1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 26 June 1991 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 26 June 1991 1
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 26 June 1991
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
HIS HONOUR THE DEPUTY TO THE GOVERNOR (PRESIDENT) THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR PIERS JACOBS, K.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN CHEONG KAM-CHUEN, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG YAN-LUNG, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE HENRIETTA IP MAN-HING, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN YING-LUN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN HSU LAI-TAI, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PETER POON WING-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHENG HON-KWAN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG PUI-LAM, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE POON CHI-FAI, J.P.
PROF. THE HONOURABLE POON CHUNG-KWONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAI CHIN-WAH, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS ROSANNA TAM WONG YICK-MING, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE DANIEL TSE, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL CHENG TAK-KIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHEUNG CHI-KONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD CHOW MEI-TAK
THE HONOURABLE MRS NELLIE FONG WONG KUT-MAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DANIEL LAM WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG WAI-TUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KINGSLEY SIT HO-YIN
THE HONOURABLE MRS SO CHAU YIM-PING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, I.S.O., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, O.B.E., A.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE JOHN CHAN CHO-CHAK, L.V.O., O.B.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT LAM CHI-CHIU, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, J.P.
IN ATTENDANCE
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
Oath
Mr John CHAN Cho-chak took the Oath of Allegiance.
Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Prisons (Amendment) Order 1991............................. 227/91
Copyright Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule)
Notice 1991..................................................... 228/91
Pleasure Grounds (Regional Council) (Amendment) Bylaws 1991.................................................... 229/91
Dutiable Commodities (Amendment)
Regulations 1991.............................................. 230/91
Immigration (Vietnamese Boat People) (Detention Centres) (Designation)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1991..................... 231/91
Immigration (Vietnamese Boat People) (Shek Kwu Chau Detention Centre) Rules 1991........... 232/91
Public Health and Municipal Services (Amendment of Fifth
Schedule)
(No. 2) Order 1991......................................... 233/91
Registration of Persons (Application for New
Identity Cards) (No. 9) Order 1991................... 234/91
Library (Regional Council) (Amendment)
By-Laws 1991................................................. 235/91
Administration of Justice (Felonies and
Misdemeanours) Ordinance 1991
(Commencement) Notice 1991........................... 236/91
Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles)
(Amendment) Regulations 1991
(Commencement) Notice 1991........................... 237/91 Sessional Paper 1990-91
No. 78 -- Director of Social Welfare Incorporated Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31 March 1990
Oral answers to questions
Use of powerful firearms in robberies
1. MR ANDREW WONG asked (in Cantonese): On 9 June 1991, five masked gunmen with an automatic rifle and some pistols held up five jewellery shops in Kwun Tong and exchanged more than 40 shots with police. In view of the seriousness of the case and deterioration of law and order situation generally in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council what measures will be taken to combat such crimes and whether there is any need to upgrade the police arms and ammunition in order to give more confidence to police officers?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, any use of firearms in the commission of crime is a very serious matter. The robbery which took place in Kwun Tong on 9 June 1991 in which an assault rifle was used is a crime of particular concern. That case is now under
investigation by the police. Extensive enquiries, including liaison with the Chinese authorities at a high level, are taking place. We are determined that those responsible should be apprehended speedily and brought to trial. We believe that certainty of arrest and prosecution is the most effective measure against crime.
At the same time, the Government is taking all possible steps to curtail the illegal importation and use of firearms. We have had several discussions to this end with the authorities in Guandong Province, the most recent by the Commissioner of Police late last week and further discussions today.
The type and calibre of arms and ammunition carried by police officers are under regular review to ensure that they are appropriate to operational requirements. Any proposal to upgrade police arms and ammunition must take into account the potential danger to members of the public in the event of an exchange of fire involving more powerful weapons. The present view of the police is that the standard weapons carried by officers on patrol are adequate for the purpose. It is not proposed at present to upgrade the standard weapon package. However, other more powerful weapons are available to the police when intelligence, or the situation on the ground, indicates that they might be required.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Sir, could the Secretary inform this Council of the police formations deployed on 9 June and whether the Special Duties Unit had been called into action on that day? Would the Secretary also advise of the strength of the Special Duties Unit, the place where they station and whether, if and when
necessary, they can be deployed to take part in operations against robberies on time?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I do not have available the deployment of the Tactical Unit or indeed other police formations in this particular incident on 9 June. However, the Police Tactical Unit companies do regularly take part in anti-crime patrols and special operations and they are always available to be deployed at very short notice.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, will the Government now examine urgently the need to ensure a much higher degree of security protection for high-risk premises against armed robbery by introducing statutory licensing for such premises and allowing better standards to be applied?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, the police regularly give advice to all high-risk premises including goldsmiths and jewellery shops. They hold regular meetings with the goldsmiths and jewellery shop operators association and all premises are visited and advised on precautions. Crime Prevention Officers in districts also visit premises to identify weaknesses in security systems and to advise on appropriate security precautions. We believe there is in general good co-operation between the police and the owners of shops and their associations. I believe also that there are well laid down and understood guidelines for shops to comply with insurance requirements. We do not at the moment have any intention of making such requirements statutory.
MR EDWARD HO: Sir, the Secretary for Security in his reply said that certainty of arrest and prosecution is the most effective measure against crime. Would he advise whether the Administration is satisfied that the level of penalty imposed by the courts on armed robbers and violent criminals is adequate as a deterrent?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, in general, I believe that that is the case. I do have some figures here for typical penalties awarded in the case of robberies with firearms. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. I believe that in recent years, the typical penalty has been somewhere between 15 and 20 years' imprisonment.
MR NGAI (in Cantonese): Sir, the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance was substantially amended in 1984. As a result, in the case of a conviction of unlawful possession of firearms, the maximum penalty under section 13(2) of the Ordinance was revised from 10 years to 14 years; and, in the case of serious offences of firearm possession, the maximum penalty was changed from 14 years to life imprisonment. The revision has been in place for more than seven years, could I ask how many persons convicted under this Ordinance have since then been given the maximum penalty of 14 years or life imprisonment?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, we do keep penalties under regular review. We do not have at the moment any intention of revising penalties but, as I have said, if there
is a need to do so, then we will certainly bring forward legislation to do so. I am afraid I am not able to say how many cases have received the penalties which Mr NGAI asked. I am not quite sure what sections of the Ordinance he was actually referring to but I will try to give a written reply. (Annex I)
MRS FAN: Sir, may I ask the Secretary whether he is satisfied with the strategy employed by the police in combatting crimes of such nature and whether the police are reviewing the appropriateness of their equipment as well as the deployment of policemen on patrol?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, to both questions the answer is yes. These are regularly kept under review.
MR POON CHI-FAI (in Cantonese): Sir, it is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the main reply that the standard weapons carried by police officers on duty are adequate for the purpose. But in the recent robberies, rifles or even grenades, the more powerful and destructive firearms, were employed. Could the Secretary advise of the type of weapons the robbers use which will prompt the Administration into giving
consideration to upgrading the equipment of the police, thereby ensuring the safety of the public and the police officers on duty?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, as I said, the police have no intention at the moment of upgrading the weapons package though this is something that they do keep under regular review. Among the prime considerations that they have regard to are of course the safety of police officers on the street and also the safety of the public.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, since I am advised by serving police officers for some time now that many of those high-risk premises ought to be brought under much stricter control and that the insurance industry is not co-operating fully as the Secretary has suggested, will the Secretary ask the Security Panel of this Council to re-examine this matter and allow police officers to attend for examination? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I am sure that if the Security Panel wish to have a discussion of this then of course we would be glad to do so and to invite the police
to be represented.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Sir, could the Secretary inform this Council of the police formations, for example, the Special Duties Unit, which are equipped with automatic weapons more or less as powerful as AK47 or MR16? What is the strength of the Unit and when will they be called into action?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, as I have said in my answer, there are many more powerful and sophisticated weapons available to the police for use if and when required. I do not think I can be more specific than that.
MR NGAI (in Cantonese): The Secretary has failed to answer directly the two questions I raised a moment ago. Could I ask the Secretary to give a reply in writing?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I would like to know what question I was asked by Mr NGAI to give a written reply to.
MR NGAI (in Cantonese): I mentioned a while ago that the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance was substantially amended in 1984. The revised section 13(2) expressly provides that the maximum penalty is raised from 10 years to 14 years imprisonment. The heavier penalty is indeed good news to us. As for other serious crimes of firearm possession, the same Ordinance provides that the maximum penalty is life imprisonment instead of the previous 14 years, which is again a welcome step by the Government. But since the revision in 1984, more than seven years have passed and, as far as I know, there have been numerous cases in which people were convicted of unlawful
possession of firearms and armed robberies, could I ask how many of these were given the maximum penalty under this Ordinance? The Secretary for Security has not given me an answer, could I ask him for a written reply?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I think I have said that I would endeavour to provide a written reply to that question.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Sir, has the Secretary given consideration to improving the existing intelligence network with the aim of acquiring more accurate information on crime cases so that greater precautions or deployment of police can be effected to prevent serious crimes and to avoid shoot-outs in thoroughfares which may cause injury to passers-by? The Hong Kong Government has on many occasions contacted the Chinese authorities in a bid to stop the inflow of firearms into the territory. But as we all know, the firearms used in the recent robberies seem to have come from mainland China. Could the Secretary advise whether the availability of firearms coupled with the lack of reliable intelligence is the crux of the problem we are now facing?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, certainly intelligence is of very great importance in preventing crimes of this nature and it is something which the police will always endeavour to improve, and that includes intelligence through liaison with the authorities in China.
Alleged indirect commercial promotion by RTHK
2. MR SZETO asked (in Cantonese): In view of the growing concern of most educationists about the impact of widely circulated and highly commercialized youth magazines on the healthy development of the next generation, will Government inform this Council whether it is proper for Radio Television Hong Kong, a Government department which derives its revenue from taxpayers, to produce a specific programme which may indirectly create an opportunity for a particular widely circulated youth magazine to gain commercial publicity and reap commercial benefits?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AND AFFAIRS: Sir, the radio programme to which I believe the Honourable Member is referring was first broadcast in September 1989. A number of magazines using themes targetted at the 14-24 age group have since been published. The magazine in question was in fact published in November 1990, in other words, some 14 months after the radio programme was first aired.
Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) have clear guidelines to their producers to ensure that programmes do not give cause for concern along the lines suggested by
the Honourable Member.
Sir, I can confirm that it is neither the policy nor the practice of RTHK to produce programmes intended to promote outside commercial interests, either directly or indirectly.
MR SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, the host of City Forum had been in the post for a long time -- well over 14 months. He later joined a political group and was subsequently replaced by RTHK on grounds of conflict of interest. Will Government inform this Council if RTHK had been adopting different standards in the treatment of the two programmes?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Sir, RTHK has very clear guidelines to their producers which apply generally to all the programmes. In the case of both programmes to which the Honourable Member referred, the same guidelines apply and there is no question of any difference in standard.
MRS TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, it was mentioned in the reply that RTHK had issued very clear guidelines to its producers to ensure there is no direct or indirect commercial promotion in their programme. Will Government inform this Council how this is ensured in actual practice?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: RTHK has a monitoring system which means that senior staff of both the Chinese channel and the English channel monitor the programmes produced by their staff and they have regular meetings to go through programmes and to deal with public complaints.
Bail pending trial
3. MRS FAN asked: In view of the recent report that two alleged drug-traffickers have jumped bail, will Government inform this Council what measures could and will be taken to ensure that men facing charges for dangerous drugs offences are available for trial?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: A person charged with a criminal offence has a right to apply for bail pending trial. The question of whether bail is to be granted or refused is decided by the courts and by the courts alone.
Usually, an application for bail will be made to the magistrate before whom the accused person first appears. If he is not granted bail by the magistrate, he may apply for bail before a High Court Judge. In determining whether bail should be granted, courts recognize the presumption of innocence and that an accused person should be released on bail unless there are good reasons why bail should not be granted. Bail will not be granted where a court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused person, if released on bail, would fail to return to the court to answer the charges, or would commit further offences, or would interfere with witnesses or would otherwise obstruct the course of justice. In deciding whether to grant or refuse bail, courts consider the reasons advanced by the accused person for bail and any grounds the prosecution relies upon to oppose bail. Bail may be granted subject to conditions, such as regular reporting to the police or surrender of travel documents. These conditions are designed to secure the attendance of accused
persons.
Where a magistrate or a District Court judge decides to grant bail to a defendant charged with any offence, I can apply to the High Court for a review of that decision.
It is usual for the prosecution vigorously to oppose bail in serious drugs cases because of the risk that persons charged with such serious offences might abscond. I understand that, indeed, it is unusual for the courts to grant bail to accused persons who are charged with a serious drugs offence.
MRS FAN: I thank the Attorney General for this very comprehensive answer. The two persons in question were actually arrested as a result of a joint operation between the Hong Kong police and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. The fact that they have now jumped bail might well be seen as a lack of efficiency and
effectiveness in our jurisdiction to cause such suspects to be available for trial. Is the Attorney General satisfied that the present avenues available to Government are adequate to ensure that drug traffickers, particularly those involved in serious offences of drug trafficking, will be brought to trial?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I must reiterate two things, first, that an accused person has a right to apply for bail and, second, the decision to grant bail is for the courts and the courts alone. As I have already indicated in my main answer, the Crown vigorously oppose bail in serious drugs cases and, in the two particular cases to which Mrs FAN has referred, the Crown did indeed vigorously oppose bail. But at the end of the day it is for the court to decide, having heard what the accused person or persons have to say and having heard the reasons advanced by the prosecution. I cannot see how that system can be altered bearing in mind that underlying it all is the presumption of innocence.
