ╯澈┮︙パ堡瞷ぃ测钮
ㄤ龟иみヘい琌Чや辩醇翬某щ布碞ぃぃ筁и辨現┎碞痷тㄇ尺舧肚翠膀ㄓや砰▅笲笆ㄏ獵眔痲ぃ璶废坝まㄒ翠ぱ穦膀さぱ淋叫и簍量Τ诀穦倒и穦ǎ瓣癘ㄤ龟-
琌窥硂よ莱赣窥よ碞琌觅ㄇ笲笆兜ヘ磃の翠獵ê碞痷穦翠ぱ┮畊щ布и穦ぃ蔼砍辨辩某ら笲辨現┎玡秈˙
独綺笽某璓勉畊Τ闽辩模┚某タパиㄆ竒矗の瞷иぃ稱у蝶よは癸猭Τ闽辩醇翬某タи稱酵酵霉璓某竒秆睦チ囊癸硂肈ヘ琌阶筁ぃΩ︓Ω阶眔羪φíㄤ龟闽硂拜肈и-
ぃ粄废坝約⊿Τ紇臫и-
硂よΤ璓猭τ闽龄┦拜肈或嘿約籔︙磷粇炳▆チ
辩醇翬某矗窽ゎ肚废礟硂瞣疉拜肈ㄒ"Kent""Salem"单ㄤ龟琌よ嘿狦硂妓窽ゎ獽ㄏ籔废礚闽ㄆ薄砆窽и-
粄"約"莱妓瞶秆狦琌瞣疉废礟砞璸Τ筽よτ肅︹砰筽安嘿籔ダ硂妓獽衡痷タ腊废崩綪約玥獽ぃ﹚妮約硂摸ゑ耕狡馒猭и-
セさΩ糵某硂兵ㄒ⊿Τ快猭膥尿酵阶⊿Τ诀穦籔辩醇翬某坝秖ゑ耕讽泊﹚丁钡┦約﹚竡┮и-
チ囊ず场ぃ笷Θ猭и辨盢ㄓ辩醇翬某┮Τは废籔現┎膥尿╯硂よи-
粄ê贺痷タ崩約蒥チ废約莱窽ゎ琌м砃и-
既ゼ暗τ
辩模┚某璓勉畊и羆琌谋眔狦и-
璶痷タ崩︽は废程篒讽暗猭碞琌盢废跌贺瑀珇ぃ瑈肚硂琌程ぃ筁ぃノ癚阶ê或璶﹚ê琌瑀珇杠ê碞Чぃ琌よи-
瞷龟いぃ琌硂妓暗и-
甧砛ㄤぃ盢ㄤ﹚瑀珇よ琘ㄇ坝珇肚и谋眔龟穦癸舦猭硑Θ毁锚翠舦猭兵ㄒ材せ兵砏﹚Τ祇︑パ舦硂ㄇ舦珹粂ēゅ┪美砃┪︑パ匡拒ㄤよΑぃだ瓣碝―钡の肚冀贺の稱︑パ
Τ弧и垒ノ舦琌ㄆ龟舦痷ぃ筁讽礛舦猭ずョΤ弧そ渤胺眃篶Θ瞶ヘ癸︽ョぃ笻は舦猭拜肈и-
瘤礛Τ洛ネㄆ龟废痷穦甡胺眃琌и-
ぃ盢废讽瑀珇ê妓矪瞶粄ゼ碿︓吹˙ê或и-
莱赣︙矪瞶㎡и獶躬纘废иぃ躬纘废и盽盽癸и厩ネ弧ぃ璶废琌拜肈璶暗硂ぃ度琌窽ゎ毙▅璶祇废硂贺薄猵ㄤ龟ぃ虫ゎ瞴辽初ずΤ祇废臟Τ祇禣废
临Τ翴и笵獵ぶぇ┮材废┪砛ぃ琌纃緈ョぃ琌ǎêㄇぃ琌ǎêㄇ約τ琌筳綟狟ね弧刚絵-
ぃ琌︙贺礟碞刚┮材废ぃ琌約τま璓材废琌ぃ﹚琌約琕废舽τ琌程璶竤砰紇臫獵ぶ暗或ㄆ琌竤砰硂琌み拜肈┮獵ぶ废拜肈и-
莱皐癸狟晋紇臫ぃ虫ゎ废瑀︓ㄤ胊︽常琌狟晋拜肈┮и谋眔璝弧璶約眖舦àㄓи︑ゑ耕螟钡
讽礛產弧さぱи-
璶臮のそ渤胺眃タи弧筁埃獶и-
蹦伐狠も琿玥и螟钡
谅谅畊
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr Chairman, I think declaring my interests that I am a non-smoker does not mean much. A lot of people here probably do not smoke, but I would also like to declare my interests as Vice-President of the Tennis Patrons Association, which every year organizes the Marlboro Open Tennis Tournament in Hong Kong. So, I would just like to say a few words about Dr LEONG's proposal.
