1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 10 July 1991 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 10 July 1991 1
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 10 July 1991
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR (PRESIDENT)
SIR DAVID CLIVE WILSON, G.C.M.G.
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. THE HONOURABLE MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, C.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 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 GRAHAM BARNES, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
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
THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
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 PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, J.P.
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
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E.
IN ATTENDANCE
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Schedule of Routes (China Motor Bus Company)
Order 1991.............................................................. 241/91
Schedule of Routes (Kowloon Motor Bus Company) Order 1991.............................................................. 242/91
Schedule of Routes (New Lantao Bus Company) Order 1991.............................................................. 243/91
District Court Civil Procedure (General) (Amendment) Rules 1991.......................................... 244/91
District Court (Fixed Costs in Matrimonial Causes) (Amendment) Rules 1991.............................. 245/91
Stamp Duty (Amendment) Ordinance 1989 (Commencement) Notice 1991................................... 246/91
Road Traffic (Expressway) Regulations 1991..................... 247/91
Road Traffic (Traffic Control) (Amendment) Regulations 1991...................................................... 248/91
Sessional Paper 1990-91
No. 82 -- Report by the Commissioner of Correctional Services on the administration of the Prisoners' Welfare Fund for the year ended 31 March 1990
No. 83 -- J.E. Joseph Trust Fund Report for the period 1 April 1990 to 3 March 1991
No. 84 -- Kadoorie Agricultural Aid Loan Fund Report for the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991
No. 85 -- Sir Robert Black Trust Fund
Annual Report for the year 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 No. 86 -- Committee on Science and Technology
Annual Report for 1990-91
No. 87 -- Construction Industry Training Authority
Annual Report 1990
No. 88 -- Clothing Industry Training Authority
Annual Report 1990
Address by Member
Committee on Science and Technology Annual Report for 1990-91
PROF. POON: Sir, the third Annual Report of the Committee on Science and Technology, covering the year 1990-91, has been tabled in this Council today.
The Committee has now completed its work programme for the year and has tendered advice to the Chief Secretary where appropriate. The annual report highlights our main findings and recommendations in each area of work. The major areas in which we have put forward advice are:
(1) the need for supercomputing facilities in Hong Kong;
(2) means of facilitating the development of information technology in Hong Kong,
and particularly in tackling skills shortages;
(3) the use of electronic data interchange for trade documentation;
(4) the commercial viability of biotechnology in Hong Kong and the infrastructure needed to underpin biotechnology development;
(5) the science and technology infrastructure in Hong Kong compared with neighbouring economies;
(6) controls on toxic substances in household products; and
(7) informal education in science and technology.
One of the Committee's major recommendations, arising from our study of the science and technology infrastructure, is that a new administrative framework for science and technology should be established. This would involve the replacement of the Committee on Science and Technology with a new board under the proposed Industry and Technology Development Council, which is currently being considered as a successor to the existing Industry Development Board.
Sir, I understand that the Administration is giving very active consideration to our proposals. Thus the Committee has decided not to initiate new work pending decisions on its future.
Oral answers to questions
Re-appointment of retired civil servants
1. MR CHENG HON-KWAN asked: Will Government inform this Council what is the present policy concerning the re-appointment of civil servants upon their retirement to retain useful experience and expertise in the overall interest of the Civil Service? Will Government also provide statistics of such re-appointment during the past three years?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, the Administration's policy on the continued employment of
civil servants beyond their retirement age is that further employment should be primarily subject to service need. The conditions for re-employment depend upon whether the officer is serving under the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme.
For officers who are under the Old Pension Scheme, the present policy, subject to certain conditions being met, is to allow them to be re-employed in the service when they reach the normal retirement age, up to the age of 60. The conditions are that an officer must be physically fit, fully efficient and that his or her further employment would not cause promotion blockage. If an officer fully satisfies all those criteria except that concerning promotion blockage, he or she may be re-employed in a lower rank of his grade.
Under the New Pension Scheme, the retirement age is 60. The extension of service beyond this retirement age is allowed only under exceptional circumstances, such as the need to retain the expertise of an officer, or where there is serious shortage of staff or where there is compassionate consideration in the case of Model Scale One staff. The same principle applies to the re-employment of officers under the Old Pension Scheme beyond the age of 60.
The statistics on the re-employment of officers who served under the Old Pension Scheme during the last three years are as follows:
As at Number
1.4.1989 4 299
1.4.1990 3 334
1.4.1991 2 680
The number has been declining after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme in 1987 because serving officers who wish to serve until the age of 60 of course can elect to join the New Pension Scheme.
The statistics on the extension of service of officers who served under the New Pension Scheme during the last three years are as follows:
As at Number
The year ending 1.4.1989 32
The year ending 1.4.1990 59
The year ending 1.4.1991 98
MR CHENG HON-KWAN: Sir, will the Chief Secretary inform this Council whether the officers are allowed to receive their monthly pension during the period of re employment upon retirement under the old scheme, and of the terms on which they are re-employed?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, the normal system is that an officer is re-employed on agreement terms. On satisfactory completion of the agreement he will receive a gratuity of 25% of his basic salary. He is paid the commuted pension gratuity on retirement but payment of his monthly pension is suspended during the period of his re-employment. Under the new pension scheme, extension of service beyond retirement age will continue to be on pensionable terms and the officer will receive pension benefits when he or she retires after the extension of service and on the expiry of pre-retirement leave.
MR PETER WONG: Sir, have there been any officers who have taken advantage of early retirement and have subsequently been re-employed?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, I do not have that statistic with me but I will endeavour to find out and let Mr WONG know. (Annex I)
British citizenship
2. DR LEONG asked: It is noticed that some people in Hong Kong have acquired British Citizenship but their children, or some of their children, who were born before 1 January 1983, are not granted similar status because of the British Nationality Act 1981. Will the Administration inform this Council whether, and if so, how the
Government will assist these families so that the children concerned may apply for registration as British Citizen without requiring them and their parents to leave Hong Kong for the United Kingdom for settlement?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, we are aware of such cases. Those concerned have two avenues open to them to apply for British citizenship: under section 4 of the British
Nationality Act 1981 which requires five years' continuous residence in the United Kingdom; and under section 3 of the Act, which provides for the children under 18 of British citizens themselves to be registered as British citizens at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
The Director of Immigration acts as the handling agent in Hong Kong for the United Kingdom Government in matters relating to Immigration and Nationality. If the families concerned approach the Immigration Department they will be given advice and assistance in applying for the registration of their minor children as British citizens.
DR LEONG: Sir, under section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Secretary of State of the Home Office may, if he thinks fit, cause these children to be registered as full British citizens. Will the Hong Kong Government make recommendation to the Home Office to this effect for the benefit of the affected families and their children in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I find it difficult to answer that question in the abstract because we do not have details of these cases. If those concerned care to let us have details of their cases, then we will certainly consider what assistance and support we can give.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, since it seems possible that it was never intended that such children should be denied British citizenship, will the Hong Kong Government itself make representations to the British Government to have this anomaly rectified and seek special consideration of such cases on a compassionate basis? In other words, Sir, will the Government take positive action instead of taking a supportive role which is not likely to help much?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I think I can only repeat my answer to the previous question that until we have details of the cases it is very difficult for us to come to any firm conclusion about them. We will certainly consider what assistance we can give, if and when we have details of these cases.
MR PETER WONG: Sir, are parents holding United Kingdom passports eligible to apply under the British Nationality Scheme so that their children born before 1983 can benefit?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I believe that the answer to that question is no. Persons who are already British citizens cannot be registered again as British citizens under the British Nationality Scheme.
MRS TAM (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council, since the implementation of the British Nationality Act 1981, how many families in Hong Kong have applied for British citizenship for their children by taking advantage of the discretion given to the British Home Office under section 3(1)? How many applications have been approved at the discretion of the British Administration and how many rejected, and if approved, why?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I do not have statistics going all the way back to 1983 but I do have some figures for the last five years. In the last five years, I believe that 184 applications were made in Hong Kong on behalf of children born before 1983 to British citizens; of these 79 have been approved, 37 have been refused, four were withdrawn, and 64, I believe, are still outstanding.
Sir, with regard to the second part of the question, as I said in my main answer, the registration is at the discretion of the Home Secretary. I cannot speak for the Home Secretary and say precisely what criteria he adopts, but I believe that the essential point which he considers in all cases is the connection which the family has with the United Kingdom.
DR LEONG: Sir, the spirit behind the Nationality Selection Scheme 1990 for Hong Kong is to keep people in Hong Kong. The British Nationality Act 1981, however, drives people to leave Hong Kong for the United Kingdom to avoid the splitting of families. Will the Administration consider using the spirit of the Nationality Selection Scheme 1990 as an argument and negotiate with the Home Office so that it will exercise
discretion in favour of the victimized children of the affected families?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I think I can only really repeat what I have said twice before and that is that until we have details of these cases I find it very difficult to express any sensible opinion on them. When we have details of these cases then we will certainly be glad to consider that.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, since there is very clearly a problem, and since there may be many affected families who are somewhat confused at the present time in regard to the policy, will the Government take an initiative to issue information which will be helpful to those people to come to a particular place and have their cases examined? In other
words, Sir, will the Government take an initiative rather than be responsive? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider that. As I said, the Immigration Department does act as the agent of the British Government in these matters and I am sure that they can arrange for some suitable point of contact for all these families.
Shortage of Secondary One places
3. MR DAVID CHEUNG asked: In view of the recent concern expressed regarding a possible shortage of Secondary One places in the coming academic year, will Government inform this Council:
(a) of the latest estimated supply and demand of Secondary One places in the coming academic year; and
(b) whether there is any plan to
(i) increase the number of classes in schools or,
(ii) increase the number of student per class from 40 to 45 or, (iii) buy more places from private schools?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, the total number of Primary Six pupils
participating in the 1991 Secondary School Places Allocation is 84 273. There will be sufficient Secondary One places to accommodate all of them on a territory-wide basis.
Notwithstanding this overall balance, there are, as in past years, imbalances of supply and demand within the 19 administrative districts. The Schools Reprovisioning Programme will address some of the more serious shortfalls. However, it is neither practical nor necessary to achieve a district by district balance because the requirement for places changes at a pace we cannot hope to match with school reprovisioning.
For districts with an immediate shortfall of places, the selection of schools available to parents has been extended to include schools in neighbouring districts or along easily accessible transport routes. Where new schools are being provided, maximum opportunity is taken to meet any shortfalls by accelerating the building process; by operating more junior classes for the initial period; and/or by advancing the opening of new schools through the initial use of shared premises.
Since there are enough Secondary One places for allocation purposes for the coming academic year, the Government has no plans to increase the number of students per class from 40 to 45, or buy more places from private schools in the coming school year. However as I have explained, we do adjust the number of classes in schools to address district shortfalls on a temporary basis, whenever it is necessary and possible to do so.
MR DAVID CHEUNG: Sir, in respect of schools where the number of forms and classes have to be adjusted, will the Secretary inform this Council whether prior consent and agreement with the school management has been obtained, or is it simply an instruction from the Director of Education?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I believe that these adjustments are always made in consultation with those concerned.
MR SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, can the Government inform this Council of the annual figures of Primary Six pupils subject to cross-district allocation of Secondary One
places in the past three years; the three districts having the largest numbers of cross-district allocations; the annual figures of pupils subject to such allocation in these three districts; and whether the situations in these three districts will worsen or stabilize in the coming three years?
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Could I encourage Members to ask short questions so that it does not sound like a mathematical examination?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I am afraid I do not have the detailed figures available. I will have to provide them to Mr SZETO in writing afterwards. (Annex II)
MR EDWARD HO: Sir, will the Secretary confirm to this Council that the adjustment of the number of classes will not affect the quality of education, and also will he inform us how temporary these arrangements will be?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I can give the assurance sought by Mr HO. As regards the length of time expected for the adjustments to continue to be in effect, I think in each case it will depend on the circumstances.
MR DAVID CHEUNG: Sir, will the Secretary inform this Council how many districts suffer from a shortfall of places?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, basically, the major shortage in overall terms is on Hong Kong Island and this is more or less balanced by surpluses in Kowloon and the New Territories. As regards individual districts, there are 12 districts with varying degrees of deficit on a district basis, and these are counterbalanced by surpluses in the other seven districts.
MR SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, can the Government inform this Council whether cross-district allocation will increase the outlay under the Student Travel Scheme;
and if so, what the amount of increase was in the past three years?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I will have to add that to the written information I will provide to Mr SZETO later.
MRS TU: Sir, could the Secretary give some assurance that the adjustment which is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of his main answer will not take the form of reintroducing bisessional schools or by increasing the number of "floating classes" to the point that schools cannot manage?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, it is certainly our policy to try and avoid those situations.
MR POON CHI-FAI (in Cantonese): It is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the main reply that the Government will not increase the current ratio of pupils per class from 40 to 45. Will the Government consider, however, lowering the current ratio of pupils per class to under 40, so that there will be more contacts between pupils and teachers in order to improve the quality of education; this indirectly may enhance the care and understanding of pupils thus preventing the occurrence of avoidable tragedies like suicide?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I think Mr POON's suggestion raises very important policy and financial implications which I shall need to consider very carefully.