VTC training courses
4. MR PANG asked (in Cantonese): As Hong Kong's industries are undergoing a process of transformation and labour-intensive production processes continue to relocate outside Hong Kong, forcing a lot of workers to find alternative employment because of under provision of work, will Government inform this Council:
(a) how many places have been provided by the Vocational Training Council during the past three years in respect of training courses that prepare workers to take up alternative employment and which of the training courses are more popular, and
(b) how much subsidy has the Vocational Training Council offered during the past three years to workers enrolled for those training courses and will the VTC consider making adjustments to such subsidy according to changes in the annual Consumer Price Index in future ?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, the Vocational Training Council (VTC) has provided more than 69 000 places during the past three years in courses conducted in its 18 training centres. These courses are designed both for prospective new
entrants to the employment market and for in-service workers who wish either to upgrade or update their skills or be trained in another industry. Of these 69 000 places, about 22 000 are considered to be particularly suited to in-service workers. The more popular of these latter courses relate to training in the welding, plastics, printing and hotel industries.
I should mention in this connection that people are free to choose their
occupations. Workers seek alternative employment for a wide variety of reasons and the situation described by Mr PANG is not the only or necessarily the main reason. The strong demand for manpower in the services sectors, and the fact that earnings in those sectors are generally higher than in manufacturing, have also provided a stimulus for manufacturing workers to change jobs.
As regards the second part of Mr PANG's question, the current policy of the VTC is to pay an allowance of $150 a week to trainees attending full-time courses in its industry training centres. The total amount of such allowances paid during the past three years was about $30 million. It is not possible to tell what proportion of this amount was paid to trainees who were in-service workers. The rate of allowance is reviewed from time to time by the VTC but is not specifically linked to the Consumer Price Index.
MR PANG (in Cantonese): Sir, will the Government consider making special arrangements, like the provision of special vocational training, for workers affected by the relocation of production processes outside Hong Kong; and increasing the special allowances for them during the training period?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: The training courses organized by the VTC are offered generally in response to demand as decided by the VTC's training boards most of which have union representatives. The allowances paid to certain trainees in these courses are meant to cover things such as lunch and travelling expenses and they are not meant to be a substitute for income. Unemployed workers or workers in under-employment who are seeking work with the assistance of the Local Employment Service of the Labour Department and who cannot meet their basic needs may apply for public assistance.
MR TIEN: Sir, because of difficulties in getting workers many employers have their own in-house training programmes. Would Government please inform this Council what the attendance rates for the past year were in respect of the 69 000 places mentioned and of which 22 000 are considered to be suited for in-service workers?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: I do not have the full figures available. I
can give certain examples of the more popular courses that I have mentioned. Of the several courses, the attendance in the welding course was 849, plastics 1 372, electronics 1 943 and so forth. But I do not have the full attendance figures for all the courses which are organized by the VTC.
MR TIEN: I was just asking the question in general terms. Of the 69 000 places offered, has 70% or only 30% been taken up? A very general figure would do, please.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Quite often in these training courses, the number who join at the beginning and the number who finish at the end are not the same. There are quite often dropouts during a course for various reasons. I am afraid I do not have the full figures with me but I can check the figures and provide them to Mr TIEN in writing. (Annex II)
Prosecution of illegal immigrant workers
5. MRS TU asked: Will the Government inform this Council when the review on the prosecutions policy on illegal immigrant workers from China, as mentioned by the Attorney General at the Legislative Council sitting on 7 November 1990, will be completed and whether the policy has proved to be effective in deterring the Chinese illegal immigrants from coming to Hong Kong for employment?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, the review of the current prosecutions policy and the effectiveness of the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 1990 in countering the employment of illegal immigrant workers is now being carried out. The results should be available in about one month.
The preliminary indications are, however, that the new legislation, and the changes in prosecution policy introduced in November 1990, have been successful in controlling the level of illegal immigration by curtailing employment opportunities. This conclusion is supported by the following:
(a) in comparison with the first half of 1990, there has been a reduction this year of 20% in the number of arrests of illegal immigrants;
(b) the number of illegal immigrants arrested on construction sites has dropped from 1 000 in the first half of 1990 to 270 in the first half of 1991; and
(c) the illegal immigrant prison population has declined steadily from 4 600 in October 1990, to 3 400 today. As a result, overall prison overcrowding has been greatly reduced.
MRS TU: Sir, if, as suggested in the reply, the new policy of prosecuting employers is successful in controlling the level of illegal immigrant workers, may we presume that prosecution of these workers will soon be abolished and the prisons will be returned to their original purpose of incarcerating the type of criminals mentioned in Question One today?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I do not think that would be at all a safe presumption for Mrs TU to make. I did not say in my answer, and I certainly did not mean to imply, that the prosecution of employers alone has been responsible for the success of the policy. That policy was built upon a prosecution of both employers and illegal
immigrants found in employment in certain circumstances. I do not believe that we will be quick to change that. But, as I say, we cannot completely answer that question until we have completed that review.
MR ARCULLI: Sir, will the Secretary for Security inform this Council whether enquiries have been made of the construction industry as to what difficulties they may be experiencing, and if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Yes, Sir, we have had discussions with the construction industry.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, bearing in mind that the tariff of sentences imposed on illegal immigrants found on construction sites is 15 months of immediate custodial sentence, can the Administration inform this Council what the sort of sentences are that are meted out to employers of these illegal immigrants?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I regret that I do not have details of sentences awarded under the amended Ordinance. I know that in two cases the employers on construction sites were fined, I think, a total of $500,000. But I do not have any further details available on that.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, perhaps I can supplement the information given by the Secretary for Security. There have in fact been five prosecutions under section 38(A) which deals with the prosecution of construction site controllers. Four resulted in convictions. In two of those cases, the construction site controllers were each fined $100,000 upon conviction after a plea of guilty; the third was sentenced to a fine of $125,000 upon conviction after trial and was ordered to pay costs of $2,500; the fourth was fined $10,000 after a plea of guilty. I should add that that latter sentence is the subject of an application for a review to be heard by the magistrate tomorrow.
MRS TU: Sir, may I ask the Secretary what the age range is of the 3 400 now in prison and the number in each category?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I do not have that information available. But certainly the majority of illegal immigrants in prison are young men of working age between 15 and 40 years of age.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, bearing in mind that the Attorney General has persistently applied for review of sentences meted out to illegal immigrant workers whenever the sentences fall substantially below the tariff and bearing in mind that the figures the Attorney General supplied to this Council indicated that none of the employers were actually imprisoned, does it mean that the Attorney General is happy with imprisonment for the workers and non-imprisonment for the employers?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, questions of sentence are, as Mr Martin LEE well knows, a matter for the courts. I think I am right in saying that this Council, when it enacted
section 38(A) last year, decided not to impose a sentence of imprisonment -- the only penalty is a fine, the maximum of which is $250,000.
MRS FAN: Sir, I can confirm what the Attorney General has said. So it is in fact this Council's doing rather than the Attorney General's action. But may I ask whether the Attorney General intends to bring a case to the Court of Appeal in order to reduce the tariff sentence which is meted out to illegal immigrants found in the work place?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I have no present intention to do so. The Court of Appeal has only very recently reviewed its own sentencing guidelines in such cases. The said court has confirmed that the normal sentence is one of 15 months imprisonment.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, in conducting this review, will the Administration undertake to the Council that they will certainly review with care the inequity of sentences which are so obvious to everyone?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, all factors are taken into account.
Peripheral poly-neuropathy
6. MR TAM asked (in Cantonese): In view of the incident reported some months ago that a worker was affected by a disease known as peripheral poly-neuropathy will Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of reported cases of such disease up to now, the seriousness and the causes of the disease;
(b) of the reason for not introducing legislative control on the content of dangerous chemical substances in the air in accordance with internationally accepted standards; and
(c) whether the Administration will review the list of occupational diseases so that peripheral poly-neuropathy and other illnesses caused through contacts with dangerous substances during work may be entitled to compensation ?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, as regards the first part of the question, so far there have been 11 confirmed cases of peripheral poly-neuropathy in Hong Kong. In addition, 41 cases of suspected peripheral poly-neuropathy have been reported to the Labour Department. The 11 workers in the confirmed cases have all been discharged after hospitalization or treatment and are capable of returning to work. In all the confirmed cases, the disease was caused by n-Hexane which is a neurotoxin contained in a common solvent known as "petroleum spirit".
As regards the second part of the question, there are in fact no internationally accepted standards relating to safe threshold limits of chemical substances in the air. There are, however, national standards in some countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Health and Safety Executive has published a guidance note on such standards which are revised from time to time in accordance with the latest research findings. These standards are not laid down in the law because it is much easier to update them if they are not on the statute books. Hong Kong follows closely the practice in the United Kingdom by providing advice on such standards with reference to the United Kingdom guidance note.
As regards the last part of the question, the fact that peripheral poly-neuropathy or any other occupational disease is not listed under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance does not affect an employee's entitlement to compensation if personal injury arises out of and in the course of employment. However, if a disease is discovered after a worker has left the employment which gave rise to that disease, there might be difficulties in obtaining compensation due to arguments as to whether the injury has occurred in the course of employment. In order to provide better protection to workers, the Commissioner for Labour has proposed to include peripheral poly-neuropathy as an occupational disease under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. This would ensure that workers suffering from the disease are entitled to compensation, even if they have left the relevant employment. The Commissioner is consulting the Labour Advisory Board on this proposal.
MR TAM (in Cantonese): Given that peripheral poly-neuropathy, the occupational disease caused by n-Hexane, had been discovered in other countries a long time ago, and in fact a similar case in Taiwan was reported by the American Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1986, and that the United Kingdom classified it as an occupational disease
in 1988, why does the Government face the problem only after the occurrence of such tragedies? Will the Government conduct a comprehensive review on the classification of occupational diseases and avoid a piecemeal approach when handling the problem? Will all occupational diseases medically confirmed to be caused by organic chemicals be classified as occupational diseases under the law?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, the Occupational Health Division of the Labour Department is, I understand, constantly seeking to update themselves on developments around the world. The hazards of n-Hexane have indeed been recognized for some time. The only imperfection in the law which we are now considering correcting relates to the payment of compensation for diseases arising from n-Hexane.
Another point I would like to make is that technology is advancing all the time. I am advised, for example, that something like 50 000 new types of chemicals are put on the market every year. So it will not always be easy for the law to get entirely up-to-date with the latest developments.
The third point I would like to make is that the Administration is conducting a review of occupational health and safety following a recent debate in this Council and Mr TAM's suggestion will be closely borne in mind.
DR LEONG: Sir, can the Administration inform this Council whether workers involved in the handling of petroleum jelly are being made aware of the danger of the element n-Hexane and whether safety measures are being enforced to ensure minimum hazards for workers exposed to this dangerous element?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Dangerous Substances) Regulations, detailed provisions are made for dangerous substances to be suitably labelled and for their risks and safety precautions to be clearly stipulated. In the case of n-Hexane, for example, the law requires the substance to be clearly marked as being flammable and as giving rise to risks of inflammability, risks upon inhalation and harm upon contact with the skin. Warnings of possible risk of irreversible effects and safety precautions such as keeping the container tightly closed and stored in well-ventilated places and so forth are also required by the law to be very clearly stated on the containers containing these substances.
MR PANG (in Cantonese): Sir, it could be said that the discovery of this new disease was incidental but this has shown that the Government has paid little regard to occupational diseases, in particular those caused by chemical substances? What remedial measures will the Government take?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and subsidiary regulations do provide for and impose certain general duties of care on the part of employers as well as employees in handling a wide range of potentially dangerous substances. These duties include, in the case of proprietors of industrial undertakings, the responsibility to ensure the health and safety at work of all persons employed by them and the provision of information, instruction, training and supervision as necessary to ensure the health and safety of all persons employed. The Labour Department, particularly the Occupational Health Unit, do
conduct training courses from time to time and, through other means such as publicity, do draw attention to the potential risk of occupational diseases.
MR TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, in the first part of the answer, it is said that the Government believes the 11 workers who have been proven to suffer from peripheral poly-neuropathy have resumed their working abilities. But as reflected by the unions concerned, there are at least four workers whose limbs are numb and who have difficulty in walking and therefore cannot work. Is it necessary for me to provide the
Government with the information and a list of the workers concerned?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, the information that I have been given by the experts concerned is that all the 11 workers involved have been discharged and are able to return to work. If there is evidence that this is not the case, then obviously I will refer such information back to the experts for their consideration.
MR TAM (in Cantonese): In the second part of the answer, it is said that the Government believes it will be easier to update the standards if they are not on the statute books. However, if those standards are not on the statute books, will it be difficult for the proprietors to know what they have to follow and what legal responsibilities
they have to bear? Could the Government explain this?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, as I have said, the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance does include provisions which impose certain duties of care on factory proprietors. The kind of guidance notes and detailed standards which I referred to in the second paragraph of my answer relate to details of how to handle particular substances and they are intended to assist factory proprietors in meeting their statutory obligations.