I think he is suggesting that "Marlboro Open Tennis" is not acceptable, but rather, something like "Philip Morris Open Tennis" would be. But I think from the sponsorship's viewpoint, if Philip Morris is supposed to come up with like over 10 million every year to sponsor the Marlboro Open Tennis using the name only of Philip Morris and not as Marlboro, I do not think it will be a starter. So, you have got to be really realistic. Unless one day the Government or the Urban Council is willing to pick up the sponsorship fee, where will we get tennis players like Michael CHANG or Pete SAMPRAS to Hong Kong? Then this event will be over.
As to the Honourable Martin LEE, usually whenever he says something, I believe him because he is always correct. This is one of the rare occasions which I think he might have got his facts wrong. The Marlboro Open Tennis does not give away cigarettes. In fact, in the open stadium where we sit, with several thousand people watching Michael CHANG playing Pete SAMPRAS, smoking is actually banned from the stadium. So, from that point, I do not think, at least in the stadium, when you have a Marlboro Open Tennis, it would in that sense encourage people to smoke.
Certainly, I do agree with the rationale that staging the Marlboro Open Tennis certainly has some advertising value. I think that is a true statement. If not, who would want to do it? But on the other hand, unless we find a better solution now for the tennis tournament, for the soccer tournament, or for all the arts festivals, if we do it immediately all of a sudden, we are going to lose this event now.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
琖皇某璓勉畊バ玊某琌港龟и猋洁┮弧杠"芥約"讽礛琌Τㄤ基玥︙璶硂妓暗弧眔獶盽癸废そ坝ごゼ┯粄-
弧琌璶ま废チ锣礟┘"芥約"常琌锣礟ê或痷ぃ场常窽ゎ┘"ゴ㎝"硂妓⊿Τ或ぃТ
и粄バ玊某弧猭龟琌程睲贰痷龟猵и辨ぃ钮êㄇ琌τ獶阶沮
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the two Members' amendments go to two extremes. The Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment will totally remove any control in relation to tobacco brand name sponsorship. We find this regression of the existing policy objectionable.
On the other hand, Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung's amendment will effectively ban advertising of non-tobacco related business which shares the same name of a tobacco product. We do not want our Ordinance to affect those we have no intention to control. The Government therefore objects to both these amendments. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's other amendments to the proposed section 14(2) will create confusion to what is a tobacco advertisement by saying only what is not a tobacco advertisement.
〆穦畊セ畊р徖ネ褐ぇタ窖∕玡セ畊瞷矗眶︗〆徖ネ褐ぇタ莉∕ボ辩模┚某の辩醇翬某︑矗ぇタぃ莉硄筁
Question on the Secretary for Health and Welfare's amendment put.
徖ネ褐ぇタぇ某肈窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈徖ネ褐碞材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(2)兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕﹟ろ琌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 CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted for the amendment.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
Mr Eric LI and Mr Paul CHENG abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the amendment and 18 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ26は癸18琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ徖ネ褐碞材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(2)兵笆某ぇタ莉∕辩模┚某┪辩醇翬某ぃ笆某-
︑矗ぇタ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
〆穦畊瞷パ辩模┚某笆某材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(3)兵
辩模┚某璓勉畊и笆某タ材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(3)兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 14 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンXI
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I do not see the point or any merit for the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment, and hence object to this amendment. The expression "notwithstanding a certain section" is a very common legal phrase. It serves to clarify which specific provision has the overriding effect.
Question on Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment put.
辩模┚某ぇタぇ某肈窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ粄
Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung claimed a division.
辩模┚某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈辩模┚某碞材14兵ず览某ぇ材14(3)兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕﹟ろ2琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.