MR DAVID CHEUNG: Sir, when children have to be allocated to neighbouring districts, will the Secretary inform this Council how far on average does the Government expect the children to travel?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, our general policy cannot be stated in terms of exact numbers of miles or kilometres; our general policy is that pupils should
not be required to travel too far. Generally speaking, in terms of administrative distance, if a shortfall of places occurs in one district, then as many places as possible will be found in an adjacent district.
Written answers to questions
Public light buses fares
4. MR DAVID CHEUNG asked: In view of the exorbitant prices charged by public light buses during the recent disruption of train service, will Government inform this Council whether it has any plan to exercise some control over the pricing of public light buses to prevent excessive profiteering?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Sir, under the existing public transport system, public light buses (PLBs) provide a supplementary service to the mass carriers. There are two types of PLBs -- green minibuses (GMBs) and red minibuses (RMBs).
GMBs operate to specified schedules along designated routes. They provide an essential service to areas where bus operations are not economical or constrained by road terrain. GMB fares are regulated and approved by the Commissioner for Transport.
RMBs operate on non-scheduled routes. They provide a flexible service for passengers who are prepared to pay higher fares in return for more convenience and comfort than is generally provided by buses. The viability of RMBs is left entirely to market forces and the competitiveness of individual operators. They have to compete with other transport modes. On the one hand, if their charges are too high, they may not be able to attract enough customers. On the other hand, if their fares were pre-determined, this would detract from their responsiveness to changes in local market conditions, as often occur in our urban environment. Subject to operating areas and stopping restrictions, they are therefore allowed to utilize fully their flexibility to operate in a manner sensitive to passenger requirements.
The existing pricing mechanisms of GMBs and RMBs are considered appropriate in keeping with their respective roles in the public transport system.
Vietnamese boat people
5. MR DANIEL LAM asked: Since the capacity of the VBP detention centres in Hong Kong will soon reach saturation point and the sailing season for boat people has already begun, will the Administration inform this Council of the measures to be taken to cope with and accommodate the further influx of boat people?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: We plan to accommodate new arrivals in whatever space is available in existing detention centres. At the same time:
(a) we are, in co-operation with UNHCR, the Vietnamese Government and the international community generally endeavouring to get the message across to people in Vietnam that there is no point in leaving Vietnam clandestinely in search of a better life overseas; and
(b) we are continuing our efforts to secure agreement to arrangements for the repatriation of all those screened out as non-refugees. To this end we are now discussing with the Vietnamese Government the possible establishment of internationally managed centres in Vietnam to accommodate those screened out as non-refugees.
Police officers committing perjury in court
6. MRS TU asked: Will the Government inform this Council what action will be taken against police officers who are found to have lied on oath in court in the course of criminal proceedings?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, a lie given on oath before a court on a matter which is material in that proceeding amounts to perjury. This offence is punishable on conviction upon indictment by a maximum of seven years imprisonment and a fine.
Where there is evidence that any person, including any police officer, has committed perjury, the matter will be investigated and then referred to the Attorney General who will decide whether to prosecute or not.
If a police officer is convicted of perjury, the Commissioner of Police will decide whether or not to exercise his power to dismiss the officer taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.
Overtime assignments carried out by government drivers
7. MR PETER WONG asked: Could the Administration inform this Council of the total cost incurred in overtime assignments carried out by government drivers in the past 12 months and a breakdown of these assignments by (a) duration, (b) location and (c) nature?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, there are currently 2 900 driver grade staff in the government service. Of these, 780 are special drivers who are normally employed for driving specialized vehicles such as street washers, refuse collection vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, articulated vehicles and roadsweepers. The remaining 2 120 motor drivers and chauffeurs are deployed to drive vehicles ranging from small saloon cars to coaches.
All government officers, irrespective of rank, may use government transport to carry out their official duties during or outside office hours. Depending on the operational requirements of individual departments, members of the driver grades are required to work overtime. Since the drivers are deployed to a number of departments, a great deal of administrative work and hence costs would be involved to obtain
information on all overtime assignments. However, information on overtime journeys carried out by 55 chauffeurs and 44 motor drivers for top senior Government officials at rank Directorate D4 and above for the last 12 months period ( l April 90 - 31 March 91) is as follows :
Total overtime Average monthly overtime
Total cost ($) hours worked hours worked per driver
5,116,000 111 370 95.44
In general, the nature of these overtime assignments consists of home-to-office return journeys and attendance at official functions and/or meetings. It is not possible to provide a breakdown on the precise location of the overtime assignments
without a considerable amount of time, and costs, being spent on analysing in detail the records kept by individual departments.
Planning of health care facilities
8. MR PETER WONG asked: Will the Administration inform this Council of the availability and adequacy of accurate health statistics and costings to enable proper and efficient planning of health care facilities for Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: The Government maintains a whole range of health statistics and cost data on medical and health services. The information is accurate and readily available for the purpose of planning on a broad basis.
Health statistics
Vital health statistics such as infant mortality rate, life expectancy, leading causes of death, incidence of infections and other major diseases are collected, compiled and updated regularly to reflect the health status of the population and to compare with international trends. Apart from this, the Government also conducts surveys as necessary to obtain additional information on specific subjects.
However, the present health information system has certain limitations. It is accurate but crude. It is adequate but not sufficiently sophisticated for planning where more comprehensive information is required or desirable, such as on territory-wide disease patterns, on health needs of individual districts or socio-economic groupings and on the clinical history of individuals. The Department of Health is aware of these deficiencies; and the Report of the Working Party on Primary Health Care has pointed out these limitations and suggested improvement measures. The report is now under consultation for views from our community.
Having regard to public comments, we will be considering practicable ways of improving the present health information system to facilitate more efficient planning of health care facilities and better use of resources.
Health costings
Information on the expenditure of medical and health services is available from computerized accounting systems. Such information includes the cost per bed-day in different types of hospitals, the cost per general or specialist out-patient consultation, the cost for each dressing and injection and the cost per visit by a community nurse. Calculations are made according to:
(a) a full-cost principle, which embraces staff costs, departmental expenses, maintenance and depreciation, administrative overheads and other operating costs; and
(b) an average-cost approach.
Such information is accurate but deficient in many respects such as data on cost of services which are provided free of charge are not readily available and data on the subvented sector are limited and fragmented.
We consider that there is a need to improve the financial information system for medical and health services. Plans are now in hand to strengthen the health accounting system to enable better, more sophisticated planning.
Permanent Hong Kong Government office in Beijing
9. MR McGREGOR asked: Is there any intention by the Hong Kong Government to set up a permanent office in Beijing? If so, when will this be done?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, there is no immediate intention by the Hong Kong Government to set up a permanent office in Beijing.
Statement
Suspension of operations of the Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Limited
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, I wish to inform Members of the present position in relation to the Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Limited, which I shall refer to as the Bank. The Commissioner of Banking's Office was alerted to the recent problems of
the Bank of Credit and Commerce Group at a meeting of the BCC College of Supervisors at the Bank of England in London on Tuesday last week, that is, 2 July. This followed the discovery by the Bank of England of suspected fraud in parts of the Group outside Hong Kong. The results of that meeting were received in Hong Kong on Wednesday, 3 July. Various contingency measures were immediately put in place by the Commissioner of Banking's Office, including sending a team of bank examiners into the Bank to examine its loan book.
On the evening of Friday, 5 July, it was announced in London that supervisory authorities in a number of countries had moved to close down the business of parts of the Group. A decision had to be made at that point on whether to allow the Bank to open the following morning or not. Since the Bank is a completely separate entity from the rest of the Group and since its operations here were considered sound and viable, the initial concern was to try to keep the Bank open. I shall have more to say about this in a moment. The Bank managed to trade relatively normally on Saturday, although some withdrawals of deposits were made.
We took the opportunity to hold discussions with the Government of Abu Dhabi, which through its shareholding in the parent is effectively the ultimate majority shareholder of the Bank, on the question of financial support for the Bank. The Government of Abu Dhabi had, for the purposes of the Bank's 1990 accounts, provided a Letter of Comfort which confirmed their intention to provide the financial support required to enable the Bank to continue trading for the foreseeable future. The Commissioner wished to have this support reaffirmed and indeed strengthened in the changed circumstances. A representative of the Commissioner's Office flew to Abu Dhabi to hold discussions over the weekend with the Government of Abu Dhabi. However, it became clear on Sunday, 7 July, that the Government of Abu Dhabi was unwilling to provide the necessary financial backing to the Bank.
During the weekend it also became clear that the Bank's ability to conduct its business could be affected by the problems elsewhere in the Group. In the absence of support from the majority shareholder, and given that a disorderly withdrawal of cash could not be ruled out, the Commissioner of Banking instructed the Bank not to open for business from Monday, 8 July, until further notice. He also assumed control of the Bank. Restrictions were placed on the Bank's business to freeze deposits and prevent the movement of funds out of the Bank in order to safeguard the interest of depositors. There are at present some 40,000 depositors, whose deposits total $11 billion, of which $4 billion is pledged as collateral against loans.
It has been suggested that the decision made on Monday to suspend the operations of the Bank was inconsistent with the earlier decision to keep the Bank open last Saturday. Let me emphasize that the decision to keep the Bank open was taken having regard to the facts available on Friday evening and in the knowledge that closure of a bank is a drastic step not to be taken lightly. Closure at that stage would also have undermined the attempt to gain the support of the Government of Abu Dhabi. However, when it became clear that support would not be forthcoming, there seemed no point in risking a draining of cash from the Bank which would impair the assets of the Bank and could well have resulted in some depositors being repaid in full to the disadvantage of the rest.
As to the way ahead, the Commissioner has continued discussions with the Government of Abu Dhabi, but these have not yet produced any result. There remains, however, the possibility of a sale of the Bank and this is being pursued with various interested parties.
It has today been brought to our notice that a liquidator has been appointed of the Bank's holding company in Luxembourg. The Commissioner is sending representatives to Luxembourg to discuss any arrangements necessary for the sale of the Bank in Hong Kong.
Sir, some have called for the use of the Exchange Fund to rescue the Bank or pay off depositors. In this connection, I must draw attention to section 3(1) of the Exchange Fund Ordinance which states that --
"the Exchange Fund shall be under the control of the Financial Secretary and shall be used for such purposes as the Financial Secretary thinks fit affecting, either directly or indirectly the exchange value of the currency of Hong Kong and for other purposes incidental thereto".
Although the Exchange Fund has been used before in rescuing a number of banks, this was against the background that the Financial Secretary then had taken the view, and rightly so, that the exchange value of the currency of Hong Kong would otherwise have been unacceptably affected. On this particular occasion, having regard to the facts of the case, as described to me by the Commissioner of Banking, and to the fact that our monetary system, and our skills in monetary management, have, over the past few years, been considerably strengthened, I took the view that the exchange value
of the currency of Hong Kong would not be affected even if the Bank were to be closed down. Indeed, the exchange rate has not been affected by events in the past few days. There is therefore no case for using the Fund.
The present circumstances are such that, in my opinion, the Exchange Fund has no role to play in matters directly connected with the Bank. This position will, of course, be continuously reviewed in the light of the changing circumstances.
Let me stress, Sir, that the Government has taken all necessary steps to safeguard the assets of the Bank in the interests of depositors. We want to make sure that the assets are there and that they do not disappear from our jurisdiction.
Motions
PUBLIC BUS SERVICES ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT moved the following motion:
"That the franchise conferring the right to operate a circular public bus service on Hong Kong Island between MacDonnell Road and Central shall not be subject to the profit control scheme provided for by Part V of the Public Bus Services Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Early this year, the Governor in Council decided that the manner in which franchised bus routes are awarded should be changed to allow for competitive tendering. The aim is to promote quality, efficiency and innovation in bus services through healthy competition.
In April, the Administration invited tenders for the right to operate a circular bus service on Hong Kong Island between Central and MacDonnell Road. Subject to final approval by the Executive Council, the franchise for this route will be awarded shortly.
Three companies now hold a franchise under the Public Bus Services Ordinance, namely the China Motor Bus Company (CMB), Kowloon Motor Bus Company (KMB) and New Lantao Bus Company (NLB). The first two are subject to profit control scheme while
the last one is not because of its much smaller size of operation.
To allow all contenders including existing franchisees to compete on an equal footing, it is intended that whoever is awarded the franchise to operate the route should be excluded from the profit control scheme.
Under section 5(3)(b) of the Public Bus Services Ordinance, a resolution of this Council is required for not applying the profit control scheme to the proposed franchise.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
FIXED PENALTY (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT moved the following motion:
"That, with effect from 1 October 1991, the Schedule to the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance be amended by adding after item 55 -
"Road Traffic (Expressway) Regulations 1991
(L.N. 247 OF 1991)
56. Regulation 11 Failing to comply $280
with restriction on
using offside lane
57. Regulation 13 Overtaking another $280".
vehicle on its nearside
He said: Sir, I move the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. It seeks to create two new expressway-related traffic offences under the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance.
The new fixed penalties to be added are required on road safety grounds to ensure
proper lane discipline on expressways. The first one prohibits, where there are three or more lanes, the use of the extreme right hand lane by vehicles such as medium and heavy goods vehicles. The second one prohibits overtaking on the left-hand side of the vehicle being overtaken. The level of fixed penalty is considered appropriate for the two offences.