MR TAM (in Cantonese): Will the Government consider taking prosecution action against those employers involved in recent accidents?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, prosecution action is taken from time to time when the circumstances so warrant.
Forward purchase of foreign currencies
7. MR BARROW asked: Will the Government inform this Council whether, in the light of decentralization and the setting up of trading agencies, consideration will be given to arrangements whereby government departments who require foreign currency for future payments can book forward rates, either directly or through the Finance Branch, with the Exchange Fund so as to cover exchange fluctuations?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, Government's present policy is that the Treasury does not purchase foreign currencies forward. Exchange risk for the Government as a whole is managed by the Office of the Exchange Fund, taking into account the Government's requirements for foreign currency payments.
I agree that it is timely that we should take a fresh look at the whole question of how best to protect the General Revenue, as distinct from the Government's total reserves including the Exchange Fund, against foreign exchange exposure. I have asked Finance Branch to undertake a review, the outcome of which will be made known to the Finance Committee of this Council in due course.
MR BARROW: Sir, could the Financial Secretary elaborate on the background to this very welcome review and why it has been requested?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, Mr BARROW has been raising this question very patiently over the years and I felt that it was timely that patience should be rewarded. In addition, as Members of this Council know, we are moving towards giving departments more autonomy in managing their own financial affairs and it seemed that in the context of that move it would be worthwhile having this review.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, can the Financial Secretary think of any managing director of a large international corporation trading in Hong Kong which has to pay even half of what the Government has to pay in foreign currencies and who has consistently refused to do the sort of thing set out in Mr BARROW's question and who has not already been sacked?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: I do not know, Sir, how managing directors in various companies in Hong Kong conduct their affairs. My guess is that many of them do not have the outstanding success that the Government has. As I made clear in this Council on many occasions, we have not been losing money; foreign exchange risk is being handled by the Exchange Fund which is in a very healthy condition.
Written answers to questions
Domestic Violence Ordinance
8. MR PANG asked: As an injunction excluding a spouse from the matrimonial home granted under the Domestic Violence Ordinance will only be valid for up to six months, will Government inform this Council:
(a) how many cases of spouse abuse have been reported to the relevant departments during the past three years,
(b) how many applications for divorce in the past three years are connected with spouse abuse and among these cases, how many can have all the formalities completed within six months,
(c) does the Administration intend to review the maximum effective period of an injunction granted under the Domestic Violence Ordinance,
(d) how can the processing of divorce cases by the court involving victims of domestic violence be expedited, so that all formalities can be completed within the effective period of the injunction,
(e) what services are presently available to provide safe shelters for those abused spouses who have no place to go and seek refuge, and
(f) how many places do these services provide and what is the utilization rate?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: The main purpose of the Domestic Violence Ordinance (Cap 189) is to protect both parties to a marriage and their children from domestic violence.
Upon the application by either party to a marriage, the District Court may grant an injunction against the other party to the marriage. The injunction may contain the following conditions:
(i) restraining the other party from molesting the applicant;
(ii) restraining the other party from molesting any child living with the applicant;
(iii) excluding the other party from the matrimonial home, or a part of the home; and
(iv) requiring the other party to permit the applicant to enter and remain in the matrimonial home, or a part of the home.
There is no maximum period for an injunction containing conditions (i) and (ii). The Court, after considering all the circumstances of the case, decides the
appropriate period for the injunction which best ensures the safety of the applicant and the children. In respect of injunctions containing conditions (iii) or (iv), they may be granted for a maximum period of six months.
In answer to the specific questions raised:
(a) The number of battered spouse cases reported to the Social Welfare Department over the last three years was 455 in 1988-89, 272 in 1989-90 and 236 in 1990-91. In both 1989 and 1990, the police handled 181 reported cases involving abuse of a spouse or cohabitant. The figure for the first quarter of 1991 is 47.
(b) The number of divorce petitions filed with the Judiciary over the last three years was 5 893 in 1988, 6 275 in 1989 and 6 767 in 1990. No record is maintained of the number of divorce petitions where domestic violence may have been a factor. This is because of difficulties in interpretation arising partly from the fact that abuse may be one of several complaints and partly because not all allegations made in divorce proceedings are proved.
(c) There is no intention by the Administration to review the maximum periods for injunctions at this time.
(d) The Registrar, Supreme Court is not aware of any noticeabledifficulty in cases where an injunction has been granted in dealing with any problem of domestic violence within six months. In civil proceedings it is admittedly possible for either party to delay matters but the risk of continuing violence, once the matter is before the Court, is less likely.
(e) There are two residential centres providing emergency and temporary accommodation to abused women and their children. One centre is run by the Social Welfare Department and the other by a subvented non-government organization. Organized programmes including counselling and recreational activities are conducted in the centres.
(f) The two centres provide a total of 80 places with an utilization rate of 70% in 1990-91 (76% for the SWD centre and, 63% for the NGO centre).
Marine accident
9. MRS LAM asked: In view of the tragic accident on 16 February 1991 involving the collision of two vessels, will Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has any plan to re-examine existing marine safety regulations with a view to ensuring traffic safety in local waters; and
(b) whether a marine accident victims assistance fund will be set up to provide financial assistance to the victims?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Sir, the investigation into the causes of the accident after the fireworks display on 16 February 1991 is continuing. There is no indication so far of any deficiency in the existing regulations governing marine traffic safety in local waters. If any such deficiency is uncovered, the Marine Department will review the position and take the necessary action. Meanwhile, the department is devising, in conjunction with the Marine Police, measures to ensure more effective control, and thus improved safety, of marine traffic at future fireworks displays.
It is not intended that a marine accident victims assistance fund should be set up. Victims of marine accidents have recourse to claims for common law damages and all owners of local launches, ferries and pleasure craft are required to have third party insurance. Relief from immediate hardship is available from charitable trust funds managed by the Social Welfare Department.
Shortage of court reporters
10. MR PETER WONG asked: Will the Administration inform this Council how the problem of shortage of Court Reporters is to be solved in order to relieve judges of hand taking notes when they are hearing cases?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: The shortage of Court Reporters is caused by the lack of supply of candidates who possess the necessary qualifications. A Court Reporter is required to have a minimum shorthand speed of 140 w.p.m., a minimum typing speed of 60 w.p.m., and five passes in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination including grade
C or above in English Language.
The Judiciary is taking the following three measures to overcome the problem in order to relieve High Court Judges of the need to make notes in long hand while hearing cases.
First, efforts are being made to recruit Court Reporters from overseas. Six Court Reporters have been recruited from Australia since 1990.
Second, arrangements have been made for the less urgent proceedings, such as civil cases in the High Court, to be recorded. The recorded proceedings can be transcribed by temporary staff, so that the Court Reporters can be deployed to cases which require immediate transcription.
Third, Court Reporters are being trained to use the Computer Assisted Transcription System (CAT System), which helps improve productivity and reduce transcription time by up to 40%. Nine Court Reporters are now proficient in the CAT System and more are being trained. In addition, five selected officers from other government departments have been seconded to the Judiciary to undergo the CAT training. On completion of their training, they will be able to perform the functions of Court Reporters. Separately, as a long-term measure to provide a steady supply of specially trained staff, a new rank of CAT System Trainee is being created to encourage school leavers to take up positions as Court Reporters skilled in the CAT System. Proposals by ratepayers to alter valuation list
11. MR POON CHI-FAI asked: Will Government inform this Council:
(a) whether there are any measures to ensure proposals by ratepayers for the alteration of the valuation list under section 37 of the Rating Ordinance (Cap. 116) will be fairly considered by the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation bearing in mind that the Commissioner will have prepared the list;
(b) whether consideration will be given to the establishment of an independent body to deal with the proposals;
(c) whether detailed written explanations are given by the Commissioner when he makes his decisions, if not, why not; and
(d) whether the number of such proposals received from ratepayers in the current revaluation exercise has outnumbered those in previous exercises and, if so, what the reasons are for the increase if they are known to the Administration?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Under the Rating Ordinance, the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation is required to consider any proposal for the alteration of the valuation list. All proposals are carefully considered by professional staff of the Rating and Valuation Department and senior staff will review all decisions before they are issued to ensure fairness. If a ratepayer is still not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, he may appeal to the Lands Tribunal for a hearing. The Tribunal is an independent judicial body, and the process is relatively inexpensive and informal. Ratepayers may represent themselves before the Tribunal and need not employ legal counsel. Given the inexpensive and easy access to the judicial process for final determination of appeals, we consider that there are sufficient safeguards in the existing procedure and that the establishment of a new independent body is not necessary.
As to whether written explanations are given, it is the Department's standard practice to enclose with the Commissioner's decision a leaflet of explanatory notes together with a more detailed pamphlet on rating in Hong Kong with particular reference to the general revaluation. It would not be practicable for the Commissioner to issue detailed explanations on a property by property basis. If, however, a ratepayer requires further explanation, he may enquire at the Department.
Lastly, the number of proposals received in response to the 1991 general revaluation is 34 261, representing 3% of the valuation list. In 1988, the number was 26 149, or 2.8% of the valuation list; and in 1984, the number was 99 588, or 13.4% of the valuation list. Thus, it appears that there is no significant increase in the number of proposals in relation to the current revaluation.
Vacant units in urban temporary housing areas
12. MR TAM asked: Will the Government inform this Council of the number of existing vacant units in the urban temporary housing areas, the average duration for which these units have been left vacant and the Government's plan on the future usage of these vacant units?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Sir, as at 15 June 1991, there were 1 579 new vacant units in the urban temporary housing areas (THAs), representing 8% of a stock of nearly 19 500. On average, these units have been vacant for about 27 months. In addition, there were 658 lettable casual vacancies.
Most of the vacant THA units are for rehousing families affected by clearances who are unable to meet the seven-year residence criterion for rehousing in public rental housing. The remainder are for the relief of overcrowding in THAs.
Vacancies in new THAs arise mainly because an increasing number of clearees and existing THA tenants are now able to meet the eligibility criteria for public rental housing following the relaxation of residence requirements in 1990. To reduce the number of vacant units, the Housing Authority will use more of these vacancies to relieve overcrowding.
For operational reasons, the Authority will need to hold in reserve a number of vacant units to accommodate victims of natural disasters, and evacuees from unsafe buildings.
First Reading of Bills
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
GRANTHAM SCHOLARSHIPS FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
BREWIN TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
SIR ROBERT BLACK TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
LI PO CHUN CHARITABLE TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
DENTISTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Bill 1991 be read the Second time.
In recent years the chemical composition of jet aircraft fuel has changed. The bulk of aircraft spirit, which is intended to be a dutiable commodity, is no longer appropriately classified under the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance.
In order to restore the originally intended position, this Bill seeks to replace the words "light oil" in section 69 of the Ordinance with "hydrocarbon oil", so as to embrace all types of hydrocarbon oil suitable and intended for use as aircraft fuel.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Stamp Duty Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Stamp Duty (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1991 be read the
Second time.
This Bill seeks to facilitate the implementation of the international trend towards paperless trading in stock dealing in Hong Kong by ending the use of physical paper stamps. The amendment will enable the Collector of Stamp Duties to enter into a contract with the Stock Exchange for the central collection of duty payable. Under the new system, authorized officers of the Exchange will be able to endorse contract notes to signify that duty has or will be paid to the Collector at the Stock Exchange.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
GRANTHAM SCHOLARSHIPS FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Grantham Scholarships Fund Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Grantham Scholarships Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991 be read a Second time.
This Bill provides for the appointment of professionals to manage the investment of moneys of the Grantham Scholarships Fund, and enables the Grantham Scholarships Fund Committee to transact some of its business by circulation of papers when necessary.
Furthermore, the opportunity is taken to change the Grantham Scholarships Fund Committee members' tenure of office from three years to such period as may be specified in their letter of appointment to allow for greater flexibility.
The amendments are intended to facilitate the administration of the Fund by the Secretary for Home Affairs Incorporated as Trustee, and have the full support of the Grantham Scholarships Fund Committee which I have consulted.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
BREWIN TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Brewin Trust Fund Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Brewin Trust Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991 be read a Second time.
As in the case of the Grantham Scholarships Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991, this Bill provides for the appointment of professionals to manage the investments of the Brewin Trust Fund and the transaction of business by circulation of papers when necessary.
The opportunity is also taken to amend all references to "the Colony" wherever these appear in the Ordinance to "Hong Kong".
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
SIR ROBERT BLACK TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Sir Robert Black Trust Fund Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Sir Robert Black Trust Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991 be read a Second time.
This Bill proposes similar amendments to those set out in the Brewin Trust Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991 for reasons which I have earlier described.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
LI PO CHUN CHARITABLE TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991 be read a Second time.
Here again, similar amendments as those set out in the Brewin Trust Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991 and the Grantham Scholarships Fund (Amendment) Bill 1991 are proposed for reasons which I have explained earlier.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
DENTISTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Dentists Registration Ordinance."
She said: Sir, I move that the Dentists Registration (Amendment) Bill 1991 be read the Second time.
This Bill, and the following two which stand in my name, seek to extend to Hospital Authority employees the same exemptions and concessions in professional registration and related requirements as those applicable to their civil service and university counterparts. The aim is to maintain comparability of treatment for medical and healthcare professionals employed in the Government, the universities and the
Hospital Authority.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Medical Registration Ordinance."
