HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 595 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 11 November 1992
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE JOHN JOSEPH SWAINE, C.B.E., Q.C., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE NATHANIEL WILLIAM HAMISH MACLEOD, C.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN CHEONG KAM-CHUEN, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, M.B.E., J.P.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 596 THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
REV THE HONOURABLE FUNG CHI-WOOD
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY HA WING-HO, M.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA
THE HONOURABLE SIMON IP SIK-ON, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM KUI-CHUN
DR THE HONOURABLE CONRAD LAM KUI-SHING
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
THE HONOURABLE GILBERT LEUNG KAM-HO
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 597 THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TIK CHI-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
THE HONOURABLE ROGER LUK KOON-HOO
ABSENT
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, J.P.
IN ATTENDANCE
MR RONALD JAMES BLAKE
SECRETARY FOR WORKS
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SZE CHO-CHEUNG, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
MR ANTHONY GORDON EASON, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 598
MR IAN ROBERT STRACHAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MRS ELIZABETH MARGARET BOSHER, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
MR PAUL LEUNG SAI-WAH, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR CLETUS LAU KWOK-HONG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 599 Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Amendment of Fourth
Schedule) Order 1992.............................................................................. 363/92 Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Rules 1992 .............................................. 364/92
Sessional Paper 1992-93
No. 23 — Hong Kong Tourist Association
Annual Report 1991-92
Address by Member
Hong Kong Tourist Association Annual Report 1991-92
MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr Deputy President, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Hong Kong Tourist Association for the financial year 1991-92.
By the end of 1991, Hong Kong had welcomed a record of more than six million visitors, and even though international travel had been seriously curtailed during the first six months by the crisis in the Middle East and recession in several of our major markets, the 1991 record represented a 1.7% increase over 1990.
The tourism industry also generated total revenue of HK$40 billion — a modest increase of 1.0% over the previous year.
It is a tribute to the industry's resourcefulness and competitiveness that we achieved growth in a year when economic conditions adverse to travel and expenditure persisted in many of our long-haul markets.
This performance means that tourism continued to be the territory's third largest earner of foreign exchange, accounting for the equivalent of 6.3% of GDP.
Arrivals from East Asia accounted for 62% of the total. This dominance reflected general economic growth in the region, as well as the Association's own strategic marketing emphasis in the area.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 600
Hong Kong's hoteliers achieved a healthy average room occupancy of 75%. This result was all the more impressive considering the fact that supply during the year increased by 3 000 rooms, bringing the territory's stock of rooms to 31 000. The continued investment in hotels indicated underlying confidence in the future of the tourism industry. After several years of rapid growth, however, we now expect to see a period of consolidation.
The Association's marketing activities during the year included strengthening the "Hong Kong — Stay an extra day" marketing theme to promote an increase in the average length of stay in Hong Kong.
This theme is pivotal to our marketing strategy. With more hotel rooms becoming available and the possible constraints on the number of arrivals due to the capacity of Kai Tak in coming years, we need to alter the perception of Hong Kong as a stopover destination.
And it was pleasing to note that the campaign produced results last year. The average length of stay rose from 3.33 nights to 3.43 nights. This meant an additional 900 000 room nights.
Having overcome the problems of 1991, we are viewing 1992 with optimism. Total visitor arrivals in the first nine months rose 17.8%. Even more significant was the growth in tourism receipts up 24.7% to HK$23.4 billion. Hotel occupancy has also been encouraging, reaching an average of 80%.
We must not, however, underestimate the strength of the competition, nor the work that needs to be done if we are to retain our position as Asia's most popular travel destination.
Top of the list, we consider the earliest possible completion of the new airport essential for future growth and prosperity. We could be welcoming up to 10 million visitors and earning HK$140 billion annually by the year 2000 with the facility fully functioning. It is vital, therefore, that there are no constraints on air traffic.