It is proposed that the two items, together with the enabling legislation, should come into effect on 1 October 1991. This is to allow sufficient time for intensive publicity to be launched to advise the public and in particular to educate motorists of the new requirements.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MRS CHOW: Sir, I support this motion and any other such expedient measures to punish discourteous, careless or reckless motorists.
Funny enough, in spite of remarkable improvements in our road systems and various traffic management measures, driving in Hong Kong is no pleasure. One of the main reasons is the "jungle" mentality of most drivers. The hostility displayed behind steering-wheels is most unbecoming and often dangerous.
I therefore support the extension of the imposition of fixed penalty for easily established offences but the effectiveness of it depends on enforcement. For instance, from personal observation I do not see the recent fixed penalty on stopping within the yellow box being too effective. I hope this subsidiary legislation before us will be enforced widely to achieve the actual elimination of inside lane overtaking.
Furthermore, I urge Government to consider a package of measures to upgrade the driving ethics of drivers which should not only rely on punishment, although punishment should be used I suggest, but also through public education as well as incorporating into the training of learners the importance of road courtesy, lane discipline, and considerate tolerance to other drivers. We are a sophisticated city; let us aim for having more civilized motorists on our roads.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Sir, I am most grateful to Mrs CHOW for her helpful comments and support of the motion. Indeed, the main emphasis of this proposal really is to focus on two aspects: one is enforcement, the other education. And to give the benefits to motorists, it is first of all important to educate them before we punish them for their lack of obedience with the new rules. Therefore, one of the first aims is to step up our Road Safety Campaign to educate and convince motorists of these proper lane disciplines, in particular on expressways.
At present a Road Courtesy Campaign is being held to draw motorists' attention to the need for greater patience in lane-changing when driving on congested roads. In the next three months we will be launching an intensive publicity campaign to highlight the main points of this new legislation to ensure that lane discipline is followed. The package of programmes is very comprehensive, targetting at existing and potential drivers. It will include announcements of public interest on
television and radio, briefings with district boards and professional driving associations, and publication of more than 400 000 copies of a well designed and easily understood pamphlet for direct mailing to individual car owners. Copies will also be available to drivers and interested persons through district offices, government carparks, Transport Department Licensing Offices, and driving schools. In addition, the new legislation will form part of the syllabus for the written driving tests and will feature in the Road Users Code which is updated regularly.
The other aspect, Sir, is of course enforcement. Having given motorists three months' notice of these new requirements in intensive publicity programmes, the police will enforce them with much vigour. At the present time the police have already established an Expressway Unit particularly for expressway-related offences. I have the police's assurance that enforcement action will be stepped up once this programme of education is completed and the motorists have been given sufficient time to learn about the new requirements.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
PHARMACY AND POISONS ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE moved the following motion:
"That the Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) Regulations 1991, made by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board on 29 April 1991, be approved."
She said: Sir, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This amendment seeks to extend to pharmacists to be employed by the Hospital Authority the same rate of annual practising certificate fees as that payable by their government, university and subvented hospital counterparts. The purpose of this is to maintain comparability of treatment for all pharmacists employed in public
hospitals.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
Second Reading of Bills
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
WASTE DISPOSAL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 15 May 1991. Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR CHENG HON-KWAN: Sir, the need to tighten up and provide for control of chemical waste was recognized in the 1989 White Paper on Pollution. The development of a Centralized Chemical Waste Treatment Plant (CWTP) on Tsing Yi Island is now underway. It is expected that the plant will be fully commissioned by late 1992. To make
preparations for the commissioning of the plant, the Administration has introduced new control legislation by expanding the present scope of the Waste Disposal Ordinance to provide a legislative framework with enabling powers and general provisions for the making of regulations to implement controls on chemical waste.
An ad hoc group was formed by this Council to study the Bill. The group has held four meetings including one meeting with the Administration and one meeting with a concerned group.
Members noted that the Waste Disposal (Amendment) Bill 1991 was, in essence, an enabling Bill which contained no teeth. The teeth of the Bill were to be contained in the regulations which would provide for the classification of chemical waste by reference to prescribed substances or chemicals, the disposal and collection of
chemical waste and the registration of waste producers. Certain Members felt that the Bill should more appropriately be considered in conjunction with the full set of the proposed regulations and the definition of chemical waste.
The Administration assured Members that although the regulations were to be introduced after the passage of the Bill, they would be drawn up after full consultation with the industry. As regards the definition of chemical waste, it was difficult to define in the Ordinance in a precise manner what chemical waste was without resorting to quite onerous testing procedures to accurately define their properties and hazardous nature. To provide a definition which was both flexible and practicable, the Administration considered that the best way was to include the definition in the regulations so that changes could be made to the definition in response to practical experience, changes in knowledge and standards and developments
in the local chemical industry.
Members appreciated the difficulties that were being experienced by the Administration in providing a definition for chemical waste in the Bill at this stage and accepted the assurance given by the Administration that a full consultation on the regulations including the definition of chemical waste would be carried out with the industry before reverting to this Council for further discussion during the legislative process.
Members also noted the concern expressed by the industry on the proposed charging scheme and the objection to the Administration's proposal of recovering the cost of treating the chemical waste by imposing an ad valorem levy on the import and the local manufacture of chemicals. The industry claimed that the methodology of charging would in no way be related to the degree of treatment and that some of the chemicals might be subject to double or triple taxation as a result of the imported chemicals being processed into high-valued products in Hong Kong. Members considered that the
industry's concern on the charging system was not without reasons. At the request of the ad hoc group, the Administration agreed that a full consultation in this regard would be conducted and a consultative document on the proposed charging scheme would be issued to the industry for comments this month. At any rate, the proposed charging scheme would require separate legislation and the scrutiny of this Council in due course.
The ad hoc group shared the Administration's view that the passage of enabling Bill would have the function of conveying the message to the public and to the industry that the Administration was determined to control chemical waste and maintain the momentum of Government's effort in controlling pollution. However, Members strongly felt that there was a definite need to build up mutual understanding and to conduct full consultation with the industry on issues which were of great concern to the industry. I hope the Administration would continue to make its efforts in gaining the co-operation and support of the industry to combat pollution and improve our environment.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MR CHEONG: Sir, first of all, I would like to declare my interest as the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries General Committee.
Having done that I must stress that the industry acknowledges the problem of unscrupulous disposal of chemical waste and supports the Government's as well as the community's determination to strengthen environmental protection and control the disposal of chemical waste through legislative measures.
Nevertheless, the industry is not without worries. The concerns are two-fold. First, as the Bill currently stands, it is an enabling Bill which contains no teeth but allows for the introduction of a set of regulations to control chemical waste. There is no description of what control is going to be imposed, what regulations are going to be formulated. We are simply concerned also that what will be included in the proposed regulations, which are not at present ready and available for scrutiny by this Council, will be introduced into the Council in the coming Session. And if there are no opportunities for this Council whether now or in future to scrutinize the proposed regulations it is basically wrong in principle to accord an enforcement agency too much power without knowing exactly where the limits lie. We urge the
Government to conduct consultation not only with the community at large but also with the industry on any proposed regulations including the important definition of chemical waste and take into consideration the views of all parties concerned submitted to this Council so that the legislators would have a chance to scrutinize and make the views known. It is also our sincere hope that the Government will provide a clear and concise definition of chemical waste in the regulation. This is of paramount importance to the whole issue. We also would like to know what we are actually required to do under the law. An unclear and misleading definition would inevitably lead to confusion and uncertainty.
Secondly, the method of recovering the cost of treating the chemical waste is also a question that needs to be examined. It is not that the industry does not want to pay. It is that the proposed charging scheme needs to be arrived at after consultation. Opportunities should be given to the industry to make known our views. Naturally they may not be accepted. The scheme designed for the purpose should be fair. And at the same time, care should be taken to ensure that it will not create unjustifiable financial burden on any particular sector of the community.
With these remarks, Sir, I reluctantly support the Bill.
MR PETER WONG: Sir, as someone concerned about the environment, and especially the
rapid deterioration in the water quality of the Victoria Harbour which has been brought about by untreated discharges of industrial and household waste, I strongly urge that this waste treatment facility be put in place as soon as possible.
Further, as a legislator, I must draw the public's attention to the totally unsatisfactory state of affairs due to the lack of a policy on how the cost of the chemical waste treatment will be recovered.
When the proposal on Chemical Waste Treatment Plant at Tsing Yi Island came before the Finance Committee earlier this year, I raised issue that such a major project would be built without clear guidelines of how the running costs would be recovered. We are now asked to pass the enabling legislation without seeing any further progress made in this direction. Even though a consultancy study has been conducted on the plant, the Administration for reasons unknown, has not published it.
The Administration has advocated an ad volorem duty on all chemicals imported or manufactured. The chemical industry immediately pointed out the inequities of such a simple duty because the cost would hit those who have treated their waste in just the same way as those who poured it down the drain. They sought to float a proposal which was equally flawed by putting an extra amount on the general taxes. We are really experiencing a practical difficulty of how to implement the policy of "polluter pays".
I do not have the resources to come up with a ready panacea. But I would like to know what was the result of that consultant's report which was commissioned to provide an answer on the funding of the Tsing Yi Plant.
So far as the Amendment Bill is concerned, the Friends of the Earth consider that the penalties are pitifully low and the less scrupulous of our industrialists will merely treat the fines as an unwelcomed but necessary cost. The inclusion of an imprisonment term may be the most effective deterrent measure. I would therefore request that the Administration undertake to review the effectiveness of the adopted sanctions at an early date.
Sir, in view of the unresolved cost recovery of the Chemical Waste Treatment Plant, I support this Bill with grave reservation.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: I should like to thank my honourable colleague Mr CHENG Hon-kwan, the convenor of the Ad Hoc Group on the Waste Disposal (Amendment) Bill 1991, for his support of the Bill and the other members of the ad hoc group also for their careful consideration of this proposed legislation.
When proposing the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that its aim was to provide for the necessary powers, including new regulation powers, to operate an effective scheme of control over the management of chemical waste; I also pointed out that the detailed controls would be implemented primarily through regulations to be made
subsequently under the Ordinance.
Over the past few months, we have held discussions with industry over the scope and the specific provisions of the proposed regulations. Generally, the intent and scope of these regulations have been welcomed. Points concerning the practical application of some of the detailed controls have been raised and we are now addressing these with a view to ensuring that, while meeting our environmental targets, the effect of the regulations will not be unacceptably onerous to industry.
This Amendment Bill has not, in itself, drawn criticism although some concern has been expressed by industry about a related but separate matter, referred to by both Mr CHENG and Mr WONG, namely, our proposals to recover the costs of the chemical waste treatment facilities through a levy on imported and locally manufactured
chemicals.
Sir, I would like to say that the passage into law of the Bill will not, nor should it, pre-empt a full and proper consideration by the Legislative Council of the proposed regulations for the control of chemical waste, and of the legislation which will be necessary to give effect to any charging scheme for the chemical waste treatment facilities. We will not progress to that stage, however, until I am entirely satisfied that the affected parties have been thoroughly consulted and their concerns have been addressed.
In conclusion, I would point out that there has been general and wide-ranging support expressed for the principles behind this Bill regarding the need to exercise control over the management of chemical waste. This is of course very welcome. It also emphasizes that the Government and industry must work closely together to ensure that the significant recent progress made in environmental protection, particularly with regard to air pollution and water pollution, is consolidated and built upon in
the future. I am optimistic that we will be able to co-operate in this way to the benefit of the community at large.
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).
DENTISTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 17 April 1991. Question on Second Reading proposed.
MRS CHOW: Sir, I rise to support the resumption of the Second Reading of the Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1991, and shall be moving two amendments during the Committee stage for reasons which I will go into a little later. Before I outline the conclusions on the deliberation of the ad hoc group to scrutinize the Bill and the acceptance of the group's recommendation to support the Bill with amendments in the subsequent Legislative Council In-House meeting, I would first like to give a brief historical background of the public discussion and consultation which had taken place over the last 11 years, so as to ease the minds of some who might be misled by certain unfounded criticism that there has been insufficient public consultation on the issue.
As far back as 1980, barely five months after the formation of the Law Reform Commission, it was requested by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice at the time to consider whether the existing laws governing homosexual conduct in Hong Kong should be changed, and if so, in what way. A sub-committee was formed under the chairmanship of Mr Justice T L YANG (the now Chief Justice, Sir T L) and I had the fortune or misfortune, whichever way your look at it, of serving as a member on the sub-committee. I can therefore tell your first hand of the determination the
sub-committee had of consulting most widely and variedly as possible, attempting to draw on the thinking of as many different sectors of the community, from as many perspectives as possible, employing means approaches and techniques which were designed to find facts and gauge opinions of the public to assist our work. Chapter 9 of the Law Reform Commission Report published in 1983 gave full detail of this very extensive exercise. Just to give an idea of the initiatives taken, there was public appeal by the sub-committee through the media to call for any views to be directed to us. A specially designed questionnaire was sent to a list of organizations of different sizes to gauge the attitude of employers. All district boards and the Fight Crime Committee were consulted. A letter was sent to representative organizations
in the social, business and professional sectors to draw on their reaction. Interviews were conducted with members of the public who chose to come forward, and the sub-committee made tremendous effort to create opportunities for social workers, journalists, academics and all those who had worked with and could claim to have an understanding of the psychology, and feeling and lifestyle of homosexuals. It was only after three years of extensive discussions with groups and individuals to facilitate the most objective and well informed deliberation within the Law Reform Commission that the following conclusion was drawn, and I quote:
"We decide that it should not be a function of the law to enforce moral judgements in areas where there is no need to protect others; but that where conduct harms people or offends the public, then the law should impose sanctions. We conclude that the laws protecting the vulnerable, especially young people or the mentally disabled, from exploitation or sexual corruption, and the law protecting members of the public generally against public behaviour that is indecent or offensive to the majority, should be strengthened in a number of practical ways".