She said: Sir, I move that the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 1991 be read the Second time.
For the same reason as I explained in moving the Second Reading of the Dentists Registration (Amendment) Bill 1991, this Bill seeks to amend the Medical Registration Ordinance.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance."
She said: Sir, I move that the Supplementary Medical Professions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1991 be read the Second time.
My previous comments on the Dentists Registration (Amendment) Bill 1991 also apply to this Bill.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
IMPORT AND EXPORT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 June 1991. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
OZONE LAYER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 June 1991. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 June 1991. Question on Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
MR CHEONG: Sir, the Securities and Futures Commission (Amendment) Bill 1991 seeks to facilitate co-operation between the Securities and Futures Commission (the Commission) and other financial market regulators in Hong Kong or elsewhere through a relaxation of certain provisions relating to the disclosure of information by the Commission.
In the international sphere, one of the main concerns among financial regulatory authorities has been the scope for exchange of information and mutual assistance in order to enforce their respective securities legislations in a more effective manner. In the growing trend of globalized trading, it is not uncommon for companies to trade in one market and be regulated in another. As a result, international co-operation and assistance between financial regulatory authorities around the world becomes increasingly necessary. A recent development has been the signing of mutual
assistance treaties and agreements among various countries, mainly in the form of memorandum of understanding. Such memorandum sets out the basis upon which the regulatory authorities of the countries concerned reciprocally propose to exchange information to facilitate the performance of their functions.
Contrary to this global trend, the disclosure of information by the Commission
to other local or overseas authorities or regulatory organizations is only possible in very restricted circumstances under the existing Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance. This inhibits the Commission from co-operating with or assisting overseas and domestic market regulators, and from entering into full memorandum of understanding with other authorities, thereby creating difficulties for Hong Kong securities companies conducting business overseas, and on occasions, hampering the effective regulation of financial institutions in Hong Kong.
In considering a relaxation of provisions for disclosure of information by the Commission, concern has been raised about the extent of power provided to the Commission. An ad hoc group was therefore formed to study the Bill.
The ad hoc group held two meetings, including one with the Administration and the Commission. The Administration has given us the assurance that the disclosure of information by the Commission is subject to adequate safeguards stated in the Bill, including the requirements that:
(a) the Commission must be satisfied that the recipient performs any function similar to a function of the Commission or the Registrar of Companies, or regulates, supervises, or investigates banking, insurance or other financial services or the affairs of the corporations, and is subject to adequate secrecy provisions;
(b) the Commission must be satisfied that (i) the disclosure is in the interest of the investing public or in the public interest; or (ii) the disclosure will enable the recipient to perform his/its functions and is not contrary to the interest of the investing public or the public interest.
The ad hoc group has also raised concern that the Bill may facilitate a release of information to both Hong Kong and overseas tax authorities. The Administration has confirmed that the Bill will not change the present arrangement for the disclosure of information to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue under the existing Inland Revenue Ordinance. As regards the overseas tax authorities, the Administration has
clarified that it is not the intention at all to provide power for the Commission to disclose information to overseas tax authorities. As a better safeguard against this possibility, the Financial Secretary will move an amendment to the Bill at the Committee stage to replace the term "inspector" by "companies inspector" wherever reference to overseas inspectors is made. Furthermore, the Commission has also
undertaken to stipulate in its internal administrative guidelines that the power
conferred by this Bill for disclosure of information should not apply to overseas tax authorities. The ad hoc group is satisfied with these arrangements.
We have also discussed the need for exclusion of the term "or expedient" from the Bill as proposed by one member of the group. The ad hoc group has noted that in any case, the interest of the investing public and the public interest would be the prime consideration in the disclosure of information. The Administration has also confirmed that the words "desirable or expedient" have for some time been part of similar provisions in other legislations both in the United Kingdom and in Hong Kong, notably the Banking Ordinance and Insurance Companies Ordinance. We are
therefore satisfied and agreed that for the sake of consistency, no change is needed.
With these remarks, Sir, and subject to the proposed amendment to be moved by the Financial Secretary, I support the motion.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, I am grateful to Mr Stephen CHEONG and Members of the ad hoc group for their careful consideration of and support for the Bill. As Mr CHEONG has indicated in the course of discussion with the ad hoc group, we became aware of Members' concern that the Securities and Futures Commission might disclose
information to overseas tax authorities under the proposed clauses of the Bill.
There is no intention that the potential recipients of information should include overseas tax authorities. Indeed, the present wording of the Bill does not include overseas tax authorities as potential recipients. However, in order to allay any such fears, I shall move an amendment in the Committee stage to further define the potential recipients for information.
In addition, the Securities and Futures Commission has undertaken to issue an internal guideline to make it clear that the Ordinance is not to be interpreted as allowing disclosure of any information to overseas tax authorities.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
SECURITIES (DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 1 May 1991. Question on Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
MR CHEONG: Sir, I think colleagues will be getting tired of me very soon. The Securities (Disclosure of Interests) (Amendment) Bill 1991 before us today serves three major purposes. They are, namely:
(a) to extend the Securities (Disclosure cf Interests) Ordinance to overseas companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong;
(b) to empower the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) to publish guidelines for exemption, after consulting the Financial Secretary, and to exempt corporations from all or part of the provisions of the Ordinance having regard to the guidelines; and
(c) to reduce the scope of restriction to the transfer of shares only.
The ad hoc group set up to examine this Bill has held altogether three meetings and has considered representations received from the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK), the Hong Kong Stockbrokers Association Limited and the Hong Kong Society of Accountants. After careful consideration of the arguments in the
representations and the explanations given by the Administration, the ad hoc group has recommended that the Bill be supported, subject to a few technical amendments to be moved by the Financial Secretary at the Committee stage. Sir, I shall now briefly highlight the major areas of the Bill in which the ad hoc group has given its considered views.
Extension to overseas companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange
The ad hoc group has an unanimous view that the disclosure obligations under the Ordinance should also apply to officers and substantial shareholders of overseas companies listed in Hong Kong, whether it is primary or secondary listing, in order
to give better protection to local investors. The ad hoc group therefore supports the relevant amendments proposed by the Bill.
Guidelines for exemption
The ad hoc group agrees that in certain circumstances, provided the principle of investor protection is not compromised, exemption from some or all of the provisions contained in the Ordinance may be justified so as to ease the burden of duplicate filing requirements. The ad hoc group agrees that the SFC is the most appropriate body to be empowered to grant such exemption. However, it is important that such enabling powers should not be abused by the SFC. In any case, as responsible legislators, I am sure colleagues will agree we should not confer general enabling powers onto the Administration or the SFC without first having the opportunity to examine the guidelines or regulations. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate this important principle to the Administration on all other areas of legislation. Because when the Bill was first submitted to us, we were not given the opportunity to look at the guideline until we said that we would not be able to proceed with the Bill until the guidelines be given to us. I think that particular example needs to be examined carefully in the future. Given the concern expressed by the submissions and members of the ad hoc group on the guidelines for exemption published by the SFC, the ad hoc group took a position that this Bill could not be recommended for passage until the guidelines were ready for our examination. Subsequently, the Administration submitted those guidelines to us and after careful examination, we are happy to report we are satisfied.
Turning to the guidelines themselves, it should be noted that the guidelines have been subject to a statutory requirement under the proposed new section 2A (1) that there be consultation with the Financial Secretary who will be given a reasonably ample and sufficient opportunity to state his views or point to problems or
difficulties. Although the Financial Secretary does not have the power to modify or disapprove the guidelines, the Governor does have the power, under section 11 of the Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance, to give the SFC such directions as regards the performance of its functions as he considers appropriate and that the SFC must comply. Nevertheless, dispite all these, we felt that for any future changes, the SFC should publish its draft guidelines for public comment in advance of their submission to the Financial Secretary before any subsequent amendment to the
guidelines is made in future. Naturally, the legislature ought to be given the opportunity to comment on those proposed changes as well. The Administration has
agreed to this arrangement and we look forward to the Financial Secretary's confirmation in his reply.
Having considered the Administration's advice and bearing in mind that any decision taken by the SFC would still be open to judicial review, members of the ad hoc group are satisfied that sufficient checks and balances are available to ensure that the SFC will exercise its new power properly and prudently.
The reduction of scope of restriction
The ad hoc group has noted the concern expressed by the SEHK that the current restrictions imposed by section 44(1)(b) to (d) to freeze respectively the exercise of voting rights, payment of dividends and bonus issues in respect of the shares of a defaulting shareholder will now be removed by the Bill. While accepting that these provisions may add to the overall effectiveness of the freezing order against local companies, the Administration sees little point in having tougher sanctions for local companies whilst re-domiciling remains possible and relatively inexpensive.
Moreover, the Administration is advised by the SFC that a restriction on the transfer of shares registered on the Hong Kong register would be sufficient in most cases to achieve the purpose of the freezing order. Furthermore, in order to limit the opportunities for circumvention, in particular for overseas shareholders, the Bill introduces two further measures.
First, a freezing order will include new restrictions on the cancellation of share certificates and removal of shares from Hong Kong. These are intended to help the frozen shares to be traced in Hong Kong and to inhibit the registration of transfers overseas. Under proper accounting principles and subject to the company law of the place of incorporation, shares of an overseas company must first be removed from the branch register in Hong Kong before a transaction involving the same shares can be registered on the principal register overseas.
Secondly, a listed company and its officers who act in contravention of the proposed restrictions on registration, issue, cancellation and removal of shares commit an offence and are liable upon conviction to the same penalties as the defaulting shareholder who attempts to evade the restrictions.
The ad hoc group is generally satisfied with the explanations provided by the Administration and therefore agrees with the relevant amendments proposed by the
Bill.
The ad hoc group has also noted that the Administration will move three amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage. They are largely technical in nature and do not involve any change in policy. We have no objection to these amendments.
With these remarks, Sir, and subject to the Committee stage amendments mentioned above, and the spirit of the speech of the Financial Secretary, I support the Bill.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, again I am grateful to Mr Stephen CHEONG and Members of the ad hoc group. As indicated by Mr CHEONG, I shall move several technical amendments at the Committee stage to clarify certain provisions of the Bill.
I am pleased that the ad hoc group supports the proposal to give the Securities and Futures Commission a broad discretion to exempt listed companies, having regard to the intention to publish guidelines after consultation with the Financial Secretary. We believe this is the right approach. It allows transparency of decision making without compromising the necessary flexibility to deal with the many and varied considerations that will arise. I can assure Members that the Commission, in exercising this discretion, will always have due regard to the interests of investors. The Commission has a statutory function to ensure adequate investor protection and this principle will be reflected in the guidelines.
For the reasons given by Mr CHEONG, I believe that the proposed arrangements for consultation are adequate. I can also assure Members that the Commission will issue for public comment any major revisions to the guidelines, in advance of their finalization and submission to the Financial Secretary.
The Commission has consulted the Stock Exchange, professional bodies and the public on the draft guidelines. Comments received indicate general support. A few minor amendments have been made for clarification and on procedural matters. Revised guidelines have now been submitted for my consideration. I do not envisage any
substantive change in the approach which has been endorsed by the ad hoc group. Subject to the enactment of this Bill, I expect the Commission to be in a position to publish the guidelines in the Gazette in early July.
I am also pleased that the ad hoc group supports the proposal to modify the
restrictions that will apply upon imposition of a freezing order. The extension of the legislation to overseas companies listed in Hong Kong presents difficult problems of principle and of practical enforcement. We believe that the new restrictions represent the best solution in the circumstances of Hong Kong. We are convinced that a level playing field is necessary and believe that the new restrictions should prove an effective sanction. We will, of course, review their effectiveness in the light of experience of the legislation in operation.
Sir, when the Bill was introduced into this Council on 1 May, it was stated that our intention was to bring the principal Ordinance into operation on 1 August this year. For reasons which I shall explain later, it is now our intention to bring the Securities (Insider Dealing) Ordinance into force on 1 September. Since the two Ordinances are related, and a lead time of two months would be required to enable necessary preparations to be made, I propose that the Securities (Disclosure of
Interests) Ordinance should also be brought into operation on 1 September this year. Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 1 May 1991. Question on Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
MR CHEONG: Sir, the main purpose of the Securities (Insider Dealing) (Amendment) Bill 1991 is to clarify the provisions intended to address the problem of negligent officers of an insider dealing corporation.
The ad hoc group set up to examine the Bill has held three meetings and has also received submissions from the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited and the Hong Kong Stockbrokers Association Limited.
The main concern of the ad hoc group as well as the two organizations relates to clause 2 of the Bill. The intended purpose of clause 2 is to make it clear that the duty imposed on an officer of a corporation by section 13 is a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent the corporation from doing any act which might cause it to be identified by the Insider Dealing Tribunal as an insider dealer. The ad hoc group and the two organizations, while recognizing the good intention of the Administration to state the statutory duty of an officer in an unambiguous way, have doubts nevertheless as to whether the present proposal to use the term "might cause" would unintentionally impose a broader duty upon an officer of a corporation and therefore fails to achieve the original purpose of the Bill.
Having considered the ad hoc group's suggestion and view, the Administration has kindly consented to move an amendment at the Committee stage to amend the term "might cause" to "would cause". The Administration believes and we do, too, that the latter term provides for a narrower range of considerations to be taken into account by the officer in contemplating his duty than the former one and should therefore serve the intended purpose of the Bill. We support this amendment as we put it forward.