The protection and preservation of our environment, both natural and historical, is also vital. The growing importance of environmental factors in a tourist's choice of a travel destination is documented and we must be keenly aware of the need for clean air, water and beaches, and a well-maintained countryside if we expect to offer the recreational facilities many of our Asian neighbours can provide.
We have been working closely with the Immigration Department to reduce visa complications for visitors — notably from Taiwan and East Europe — and were delighted that many areas of concern have been eliminated, although delays still occur elsewhere overseas and there remains the perception that Hong Kong has unnecessary, restrictive policies.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 601
Three other obstacles we view as serious threats to the growth of the tourism industry must be removed. One is the exorbitant Airport Departure Tax and we urge that it is, at least, reduced by half and waived completely for visitors arriving and departing on the same day.
The other two are the need to maintain Hong Kong's law and order and the need to control inflation. Safety and cost are two major factors which influence the consumer's choice of a travel destination.
If we can overcome these challenges, I have little doubt that Hong Kong will continue to be a major player on the international travel scene.
Such developments as China's resumption of its position as a destination in demand, the opening of many new markets following the end of the Cold War politics or domestic reform, and increased direct flights to Hong Kong are particularly auspicious. And we hope that next year, at least, the recession in North America and Europe may have somewhat eased. We will continue our work to ensure that Hong Kong retains its prime-destination status.
I invite Members to study the Annual Report. It outlines comprehensively the range of activities the Association undertook on behalf of the industry and Hong Kong in the past financial year.
Thank you.
Oral answers to questions
Legislative programme
1. MR MARTIN BARROW asked: Will the Government inform this Council of its future plans towards legislation including:
(a) how many Bills are to be submitted to this Council in 1992-93;
(b) how many pieces of proposed legislation have failed to secure a legislative time slot in the 1992-93 Session as a result of the prioritization exercise conducted by the Chief Secretary's Legislative Priorities Committee;
(c) how it plans to cope with bringing existing legislation in line with the Basic Law, as well as handling a large amount of new legislation; and
(d) whether the Government has a schedule of the drafting status of all future legislation for the purpose of monitoring the drafting progress of Bills; if it does, whether that schedule could be made available to Member of this Council?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 602
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, I shall reply to the four detailed parts of the question in the same order as they were put to me.
Eighty-four items of legislation are currently scheduled for introduction into this Council in this Session, including the nine Bills which have already been introduced. The Chief Secretary's Office is arranging for a list of these items to be circulated to Members for information. I should explain, however, that the list is subject to change, since new items may become necessary and existing items may be postponed or dropped altogether.
Sixty-four proposed items of legislation have not been allocated a legislative slot in this Session, either because they are not considered to merit priority or because they are unlikely to be ready for introduction in this Session.
We have embarked on an "adaptation of laws" exercise to review, and if necessary, amend existing legislation to ensure its compatibility with the Basic Law. That law comes into force on 1 July 1997. This exercise is carried out in parallel with the handling of other legislative proposals. As far as possible, adaptation will be carried out in the course of regular amendments to existing legislation, in order to reduce the number of adaptation Bills that are needed. Problems of adaptation that apply across the board (for example changes in terminology) may be dealt with in a single adaptation Bill.
As I said in reply to the first part of this question, Members will shortly receive a list of Bills scheduled for introduction this Session. And I trust that Members will find this useful. The progress of all draft legislation is carefully monitored in order to make sure that deadlines are met and that drafts are handled efficiently.
MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr Deputy President, with regard to the last sentence of the answer, I note that the progress of all drafting legislation is carefully monitored. Would the Attorney General not agree that it would be helpful to Members to understand everything that is in the pipeline and could he thus make available to us, on a periodic basis, a complete schedule of pending legislation, and if not, why not?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Law Draftsman, as I have said, Mr Deputy President, keeps all items on his list under review, monitoring them to ensure that deadlines are kept. The progress report is an internal document; it is prepared, essentially, for the Law Drafting Division and I do not think that it would be helpful or appropriate to make it publicly available.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 603
MR PETER WONG: Mr Deputy President, of the 11 items of legislation waiting for introduction and the 64 unallocated ones, how many relate to monetary and financial affairs as records show that these sectors have taken up a great deal of legislator's time in scrutinizing the Bills that come forward?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: I shall have to supply a written reply to that. (Annex I)
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, paragraph 4 of the reply mentions that the "adaptation of laws" exercise is to ensure compatibility with the Basic Law. As the Chinese Government has stated that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, has the Hong Kong Government ever discussed with the Chinese Government about obtaining its approval when it comes to interpretation of the Basic Law and amendments of the laws of Hong Kong? Has there been any agreement by the Hong Kong Government that any amendment of our legislation must be put before the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to ensure that they will remain in force after 1997?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, the principles concerning adaptation of laws have been discussed with the Chinese side in the Joint Liaison Group and consultation with the Chinese side will be carried out in that group from time to time in the process of adaptation of laws.
Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 1991
2. MR EDWARD HO asked: Will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) whether it has conducted a review to determine whether the Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 1991 (Ord. No. 4 of 1991) has been effective in preventing further proliferation of open container and other storage on agricultural land; if so, whether the results of the review (including comparative statistics) can be provided; and
(b) whether the Buildings and Lands Departments and the Planning Department have sufficient staff resources to enforce the said legislation?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, a review of the application of the provisions introduced by the Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 1991 — to improve control over haphazard land use and development in the rural areas of the New Territories, including the storage of containers and other materials on agricultural land, has been
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 604
carried out. Within the 31 Development Permission Areas which have so far been designated, 53 cases of unauthorized open storage uses have been detected, and 232 warning letters have been issued. In some cases the unauthorized uses ceased upon receipt of the warning letters; and only eight enforcement notices have had to be issued. In 16 cases planning permission has been sought.
It is a little too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the new provisions, since land owners and operators can apply to the Town Planning Board for planning permission to use land not zoned for open storage for that purpose. They can also seek a review and appeal if their applications are not approved. Nevertheless, it is clear that the new provisions have now come to public attention and are assisting the process of detecting and controlling new unauthorized development and container and other open storage on agricultural land and preventing the problem worsening. The Planning Department will continue to monitor progress and report to the Town Planning Board.
The Planning Department and the Buildings and Lands Department have created or are creating new posts to support application of the new provisions since their enactment in January 1991; and both intend to create more posts next year. The need to allocate more staff resources to this task is kept under review and will be considered if necessary, as usual in the light of other priorities and the overall limits on what can be made available. In these circumstances, the resources provided so far are sufficient to maintain current levels of enforcement.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Deputy President, I refer to the last paragraph of the Secretary's reply. Will he please elucidate whether the required resources will become available as his proviso as to other priorities, overall limits and others made his answer rather unclear?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I think it is quite clear that the provision of additional posts for any particular purpose must be weighed against other competing demands from time to time, so that whilst it can be said the departments have intentions and plans to introduce additional posts, it is possible that priorities will need to be adjusted. So I do not think it is fair to try and give a categorical assurance that every post which is currently under planning will definitely be provided.
MR MOSES CHENG: Mr Deputy President, will the Administration be prepared to consider designating more land for container storage so that unauthorized open storage uses can be minimized without the need for enforcement?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 605
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, yes.
MR GILBERT LEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, with regard to the traffic congestion and flooding problems caused by the use of agricultural land for container storage, will the Administration inform this Council if it has any measures to deal with land owners so as to improve the situation?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I think this is a question in relation to existing uses. If I am correct, the means available for enforcement against existing uses are not particularly effective, and where problems arise as regards transportation access, drainage problems and so on, these are the situations in which fairly ad hoc measures will have to be taken to control traffic and to prevent inadequate drainage facilities from having adverse effects. The measures taken so far have been to try and deal with these problems as they arise, and until we have a stronger enforcement provision in, for example, the Town Planning Ordinance, I think there is little prospect of any better approach.