That was in 1983.
Over the years, the question has been raised repeatedly why was Government taking so long to introduce legislation recommended by the Commission.
Having been a member of the original sub-committee, I was naturally quite curious about the delay, and have posed the question from time to time, but have not been given any clear answer except the usual bureaucratic jargon that other priority prevailed. Perhaps that had something to do with it, but I suspected the controversial nature of the issue was probably the main reason.
Then instead of the expected legislation, the public was presented with a consultative document in June 1988. This gave further opportunity for discussion of the real issue, which is whether the law should intrude into what is considered to be immoral behaviour adopted voluntarily and in private between consenting adults and pronounce such behaviour as criminal.
Following the consultation, a motion debate took place in this Chamber in July last year. This Council voted on the motion proposed by the Chief Secretary to remove the criminal penalties relating to homosexual acts committed in private by consenting men who have reached the age of 21; and to extend to men and boys, where appropriate,
the protection from sexual exploitation afforded by the Crimes Ordinance to women and girls and we passed this motion with a majority of 31 to 13.
Today's Bill is the result of 11 years work by many in the community who had a view about the problem posed by the existing law on the subject, in principle and in practice, and no one can justifiably accuse anyone of having shrouded the exercise in secrecy. Nor can anyone complain of having been deprived of the chance to be consulted. Nevertheless with any highly controversial issue, the arguments will go on. Those who remain unconvinced that the change in the law is right, timely and necessary will go on protesting, perhaps, more loudly now than before realizing that their battle is about to be lost. The true mettle of a legislature is to be able to make the right decision in the public interest in spite of controversy.
By and large the ad hoc group was satisfied that the Bill before us fulfills the objectives laid down by the motion last July.
I shall be moving two amendments during Committee stage.
The first results from our view that the original proposed sentence for the crime of bestiality of a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for one year is in itself too low in relation to the perceived severity of the crime. Furthermore the fact that these proposed penalties are considerably lowered from the existing one of life
imprisonment would send the wrong message that such acts should be condoned. I shall therefore propose that these penalties be amended to a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for 10 years.
The second amendment is introduced to ensure that in section 147 subsection (2), the immoral purpose referred to here should only apply to buggery by a man with another man, and an act of gross indecency by a man with another man, and that the subsection should not be read as an exhaustive definition of all immoral acts.
Other issues discussed by the group were:
(1) Different age limits for criminal liability and protection in the Crimes Ordinance. Although the group raised the question that different age limits applicable to unlawful homosexual and heterosexual acts may cause confusion, we accepted that the main objective of the Bill should not be sidetracked by anomalies which are better tackled by an overall review on age limits in the Ordinance.
(2) Whether marriage implied consent for sexual acts between husband and wife. As this issue arose during the course of discussion but had no direct relevance to the main objective of the Bill, and as marriage had never implied consent for buggery, non-consensual buggery in marriage is included as an offence under new section 118A, the group concluded that the wider issue of consent for sexual acts in marriage should not be dealt with here.
(3) Use of premises, and so on, for illegal sexual purposes. Members were concerned that the absence of the word "vehicles" in sections 140, 141 and 142 might provide a loophole in the law. However the group was assured that such a problem does not arise in practical terms, and that even if it does, charges could still be brought without adding the word "vehicles". The Administration also assured members that the matter would be kept under review by the police.
(4) Criminal liability on men under the age of 21 who commit buggery. Members questioned the apparent anomaly between the new sections 118C and 118D in the criminal liability on men and girls under the age of 21 who committed buggery. The Administration managed to convince members that homosexual and heterosexual conduct should not always be equated. The reason for making a male under 21 criminally liable for participating in consensual buggery was to guard against the likelihood of blackmail against the other partner. Members were assured that in normal circumstances it was unlikely that proceedings would be taken against a male under 14.
(5) Level of penalties for various offences. Apart from strong views held by members regarding bestiality, members held the view that although some anomaly existed between the penalties and the relative seriousness of various offences, we should not attempt to conduct such a review during our consideration of this Bill, but that a separate exercise should be undertaken for this purpose. Members would therefore like to urge the Administration to taken this on with some urgency.
In conclusion, Sir, I would like to thank members of the ad hoc group for their diligent scrutiny of the Bill, particularly the women members, who pressed ahead undaunted in spite of the repeated and conspicuous absence of their male colleagues due to some unfathomable cause totally uncharacteristic of their usual enthusiasm.
MR CHEONG: Thank you, Sir. I am going to surprise my colleagues because they might think that I would be launching on a long speech. I shall simply say, insofar as this Bill is concerned which seeks to decriminalize homosexuality, I made my views known very clearly and forcefully, I think, on 11 July 1990. I will refer my
colleagues, if they are interested still in the subject, to that particular Hansard. I oppose the Bill.
MRS TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, I speak in support of the Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1991.
The Government published a consultative paper on amendments to the legislation in respect of homosexuality in June 1988. Since then, there has been much discussion on the issue within and outside this Council and such discussions have stretched over a number of years. In my view, the issue has been fully considered and the time is ripe for passing the Bill.
As I pointed out in the motion debate on the same issue last year, I cannot accept homosexual acts according to my own moral standard. However, considering the trend of social developments, in particular at a time when human rights are highly valued and entrenched in the community and taking into account the implementation of existing legislation on homosexuality and its effectiveness, I come to the view that so long as the public can get the clear message that the purpose of the Bill is not to legalize all homosexual acts and that protection for the interests of young people will
continue, I agree to accept the Bill on the principle that such acts will not cause harm or inconvenience to the public. This is to show my respect for the freedom of choice in respect of acts in private.
I wish to reiterate that while the Bill is endorsed and put into operation, the Government should step up the education for young people, so that they know about the protection given to them under the law in this respect. It should also take measures to prevent them from being induced to attempt homosexual acts or committing such acts out of curiosity.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR DAVID CHEUNG: Sir, while I admire my honourable friend, Mrs Selina CHOW, I rise to speak against the Bill and with a sad heart.
Homosexuality is a kind of deviant behaviour which cannot be condoned socially. People try to rationalize the act by saying that it is a matter of sexual preference. It is not. Such deviant behaviour, whatever its cause behind it, needs to be cured.
The universe that we live in has a natural order of things. Natural order dictates that the sun rises from the east and sets in the west. It cannot be reversed. The natural order cannot be destroyed otherwise the society would become chaotic. Homosexuality is against such a natural order, for God instituted sex within the bonds of holy matrimony between a man and a woman, not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman. It is through a heterosexual relationship that God intends human beings to express love in the deepest sense of commitment and to propagate the human race.
Homosexuality has often been defended as a matter of human rights. It is sheer nonsense. Who does not respect basic human rights, but how can one condone wrong doings in the name of human right? Do I have the right to use cocaine because I can afford it and I do it behind closed doors? The answer is obvious. My honourable learned friends who argue for decriminalization on the ground of human right should re-cast their thinking once again in a more sober manner. The right to do this and that must not be used to mean an insurance to do what is wrong and socially
unacceptable.
Some pleaded their case on the ground of privacy. Surely, privacy must be respected and protected. But again does privacy mean free for all behind closed doors? I do not think anyone can and should subscribe to that.
Some further argued in the last debate that morality cannot and should not be determined by law. I cannot agree to that at all; after all, a law or any law must be made for the betterment or good or protection of the great majority. Nothing stops the minority from doing it but laws are to protect citizens and to elevate the overall moral atmosphere of any community.
Sir, what Government is trying to do, in my view, is to confuse the public especially the yet-to-mature minds of the young people. A teacher in a sex education class, now, will no longer straightforwardly tell two boys or two girls engaged in homosexuality that they are wrong. How can we expect our teachers in the front line to do "proper" sex education? Do we expect our teachers to pass a value judgement on these things, or do we expect our teachers to remain silent in such cases. There
are more such cases now in schools. In the past academic year, I have been asked to help both boys and girls involved in homosexuality. It is a worrying trend in which teachers feel so helpless and unable to cope.
My honourable friends argued that decriminalization may not mean legalizing homosexuality. Theoretically it may not be so but, Sir, with the first piece of rock breaking away from the embankment, soon, the rest of the embankment will collapse. Where do we draw the fine line? With the criminal element removed, people can face it, engage in it more openly and legitimately. This is the first of two steps leading to eventual legalization. I can only hope that I am proved wrong.
Sir, Britain was founded on Christian principles. The doctrine of the Church of England has been the cornerstone of Great Britain. I hope it still does. If the Church of England still believes in the words of God which clearly and blatantly forbids homosexuality, then, there is no way that the British Administration can pass the Bill into law today. If so, it will be a sad day in the history of morality in Hong Kong.
I have always advocated that homosexuals must be sincerely asked to come out to the open to receive medical attention and psychotherapy. Researches have shown that these cases can be remedied and corrected and cured. It is only legitimate to help these people to turn over a new leaf, to cure them of the deviant behaviour rather than to encourage them to continue with the practice on shaky moral and legal grounds.
Sir, let not your Administration be tarnished by having this Bill passed into law today. If the view of the public is to be respected, I do believe that the present status of the law will be maintained. Sir, I dread to see the day when homosexuality becomes a common practice in our society rejoicing for the wrong reason that human rights and individual freedom prevail.
We, as legislators, have our responsibilities towards society and towards our young people. We must all search our conscience honestly before we make our decision today. Do we want to see our own children engaged in homosexuality? What we sow today so shall we reap tomorrow.
God is a consuming fire and a God of wrath. I dare not act against Him. I call on my honourable colleagues to vote against the Bill. The Honourable PANG Chun hoi and the Honourable HO Sai-chu said I can include both their names on my speech.
With these words, Sir, I strongly oppose the Bill.
DR LEONG: Sir, I rise to support the Bill. In essence this Bill seeks to decriminalize homosexual activities performed in private by consenting adults. As a corollary it also acts to protect minors under 21 and the disabled. Let me from the outset, Sir, stress that I do not condone homosexuality nor do I favour that homosexuality should be glorified. Instead I would like to extend the views of the medical profession on homosexuality which might perhaps throw light on its decriminalization.
Psychiatrists have told us that homosexuality, per se, is only a variant of sexual orientation and not a disease. Notice that I have used the word "variation" and not "deviation" as expressed by my honourable colleague, Mr David CHEUNG. It is not a deviation as deviation from a sexual orientation has a moral connotation. Many
homosexuals are subjected to considerable stress as a result of strong disapproval from the general public. The condemnation of homosexuality by religious authorities and certain draconian laws force these people to keep their sex life secret. They are always in fear of likely discrimination in their employment and ostracized by relatives.
Homosexuals attempt to escape in marriage while allowing themselves occasional encounters by way of anonymous indulgence with prostitutes or strangers. They are in particular danger of being blackmailed, prosecuted or physically assaulted. It is also a well known motive for suicide. Since homosexuality is not a disease but a variation from normality, should these, Sir, unfortunately afflicted suffer from all these harassments?
Statistics have shown that there is probably as much or more heterosexual transmission of AIDS worldwide as there is homosexual transmission. AIDS is not about sexual preferences but about sexual practices. The crucial distinction is not between homosex and heterosex but between safe and unsafe sexual practice.
It should be clear that a law which makes homosexuality a crime cannot be relied upon to encourage safer sexual practice among heterosexuals.
The most effective way of controlling AIDS is through education. Any piece of legislation, Sir, is no replacement for the condom in controlling the spread of this deadly disease.
I do admit that the current law against homosexual acts has successfully protected the public from being offended by what they consider to be immoral and abnormal. But one particular worrying phenomenon is that it encourages homosexuals to keep their sexuality secret and any disease of theirs to themselves. Furthermore it drives the homosexual community underground. It is therefore obvious that homosexuals are more prone to various diseases related to their sexual activities, including AIDS. The problem is for the medical people to help them. Insisting on the current law is definitely not the way to help; decriminalization is more helpful and wiser.
Perhaps I could end, Sir, by saying what the standpoint of the medical profession is in relation to the existing law. And the following is the position of the Hong Kong Medical Association which represents the profession:
Firstly, criminal penalties for homosexual acts in private between consenting adults should be removed. It is felt that the arm of law should not interfere with the sexual behaviour of adult individuals.
Secondly, the present law discriminates against the male homosexuals as female homosexual activities occurring in private are not punishable by law.
Thirdly, the punishment for buggery without consent should be the same as punishment for rape.
Fourthly, punishment for indecent assault for homosexual acts should be the same as punishment for indecent assault on females.