With these remarks, Sir, and subject to the amendment mentioned above, I support the Bill.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, it seems that this afternoon my gratitude to Mr CHEONG and his ad hoc group knows no bounds.
I accept that the present wording in clause 2 of the Bill may give rise to uncertainty, and shall move an amendment at the Committee stage to address the concern.
When the Bill was introduced into this Council on 1 May, I stated that it was our intention to bring the principal Ordinance into operation on 1 August this year, subject to implementation of proposals to allow buyback of shares by listed companies, and stock borrowing and lending free of stamp duty.
Arrangements to regulate stock borrowing have now been agreed between the Securities and Futures Commission and the Stock Exchange, and will come into force by the end of August. The Companies (Amendment) Bill 1991, incorporating proposals
to permit local companies to purchase their own shares, is now before this Council. Subject to enactment, it will be brought into force on 1 September. I propose, therefore, that the Securities (Insider Dealing) Ordinance should also be brought into operation on 1 September this year.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 22 May 1991. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 June 1991. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1). POLICE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 June 1991. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
POLICE EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 June 1991. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
SUMMARY OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 24 April 1991. Question on Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
MRS TAM: Sir, in September of this year, the people of Hong Kong will be voting for the first time in the direct elections of the Legislative Council. To prepare for this election, a number of amendments to the existing electoral laws have been introduced and passed by this Council at its previous sittings. As part and parcel of the package of the legislative amendments and in recognition of the increasing need of political groups or organizations to solicit donations to organize election campaigns, the Administration has introduced a new system to deal with the collection of political donations through an amendment to section 4(17) of the Summary Offences Ordinance.
An ad hoc group was formed by this Council to study the Bill. The group met a total of five times including meeting twice with the Administration and once with
a political group before we arrived at our recommendations.
In essence, the Bill seeks to provide a new arrangement for the issue of permits for the collection of money for non-charitable purposes in "public places". Currently, the Director of Social Welfare is empowered to issue permits for the collection of donations in public places but the Director normally only gives permission for the collection of donations for charitable purposes. Under the proposed provisions of the Amendment Bill, the Secretary for Home Affairs is authorized to issue permits for the collection of money for non-charitable purposes in public places. In exercising this authority, the Secretary will restrict himself to giving permits for collection of money for political purposes by referring to a set of administrative guidelines thus drawn up.
During our discussion, Members expressed concern on the following aspects: Scope of the legislation
Members were aware that the scope of the law was very wide. There were no restrictions in the law for the seeking of permission for collection of donations in public places. However, the proposed guidelines to implement the law and administer the scheme were very restrictive. Members felt that if the intention of the Bill was to provide for the seeking of permission for the collection of donations for political purposes only, it should be so specified in the Bill.
The Administration explained that there was no intention to reduce the existing scope of section 4(17) of the Summary Offences Ordinance. The legal meaning of "non-charitable" should be wide enough to cover all situations besides political pursuits. The Bill, as presently drafted, would allow the Administration to give consideration to any worthwhile cases which were not charitable or political in nature.
Members, whilst thinking that there might be a need for consistency in respect of the scope of the legislation and the provisions of the administrative guidelines, accepted the Administration's explanation albeit with some reluctance.
Status of the guidelines
Members expressed concern over the legal status of the guidelines and suggested
that the guidelines should become part of the law as subsidiary legislation. Whilst accepting that to implement the policy through a set of administrative guidelines had the advantage of providing the flexibility and allowing discretion to be exercised to meet the needs of changing circumstances, members were nevertheless worried that the guidelines might be subject to changes by the Administration without notice to the public and the parties concerned. In this regard, the Administration agreed that a public statement would be made by the Secretary for Home Affairs in the Legislative Council if there were any subsequent changes to the guidelines. The Administration also undertook to consider members' suggestion further in the light of operating experience of the new arrangements as well as the Administration's on-going review of policy and legislation on the political development of Hong Kong.
Confined public places
Noting that political fund-raising activities could only take place in confined public places, members considered that the venues permitted by the Administration (that is stadia, civic centres, community centres) were too limited. Although members had no objection to the proposal of restricting the holding of fund-raising activities for political purposes in certain enclosed places, other possible venues such as enclosed football or basketball pitches in housing estates and so on should be allowed to be used as long as the conditions laid down in the guidelines were met.
The Administration made it very clear that "confined public places" were meant to be very restrictive. The existence of other legitimate outlets for fund-raising activities such as the use of privately owned or managed premises and so on should be adequate to enable political groups to raise funds. The opportunity was also taken by the Administration to delete the term "confined public places" in the
administrative guidelines so that applicants would be fully aware of the public places where such activities could be held, which would help to avoid disputes over the definition and scope of the term "confined public places". Members agreed not to pursue the proposal of relaxing the limited venues for the time being and the
Administration was urged to review the need for changes in the policy in future. Human rights
The ad hoc group received a representation from a political organization which
claimed that all non-profit making organizations, including charitable, non charitable or political organizations, should be entitled, by right, to hold fund-raising activities and to receive donations in public places. The restrictions imposed by the guidelines would constitute in its view an infringement on the freedom of expression and assembly and the right to participate in public affairs enshrined in Articles 19, 21 and 25 respectively of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the corresponding provisions in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The representation was referred to the Administration for comments.
The Administration responded in writing that it did not regard fund-raising in public places a fundamental human right and the act of restricting the holding of fund-raising activities for political purposes in venues as permitted by the Administration a contravention of the Bill of Rights. A few members expressed reservation on the Administration's view. However, having regard to the need of passing the Bill to enable the political organizations to solicit donations in public places, members generally agreed that the Bill should not be held up because of this point. The Administration has been alerted to some members' opinions on the possible infringement of human rights and the possibility of the law being challenged in courts because of the passage of the Bill of Rights.
Sir, to conclude, I believe Hong Kong is experiencing a significant historical turn in its development of representative government. Our electoral law should evolve to keep pace with political developments. It is of paramount importance that these laws should be kept under constant review and changes should be introduced to satisfy the mounting political aspirations of our community.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill 1991 before us today is a disgrace -- a disgrace to the Administration, to this Council, and to Hong Kong. It is a piece of politically motivated legislation of the worst kind. The Bill as it now stands is legally unsound, contrary to the practice in Great Britain, the United States and other democratic countries, and quite likely to be in conflict with our own Bill of Rights. The Administration has offered no proof whatsoever of the need for this Bill, and it has refused to examine the consistency or otherwise of this Bill with the Bill of Rights. For this Council to pass this Bill would be an
irresponsible act that I fear will do great discredit to us.
I think it is instructive to recount briefly the history behind this Bill. In January of this year in a case that attracted international attention, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of five senior members of the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK), including our two vice-chairmen. In
addition to dismissing the charges of using a loud-hailer in a public place without the prior consent of the Commissioner of Police, the Chief Justice also quashed charges that the five UDHK leaders had been raising money in a public place without a permit. In a separate case, the Reverend FUNG Chi-wood, another leading member of the UDHK, was also convicted of collecting money in a public place without a permit. Though his appeal against conviction was not upheld, the judge in that case took heed of the decision of the Chief Justice in the UDHK five case and upheld Reverend FUNG's
appeal against sentence. A landmark decision of the Chief Justice brought the antiquated provisions of the Summary Offences Ordinance into further disrepute and pushed the Government into making long-overdue amendments.
Around the same time as the Chief Justice was sharply criticizing the decision of the Government to prosecute the UDHK leaders, the UDHK decided to hold a major raffle as a fund-raiser. Selling the tickets in carefully chosen public places, the raffle was an enormous success, and the UDHK raised over $200,000 through public sales. Though there was not a single complaint of nuisance or public disturbance during the raffle ticket sales, the success of this public fund-raising exercise clearly caused the Government great concern, for the Administration all of a sudden promulgated a new series of regulations forbidding the sale of raffle tickets in public places. That raffle tickets had been sold in public places for many years without any problems was immaterial to the Government; its political worries were strong enough to cause the Government to end the long practice.
Having banned the sale of raffle tickets in public places, the Government then introduced the present Bill in order to maintain the current ban on all forms of ordinary fund-raising in public. Though the Government claims the Bill was a progressive step, such a contention is fraudulent. For while with one hand the Government promises to allow public fund-raising by political organizations, with the other hand the Government takes it away through a series of highly restrictive regulations that ban political fund-raising in all public places except indoor civic and community centres. The net result is that the Government will be able to prevent organizations like the UDHK, which have been very successful in raising money in public, from raising the funds that will enable them to contest elections against their corporate-funded rivals.
The Government will no doubt vigorously deny that it is putting forward this Bill for political reasons, in much the same way as all but one government official had denied earlier that keeping the voting age at 21 was a political move aimed against pro-democracy parties. Unfortunately, the reasons put forward by the Government in favour of the Bill are so entirely devoid of any empirical evidence that it is
difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the Government was motivated by political reasons. I call upon the Government today to present facts to show the necessity of the Bill; and if the Government should fail to do so, I then urge Honourable Members to vote against it.
During meetings with the ad hoc group, the Administration proferred several explanations as to why a total ban on public fund-raising by political organizations was necessary with the exception of civic and community centres. First, it stated that it feared competition with charitable fund-raising, yet it offered no evidence of harmful effects caused by the alleged "competition". Nor did the Government explain how such conflicts would occur given the fact that charitable flag days are held only once every two weeks, always on a Saturday morning. Next, the Administration stated there were problems with the crowded streets of Hong Kong. Yet, we already have laws preventing any activity that causes a public nuisance or obstruction, and the Administration produced no evidence of prior nuisances arising from fund-raising activities.
In explaining why it would not allow fund-raising on large, enclosed public areas like football pitches, the Administration stated it was worried about "crowd control". Sir, do you really mean to say that a single fund-raising table in the middle of Victoria Park will cause "crowd control" problems? If the Administration is worried about crowd control problems arising from a single table, I wonder what the fate of the Flower Market will be during the next Chinese New Year?
In any event, it is nonsensical to allow charitable fund-raising but ban political fund-raising out of reasons of crowd control.
After this series of lame excuses, the Government finally got closer to its real purpose during its final meeting with the ad hoc group. It stated that political fund-raising in public places should be banned while charitable fund-raising allowed because of "the need to give priority to worthwhile causes which the community as a whole recognizes and supports. Charity falls into this category." Despite its
oft-repeated pledges of support for democratization, the message could not be clearer: the Government believes that charitable fund-raising is a worthwhile cause while fund-raising for elections or for organizations committed to democracy is not.
It is not the place of the Government, surely, to make this decision on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. Such an attitude is colonial paternalism of the worst kind. This should be a decision for the people to make. If members of the public do not wish to give to pro-democracy organizations, they do not have to, and we will not waste our time chasing after dollars that are not forthcoming. Yet, the origins of this Bill make clear that the Administration is banning political fund-raising in public places not because it believes there is a lack of public support; rather the Government is frightened there is too much public support for certain political organizations like the UDHK.
I would now like to turn away from the motivations behind the Government's introduction and discuss the content of the Bill. The Bill represents the worst form of antiquated colonial legislation, in which the Government retains untrammelled discretion to allow or prohibit what ought to be a fundamental right. Under this Bill, there is no right to exercise in public fund-raising even in civic centres; rather, the Secretary for Home Affairs can deny any application that he wishes. In this way, the law represents no improvement on the former law, under which the Director of Social Welfare consistently abused his discretion by refusing to grant any permits for public fund-raising of a political nature.
Such unregulated discretion is directly contrary to the control on public fund-raising in the United Kingdom. In Britain, the House to House Collections Act states that, if an applicant meets minimum requirements as to genuineness, "the authority shall grant to him a license authorizing him to promote a collection". An analogous legislative framework was proposed by the UDHK under which the Secretary would have to grant a licence so long as certain conditions were met, but this proposal was rejected by the Administration. I submit, Sir, that it is high time our Government became one whose behaviour was regulated by law as in other modern societies rather than retain an executive branch with excessive discretionary powers that are subject to abuse.
A second point that should be kept in mind is that it is not the major political parties that will suffer most from this Bill, but rather the individual candidates and the small grassroots organizations. For many of these individuals and groups,
they have no fund-raising avenues other than simple, peaceful efforts to raise money in places like parks or public areas in housing estates. And it is for this reason of protecting individuals who have no other access to public funds that courts in countries like the United States have always struck down laws like the present one that cut off this vital public lifeline.
The third point is that the Administration, despite requests from the ad hoc group, has been unable to point to any other country with such restrictive laws against political fund-raising. After researching the issue, our OMELCO office in London informed us that public fund-raising by political parties and the public selling of raffle tickets are both fully legal in the United Kingdom. Such activities are also fully legal in the United States.
Fourth and most important is the likelihood that the Bill contravenes the Bill of Rights this Council passed into law only three weeks ago. It is the belief of every human rights expert with whom I have raised the matter, including a number of international experts who came last week to the Bill of Rights Conference, that this new Summary Offences Bill violates our Bill of Rights. Similar legislation by
individual states in the the United States has been repeatedly struck down by the United States Supreme Court as an overly restrictive violation of the freedom of speech in the United States Bill of Rights.