DR SAMUEL WONG: Mr Deputy President, also referring to the last paragraph of the reply, could this Council be advised as to whether, with the intended creation of more posts next year in the two departments, the level of enforcement would then be considered adequate?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the situation is not one-sided, in other words, the provision of staff is not the only factor; the demand for their deployment is another factor. So we shall have to see whether the effectiveness of this Ordinance that I have described starts to take hold, and if it does, then I think we shall be able to provide enough staff, subject to other priorities, to keep the situation under a reasonable level of control.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in the first paragraph of his reply, Mr EASON mentioned that 53 cases of unauthorized open storage uses had been detected and that in some cases the unauthorized uses ceased upon receipt of warning letters. How is the Administration going to stop such land being used for storage again in the future? Furthermore only eight enforcement notices have been issued. May I know under what circumstances the Administration will issue such notices?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 606
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I think the first part of the question is in relation to possible repeat offences in respect of the same site. If that is correct, then, clearly, reuse will be followed by re-enforcement. As far as the question of warning letters and enforcement notices is concerned, what I have tried to explain in my initial answer is that there are a number of options, as it were, open to those who receive warning letters and one of those options may be to apply for permission, and if conditions can be met and the use can be permitted, then enforcement will not follow. The serving of enforcement notices is very much a last resort and follows where warnings to cease use and applications for permission fail.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, will the Administration inform this Council how many of the 53 cases of unauthorized open storage uses have been prosecuted and what the results are? And if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: The 53 cases involve no repeat offences and, as I think I have said in my initial answer, so far only in eight of these 53 cases have we had to serve enforcement notices.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, will the Administration inform this Council how it goes about identifying agricultural land which is used for open storage without permission? Are staff regularly sent out to various parts of the New Territories to carry out the inspection?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the main responsibility for detection rests with the staff of the Planning Department who are involved in regular visits and inspections of the 31 development permission areas which have been designated so far. Experience over the past year or so has enabled the drawing up of priorities so that particularly vulnerable areas can receive more frequent visits. I think that covers the question.
At the point of the Council proceeding to Question 3
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, before I ask the question, I would like to seek clarification from you. One of my companies is having a law suit with the Government that touches the Ordinance to which the next question relates. If you would permit, I will proceed with my question.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 607
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Under Standing Order 18(1)(g), Mr CHIM, no question may be asked which is likely to prejudice a pending case. Your question, as framed, is in order.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG: Very well, then I can ask the question.
Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance
3. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Cantonese): Regarding the Administration's application of the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) in relation to paragraph (d) of the definition of "a public purpose" in section 2 of the Ordinance which covers "any purpose which the Governor in Council may decide to be a public purpose", whether consideration will be given to issuing a set of statutory guidelines, providing explicitly for the applicability and coverage of the definition and stating that the property ownership of the affected persons must be safeguarded; and
(b) whether the Administration will, on the basis of previous land resumption cases, consider conducting an overall review of the Ordinance, so as to improve the current procedures on private property resumption and ensure fair treatment to the people affected?
At this point Mr Steven POON indicated a wish to declare interest
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Steven POON, on the question as framed so far, you do not need to declare any interest.
MR STEVEN POON: Mr Deputy President, I do not know how the discussion will proceed; so I had better, if you permit me, declare that I am the chairman of the Land Development Corporation. The Corporation has, in the past, recommended to the Government to invoke the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance to resume land for the purposes of urban renewal. Thank you.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, because the system has been operating satisfactorily for many years, there appears to be no need for statutory guidelines to assist the determination of what constitutes a "public purpose" when applying section 2(d) of the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance. Generally, proposals for resumption are only put to the Governor in Council for the implementation of public works projects
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 608
or town plans. Advice from the Attorney General's Chambers is invariably sought before resumption proposals are submitted to the Governor in Council.