Sir, this stance is fully reflected in the spirit of the Bill that is before us today. But I would like to emphasize that although this is the position of the medical profession, it is in no way to be taken to imply that we condone homosexual activities. Yet being in a forward moving society having just passed the Bill of Rights it would be a retrograde step, Sir, if we still apply double standards on male homosexuals.
Sir, I support the Bill.
MISS LEUNG (in Cantonese): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1991 which has positively responded to the motion regarding homosexuality which was moved by the Chief Secretary and passed in this Council on 11 July 1990. The
main purpose of this Bill is to decriminalize homosexual acts performed in private by consenting male adults, and to extend to men and boys protective provision similar to those which at present protect women and girls from sexual exploitation.
Sir, some of the arguments raised in opposition to the motion moved by the Chief Secretary last year as well as the motion moved today by the Secretary for Security during the Second Reading of the Bill are mainly based on religious beliefs and moral values.
It is well known that being the body for making secular legislation and controlling public finances, the public forum in this Council is neither the arena for any religious activities nor an institute to study any moral philosophy. As we, being the Members who are responsible for making secular legislation, obviously it would be inappropriate for us to be preoccupied by considerations of any religious beliefs and moral convictions. Thus, as we study and comment on the relevant parts of the Bill regarding homosexuality, I agree as what was stressed in the preambles
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as Article 17 of the former Covenant, we should now pay our utmost attention on the fact that whether "the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights" of the homosexuals have been fairly recognized; whether their rights which "derives from the inherent dignity of the human person," are fully recognized; and whether they can enjoy the same degree of freedom as other human beings; and whether they may enjoy the "freedom from fear and want", whether their privacy can be ensured of "not being arbitrarily interfered", and their honour and reputation can be protected from being "unlawfully attacked".
As a matter of fact, it will not be difficult for anyone to notice that the answers of all these questions are in the negative, there could not be any other alternative answers. Under the existing draconian laws, the basic human rights of the homosexuals have been severely trampled on, and the so-called religious faiths and the moral convictions of those influential persons are serving as the driving force to trample on the basic human rights of the homosexuals.
Sir, in view of the fact that the motion moved by Chief Secretary were carried with overwhelming majority on 11 July 1990 -- 31 Members supported while 13 Members opposed and 6 Members abstained. Hence naturally I would support the Second Reading of the Bill moved by the Secretary for Security today, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat my viewpoints raised last year in support of the Bill which are entirely
applicable to my speech today. If, in due course, the Bill be passed into law by the Council, I believe that the basic human rights of the homosexuals would then be safeguarded to a certain extent.
Sir, may I cite an quotation from Abide By The Doctrines which was written 2200 years ago by HAN Fei-zi, the great philosopher of Legalists School in the late Warring States Period, so as to herald in advance for the success of the enactment of this Bill. HAN Fei said, " " which meant that: It is stipulated in the law that the
capable ones should not exploit the incapable ones, the strong ones should not bully the weak ones, and the majority should not jeopardize the interests of the minority.
Obviously, the heterosexuals are the majority, the strong ones, while the homosexuals are the minority, the weak ones. Definitely, the purpose of the proposed Bill aims at "the strong ones should not bully the weak ones and the majority should not jeopardize the interests of the minority".
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, I am glad that at last we have rectified, or just about to, a long-standing public cruelty on a sector of our society who through genetics or preference are different to others. For long years, far too many years, Hong Kong has refused to accept what has been acknowledged for decades in all civilized societies around the world that homosexuals are not criminals nor are they somehow second-class citizens not deserving of understanding and even sympathy. Hong Kong people generally seem to regard male homosexuality as an unmentionable aberration from normal sexual behaviour, so much so that many local people have claimed that homosexuality is a western preference and has little to do with Chinese society. Family and parental attitudes in Hong Kong have never been able to accept the changing patterns and recognition of the wide differences in sexuality and sexual preferences which have come to light in modern times. This Council has reached, or will shortly do, a brave decision to disregard what may be in fact the majority view in Hong Kong. We have given relief to many male homosexuals who will no longer have to fear prosecution and persecution against the state that God created in them. Some of the world's most brilliant men were and are homosexuals. God created them too.
And God in his wisdom has now allowed us to recognize that male homosexuals among us will not have to face public disgrace through the application of a harsh and cruel
law. Sir, I am pleased to support the Bill.
MR SIT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I believe that today will be a day of rejoicing for homosexuals. I believe that, no matter what members of the public or the media or the press may say, the chances are that this Council will pass the Bill to decriminalize homosexual acts. So I believe that homosexuals will be opening bottles of champagne and celebrating in a big way tonight.
However, while we are debating this Bill here today, I also notice that there are many students up in the public gallery. Their purpose in coming here is probably not to learn about the decriminalization of homosexuality but to see how the Legislative Council works. But what the Legislative Council is discussing today is the decriminalization or, in other words, the legalization, of homosexuality. I believe that this will have a huge impact on young people. If it is said that it is not illegal for two male persons to engage in homosexual acts in private, then they will perhaps ask, "Does this mean that it is legal?" I hope that my young friends in the public gallery will ignore what some Members say and will not, for the sake of human rights, take the path leading to homosexuality.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Mr SIT, not in this Chamber, please. You should address your remarks to the President in this Chamber.
MR SIT (in Cantonese): I shall return from my digression. The most important argument of those Members who approve of the decriminalization of homosexuality is that two adult males engaging in homosexual acts in private do not affect or cause harm to a third party. I want to ask Members, "If you go home tonight after this meeting and receive a sudden phone call telling you that your son or daughter is a homosexual or lesbian, how would you feel, sad or happy?" I am asking Members to say from their conscience how they would take it.
The Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW has just referred to (and many Members have also made mention of) Chief Secretary Sir David FORD's 11 July 1990 motion for a debate on the decriminalization of homosexuality. Members cited figures saying that this Council passed the motion on that day by 31 to 13 votes. This is of course a fact that cannot be disputed or ignored. However, did Members read the newspaper reports
and commentaries afterwards? Is public opinion and disposition inclined towards supporting the motion or opposing it? I believe that Honourable Members are erudite, care about the community and pay attention to the news. There is no need for me to say any more here. In fact, Members all know that the public is disposed against decriminalization of homosexuality.
Moments ago, the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW also mentioned that passing the homosexuality decriminalization Bill will demonstrate the courage of the legislature. She was quite right in saying that the Legislative Council is very courageous. But what kind of courage is it? I would like to cite a few examples: When a Member of this Council moved that Government should consult the public on the matter of the new airport, this Council objected. When the general public wanted Government to reinstate capital punishment, the Council, again with great courage, set public opinion aside. When the general public demanded tax cuts, this Council, again as was its wont, rubber-stamped the tax increases. If we can call it "courage" in all of these examples, I think it is "disgraceful courage."
We know that homosexuals are people who "choose not to do it the proper way". Some of our human rights advocates often talk about respecting the rights of the minority. But is the Hong Kong community made up of the "majority" or the "minority"? What we have been seeing this Council do is that it bends over backwards to think for and attend to the minorities. When we were debating capital punishment, we
advocated the protection of some utterly abominable murderers, lest they be legally punished and put to death. When we talk about a handful of people within our community who have homosexual tendencies, we again make law to protect them. Well then, is the principle of legislation based on the protection of the interests of the majority in the community or on the protection of the minorities? How will Members choose?
A moment ago, I heard the Honourable LEUNG Wai-tung say that, when we are voting on a Bill, we need not concern ourselves with matters of social ethics or religion. I may have misunderstood her. Now she is raising her hand.....
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Mr SIT, a Member has raised her hand. Are you willing to stand down while the Member makes her point? It is your choice. Miss LEUNG, is this a point of order?
MISS LEUNG (in Cantonese): When I was making the point in question a moment ago, I only said, "When we make secular legislation, obviously it would be inappropriate for us to be preoccupied by considerations of any religious beliefs and moral convictions". This is entirely different from what the Honourable Kingsley SIT is alleging to have been said by me earlier. Mr SIT has misunderstood me. Thank you, Sir.
MR SIT (in Cantonese): I thank the Honourable LEUNG Wai-tung for her clarification which has put me in a clearer picture. The Honourable LEUNG Wai-tung had said "When we are deliberating on secular legislation....." What is "secular"? "Secularity" cannot have an independent existence apart from mankind; it does include society, community, moral values and religion. If one does not talk about these things, one becomes an immortal. I hope the Honourable LEUNG Wai-tung will have a chance to become an immortal. There is another point that we must not forget. If the Bill is passed, this Council will have to bear responsibility. As a Chinese saying goes, "You let the enemy off one day and there will be trouble for several generations." Who is to be responsible for the trouble that will be visited on posterity?
Sir, as we know, the United Kingdom has many fine traditions, such as democracy, the spirit of the rule of law and so forth. We in Hong Kong are very glad to accept them. But the legalization, or decriminalization, of homosexuality is contrary to the moral standards of the traditional Chinese society. I feel that we can accept the good things of the United Kingdom but should not accept its bad things.
Viewpoints are different because moral standards, and racial cultures are different. Before concluding, I would like to quote the last two lines of a poem: "The girl of Shang knows not the sorrow over the demise of her country; Across the river she still sings about the flowers in her rear garden." Let me tell Members that, as they vote to pass this Bill, repercussions will be felt not today but in the days to come. It is not a matter of 50 years after 1997 but a matter of generations to come. Therefore, in this connection, Government should consider the social situation today. The
suspension of capital punishment has already impaired law and order. The passing of the present Bill will impair social morality. Is one to assume that Hong Kong is already embarked on a fin de siecle mood even before 1997 arrives? I do not believe so. I hope that all Members will think and re-think before voting. Members should think about their children and grandchildren whether or not they have or will have them.
Sir, with these remarks, I not only oppose the Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1991 personally but will also cast a vote against it on behalf of my constituents. Thank you, Sir.
MR TIEN: Sir, after the lengthy and emotional speech by the Honourable Kingsley SIT I find it difficult to add anything to it. Sir, I just want to say that for all the same arguments that I had put forth last July in opposing the decriminalization of homosexual act I still hold these today. Sir, I oppose the Bill.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, I apologize for being late and that I was not in the Chamber when it was my turn to speak on this Second Reading of the present Bill. Sir, but I just came in time to hear a rhetorical question posed to this Council by the Honourable David CHEUNG. He asked, "Do we want our children to engage in homosexuality?" Well, the answer to that question is clearly no, but I am afraid it does not solve the problem because if our children should be born that way inclined then the question is: Do we want to see them punished with imprisonment or by the imposition of a fine? As for Mr Kingsley SIT's other rhetorical question that if we are told that our own children in fact are engaged in homosexual acts will we be happy or will we be sad? The answer clearly, Sir, is that we will be sad but the question is: Supposing Mr Kingsley SIT will be shocked with that news no doubt he too will be sad but does he want his children to be punished with imprisonment or a fine? That, Sir, is the question. I cannot speak for Almighty God but I know what my Catholic Church thinks about this. Sir, the Catholic Church does not approve of homosexuality but it
certainly supports decriminalization of such act between consenting adults in private and this is what the present Bill is all about. Sir, we debated at length last year on the motion moved by the Chief Secretary. I spoke in favour of that motion. I do not intend to repeat those points but I will listen to the Honourable David CHEUNG. I will let my conscience dictate to me how I will vote and I will listen to the
Honourable Kingsley SIT. I have thought more than thrice about this matter. He claims to represent his constituents; I believe at the moment there are only fewer than 50 of them who elected him into this Council. My conscience, Sir, dictates to me that I should support this motion.
MRS LAU: Sir, as legislators, I believe that we are expected to be capable of making a distinction between what is illegality and what is merely immorality. The
Honourable Kingsley SIT appears to be confused on this issue. The Bill merely seeks to decriminalize homosexuality; it does not seek to legalize it. Many of my honourable colleagues who spoke earlier on and those who spoke last year on the debate on this issue have made themselves clear that they do not condone homosexuality. But they do not think that it is just and equitable to maintain homosexuality as a criminal act in our criminal statutes. We do not believe that prostitution is moral but we do not seek to criminalize it. Neither is adultery moral; but do we make it a crime?
Sir, I support the Bill.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I should like first to thank Mrs CHOW and all the members of the ad hoc group for the detailed consideration they have given to this complex piece of legislation.
Mrs CHOW has mentioned two amendments to clauses 3 and 21 of the Bill which she proposes to move at the Committee stage. I support the amendments proposed.
It is almost a year since this Council approved a motion proposing that measures be taken to remove the criminal penalties relating to homosexual acts committed in private by consenting men who had reached the age of 21 and, to extend to men and boys where appropriate the protection from sexual exploitation afforded by the Crimes Ordinance to women and girls. This was in accordance with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission. I do not propose to repeat the arguments in favour of this Bill which were fully rehearsed when the motion was debated last year. However, I should like to reiterate what I said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill in April, namely, that we are conscious of the need to maintain standard of public decency and to provide adequate safeguards against the sexual exploitation and corruption of others, particularly the young and those who are otherwise vulnerable. The Bill does not advocate or seek to encourage homosexuality. The provisions in the Bill prohibiting the public display of homosexual acts, the corruption of the young persons and homosexual acts committed other than in private will be strictly enforced.