I am afraid, however, that the Administration has made no effort to examine the conflict between this Bill and the Bill of Rights, nor did it even consult its own human rights experts. The response of the Government in toto was "fund-raising in public places is not a fundamental human right". With this contention, the
Government totally misses the point. International jurisprudence is in agreement that the question at issue is not whether an activity, such as conducting a signature campaign, is a fundamental human right but whether the activity is a form of or is closely connected to a right protected under the Bill of Rights. In the present case, it is clear that political fund-raising is intimately and inextricably linked to the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and the right to participate in public affairs under the Bill of Rights. I will focus in particular on the freedom of speech and the right to participate in public affairs.
Freedom of expression
Political fund-raising necessarily involves advocacy and discussion, two of the
most basic elements of freedom of expression. A political party must be free to inform and persuade the people, which are the actions at the heart of public solicitation. As for members of the public, they have the right to inquire, to learn, and to decide. The right therefore of a political group to solicit and the right of the public to contribute are protected by Article 16, and they are rights that lie at the heart of democracy.
The right to solicit
The conduct associated with public fund-raising is virtually identical in purpose and expressive value to such practices as distributing leaflets or collecting signatures. All of these are actions that are fundamental acts of expression. Yet, signature campaigns and distribution of leaflets, both of which are likely to pose at least as much a threat of obstruction as fund-raising, are fully legal in Hong Kong, as they should be. Indeed, every reason the Administration has advanced against public fund-raising could be advanced just as easily against signature campaigns.
Let me give a concrete example. Surely I have the right under the Bill of Rights to stand on a street corner and to ask a passer-by, "Will you please make a small donation to my political organization"? The Government cannot prevent such a form of public speech. Now, suppose this passer-by happens to believe in my cause and decides to express this support concretely by offering a small donation. I have the right to ask for support, the passer-by has the right to express support, and yet the Government today legislates to prevent me, or any representative of any political party, from accepting a donation voluntarily offered. How absurd can this be!
By enacting this law, the Government will be taking the self-contradictory position that representatives of political organizations have the right to ask for money in public places, but not the right to receive it. By depriving the request of any possible success, the Government effectively denies the right of solicitation itself, which is protected under Article 16.
The right to donate
Just as the rights of expression of the political party are impeded under this Bill, so are those of the public. Article 16 specifically guarantees the right to receive information and ideas, such as are regularly communicated during public
political solicitations. If a passer-by wishes to express his support by making a donation, he clearly has a right to do so as a part of his freedom of expression. The Government cannot prohibit him from doing so, except for reasons of public safety, nuisance, fraud, and so on, none of which reasons has been advanced for the complete ban on public fund-raising in this Bill.
The Administration will no doubt contend that it is permitting fund-raising in indoor community and civic centres as well as in private places. But for the "person in the street", who is highly unlikely ever to attend such a political function and who wishes merely to donate a few dollars on the spur of the moment, his opportunities for this form of political expression are severely curtailed.
Precedents in other countries
In examining the conflicts between this Bill and the Bill of Rights, the courts in Hong Kong no doubt will look to precedents in other countries as they are instructed to under clause 2. It is unlikely the courts will find any direct precedents in Great Britain or Canada -- for that matter, we are pleased to have representatives from Canada in the public gallery -- because of the fact that public fund-raising is legal in those countries; hence, there has been no need to challenge the law in the courts there. In the United States, however, the Supreme Court has been called upon to examine the issue on numerous occasions and has always ruled that public fund-raising by political groups is a protected form of free expression. Given the fact that Article 16 of our Bill of Rights is wider in scope than the analogous Freedom of Speech clause in the United States Constitution, it is likely that our courts will find the
precedents in the United States highly instructive.
The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that political fund-raising is necessarily linked with advocacy and discussion, two core elements of free speech. For this reason, the United States Supreme Court declared in 1977, "Our cases long have protected speech even though it is in the form of..... a solicitation to pay or contribute money". (Bates v. State Bar of Arizona 433 US 450, 363 (1977)) The Supreme Court addressed the question of public fund-raising three times during the 1980s; in all three cases it ruled that fund-raising was protected expression and any legal restrictions on the activity would have to meet the highest standards of necessity.
This Council would do well to listen closely to the decision of the Supreme Court
in the landmark case of Schaumberg v Citizens for a Better Environment 444 US 620, 632 (1980). In that case, which involved limitations on the ability of a local political organization to engage in door-to-door fund-raising, the Court declared, "Appeals for funds, on the street or door to door, involve a variety of speech interests -- communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes -- that are within the protection of the First Amendment. Soliciting financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regulation but the latter must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political or social issues and for the reality that without solicitation the flow of such information would likely cease. Canvassers in such contexts are necessarily more than solicitors for money".
The right to participate in public life
The second aspect of the Bill of Rights that I wish to touch on is Article 21, which guarantees that "Every permanent resident shall have the right and the opportunity..... without unreasonable restrictions to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives". In presenting this legislation to this Council, the Government itself recognized "public fund raising for these purposes (of election campaigns) are a legitimate and inevitable consequence of Hong Kong's political development, and acceptable outlets need to be provided for them".
The Government is correct in recognizing the importance of the political fund-raising to the democratic process. From the perspective of the citizen, a financial contribution is one of the most direct ways in which he or she can participate in public life, and under this legislation many citizens would be denied that opportunity. Similarly, this legislation impedes efforts by political parties to participate in public affairs by limiting their access to vital funding. The limitations in this Bill will severely impede the ability of individuals and political groups -- especially those who are poorest and least well established -- to raise money. These individuals and groups will thereby be less able to participate effectively in elections and other aspects of public life. In short, it is highly ironic that the Government on one hand admits the importance of public fund-raising, and on the other, specifically prohibits it except in very limited circumstances.
Reasonable limitations on expression
The final argument of the Government may be that it is allowing public fund raising but placing reasonable restrictions on it. Yet, it is highly unlikely a court would find the severe restrictions in this Bill to be reasonable. We should be mindful that international jurisprudence on similar Bills of Rights has made clear that governmental restrictions on protected rights must meet high standards of necessity and reasonableness.
For example, the landmark Canadian case of R. v. Oakes (26 D.L.R (4th) 200 (1986)) states that restrictions on rights in the Canadian Charter must meet three conditions. First, the purpose of the restrictions must relate to state concerns that are "pressing and substantial". Second, the restrictions must be "carefully designed to achieve the objective" of the state. And, third, any limitations "should impair as little as possible the right or freedom in question." It is highly unlikely that the Government will be able to meet that standard, for there are many ways which the Government might accomplish its crowd control aims through far less restrictive and absolute means.
I thus call upon the Government today to make clear why it still believes that the restrictions on public fund-raising in this Bill are consistent with Articles 16, 17, and 21 of the Bill of Rights, rather than just blandly asserting that "fund-raising is not a fundamental human right".
I would like to conclude by reminding this Council of its legal responsibilities. In addition to our responsibility of making sure that a law represents good policy, we now must be sure that no law infringes upon the Bill of Rights. Following the lead of the Administration, however, the ad hoc group made no effort to study the issue nor to invite any human rights expert to offer their opinions.
Although the ad hoc group report states that certain Members warned that this Bill is incompatible with the Bill of Rights, the ad hoc group never reached a decision on this issue. Rather, the report states, "Members generally agreed that the Bill should not be held up because of the reservation on this point". In other words, even if the Bill conflicts with our current law and with our international obligations, we should not hold up the passage of the Bill to examine this possibility!
Three weeks ago, this Council passed the Bill of Rights into law. Today we are prepared to pass a law which is certain to be challenged in our courts and which could
quite well be found to be in contravention of that Bill. If the Bill is overturned by the courts after it becomes law, it would bring shame upon this Council for its willingness to approve a law that contravenes the Bill of Rights so soon after its passage. Sir, I ask the Members of this Council: is this the way we intend to
legislate henceforth?
I hope Members will use this opportunity to reconsider the Bill and to vote against it.
DR LEONG: Sir, this Bill before us, in its present form, tends to confine itself to minor technical "touch-ups" on political fund-raising.
Putting additional tethers on political fund-raising on top of the already comprehensive set of police rules has raised doubts on the sincerity of Government to pursue a representative government for Hong Kong.
Having said that, Sir, it does not mean that I am in support of random fund raising that may cause public nuisance, fraud and abuses. Fund-raising activities must be conducted in accordance with the law, but they must not be cobwebbed by administrative control.
Sir, this Amendment Bill aims to create a new authority other than the Director of Social Welfare to issue permits for the collection of money for non-charitable purposes in public places.
Non-charitable bodies, including political organizations will have to apply to the Secretary for Home Affairs for a permit to raise funds in public places, and they must satisfy the following stringent criteria for a successful application, namely:
(1) The fund raising activity must take place only in public places so confined by the Administration, such as stadia, civic and community centres;
(2) The applicant must satisfy the Secretary for Home Affairs that the funds so raised will be used in ways which contribute to the development of representative government in Hong Kong. And therefore, usage of the funds so raised will be strictly restricted by law that they will not be used to finance any profit-making ventures or activities.
By confining fund-raising venues to stadia, civic and community centres, it would suffocate political maturity of these groups.
In future, it would be illegal for groups to launch fund-raising activities outside the designated venues.
I really doubt whether the Bill is earmarked for making better arrangement for fund-raising by political organizations or simply putting tighter grip on them.
Sir, this Bill, if enacted, would enable the Secretary for Home Affairs to have unwieldy power over local group activities.
I find it unreasonable for the Administration, under the pretext of facilitating fund-raising for political bodies, to tie the hands of these groups behind their backs.
To raise political funding, the groups will have to go through a labyrinth of administrative hurdles before they can actually do so.
In the United Kingdom for example it is the relevant local authority which approved applications for fund raising events. It is handled exactly in the same manner as an application from an organization, be it political or non-political, wishing to hold any public event. This arrangement may be a good one for Government to follow.
Even though, Sir, I am a member of the ad hoc group to study this Bill, I did hold different views. I had reservation on the likely side-effects for rushing through the Bill, hastily accepting some of the arguments by the Administration, even reluctantly, and delaying improvements till a later stage.
The Administration has so far failed to explain why fund-raising in public places cannot be regarded as a fundamental human right.
Sir, restrictions on such activity will certainly violate the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Every citizen should be entitled to the right to appeal for support, including monetary support for his political cause.
This Bill almost certainly breaches the Bill of Rights Ordinance enacted by this Council just three weeks ago. Article 18 of the Ordinance provides the right of peaceful assembly; Article 19 of the right of freedom of association; Article 22 the right to participate in public life. The restrictions on fund-raising by political groups in my mind conflict with each of these provisions.
No doubt, in future it will be up to the court to interpret and decide upon whether any breach of human rights would have surfaced. But I would like to remind my honourable colleagues that we are responsible for keeping this Council from the passage of a piece of high-risk law that may infringe on human rights. If it really happens, then it will be a setback which defeats all endeavours of this Council to put together the Bill of Rights.
To conclude, Sir, I would like to suggest that, in face of the many adverse side-effects of the Bill and given that the Administration is so reluctant to make concessionary amendment, this Bill should be shelved for the time being.
Further, an overall government study on political party development, with special attention to their funding mechanism, should be made. Piecemeal reviews promised by Government simply will not do and will only lead to unnecessary hindrances to healthy development of representative government.
Sir, I do not have the law book so that I could not quote case examples so eloquently expressed by my honourable friend Mr Martin LEE. But basing on just one simple commonsense on human right, I have to object to the Bill.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, I wish to support the proposal by the Honourable Martin LEE that this Bill not be backed in its present form. It is much too restrictive on fund raising for political purposes. It is clear that politics and political groups and parties are here to stay, having already become a fundamental part of the process of the democratization of the Hong Kong government system. Increasingly these
political groups will have an impact on the work of the Council and on the participation of Hong Kong people in their own destiny. Some political groups are lucky to be able to raise substantial funds without seeking them from the grassroots; others are not so fortunate and must seek funds directly from the public in as many public places as may be permitted.
This Bill, as I said, is too restrictive and should be modified as soon as possible. I feel that the Council will approve the Bill in due course and I accept therefore the probability that the restriction on fund raising in public places will be legalized. My plea is a pragmatic one. I ask the Government to maintain an open stand on the operation of the Bill in practice with the intention of easing the restriction on fund raising as soon as this can be done. I feel also that the Government should give this assurance to the people of Hong Kong.
Sir, I have no doubt that the restrictions on fund raising are basically incompatible with the recently passed Bill of Rights, for the reason so competently stated by the Honourable Martin LEE. For this reason and despite my request that the Government continually review this Bill if it is passed as law, about which I have no doubt, I will vote against the Bill.
Thank you, Sir.
MR CHOW: Sir, raffle tickets, as has been mentioned by Mr Martin LEE, have been sold in public places for many years without any problems. I do not agree with the Administration's claim that the Bill is a progressive step. In fact, the Bill will be bringing our society backwards.
Sir, people in Hong Kong will never know the real intention of the Government to control such activities. If the hidden intention of passing the Bill is due to political worries, what I can say is that now Hong Kong is really having window dressing democracy.
Sir, I support Mr Martin LEE's argument; so I do not support the Bill.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Sir, I am grateful to Mrs Rosanna TAM and her ad hoc group colleagues for their positive and helpful comments on this Bill and the administrative guidelines which seek to implement its proposals.