The current resumption procedures, both statutory and administrative, are considered to be fair and reasonable. Property owners are offered compensation based on the market value of their properties and they have the right to appeal to the Lands Tribunal if they do not agree with the amount of compensation offered. The Administration plans to review the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance to take account of the results of the current review of the Town Planning Ordinance since the two Ordinances are closely connected. Experience from previous land resumptions will be taken into account.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the reply given by the Administration is misleading the public. If the system has been operating satisfactorily, there would not have been so many disputes. To enable the public to better understand the issue, I would like the Administration to give explicit answers to the following three questions:
(a) How is the Administration going to prevent such large number of disputes from arising;
(b) I have already spent $1 million so far and may have to spend as much as $5 million but I am afraid that may not bring the matter to an end. What cheaper means does the Administration provide for the general public to get reasonable treatment; and
(c) On what basis could the Administration determine that co-operation with private developers is in the public interest?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr CHIM, you have asked three questions in one. You are only permitted to ask one question. The last two might just raise the question of prejudice in the pending case. Would you confine yourself to the first question and I will call upon the Secretary to reply only to the first question. Did you catch the first question, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Could I have the first question again, please, Mr Deputy President?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr CHIM, the first question only.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in that case I would just ask one question. How could the Administration determine that co-operation with private developers is in the public interest?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 609
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think in the context of the pending case that question may be of prejudice, and that was not, I think, your first question as originally formulated.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I think that is a business interest already because the objective is to make a profit and not to serve the community. As such, how can it be regarded as a public interest?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr CHIM, that question is out of order.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, just now Mr EASON described the administrative procedures relating to payments of compensation as very fair and reasonable. But when dealing with some of the resumption cases in Island West, I found that a lot of tenants and owners refused to accept the amount of compensation offered. Can the Administration inform this Council whether they have considered that basically some guidelines should be available when they allow resumption to take place so that the owners concerned can use the compensation offered to find suitable alternative accommodation in the same area and to continue with their living or trade? Is it necessary that the Administration should draw up these administrative guidelines so that they can be followed by people involved in resumption cases?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I think I have largely answered that question in the original answer. I think what I have described is a system whereby compensation is paid for the value of properties and this, I believe, if in dispute, can be settled in the Lands Tribunal. I should add that for domestic premises we do have, as part of the system, an ex gratia arrangement whereby purchase allowances are paid to enable alternative premises to be purchased in the same area.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I do not own any property in redevelopment area, so I have nothing to declare. However I would like to understand more about the situation because the Land Development Corproation and the Housing Society had invoked or might invoke in future the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance to resume lands for commercial or residential purposes as a result of redevelopment of older districts. However it would appear that these developments are not in line with the "public purpose" defined under the Ordinance. Since many of the future developments would be for commercial purposes, will the Administration consider reviewing the relevant sections of the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance in the light of this?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 610
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Secretary, without accepting the premise, is there a case for review?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, in the general sense, I have already said that we propose to review the Ordinance.
MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, can the Administration inform this Council whether in the past the Government had invoked the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance to resume private lands on grounds of "public purpose" but subsequently sold them to private developers? If yes, had this defeated the original purpose of the Ordinance which is to resume lands for public purpose and was it also unfair to those owners from whom lands have been resumed?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Secretary, were there such cases? That is the first part of the question only.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I think Members will be aware that for the development of our seven new towns, there have been extensive land resumptions in the New Territories, following which new towns have been developed.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Deputy President, the Secretary justified not having statutory guidelines by saying that it has been satisfactory in the past. Can he tell this Council how many resumption cases have been objected to in the last five years?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, since and including the financial year 1987-88 up to date, 103 resumptions have been ordered. This of course involves very many land interests beyond the number 103. Although I do not have a precise figure, because it requires a good deal of detailed research, I can say with a good deal of confidence that very few cases have gone to the Lands Tribunal for adjudication, and I am aware of only two cases in which there has been further challenge.