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 Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, 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 David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 10 votes in favour of the amendment and 37 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ10は癸37琌ガタ綝∕
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊挪玡辩醇翬某材11兵タ莉眔硄筁τиぃ笆某タ材12(4)兵┮瞷и篗玡硄〆Τ闽材14(4)兵タ
Question on clause 14, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材14兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 18
兵ㄒ材18兵
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊材18兵タ琌闽废箂扳翴甧砛箂扳坝硈废癳基ぃ禬筁┮潦禦礟20や杆废基秘珇︙穦Τ硂薄猵㎡讽и籔坝砪渡酵-
綠矗瞷╬废薄猵龟琌獶盽腨τ瞷產笵︳璸綪扳カ初い╬废┮ゑㄒ笷Θぇㄆ龟╬废基窥耕ì祙废獽﹜砛┮砛废チ穦匡潦ǐ╬废礛τ硂ㄇ坝砪┕┕続莱穦猭Ч祙废秘ㄇ搂珇ゴ诀单-
禗и安-
ぃ硂妓暗獽穦ま璓êㄇ猭Ч祙废籔ǐ╬废⊿Τだτ穦旧璓猭暗ネ種はτア膙辨產秆硂琌穦紇臫砛坝砪斑癸ǐ╬废砪膙谅谅畊
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 18 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材18兵ǎンXI
霉璓某璓勉畊チ囊ぃや硂兜タチ囊纯σ納㏄辩睶┥某┮矗Τ闽╬废拜肈フ硂拜肈琌眔и-
闽猔ぃ筁и-
粄ぃ続﹜硂兵ㄒず矪瞶Τ闽癳搂籔╬废ぇ丁闽玒ぷㄤ琌讽и-
σ納狦芥废獽秘癳そτそ糶琘琘废礟ê或硂琌陈沸ㄆ薄τи-
粄硂妓暗獽穦痙簗瑌倒ぉ诀穦ノ猭羅回┮硂贺薄猵チ囊ぃや硂兜タ谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I must register my strong objection to this proposed amendment. It is full of problems. It is totally contrary to our policy objective. We aim to discourage young people from taking up the habit and encourage those who smoke to quit.
The attachment of gifts to tobacco products sold aims at encouraging people to smoke and to perpetuate the habit. Enforcement is also a problem because it is not possible to estimate the market value of the gift which is normally specifically designed for that event.
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉タず弧ê搂基ぃ禬筁┮潦礟20や杆废基
材┮癳搂珇璶Τ胺眃┚
材и稱產猔種翴琌讽êㄇ搂珇癳琌箂扳翴讽废チ禦废癳┮膀セぃ穦Τ獵ぶ硂ㄇ狥﹁ㄆ龟獵ぶêㄇよ潦禦废セ竒牟デ猭ㄒぃ扳芥废ぉ18烦獵ぶ
〆穦畊琖皇某狦础ē琌Τ闽砏祘拜肈玥硂琌パ㏄辩睶┥某笆某タ
琖皇某矗ㄇ穝阶翴ぃ璶―氮臛盾
〆穦畊埃獶璶―坚睲琘翴叫弘虏ㄇ
琖皇某砛и碞璶―坚睲
〆穦畊祇ē氮臛That was the final reply. I am sorry.
琖皇某拇ê废琌扳ぉΘêン搂珇穦琌ㄇ獶盽ま淮┪τㄏ-
獶盽戴辨废狥﹁㎡
㏄辩睶┥某畊êㄇ搂珇ぃ琌刁繦獽癳τ琌êㄇ废チ潦禦废癳┮ぃ琌ヴ︙獵ぶ癸êㄇ搂珇稰砍届獽繦︑и-
σ納琌ㄆ龟Τ砛纯矗瞷Τㄇ搂珇琌繦矪祇┮祇獵ぶも瞷┮弧獶êㄇ硂ㄇ洪琌箂扳翴潦禦废┮綪扳废癬莉秘猭Ч祙废籔ǐ╬废Τ┮だ
〆穦畊狦璶―坚睲獽穦簍跑Θ臛阶
琖皇某㏄辩睶┥某ぃだフи拜肈иぃ琌弧êㄇ獵ぶ︑τ琌克潦禦êン癳搂珇穦獵ぶ稰だまτㄏ-
獶盽戴辨废
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
タぇ某肈窖∕綝∕
〆穦畊パタ綝∕セ畊瞷︗矗ぇ∕某肈材18兵セ兵ㄒ
Question on the original clause 18 put and agreed to.
览材18兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 23
兵ㄒ材23兵
霉璓某璓勉畊и笆某タ材23兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンぇず
チ囊辨盢ㄓ更4κ砯そ坝初蝗︽单Τ秖カチ疭琌獶废竒盽㎝硆痙よэ更2琌パ恨瞶∕﹚ㄇ琌獶废跋τэ场窽ゎ废パ硂兜タ祔丁2糤干兵ゅタ┮︗ㄆ璝や硂兜タ杠辨︗祔璶や材22A兵タτぃ琌瞷4埃潦坝初κ砯そ蝗︽单ぇτぃ2糤干ê或獽穦ㄢ┮叫︗痙種璝觅Θ瞷硂兜タ碞璶觅Θ材22A兵タ璝ぃ觅Θ材22A兵タ琌セぃ稱硂ㄇよΘゲ礛窽废跋ê或辨︗ぃ璶觅Θ瞷硂兜タ玥獽穦盢恨瞶舦玠ㄏぃ﹚琘ㄇよ窽废跋
谅谅畊
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 23 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材23兵ǎンXI
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, although we appreciate the spirit behind the amendment to make all indoor places open to the public, in supermarkets, department stores, shopping centres and banks smoke-free, leaving only restaurants in section 4. We, however, believe that it is more desirable for managers to determine the location of no-smoking areas to suit their operational requirements. Since the designation is made out of their own initiative, the managers of the Schedule 4 premises would be more prepared to enforce the law.