Several points of principle have emerged during our recent discussion of this Bill with the ad hoc group and in the lively debate we have just heard. I wish to take this opportunity to explain the Administration's position on these matters and to answer, in particular, the points raised by Honourable Members who spoke against
the Bill just now.
In moving the Second Reading of the amendment Bill, the Administration had already made the objectives of the Bill and the administrative guidelines very clear indeed. Sir, it is not appropriate for me to comment on judicial decisions duly made in the courts of Hong Kong. It is simply my job to respect the law. The point I would wish to emphasize today, however, is that, contrary to what the Honourable Martin LEE has suggested, the present proposals aim at the liberalization of a current restriction, rather than to hinder the development of representative government in Hong Kong. The fact is that hitherto the collection of donations in public places other than for approved charities is not allowed. The Administration believes that the time has come for a relaxation of this restriction, particularly in the wake of elections which are coming up in September this year and which will have profound significance for the development of representative government in Hong Kong.
MR MARTIN LEE: Will the Honourable Member give way, please?
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a point for clarification, Mr Martin LEE? MR MARTIN LEE: Yes, Sir.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: I will give way, Sir.
MR MARTIN LEE: Will the Honourable Member inform this Council whether he accepts that under the original law there is no distinction between charitable and non-charitable organizations so that anybody under the existing law could apply for a permit but it is through guidelines which the Director of Social Welfare has made for himself that somehow he is only granting permission to charity organization?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Sir, may I deal with that point right now. Under the existing provisions application of the law only allows for charity donations and not otherwise. May I please proceed, Sir?
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: As Members are aware, there is keen competition for public donations of one type or another. The over subscription of applications for Saturday flag days is a good example. There is thus a need for the Government to give priority to promoting worthwhile causes which the community as a whole recognizes and supports. Charity is an obvious priority. The Government's policy so far has been to allow fund-raising in public places, including street-collection, for charitable
purposes in an orderly and well regulated manner.
However, the development of representative government has led to the recent phenomenon of political groups and individuals promoting different viewpoints from different platforms. The Government recognizes the legitimate need by these groups or individuals for funds to conduct, for example, election campaigns in September and associated electioneering activities; hence the present liberalization. However, soliciting public donations for non-charitable purposes is a relatively new development in Hong Kong. There is therefore a need for us to adopt a gradualist and cautious approach, because it is the Government's responsibility to safeguard the wider public interest, and to ensure that fund-raising activities do not proliferate in our already overcrowded streets. I have in mind, for example, unscrupulous fund-raising for personal or organizational profit, for deception, for misrepresentation, and so on. I am concerned that fund-raising activities do not proliferate as this could provoke hostile public reaction against fund-raising in general and fund-raising for political purposes in particular. Sir, with due respect to the Honourable Martin LEE, a single fund-raising table placed strategically in the middle of Victoria Park could attract a crowd of up to 50 000 on-lookers on a fine Sunday afternoon as those of us who know that part of Hong Kong well will agree. I do not think the normal users of the park, the regular joggers, the tennis players, the young children and courting couples, for instance, will cherish the company of 50 000 on-lookers for purposes in which they are not interested at all.
Sir, we believe it is reasonable for these fund-raising activities to be held in "well defined public places", the access to which then becomes a conscious personal choice, so that funds could be raised from people who identify themselves with, and support a particular cause, political, charitable or otherwise, and to make donations
voluntarily. As the Honourable Mrs Rosanna TAM has observed, the present arrangements must not be seen in isolation. There are many other outlets for fund-raising such as the use of privately owned or managed premises, for example, hotels, shopping centres, appeals in the printed media, paid advertisements, donations to specified bank accounts, and so on. All these avenues are possible and legal.
Against this background, I hope that Members will agree that there are good physical, social and cultural reasons for the difference in treatment for different types of donations insofar as public collection is concerned. Comparisons with controls in other countries and other legal jurisdictions such as the ones cited by the Honourable Martin LEE, I suggest, are neither relevant nor appropriate in the Hong Kong context.
Sir, the suggestion has also been made that the Administration's proposals which fall short of allowing political groups to solicit and collect donations in streets may have breached a fundamental human right, that is the freedom of expression. I think this is simply a misconception. As regards the Bill of Rights to which several Members referred, the present amendment is intended to reflect the social evolution in Hong Kong and to provide additional means by which certain political rights can be exercised within the society in Hong Kong. Inherent in a democratic society is the right and the opportunity to hold political beliefs and to disseminate and promote those beliefs and views in order to canvass public support. That opportunity is available in Hong Kong. The proposed amendment now before Honourable Members
supports these freedoms and indeed facilitates the expression of these freedoms.
The advantage of the present proposals is that while the legislative provision is broad enough to cover the general situation, the administrative arrangements are also flexible at the same time to enable me as the appropriate approving authority to deal with applications having regard to current public sentiments and public policy,
which will need to be modified admittedly from time to time to reflect changing circumstances. We do not think therefore it advisable to reduce the scope of the law by making a direct but even more restrictive reference to collection for the purpose of the development of representative government only, because we do not wish to rule out other causes which, while not connected with the development of political development, are nonetheless worthy of public support. The protection of the environment is an obvious case in point.
Sir, I also note some Members' concern about the implementation of proposals through a set of administrative guidelines. The suggestion has been made to embody these guidelines into the Ordinance as subsidiary legislation. Sir, these guidelines merely assist me in the implementation of a law if enacted by this legislature.
For reasons I have already stated, the scheme must not be so rigid as to leave no room for sensible administrative discretion which I intend to exercise in the public interest whenever this is warranted.
The incorporation of the guidelines into the Ordinance will not actually address the concern of Members because, for a scheme of this kind to work, a certain degree of discretion will still need to be vested with the approving authority. Furthermore, in the context of the Summary Offences Ordinance, I am legally advised that it is inappropriate to isolate part of a subsection of the whole Ordinance for special treatment. Amendments to the Ordinance will still be required to introduce the
empowering provision to make by-laws. Consideration would also be required to be given to the scope and content of such a provision.
Sir, to assist the public in gaining a better understanding of the Government's policy as reflected in the guidelines, appropriate publicity will be arranged. This Council will also be informed of any substantial amendments to the guidelines in future.
Sir, in winding up this debate, I wish to pay special tribute to the ad hoc group under the able leadership of Mrs Rosanna TAM for the time and efforts they have devoted to a detailed scrutiny of this Bill and of the administrative guidelines. In implementing the scheme I shall give due regard to the sentiments and views expressed by Honourable Members both within and outside this Chamber, and a review will be conducted in the light of actual operating experience accumulated over a reasonable period and in the context of the Administration's on-going review of the development of representative government in Hong Kong.
Sir, with these remarks, I commend the amendment Bill to Honourable Members for their favourable consideration and I support the motion.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee stage of Bills
IMPORT AND EXPORT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 4 were agreed to.
OZONE LAYER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1, 2 and 4 were agreed to.
Clause 3
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, I move the amendments set out in the paper circulated to Members. The purpose of the amendments is to define further the potential recipients of information under the proposed provisions.
As suggested by Mr Stephen CHEONG, the word "companies" is inserted before "inspector" in clause 3 sub-clauses (c) and (g) to make it clear that disclosure of information to an overseas inspector will only be contemplated if such an inspector has been appointed under legislative provisions similar to those in Hong Kong empowering the Financial Secretary to appoint an inspector to examine the affairs of a company under companies and securities legislation. The term "companies inspector" is internationally understood.
Sir, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended --
(a) in paragraph (c), adding "companies" before "inspector".
(b) in paragraph (g), by adding "companies" before "inspector" where it occurs twice.
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 3, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
SECURITIES (DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1, 2 and 7 to 10 were agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 3 introduces new section 2A to give the Securities and Futures Commission a general power of exemption. This clause is amended to make it clear that an exemption may only be granted upon application and shall apply to officers and substantial shareholders of a company as well as to the company itself. It is also intended to make clear that the Commission's power to exempt and in so doing, to impose conditions, includes the power to revoke, suspend or modify the exemption.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 seek to amend sections 15, 24 and 41 respectively to limit any freezing order to shares registered on the Hong Kong register. These clauses are amended to make it clear that any such order applies to issued and unissued shares, consistent with both the existing and new section 44.
Sir, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended, by deleting the proposed section 2A(2) and substituting --
"(2) The Commission may, upon the application of a listed company, having regard to the guidelines published under subsection (1) and imposing such conditions as it thinks fit, exempt the applicant company and any other person in relation to that company from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance.
(3) The Commission may from time to time -
(a) suspend or withdraw an exemption granted under subsection (2) on the ground that the conditions subject to which the exemption was granted have not been complied with or on such other ground as the Commission thinks fit; or
(b) vary any condition imposed under subsection (2).".
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended, by adding "or which, in the case of unissued shares, on issue are to be" after "shares are".
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended, by adding "or which, in the case of unissued shares, on issue are to be" after "which are".
Clause 6
That clause 6 be amended, by adding "or, in the case of unissued shares, to be registered on issue" after "registered".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 3 to 6, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1, 3 and 4 were agreed to.
Clause 2
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, I move that clause 2 of the Bill be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 2 amends section 13 to acknowledge that conduct which is, by definition, insider dealing, may, in certain circumstances be excused by virtue of the defences available under the Ordinance. However, the new formulation may create doubts about the scope of the officer's duty to prevent insider dealing by the corporation. Clause 2 is amended by replacing the word 'might' by 'would' to provide greater certainty.
Sir, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, by deleting "might" and substituting "would". Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 2, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 4 and 6 to 16 were agreed to.
Clause 5
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I move that clause 5(a)(iii) be amended as set out under my
name in the paper circulated to members.
Clause 5(a)(iii) permits persons who are admitted as solicitors in Hong Kong and who have practised here for at least three years to apply to be admitted to the Bar. This opportunity is not afforded to persons admitted as solicitors in Hong Kong and who are legal officers in government service, even though these legal officers perform work comparable to that of solicitors in private practice.
Under the amendment, a legal officer who for at least three years has been admitted as a solicitor in Hong Kong and has practised here either as a solicitor or in government service will be able to apply for admission to the Bar.
The amendment has the support of the Bar Association and Law Society. Sir, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 5
That clause 5(a)(iii) be amended, by deleting the proposed subparagraph (v) and substituting --
"(v) he has been admitted as a solicitor in Hong Kong for at least 3 years immediately or recently before the date of his application for admission and during that time he was in practice as a solicitor in Hong Kong or employed in the public service of the Government as a legal officer as defined in section 3(1AF);"; and".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 5, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to. Schedule was agreed to.
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 9 were agreed to.
POLICE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991 Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
SUMMARY OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
IMPORT AND EXPORT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991
OZONE LAYER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
POLICE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991 POLICE EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991 and the SUMMARY OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
has passed through Committee without amendment and the SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991 SECURITIES (DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991 SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991 and the LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
has passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to. Bills read the Third Time and passed.
5.04 pm
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Before we go on to Mr Kingsley SIT's motion, Members might appreciate a short break.
5.30 pm
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Council will now resume.
Member's motion
DEATH PENALTY
MR KINGSLEY SIT moved the following motion:
"That, in view of the increasing concern caused by the present law and order situation, this Council urges the Government to resume immediately the carrying out of the death penalty.
MR SIT (in Cantonese): Sir, under the Legislative Council Standing Order 22(2), I hereby move a motion as follows:
"That in view of the increasing concern caused by the present law and order situation, this Council urges the government to resume immediately the carrying out of the death penalty."
Sir, society develops in stages. Primitive people who ate animals raw gradually progressed to living as tribal communities and then as societies where nations were built and civilizations grew. Through all these stages, each nation and each
community developed its own characteristics in that each had its own cultural background, moral standard, religious belief, and each formulated its own legal system, enacted laws and regulations having regard to its own law and order situation. The main purpose of all this is to protect the life and property of its own people within a healthy society under the rule of law. Any person, irrespective of whether he be of very high rank or powerful, whether he be a hawker or just an ordinary man in the street, whenever he acts in contravention of the law, he will be arrested and taken to court to face public trial. After a series of legal proceedings, he will be penalized pursuant to the law if found guilty. This is where social justice lies.
Sir, I move this motion because law and order these days has deteriorated. The people of Hong Kong fervently hope that the Government will resume capital punishment to punish those heinous convicts who have treated people's lives like dirt. We are not making use of the death penalty to remove dissidents as those pseudo-humanitarians say. It is widely known, in particular to legal practitioners who assist people in instituting legal proceedings, that it is clearly stated in the law that convicted murderers should be sentenced to death. People are not asking the Government to punish criminals with death if they are just convicted of minor offences such as stealing a car, robbery or traffic offences.
Sir, the Security Branch published an information paper this April. It was revealed that the majority of Hong Kong citizens agree to have capital punishment resumed. But owing to the constitutional position of Hong Kong vis-a-vis the United Kingdom, death penalty has not been carried out. Some people suggested that convicts and criminals should be re-educated. Here, I would like to cite an article published in the Times on 18 April 1991. It was disclosed that of the 1 045 convicted murderers on parole, 223 committed crimes again of whom 11 committed murder again and 27 committed serious offences. I would like to stress to Members that death penalty should be carried out on those heinous criminals who killed with malice aforethought. But according to the information disclosed, a total of 243 convicted murderers' death sentence has been commuted by the Governor in Council since 1966. Some 28% got a jail sentence of about 20 years or more. Is it fair to the victims who were killed? I therefore feel that in our society, we are not abusing the death penalty but rather the Governor in Council is in abuse by commuting the death sentence. I would like to pose a question. How many of these 243 persons convicted of murder were wrongly convicted? I would be pleased if an answer could be given to me by the Government or someone in this Council. Surely people in Hong Kong would like to know about this. There is a Chinese saying "to tolerate evil is to abet it". There is also another
old Chinese saying that when one meets King Wen (a good king), one shows courtesy and plays music to him. But when one meets King Zhou or Jie (bad kings) one should be up in arms. For a person with a kind heart like a woman, he would like to tolerate murderers and is always willing to give them a chance of re-education so that they can turn a new leaf. But has he ever given thought to those broken families whose members have been killed? How are they going to be compensated?