I have noted the points made by Mrs CHOW that some of the existing provisions in the law relating to heterosexual offences might be considered to be outdated to duplicate one another or to be otherwise anomalous. We have taken the view and in this I believe the ad hoc group concurs that the rectification of these anomalies,
if indeed they are anomalies, should not delay implementation of this Bill. It is already a complex piece of legislation and considerable delay would be likely if we were to extend the exercise to encompass a thorough review of all sexual offences covered by the Crimes Ordinance. We shall, however, review separately the points raised by the ad hoc group and mentioned by Mrs CHOW.
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).
GRANTHAM SCHOLARSHIPS FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
BREWIN TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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). SIR ROBERT BLACK TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
LI PO CHUN CHARITABLE TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 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).
Committee stage of Bills
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 6 were agreed to.
WASTE DISPOSAL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 13 were agreed to.
DENTISTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to.
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to.
SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991 Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1, 2, 4 to 20 and 22 to 29 were agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 21
MRS CHOW: Sir, I move that clauses 3 and 21 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members. The reasons for the amendment are as stated in my earlier speech.
Proposed amendments
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended, by deleting the proposed section 118L and substituting -- "118L. Bestiality
A person who commits buggery with an animal shall be guilty of the crime of bestiality and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of $50,000 and to imprisonment for 10 years.".
Clause 21
That clause 21 be amended, in the proposed section 147(2), by adding after "subsection (1)" --
"but without prejudice to the generality of the expression "any immoral purpose"". Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 3 and 21, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
GRANTHAM SCHOLARSHIPS FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 5 were agreed to.
BREWIN TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 6 were agreed to.
SIR ROBERT BLACK TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 6 were agreed to.
LI PO CHUN CHARITABLE TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Clauses 1 to 6 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1991
WASTE DISPOSAL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
DENTISTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1991 GRANTHAM SCHOLARSHIPS FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
BREWIN TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
SIR ROBERT BLACK TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991 and
LI PO CHUN CHARITABLE TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
had passed through Committee without amendment and the
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to. Bills read the Third time and passed.
4.25 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: We still have two motion debates to go. Members might welcome a short break at this point.
4.54 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Council will now resume. We have two motions down for debate, one by Mr TAM Yiu-chung and one by Mr Martin LEE. Judging by the number of Members who have put down their names, both those debates could take a considerable time. We have another motion down by Mr Allen LEE and again judging by the very small, indeed infinitesimal, number of people who put down their names to discuss it, that might take a short time. I therefore propose, for the convenience of Members, to
take Mr Allen LEE's motion first and then go on as in the Order Paper.
Member's motions
HONG KONG ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS 1917 TO 1991
STANDING ORDERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
MR ALLEN LEE moved the following motion:
"That with effect from 12 September 1991 the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong be amended -
(1) in the enactment paragraph, by repealing "1917 to 1986" and substituting "1917 TO 1991";
(2) in Standing Order No. 1 -
(a) in paragraph (1) by adding after "Ordinance." -
"Where a general election of all the elected Members is held, a Member who had previously made or subscribed such oath or affirmation shall again do so in compliance with this order before he sits or votes in the Council.";
(b) by repealing paragraph (2);
(3) by repealing Standing Order No. 3 and substituting -
"3. Presiding in Council and in
Committee of the whole Council
(1) The Governor shall be the President of the Council and a Member, appointed by the Governor for that purpose, shall be Deputy President of the Council.
(2) The President, when present in the Council or a committee of the whole Council, shall preside or be Chairman.
(3) In the absence of the President from the Council or a committee of the whole Council, the Deputy President shall preside or be Chairman. In the absence
of the President and Deputy President from the Council or a committee of the whole Council, the senior ex officio Member present shall preside or be Chairman.
(4) The Deputy President or senior ex officio Member shall enjoy all those powers conferred by these Standing Orders on the President or Chairman that are exercisable in respect of the sitting, or part of the sitting, of the Council or a committee of the whole Council at which the Deputy President or that Member presides or is Chairman, or in respect of which the President has requested that he preside or be Chairman.
(5) The Deputy President shall enjoy such of those powers conferred by these Standing Orders on the President or Chairman of a committee of the whole Council, other than those powers mentioned in paragraph (4) of this order, as the President may specify by notice in the Gazette.";
(4) in Standing Order No. 4 -
(a) in paragraph (5) by repealing "an official report" and substituting "the Official Record";
(b) in paragraph (6) by repealing "the Finance Committee and every" and substituting "every standing and";
(5) in Standing Order No. 4A(2)(a) and (b) by repealing "to the Council"; (6) by adding after Standing Order 4A -
"4B. Attendance of Public Officers
(1) The Governor may designate public officers to attend sittings of the Council or committees or subcommittees of the Council.
(2) A public officer designated under paragraph (1) of this order may give notice to the Clerk of items of business to be included in the Order Paper or the agenda of a committee or subcommittee.
(3) Where it appears to the Clerk, when preparing the Order Paper or the agenda showing the business for a sitting, that a particular item of business requires
the attendance of a public officer designated under paragraph (1) of this order, the Clerk shall state, in respect of that particular item, the name of the office of that public officer.
4C. Participation of Public Officers in Proceedings
(1) The public officer whose office is stated in respect of a particular item of business in an Order Paper or an agenda for a sitting may attend at that sitting.
(2) These Standing Orders, except Standing Orders Nos. 1 and 6(1) (Oath or Affirmation), 3 (Presiding in Council and in Committee of the whole Council), 10 (Quorum), 13 (Petitions), paragraph (a) of Standing Order No.29 (Interruptions), and the Standing Orders in Part J (Voting), shall apply, in relation to the item of
business in respect of which a public officer attends a sitting, to that public officer as they apply to a Member who is an ex officio Member.";
(7) in Standing Order No. 5 by repealing paragraph (1) and substituting -
"(1) At least one session of the Council shall be commenced in every calendar year, but a session commenced in one calendar year may be continued and concluded in the following year.";
(8) in Standing Order No. 6 -
(a) by repealing paragraphs (3) and (4) and substituting -
"(3) At a sitting not less than 14 days after the Governor has addressed the Council, a motion may be moved without notice for an address of thanks to the Governor for his address.";
(b) in paragraph (5) by repealing "(4)" and substituting "(3)"; (c) in paragraph (6) by adding "and may be moved without notice" at the end; (9) in Standing Order No. 7(3) by repealing "in cases of emergency"; (10) in Standing Order No. 8 -
(a) in paragraph (1) by repealing "other than the first sitting"; (b) in paragraph (2) by repealing "6" and substituting "8";
(c) in paragraph (3) by repealing "6" and substituting "8";
(d) by repealing paragraph (5) and substituting -
"(5) When in the opinion of the President it is necessary for the proper completion of the business on the Order Paper at a sitting of the Council to continue any unfinished business on another day, the President may order that the sitting shall continue on such other day for that purpose. Where the President so orders at a sitting of the Council, the sitting shall stand suspended and shall resume for the
continuation of business on such other day at the time mentioned in paragraph (1) of this order.";
(11) in Standing Order No. 9(6) by adding after paragraph (6) -
"(6A) The notice under paragraph (6) of this order shall be signed by the Member wishing to raise the matter and by three other Members:
Provided that the President may, if in his opinion the matter is an important one of public concern, dispense with the need to have the notice signed by three other Members.";
(12) in Standing Order No. 11(1) -
(a) by adding after subparagraph (a) -
"(aa) Obituary and other ceremonial speeches.";
(b) by repealing subparagraph (h);
(c) by adding after subparagraph (j) -
"(k) Valedictory speeches.";
(13) in Standing Order No. 12 -
(a) in paragraph (2) by repealing "Oral" and substituting "All"; (b) in paragraph (3) -
(i) by repealing "Official Members" where it appears for the first time and substituting "ex officio Members or public officers";
(ii) by repealing "Official Members" where it appears for the second time and substituting "ex officio Members";
(14) in Standing Order No. 16 -
(a) in paragraph (2) by adding at the end "and the questions shall be counted by the Clerk in the order in which notice is delivered under Standing Order No. 17(2)";
(b) by adding after paragraph (2) -
"(3) Where, in the opinion of the President, there will be no debate on a substantive motion at a sitting, no more than eight questions shall require an oral reply. Where, in the opinion of the President, there will be such a debate, no more than three questions shall require an oral reply. The questions shall be counted by the Clerk in the order in which notice is delivered under Standing Order No. 17(2).
(4) In this order, "substantive motion" means a motion that is independent and not subsidiary to another motion, and does not include a motion under Standing Order No. 6 (Proceedings at First Sitting of Session) or under Parts K (Procedure on Bills) and L (Financial Procedure) of these Standing Orders.";
(15) in Standing Order No. 17(3) -
(a) by repealing "three" and substituting "two";
(b) by adding at the end "and not more than one of those questions shall require an oral reply:
Provided that the President may, if in his opinion an additional question is an important one of public concern, allow a Member to ask that additional question.";
(16) in Standing Order No. 18(1) by repealing subparagraph (d) and substituting -
"(d) A question shall not contain independent questions or be so complex that it cannot reasonably be answered as a single question.";
(17) in Standing Order No. 19 -
(a) in paragraph (4) by adding "when called upon by the President" after "any Member";
(b) in paragraph (7) by repealing "Report" and substituting "Record"; (c) by adding after paragraph (7) -
"(8) A Member who has given notice of a question may withdraw the question by giving notice in writing to the Clerk at any time before the question is put on the Order Paper or, where the question is already on the Order Paper for a sitting, by informing the President orally when his name is called at that sitting that he withdraws the question.";
(18) in Standing Order No. 21 -
(a) in paragraph (1) -
(i) by adding "or a committee of the whole Council" after "Council" where it first appears;
(ii) by repealing "thereof" and substituting "of the whole Council"; (b) in paragraph (2)(a) -
(i) by repealing "the day before that" and substituting "two days before the day"; (ii) by repealing "thereof" and substituting "of the whole Council"; (19) in Standing Order No. 22 -
(a) by adding after paragraph (1A) -
"(1B) A notice of a substantive motion, in addition to being signed by the Member wishing to move the motion, shall be signed by three other Members:
Provided that the President may, if in his opinion the motion is an important one of public concern, dispense with the need to have the notice signed by three other Members.";
(b) by adding after paragraph (2) -
"(3) In this order, "substantive motion" means a motion that is independent and not subsidiary to another motion, and does not include a motion under Standing Order No. 6 (Proceedings at First Sitting of Session) or under Parts K (Procedure on Bills) and L (Financial Procedure) of these Standing Orders.";
(20) in Standing Order No. 24(2) and (4) by adding "of the whole Council" after "committee";
(21) in Standing Order No. 25 by adding after paragraph (4) -
"(5) When no more Members wish to speak the President or Chairman shall put the question that the amendment be made to the Council or the committee of the whole Council for its decision.";
(22) in Standing Order No. 26(1) by adding "of the whole Council" after "committee";
(23) in Standing Order No. 27 by adding after paragraph (4) -
"(5) A Member, other than a Member moving a motion or an ex officio Member, shall not, without the permission of the President, to be given only in exceptional circumstances, make a speech lasting more than fifteen minutes.";
(24) in Standing Order No. 31 by repealing paragraph (8) and substituting - "(8) The conduct of the Governor or Members of the Executive or
Legislative Councils otherwise than in the performance of their official duties shall not be raised.
(9) The conduct of Judges or other persons performing judicial functions shall not be raised.";
(25) by adding after Standing Order No. 32 -
"32A. Application of Rules to Committees
The rules in this Part shall apply to the proceedings in a standing or select committee unless the chairman of the committee orders otherwise.";
(26) in Standing Order No. 33 by repealing "or the Chairman in committee" and substituting ", the Chairman in a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any standing or select committee";
(27) in Standing Order No. 34 -
(a) in paragraph (1) by repealing "or the Chairman" and substituting ", the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any standing or select committee";
(b) in paragraph (2) -
(i) by repealing "or Chairman" and substituting", the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any standing or select committee";
(ii) by adding "or the committee" after "Council";
(28) in Standing Order No. 35(1) by adding "or a committee of the whole Council" after "Council";
(29) in Standing Order No. 36 -
(a) in paragraph (1) by adding "of the whole Council" after "committee"; (b) in paragraph (4) by repealing all the words after "forthwith" and
substituting "immediately after a division bell has been rung for three minutes"; (c) by repealing paragraph (5);
(30) by adding after Standing Order No. 36 -
"36A. Use of Electronic Voting System
Unless the President or Chairman otherwise directs,where an electronic system of voting is provided in the Council or a committee for the purposes of a division, the Members present and voting shall cast their votes in the division by using such electronic system in accordance with the operating requirements of the system, and the President or Chairman shall declare the result of the division accordingly.";
(31) in Standing Order No. 37(1) by repealing "When" and substituting "Subject to Standing Order No. 36A, when";
(32) in Standing Order No. 38(2) by adding at the end ", and that short title shall remain unchanged throughout the passage of the bill";
(33) in Standing Order No. 39 by adding at the end -
"(5) A public officer presenting a bill shall be known throughout the subsequent proceedings on the bill as the public officer in charge of the bill; and references in these Standing Orders to a Member in charge of a bill include a public officer in charge of a bill.";
(34) in Standing Order No. 46 by adding after paragraph (9) -
"(9A) No amendment to the reference to the year in the title by which the bill is to be cited if it becomes law shall be necessary, and that reference may be changed by the Law Draftsman to refer to the year in which the bill becomes law.";
(35) in Standing Order No. 54(1) by repealing "at the same time asany such bill" and substituting "to the Council not later than the sitting at which such bill is placed on the Order Paper for first reading";
(36) in Standing Order No. 60 -
(a) in paragraph (1) by repealing ", one other Official Member, to be nominated by the President,";
(b) in paragraph (3) -
(i) by repealing "two" and substituting "five";
(ii) by adding "but shorter notice may be given in any case where the chairman so directs" after "the sitting";
(c) in paragraph (4) by repealing "Official Member" where it appears for the first time and substituting "ex officio Members";
(d) in paragraph (4A) -
(i) by repealing "in accordance with a decision of the committee"; (ii) by adding ", other than the ex officio Members," after "each member";
(iii) by repealing "Where any such matter has not been so approved by all the members" and substituting "Unless any such matter has been so approved by all the members, other than the ex officio Members, (who shall be not less than eight in number)";
(e) in paragraph (6) by repealing "the Council" and substituting "a committee of the whole Council";
(f) in paragraph (9) by repealing the second sentence;
(g) by adding after paragraph (9) -
"(10) The chairman or the Committee may call any public officer, or, in the case of a head of the Estimates relating to a non-Government body or organization, any member or servant of that body or organization to give information or any explanation or to produce any records or documents which the Committee may require in the performance of their duties; and the Committee may also call any other person
to assist the Committee in relation to any such information, explanation, records or documents.