霉璓某璓勉畊徖ネ褐程ê弧杠ゑ耕禣秆иぃフ︙Τ猭ぃㄌ碻琌ぃ磅︽はτヴパ讽Ы暗玱穦磅︽硂笵瞶ぃび睲贰ぃ筁и獺Τ猭-
獽穦磅︽翠琌そ猭
谅谅畊
琖皇某叫霉璓某坚睲翴某琌珹セミ猭Ы加
霉璓某畊硂兜タ琌ぃ疉のミ猭Ы加
畊セ畊辨妮囊某ぃ璶佰蛮庐渤
畕地某ê弧杠穦某魁渤
畊セ畊琌秨璝產粄斗穦某魁硂琌
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ粄
Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈霉璓某笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr Ambrose LAU and Mr LO Suk-ching voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 32 votes in favour of the amendment and 11 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ32は癸11琌ガタ莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 23 be further amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendment adds a number of educational institutes under Schedule 4.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 23 (See annex XI)
兵ㄒ材23兵ǎンXI
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 23, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材23兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
New clause 3A
穝璹兵ㄒ材3A兵Display of signs outside restaurants
竩甶ボ夹粁
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
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 3A as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
The reason for this amendment has already been explained earlier. This is a technical amendment to remove the definition of "restaurant" to section 2.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 3A be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 3A (See annex XI)
穝璹材3A兵 ǎXI
琖皇某畊叫徖ネ褐秆睦某ず甧び弘虏
〆穦畊弄穝璹材3A兵哪睦睲贰瞷琌程顶琿the last step: that new clause 3A be added to the Bill
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 22A
穝璹兵ㄒ材22A兵Designated no smoking areas
﹚窽ゎ废跋
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
霉璓某璓勉畊и笆某弄穝璹材22A兵ず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンずセЫ竒や盢4禬カ初蝗︽κ砯そ潦坝初埃и辨產镑秈˙や硂兜タ盢硂ㄇよ璹窽ゎ废よ
谅谅畊
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
霉璓某璓勉畊и笆某セ兵ㄒ莱糤干穝璹材22A兵
谅谅畊
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 22A (See annex XI)
穝璹材22A兵 ǎXI
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 22B
穝璹兵ㄒ材22B兵Schedule amended
璹
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
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 22B as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
The amendment seeks to add the new airport at Chek Lap Kok to Schedule 3.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 22B be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 22B (See annex XI)
穝璹材22B兵 ǎXI
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
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE reported that the
徖ネ缒厨孔
SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1997
1997废そ渤徖ネ璹材2腹兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. She moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某
辩醇翬某璓勉畊谅谅倒и诀穦祇ēи稱弧3翴材и讽礛虑诀穦稰谅┮Τㄆや硂弧琌秈˙は废祘邻秨材˙ョ琌は废約笲笆秈祇璶祘иョ稰谅︗畊倒ぉи-
やи獺⊿Τ-
やи-
ョぃ笷璓顶琿
材иョ癸產弧琂礛兵ㄒ竒筁タτ硄筁и︑兵ㄒぃ穦膥尿弄狦畊甧砛杠и琌ぃ穦確弄硂ㄤ龟だ虏虫タ嘲糠某弧и矗兵ㄒ⊿Τㄤ狥﹁ぃ筁琌ま矰瑌堡琌ま兵挛ㄓぃ筁竒筁さぱタ硂兵挛临ゼΘ纒ぃ筁畉ぃ┮и︑谋眔獶盽骸種иョ獺┮Τは废ㄆョ骸種
材畊и谋眔畒ㄆ㎝翠蒥チ㎝畊瘤礛琌废常谋眔ぃ莱废и辨┮Τ废荷еぃ璶废玂︑ō砰胺眃ō砰胺眃㎝吏挂胺眃
谅谅畊
弧叫畊з废谅谅
琖皇某畊з废﹟ゼΘ畊ご斗
畊セ畊瘤ぃ祇ēご稰谅︗某癸セ畊稲臔Τ渤
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
穦某既氨
畊酚穦某盽砏セ畊瞷ガ既氨穦某贬9タ確穦某
Suspended accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock .
穦某笶边1022だ既氨
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 24 June 1997
558
ミ猭Ы せるら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 24 June 1997
559
ミ猭Ы せるら