Some are afraid that a death sentence might be meted out to one wrongly convicted of murder. But of these 243 cases, how many were wrongly convicted? To those who bring up this question, may I say, firstly, I feel that they are not having any confidence in Hong Kong's legal system. They think that somebody might be wrongly convicted of murder and given a death sentence. But if one has no confidence in the legal system, then to punish somebody who spits or to put him in jail for two months would also be wrong because the principle itself is wrong, let alone to put somebody to death. In such circumstances, should the convicted all be released? Secondly, would it lead to the question of like requited for like if some heinous criminals were put to death? This will be a logical error. To requite like for like should be between individuals who have scores to settle. As for those heinous criminals convicted of murder, they have been indicted and convicted by due process of law; it is not the family members of victims taking it out on the murderers. The question of requiting like for like does not arise.
Lastly, there are some signatures here which I have collected recently during a signature campaign. I am not going to take public opinion and flaunt it as my own. I would submit these signatures to the Government in due course.
Incidentally, someone asked me why am I pinning to my lapel a flower of the Amnesty International today? Does not this look contradictory? I feel otherwise. I am a person in earnest love of my own life. I treasure the right to life. But in this community, some like to exploit other's kindness by killing and using this as a pretext to get away from the death penalty. One's life is valuable. But is it that other people's lives are not to be valued? Someone mentioned that there is no such thing as death penalty under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But please do not forget this. In Article 6(2) of Part III, it is stated that sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the Bill of Rights and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and that this penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final
judgment rendered by a competent court. Unless one does not acknowledge that our present judicial system and courts are competent, and unless one does not believe that to kill others with malice aforethought is a serious crime, there is no need to discuss this issue. But everyone here in this Council knows that the Government does know about the wishes of the general public, as revealed in the Security Branch information paper this April. There is no need to repeat this point. But being a responsive government, it should take into account the wishes of the people and should not just follow the viewpoints of the British Government. The Government of Hong Kong is to serve the people in this territory and not the British Government.
Sir, society is always developing and legislation should always be amended to meet the development need and the wishes of the people. I am therefore moving a motion to urge the Government to carry out the death penalty. I have every reason to believe this is what public opinion wants. This would sound an alarm to murderers who kill with mens rea and who pay little regard to the safety of other people by firing guns in public places. I would urge Councillors here to support my motion. In doing so, Members will not be just supporting my motion; they will be supporting the views of the public. We should not cherish an effeminate sort of kindness. We are wasting our time talking moral and humanity to heinous criminals.
Sir, I beg to move.
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: I have received notice from Mr Martin LEE to move an amendment to the motion. His amendment has been printed on the Order Paper and circulated to Members. I will call upon him to move the amendment when it comes to his turn to speak.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR ALLEN LEE: Sir, before I put my views forward, I feel it is my duty, as a member of the Executive Council, to answer Mr Kingsley SIT as regards his statement that the Governor in Council abused his power of commuting the death sentences of prisoners convicted of a capital offence. I can assure Mr SIT and members of the public that I and my colleagues on the Executive Council, whenever we look at a case of a person convicted of a capital offence, would look at every word in the brief because we are dealing with the life of a person on whom the court has passed a death sentence. Very often when we tender our advice -- which is collective -- whereon the Governor commutes the death sentence to life imprisonment, it really hurts me very much because I know
the prisoner will spend the rest of his life in prison because of the crime that he has committed. Therefore, I think there has been no abuse of power by the Governor acting on the advice of the Executive Council. I would dispute any allegation of abuse.
Sir, carrying out the death penalty is a very emotive and controversial issue in any community. Mr SIT has cited the example that in Hong Kong the overwhelming majority of our people believe that the death sentence should be carried out. In the case of Canada -- I have just checked with the parliamentarians from Canada -- 80% of the people there are requesting for a reinstatement of the death penalty though the law has abolished it. This 80% is similar to the percentage we have in Hong Kong. In the case of the United Kingdom, I recall that something like 74% of the people there were asking for the death penalty to be reinstated. As legislators we must think and use our wisdom. We must make decision on this issue.
During the course of this debate, of course, we will find that Councillors' opinions are divided reflecting the different sentiments of our community. But it is a subject that this Council must address, particularly during a time when the public perception is that the crime rate is on the increase. The question we must ask ourselves is: Will the execution of the death penalty deter the criminals from committing serious crimes? I am, of course, not an expert in criminology but I have come to believe that when a person is about to commit a crime he would not give any thought to being caught in the first place. Needless to say, he would not think about the consequences of being caught. If he does, he would not commit a crime, particularly a serious crime. I do not believe carrying out the death penalty will deter criminals from committing serious crimes. In any event, a research undertaken by the United Nations in June last year has failed to produce any evidence that the death penalty has a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. The recent cases of armed robberies have stirred up the public into believing that if the death penalty is carried out, these cases will be reduced. To me, it seems that it is obviously an unfair reaction. But do we, as Members of this Council, really believe in this? I believe the most effective measure to deter serious crime is to improve the detection rate of our police force. So we, legislators, have a responsibility to tell our people and to clear any misconception which the general public may have. For the reasons stated above, I find I cannot support Mr Kingsley SIT's motion. I do believe, however, that as a very civilized and modern community, we should seriously consider abolition of capital punishment. According to our statute books, murder, treason, piracy with violence are offences for which that death penalty is mandatory. My view
is, as I said it before, that life imprisonment is a severe enough penalty; no criminal will be looking forward to it. Besides, Hong Kong being an international city and part of the international community, I genuinely do not believe that to carry out the death penalty is in the interest of Hong Kong. Therefore, I believe we should strike out from our statute books the death penalty. For these reasons, I will
support Mr Martin LEE's amendment.
MR CHAN (in Cantonese): Sir, I agree that severe penalty should be imposed in troubled times. In 1987, there were only seven armed robbery cases, the lowest for the past five years. Yet, there has been an increase ever since. Last year, the number shot up to 66 and for this year, as at yesterday, there were already 23 cases. The robbers are like terrorists and the firearms of the police are no match for theirs. As a result, the innocent citizens will easily fall victim when the two parties exchange fire. In view of this, I think heavier punishment should be imposed upon these
offenders.
As to whether death penalty should be imposed, I have consulted some of the members of the Eastern District Board and Wan Chai District Board as well as members of the area committees. They all agreed that armed robberies should be included in those crimes punishable with death penalty. At present, only convictions for three types of crimes are punishable by death penalty, including murder, piracy and treason. Since armed robbers have no intention to kill, they cannot be punished by death penalty.
In the past five years, there were over 100 armed robbery cases and only four people who robbed jewellery and watch shops were convicted of murder. District board members supported the reinstatement of the execution of death penalty, but it should only be levelled at these offenders because it is unforgivable for them to rob and kill others blatantly by using firearms. In the United States, offenders of proven cases classified under first degree murder are punishable by death penalty while those who have committed cases which still have room for doubt will be classified under second degree murder and death penalty will not be imposed. But the laws of Hong Kong and the United States are different in that the latter classify murders into first or second degrees.
Nevertheless, given the objective circumstances of Hong Kong, offenders who have been sentenced to capital punishment can still appeal to the Governor and will definitely be granted amnesty. In fact, they may have their sentences commuted to anything shorter than life imprisonment. In this way, death penalty has already lost
its deterrent effect. Since we cannot reinstate the execution of death penalty realistically, I do not support its reinstatement. And I agree that life imprisonment becomes the most severe punishment. Though the court has been empowered to impose such a punishment, yet for most cases, the offenders are only sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. Twenty five years may be a very long period of time, yet only life imprisonment can carry a deterrent effect and only in this way can we live up to the society's expectations that "severe penalty should be imposed in troubled times."
Therefore, I cannot agree with what the Chief Secretary told the press some days ago that the present 15 to 20 years' imprisonment for armed robbery was already enough to serve as a deterrent. I think unless the police are powerful enough to produce deterrent effect, the robbers will get away with their loot easily. Unfortunately, this is the truth. These robbers openly defy the law and the police simply cannot track them down. Therefore neither death penalty nor life imprisonment or even the electric chair, will mean anything to these robbers. Unless we launch an overall review of our security ability and spread a dragnet so that the criminals have no way to escape, as well as to improve the police detection rate, severe penalty will not be effective.
As Hong Kong is located next to China, it is very easy for firearms and criminals to be smuggled into Hong Kong. Therefore, there is a need to review our ability in preventing cross-border crimes, otherwise, Hong Kong people will feel more and more insecure and unprotected. Apart from those platitudes such as strengthening
cooperation with China and stepping up our fight against triad gangs, we should work out better measures to cope with the worsening crime situation. For example, we can step up customs control within Hong Kong waters, set up restricted zones and designate navigational courses for large vessels and vessels of other sizes to facilitate
inspection and interception of smuggling of criminals and firearms.
Some people may be opposed to any firearms capability race between police and criminals. Then should we review the reliability of the information gathered by the police as well as the deployment capability of the police? And should we deploy the Special Duties Unit to track down the robbers?
Finally, the jewellery and goldsmith shops should change their obsolete style of display and adopt the style of display and way of operation of bank counters to make it more difficult for the robbers to get what they want and to provide more
protection to the stuff, customers and passers-by.
Sir, given that we cannot possibly have the execution of death penalty reinstated, we should rather have all convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment and the death penalty abolished. I therefore support Mr LEE's amendment.
MR CHUNG (in Cantonese): Sir, today we have a debate on the reinstatement of the execution of death penalty. We have to examine the prevailing situation of law and order in Hong Kong and the impact of death penalty to the future of our community.
It is most alarming that on one occasion some gangsters attempted to make a clean sweep of five goldsmith shops by using machine guns and drove away at high speed after the robberies. On other occasions, some criminals even killed people with their firearms arbitrarily. As for these sudden and unpredictable serious crimes, I have much doubt whether they are only rare special isolated cases or in fact an indication of rising serious crimes.
The crux of the problem is whether the capital punishment can serve as a deterrent to robberies, murders and other serious crimes.
Sir, as the saying goes "Gentlemen can get along despite of divergent views". In our previous debates, we have been practising the democratic principle of "complying with the decision of the majority while respecting the opinion of the minority". Although we might have different views in respect to capital punishment, however, I believe we are on the same starting point, that is to identify all means to maintain law and order of the territory during the transitional period with full effort.
The major purpose for the reinstatement of the execution of death penalty is to provide an effective safeguard to public order. However, as the circumstances have indicated that for those criminals who had caused disruptions to our public order, endangered the lives and property of the public or even risked their lives by opening fire and resisting arrests by the authorities, capital punishment would not serve as an effective deterrent. Capital punishment can only deter those people who are inclined to commit crimes which are not directly affecting the public order or do not warrant a death sentence under the law. However, these people are not the major targets of capital punishment. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no need
to reinstate the execution of death penalty at this stage.
We also have to give a thought to the rationale behind and the impact of the suspension of the execution of death penalty in the territory for such a long time. At this stage, the most important thing is whether we can make use of statistics on killings in robberies and homicides to prove that capital punishment is a correct measure. In the minds of those cross-border criminals who are not afraid of death, a life sentence or imprisonment for more than 30 years would be more frightening than the capital punishment. In other words, the present approach to deal with any death sentence which still exists in our statutes and is not yet abolished is not
unreasonable. When the need arises, Hong Kong should take appropriate steps to remove the capital punishment all together from the criminal laws of Hong Kong.
I do not agree to the saying that "the life of a killer should be compensated for the life of a victim". This might contradict to the rule of law and the principle of equity. One who took the lives of other people deliberately or during an armed robbery, or the accused of a manslaughter case might be considered as a "killer". Should they all then be condemned to death? There can be different motives and
reasons behind killings. It should of course be left to the open court to make a fair judgement in accordance with the details of individual cases. If the execution of the death penalty is resumed in Hong Kong, it will give rise to a constitutional problem. Since capital punishment has already been abolished in the United Kingdom, if Hong Kong implements any judgement on a contrary basis, I wonder how the appeals to the Privy Council will be dealt with then.
In Europe recently, even the mandatory life imprisonment which is a penalty lighter than the capital punishment has already begun to attract opposition. The prevailing mainstream view is whether all killers should be subject to the same mandatory life sentence. The reason given is that the nature and extent of various condemnable offences differ from case to case, and their chances of rehabilitation might not be the same.
Apart from capital punishment, I firmly believe that there are other better alternatives to prevent and deter serious crimes. These alternatives will cope with our law and order situation which I expect might deteriorate in future. For this reason, I would like to put forth a few suggestions in brief:
Firstly, in order to improve the law and order situation, it is essential to