(11) Subject to these Standing Orders, the practice and procedure of the committee shall be determined by the committee.";
(37) in Standing Order No. 60A -
(a) in paragraph (2) by adding at the end "In the event of the temporary absence of the chairman, the Committee may elect a chairman to act during that absence.";
(b) in paragraph (4) by adding "chairman or the" before "Committee" where it appears for the first time;
(38) by adding after Standing Order No. 60A -
"60B. Committee on Members' Interests
(1) There shall be a standing committee to be called the Committee on Members' Interests -
(a) to examine the arrangements made for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Interests;
(b) to consider any proposals made by Members or others as to the form and contents of the Register;
(c) to consider and investigate any complaint made in relation to the registration and declaration of Members' interests or any complaint of a failure to do so;
(d) to consider matters of ethics in relation to the conduct of Members in their capacity as such, and to give advice and issue guidelines on such matters;
(e) to report to the Council and make recommendations, including a recommendation as to a sanction under Standing Order No. 65A (Sanctions relating to Interests).
(2) The committee shall consist of a chairman and six other members, who shall
be Members other than ex officio Members, appointed by the President.
(3) The committee shall sit at the times (including any time during the period when the Council is in recess between the end of one session and the beginning of the next session) and at the place determined by the chairman. Written notice of every sitting shall be given to the members at least five clear days before the day of the sitting.
(4) Sittings shall be held in public unless the chairman otherwise orders in accordance with any decision of the committee.
(5) The chairman and four members shall form a quorum. All matters before the committee shall be decided by a majority of the members voting. In the event that votes are equally divided, the chairman shall have a casting vote.
(6) The committee may call any person to attend before the committee and to give evidence or to produce any paper, book, record or document in the possession or under the control of such person.
(7) Subject to these Standing Orders, the practice and procedure of the committee shall be determined by the committee.";
(39) in Standing Order No. 62 -
(a) in paragraph (4) by repealing "(7)" and substituting "(6)"; (b) by adding after paragraph (10) -
"(11) Where so authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382), the committee may call any person to attend before it and to give evidence or to produce any paper, book, record or document in the possession or under the control of such person.";
(40) by adding after Standing Order No. 64 -
"64A. Registration of Interests
(1) Every Member shall, not later than fourteen days before the first sitting
of each session, furnish to the Clerk, in such form as may be approved by the President, particulars of his registrable interests.
(2) Every Member shall furnish to the Clerk, in such form as may be approved by the President, particulars of any change in such registrable interests, within fourteen days of any such change.
(3) The Clerk shall cause those particulars to be entered in a Register of Members, Interests and that register shall be available for inspection by any person during office hours.
(4) In this order, "registrable interests" means -
(a) remunerated directorships of companies, public or private; (b) remunerated employments or offices;
(c) remunerated trades, professions or vocations;
(d) the names of clients when the interests referred to above include personal services by Members which arise out of or are related in any manner to his membership of the Council;
(e) financial sponsorships -
(i) as a candidate for election to the Council, where to the knowledge of the Member the sponsorship exceeds 25% of his election expenses; or
(ii) as a Member of the Council, by any person or organization, stating whether any such sponsorships includes any payment to the Member or any material benefit or advantage, direct or indirect;
(f) overseas visits relating to or arising out of membership of the Council where the cost of any such visit has not been wholly borne by the Member or public funds;
(g) any payments or any material benefits or advantages received from or on behalf of foreign governments, organizations or persons;
(h) land and property of substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived;
(i) the names of companies or other bodies in which the Member has, to his knowledge, either himself or with or on behalf of his spouse or infant children, a beneficial interest in shareholdings of a nominal value greater than one-hundredth of the issued share capital.";
(41) by adding after Standing Order No. 65 -
"65A. Sanctions relating to Interests
Any Member who fails to comply with Standing Order No. 64A or 65(1) may be admonished, reprimanded or suspended by the Council on a motion to that effect.";
(42) by adding after Standing Order No. 67 -
"67A. Procedure for Obtaining Leave
for Member to Attend as
Witness in Civil Proceedings
(1) For the purpose of obtaining the leave of the Council under section 6(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) in order that a Member may be required to attend as a witness in any civil proceedings on a day when the Council is sitting, the party to the proceedings requiring the Member so to attend on that day shall not later than 21 days before that day submit to the Clerk a written statement of the request and of the reasons why the attendance of the Member is required on that day.
(2) The request for leave shall be placed on the Order Paper for the sitting next following the receipt thereof by the Clerk and, unless on a motion moved at that sitting by any Member the Council determines that such leave shall be refused, the Council shall be deemed to have ordered that such leave be granted.
(3) The Clerk shall give written notice of the decision of the Council to the party by whom the request for leave is made and also to the Member concerned.
67B. Procedure for Obtaining Leave to Give
Evidence of Council Proceedings
(1) For the purpose of obtaining the leave of the Council under section 7 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) in order that evidence may be given elsewhere in respect of the contents of minutes, records of evidence or any document laid before the Council or a committee, or in respect of any proceedings or examination held before the Council or a committee, the person seeking such leave shall submit to the Clerk a written statement of the request and the reasons therefor and such further information as the Clerk, on the direction of the President, may require in any particular case.
(2) The request for leave shall be placed on the Order Paper for such sitting as the President may appoint and, unless on a motion moved at that sitting by any Member the Council determines that such leave shall be refused, the Council shall be deemed to have ordered that such leave be granted.
(3) The Clerk shall give written notice of the decision of the Council to the person by whom the request for leave is made.
(4) Where the leave of the Council referred to in paragraph (1) of this order is sought during any recess or adjournment or dissolution of the Council such leave may be given by the President or, if the President is unable to act, by the Deputy President appointed by the President for the purposes of this paragraph.";
(43) in Standing Orders Nos. 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 28, 30, 39, 42, 45, 55, 56, 58 and 60, by repealing "Official Member" wherever it occurs and substituting "ex officio Member";
(44) in Standing Orders Nos. 11, 60 and 60A, by repealing "Official Members" wherever it occurs and substituting "ex officio Members";
(45) in Standing Orders Nos. 7, 35 and 40, by repealing "Governor" wherever it occurs and substituting "President".
MR ALLEN LEE: Sir, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
About a year ago, my colleagues agreed that an ad hoc group should be set up to conduct an overall review of the Standing Orders of this Council to reflect current
practices and account for the changing circumstances. The ad hoc group has held eight meetings to scrutinize amendments to the Standing Orders and a total of 45 amendments have been proposed to the Standing Orders which are set out in the Order Paper.
I will elaborate on a number of issues which are significant. Presiding in Council and in Committee of the whole Council
The main purpose of the amendments to Standing Order 3 is to provide for the appointment of the Deputy President and for the Deputy President or senior ex officio Member present to preside or be Chairman of the Council or a Committee of the whole Council in the absence of the President. The Deputy President will generally enjoy all powers conferred by the Standing Orders on the President or Chairman of a Committee of the whole Council. Sir, in order to give the Legislative Council an independent image, you have announced to appoint Mr John SWAINE to be the first Deputy President of the legislature and he will preside over most sittings except the first sitting of each Session when you deliver your policy speech and the first Budget sitting when the Financial Secretary presents his Budget. The amendments will enable Mr SWAINE to fulfil his role as the Deputy President effectively.
Attendance of public officers and participation of public officers in proceedings
The provisions in the additional Standing Orders 4B and 4C are entirely new. The number of Official Members in this Council will be reduced to three in October 1991. In order to fill the gap left by the exit of seven Official Members, public officers, designated by the Governor, will be able to attend and participate in meetings of the Council or of the committees of the Council. The Standing Orders (with certain exceptions) will apply to such designated public officers as if they were ex officio Members. The exceptions include taking the oath or affirmation, acting as president or chairman, quorum, petitions and voting. Under the proposed new provisions, a designated public officer will be able to present Bills, answer Members' questions, move motions, move amendments to Bills and speak as though he or she were an ex officio Member.
Motions for the adjournment debates of this Council
In order to ensure better use of limited time available at a sitting and that the debate is of concern to a significant number of Members, a new Standing Order
9(6A) has been added to provide that for an adjournment debate under Standing Order 9, the notice of motion must be signed by the Member wishing to raise the matter and by three other Members. Some of my colleagues have proposed to increase the number of sponsoring Members to five. Having considered the need to protect the right of a non-Government Member to propose an adjournment debate, my colleagues eventually agreed by a majority that the number of sponsoring Members should be three.
Nevertheless, the President has the discretion to dispense with the requirement of additional signatures for important matters of public concern.
Questions to the Government
It is specified in existing Standing Orders 16 and 17 that no more than 20 oral or written questions may be asked at any one sitting and a Member may not ask more than three questions at any one sitting respectively. My colleagues considered that the existing practices stipulated in the "OMELCO House Rules" worked well and
recommended that the Standing Orders be amended having regard to the House Rules.
The amendments to Standing Orders 16 and 17 bring about changes in accordance with the provisions in the rules. Of the 20 questions permitted at a sitting, only eight (or three if there is a substantive debate) may be for oral reply and a Member may not ask more than two questions at any one sitting of which only one may be for oral reply. "Substantive motion" is defined to mean a motion that is independent and not subsidiary to another motion and does not include a motion thanking the
Governor for his address or which is in relation to Bills or financial procedure. However, there is a discretionary power for the President to permit a Member to ask more than two questions if the additional question is an important question of public concern. As regards supplementary questions, Members are of the view that there is no need to stipulate the number of supplementary questions permissible in the Standing Orders and consider that it should be left to the President to decide having regard to considerations such as interest and concern of the public.
Motions
Standing Order 22 has been amended to provide that a notice of substantive motion must be signed by the Member wishing to move the motion and by three other Members. Again, some Members felt that the number of sponsoring Members should be five in order to ensure that the limited time available at a sitting would be better utilized and that the motion was of concern to a significant number of Members, but, having
considered against the rights of individual Members, it was agreed by a majority that only three sponsoring Members would be required. Nevertheless, there is also a discretion for the President to dispense with the other three signatures if the motion is an important one of public concern.
Length of speeches
Sir, there is no Standing Order limiting the length of speeches. According to the findings of a research undertaken by the ad hoc group, the average length of speeches during the last few major debates was between 12 and 14 minutes. It was suggested that the length of speeches in the Council be limited to 15 minutes with an exception for the Member who moved the motion and for ex officio Members. A new paragraph is added to Standing Order 27 to provide that a Member, other than a Member moving a motion or an ex officio Member, may not make a speech lasting more than 15 minutes. However, there is also a discretionary power given to the President to relax the rule should circumstances so warrant.
Electronic voting system and division bell
Amendments to Standing Order 36 and the new Standing Order 36A provide for the introduction of a division bell and the use of electronic voting system respectively. Electronic voting system which will be installed shortly will only apply to meetings of this Council or of a Committee of the whole Council. As regards the division bell, my colleagues are of the view that it will be useful for the bell to ring for three minutes to draw the attention of Members in the Legislative Council building to take part in the voting.
Committee on Members' Interests and declaration of interests
New Standing Order 60B provides for the creation of another standing committee to be called the "Committee on Members' Interests". This committee has terms of reference similar to those of the House of Commons' Select Committee on Members' Interests. It consists of a chairman and six other members, all non-Government
Members appointed by the President. Sittings are in public unless the chairman otherwise orders in accordance with a decision of the committee. A quorum is the
chairman and four other Members. Matters are decided by a majority of the members present.
New Standing Order 64A provides for a register of Members' interests. Members will be required to furnish the Clerk with the relevant information in a form approved by the President not later than 14 days before the first sitting of each Session. Changes must also be notified within 14 days of the change. The register will be available for public inspection. Registrable interests are defined and follow the nine categories used by the House of Commons in London.
New Standing Order 65A provides that any Member who fails to comply with Standing Order 64A Declaration of Interests or Standing Order 65(1) Personal Pecuniary Interest to be Disclosed may be admonished, reprimanded or suspended by the Council on a motion to that effect.
Committee structure of the Legislative Council
Review of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council is an on-going exercise. I am sure that efforts will be made to further refine the Orders where necessary.
In May this year, the ad hoc group held two meetings to examine the committee structure of the Legislative Council. It has been recommended that, among other things, a co-ordinating and selection committee be established to be responsible, firstly, for the efficient conduct of Legislative Council business and co-ordinating all the scrutiny work on legislation. Secondly, this committee will advise the
President on the membership of the Public Accounts Committee, the Committee on Members' Interests and other select committees in particular those formed to scrutinize Bills. It is also proposed that more committee meetings should be open to the public. I do hope these recommendations will be further examined in the 1991-92 Session.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my honourable colleagues of the ad hoc group, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Nellie FONG, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che hung, Miss LEUNG Wai-tung, Mr Kingsley SIT and Mr James TIEN, for the tremendous amount of time and efforts contributed to the group's deliberations. I would also like to thank the Administration and the OMELCO Secretariat for their untiring support
rendered to this group.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Since I mentioned the very small number of Members who wish to speak, the number instantly doubled and now I have the names of Mr Martin LEE and Mr Andrew WONG who wish to speak. Could I just check that nobody else wishes to?
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, as this Council progresses ever so slowly towards being a truly representative and effective legislature, there is a pressing need for changes in the way we operate. As such, I welcome the ad hoc group study in the deliberation on the Standing Orders and many of the proposed amendments that are before us today. While I have some reservations about some of the proposed changes, I believe that the majority of the steps are positive, and in particular, I support the establishment of the Committee on Members' Interests.
At the same time, it is clear that this Council must undertake a far more comprehensive and fundamental examination of how we operate. With the introduction of democratically elected Members this autumn, this Council will be entering a new era, and we must devise institutions and practices that will allow us to become an efficient legislature that is accountable to the public. One of the first priorities is to establish a committee system that is representative and open and based on clearly defined procedures. To that end, we will need to revise substantially the current Standing Orders, even after the amendments made to them today, and this will be a major challenge for the new legislature. During this forthcoming review, I am sure the Council will examine several of the issues that have been dealt with in a piecemeal fashion during this round -- particularly the order of speaking of this Council and the ability to initiate motion debates.
I am afraid that the ad hoc group has failed to address one of the most necessary changes to the Standing Orders, namely, the removal of the Governor as President of this Council, and there is nothing personal about this.
Sir, Article 71 of the Basic Law provides that "the President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be elected by and from among the members of the Legislative Council". I therefore completely fail to see why the Governor of Hong Kong should still preside over this Council until 1995.
Similarly, as a matter of principle, this Council should be allowed to elect its Deputy President at the start of the new Session in October. I have the greatest respect for the integrity and ability of Mr John SWAINE QC and I have no doubt that this Council would elect him if we were given the opportunity to do so. Why then, Sir, are we not taking this necessary step in our constitutional development in
October?
I would now like to turn briefly to two changes proposed today, the consequences of which I believe have not been fully thought through. The first is the change to Standing Order 22 in order to require a motion to be supported by three other Members. The requirement of three sponsoring Members will work against really independent Members who do not have allies in the Council either from a political party or among other Members. As a matter of principle, we ought to allow individual Members to bring matters to the floor of the Council. Who are we to say even before hearing a Member out that his or her motion is not worthy of discussion in this Council? If the matters contained in the motion are of importance, the Council ought to discuss them; if not, the debate will be very short indeed.
While some Members may worry about the possibility of Members bringing too many issues to the floor of the Council, there are two safeguards. First, democratically elected Members will have to be responsible to their constituents; any attempt on their part to "abuse" the system might cause them to lose their seats in the next election. Second, an open committee system would enable Members to raise issues for public discussion concerning Bills at the Committee stage; thus, Members would not feel compelled to initiate motion debates relating to Bills as the sole means to have issues discussed in public as now.
The second subject is the time limit on speeches. While I have no fundamental objection in principle to setting time limits on debates, I must state that the only acceptable reason for this is the efficient working of this Council. The reason advanced by some Members during the ad hoc group discussions -- that work in this Council was taking up too much time from their own business -- is entirely without merit. If Members are not willing to devote all their time or at least a substantial
part of their time to the work of this Council, then they should not accept or seek membership in the first place.
I am opposed to the current proposal of the ad hoc group on time limits. First of all, I do not believe it is appropriate to make a distinction between official Members and other Members. Second, I believe that certain allowances ought also to be given to the main speaker or speakers in opposition as is the case in most democratic parliaments.
As a general proposition, Members can certainly confine their comments to 15 minutes. Yet, certain very complex issues -- such as the Bill of Rights -- might require more than 15 minutes. It is important to bear in mind that the problem at issue here is the total time of all speeches -- not the total time of any individual speech. I therefore favour a system where Members could allot their unused time to other Members, thus keeping a limit on the total time while allowing individual
speakers with particular expertise or interest to go beyond 15 minutes if necessary. To rely solely on the discretion of the President would introduce a harmful degree of uncertainty and capriciousness into the system.
Closely related to the question of time limits is that of the order of speakers. Indeed, this latter question is of greater importance and relevance than the former. For, the problems that the ad hoc group wishes to solve -- length of sessions, unfairness to persons with low seniority who have to speak last, repetition of points expressed earlier -- can best be addressed by altering the outdated and awkward system of speaking by order of seniority.
Rather than going mechanically down the line of seniority and alphabetical order, the speaking order should strive to provide for a concise, balanced debate. Members and the public in general will all benefit from a well-ordered exchange of views. I suggest that Members who wish to speak on the Bill or motion in question should indicate whether they will speak for or against it. Members within each group could then determine their own speaking order (for example, give precedence to convenors of standing committees), and the President could call alternatively on speakers from each group. Such a system would prevent repetition of points, allow for junior
Members to participate more actively, clarify the issues in question, and reduce the total debate time. It is not surprising, therefore, that this type of system is used in most democratic parliaments.
Even if we cannot follow such a precedure yet the least we can do is to enable the principal opponent (such as the author of the ad hoc group's minority report) to speak immediately after the Member who moves the Bill or motion. It should be left to all those who have indicated their opposition to the Bill or motion to agree amongst themselves on who should speak first. Failing agreement, the President
should decide.
In sum, several of the changes introduced today are worthwhile and necessary. At the same time, when this Council reconvenes in October, we will need to examine again carefully and conscientiously these outstanding matters in order to make this Council more efficient, open and accountable. Only then can we develop this Council from its previous status as a colonial rubber stamp into a truly viable legislature that will work for the interests of all the people of Hong Kong.
With these reservations, Sir, I support the motion.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Honourable Allen LEE's motion which seeks to amend the Standing Orders of this Council. I am not going to canvass the motion before us point by point but will only pick a few proposed amendments which I consider relatively significant and which warrant particular
attention. They are as follows:
(1) As regards the office of Deputy President, I do not think that it would pose a problem as grave as the Honourable Martin LEE would have us believe. It would be best if an amendment could be introduced as soon as possible to have a person (other than the Governor) appointed President of the Council and following this, say, by 1995, to make the office of President an elected office.
(2) Among the proposed amendments set out in the annex, there is one to the effect that a notice to raise a matter must be signed by the Member wishing to raise it and by three other Members. This requirement relates to adjournment debate under paragraph (11) of the annex and substantive motion under paragraph (19). I am of the opinion that as far as substantive motion is concerned it would not be appropriate to require that the notice to move it be signed by the mover and three other Members. If Members of this Council hold the view that excessive numbers of Member's motions will inhibit the efficient conduct of government business in the Council, the best way to get round it would be to apportion floor time, for example, to designate certain
sitting days where individual Members are given exclusive floor time to raise matters of their choice, and other sitting days where more floor time is given for public business to be transacted. I am basically against the requirement as to co-signing of notice for adjournment debate because such debate is limited to 45 minutes in duration and only one such debate is allowed at one sitting. It should be appropriate for a Member to raise it without requiring three other Members to co-sign the notice.
(3) With regard to paragraph (23) of the annex, the observations with regard to the 15-minute limit made by the Honourable Martin LEE a moment ago would not seem to be too correct. I think that 15 minutes would still seem to be too long. Most times Members would not need to speak more than 15 minutes. I feel that if we need to enforce a time limit, 10 minutes would be best. However, there must be flexibility in enforcing it and the President may in his discretion give more time to the mover of the motion, officials, panel chairmen or the principal opposer of a motion.
(4) There are three paragraphs in the annex devoted to Members' interests, that is to say paragraphs (38), (40) and (41). Paragraph (38) deals with the setting up of a Committee on Members' Interests. I have little to say on this. The same is true of paragraph (41) which deals with sanctions. However, paragraph (40) which deals with registration of interest is open to question. The existing system which divides registrable interests into three categories is not mandatorily laid down under Standing Orders. Now it is being proposed to expand registrable interests into nine categories modelled entirely on that of the United Kingdom House of Commons. Item (e)(ii) may give rise to problems of interpretation. (e)(ii) requires a Member to register financial sponsorships by any person or organization and to state whether such sponsorships include any payment to the Member or any material benefit or
advantage, direct or indirect. But according to the existing law of Hong Kong, no incumbent Member shall receive any benefit or advantage of any sort whether in money or in kind. Will this item (e)(ii) lead to misunderstanding that on becoming a Member one can still receive these benefits and once registered, the benefits will be
"legitimatized"?
(5) With regard to paragraph (29) which deals with division, the Honourable Allen LEE said a moment ago that an electronic voting system might be introduced. To my way of thinking, the most significant change proposed in paragraph (29)(c) is to repeal existing Standing Order 36(5). According to the existing Standing Order 36(5),
if the balance of voices seems unclear, and upon a Member claiming a division, the President or Chairman may take the vote of the Council or Committee, as the case may
be, by calling upon the Members who support his judgement of the voices to rise in their places. If I remember correctly, this has not been used since 1987. Upon repeal of this particular Standing Order a Member will be entitled to claim a division after the voice votes are taken and the President or Chairman, as the case may be, shall not be entitled to refuse. I think this is a very important improvement.
Finally, I should like to say something on the recommendation to set up a selection committee as mentioned by the Honourable Allen LEE. The Honourable Martin LEE in his speech also gave a range of views as to how best to improve the committee structure of this Council. In the review of the committee structure, I would suggest that it should fall to the Selection Committee to select Members to sit on various legislation committees which will be different from committees deriving their existence from the merging of so-called "departmental committees". This will be the best improvement measure at the present stage. Upon the setting up of the Selection Committee,
membership of the various legislation committees will be determined. This will be in contrast to the present practice under Standing Orders of appointment by the President of the Council. Neither will appointments be made by the full Council, because within the Council the majority may overwhelm the minority. The review has been going on for over a year. The outcome may not be as desirable as the Honourable Martin LEE would imagine. But I find it strange that the Honourable Martin LEE, though he accepts that to move forward is the right direction, should insist that we must take 10 steps forward or none at all. I believe that at the present stage if this Council wants the scrutiny process of Bills to be more transparent and open it would be best to set up a Committee on Legislation. I just hope that in our eagerness to strive after the most ideal state of perfection, we will not forget that the integrated development of a system must proceed and evolve by progressive steps.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG moved the following motion:
"That this Council urges the Government to take immediate steps to re-examine the setting up of a Central Provident Fund or other forms of compulsory retirement schemes in order that workers in Hong Kong are provided with comprehensive retirement
protection."
MR TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. First of all, I would like to tell Members a story, a real case handled by a social worker.
We often tell old people that we wish them live to a hundred years in order to please them. But to old Mr CHAN, longevity is no blessing. Mr CHAN is now 91 years old. But he still has to worry about making ends meet and toil for his living!
The back staircase of an old building has been the shelther for Mr CHAN and his wife Mrs CHAN for more than 20 years. From time to time, Mr CHAN sits at the entrance to the building -- he is the watchman of the building.
For over 20 years, the ownership of the building has changed twice. And twice has Mr CHAN asked the new owner to let him stay. In order to show his dedication, he is always at work and open the door punctually every morning and he closes the door at eleven every night after everyone leaves. Mr CHAN has moved to live in the building from his home at a small mezzanine floor. Mrs CHAN, who has been the cleaning lady of the building, is more than 10 years younger than Mr CHAN. For more than 20 years, their living has been centered on the building. They eat, live, sleep and work there.
When Mrs CHAN was asked how much they were paid by the owner, she said that she had never met the new owner. The lift operator hands them the salary, which makes up $3,000-odd for the two, every month.
"Three thousand dollars is good enough for us!" Mrs CHAN does not mind that for two years there has been no raise in their salary. She is worried about the health of Mr CHAN. She also finds it exhausting to sweep the floor and clean up the toilet. She wants to know how much they will get if they retire now.
In her mind, there will be compensation for retirement. Looking at her hopeful face, who have the heart to tell her the fact that there is no such thing as retirement in the law and that there is no compensation for retirement! What we have is something which is known as "Long Service Payment". Some may think that in the broadest sense it can be regarded as pension!