MR HENRY TANG: Mr Deputy President, in the last paragraph of his reply, the Secretary says and I quote: "Property owners are offered compensation based on the market value of their properties". Does compensation based on
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 611
market value include not only the property itself but also the redevelopment potential of the property?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the valuation is on the valuation of the property which is owned by the owner in individual cases.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, can the Administration revise part of the Ordinance to make available an appeal channel for those people who do not want to have their lands resumed? At present the discussions of the Administration only cover how people can be compensated when their lands are resumed but not how they can object to the resumption in the first place.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the process of development, either through public works projects or implementation of town plans, inevitably affects private interests. Were there to be arrangements whereby individual owners could opt out, there would be no possibility of implementing essential public works and town plans.
Immigration Department's Stop List
4. MR SIMON IP asked: Given that Article 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights provides that any restrictions on the freedom to leave Hong Kong shall be provided by law, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the number of persons put on the Immigration Department's Stop List who were stopped by the Department during the last three years and
(i) who were not the subject of a warrant of arrest or other restrictions imposed by a court, and
(ii) against whom the power of immediate arrest had not arisen, and
(iii) who were not reasonably suspected of being about to abscond to evade the due process of law;
(b) the reasons why such persons were:
(i) put on the Stop List
(ii) stopped; and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 612
(c) the reasons why the use of the Stop List, at present purely an administrative measure, should not be provided and regulated by law?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, I can answer (a) and (b) very simply, as the question's three categories are already all-inclusive: the only people stopped when leaving Hong Kong by Immigration Officers because of their names being on the Stop List are people actually subject to arrest warrants or immediate arrest, or who are reasonably suspected, either locally or through international Interpol notification, of trying to evade the due process of law.
The answer to (c) is therefore also quite straightforward. We see no reason to change the present Stop List system which operates lawfully, flexibly and successfully in the pursuit and apprehension of criminals.
MR SIMON IP: Mr Deputy President, I am afraid the Secretary for Security has not answered the last part of my question which asked why the Stop List should not be regulated or provided by law? What he has said in his answer is that the system should not be changed because it is flexible and it is successful. But given that to stop somebody leaving Hong Kong could be an infringement of a fundamental right, does the Government not think it right that the use of the Stop List should be regulated by law so that people would know who would be liable to be stopped, circumstances under which they can be put on the Stop List, and when their names should be removed from it?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, in our view the restrictions are provided by law and do not need to be provided by a separate law. After all, the Stop List itself is only an administrative system supplying officers at the airport with information to enable them to take action in accordance with other laws. People are not arrested simply for being on the Stop List; they are arrested because the Stop List has drawn attention to them, enabling their arrest under other Ordinances, for example, individuals in possession of forged documents. If any person stopped feels he has been arbitrarily stopped without due cause as a result of his name being on the Stop List, he can take action against the Government.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, at present the police can arrest any person reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under the Police Force Ordinance, while the Director of Immigration can, on the basis of an administrative arrangement, take away the right to "freedom to leave Hong Kong" given to a person under Article 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. What exactly is that law (not the separate law) referred to by the Secretary just now? Is it made up by him?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 613
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, that last interjection is out of order, Mr James TO, but you are entitled to ask what other Ordinances.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, requests for the Stop List inclusions originate from law enforcement agencies who are acting under the law. In the case of Immigration Officers, they can detain people at control points under the Immigration Ordinance only, but they can cease to process someone at a control point and await the arrival of a policement or another law enforcement officer.
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, will the Government take political factor into account in formulating its policy on freedom of movement? If not, what would happen if during the transition period, China should request the Administration to stop a resident of Hong Kong from leaving the territory? Will the Administration do as requested? If not, would that be taken as confronting China?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The first part of the question, Secretary for Security.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, I have already answered the question in respect of people leaving Hong Kong. As to persons arriving in Hong Kong, we do wish to monitor the movements of suspects and undesirables, but we do not take decisions on political grounds.
MR PETER WONG: Mr Deputy President, will the Secretary please provide the statistics asked for in part (a) of the Honourable Simon IP's question?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, I can give figures for the last two years. The number of persons, who were stopped because they were subjects of warrants of arrest and other restrictions imposed by the courts, was 2 572 in 1991, and for all others 2 082. 20% were bailees and the remaining 80% were suspected criminals.
For the period January to September 1992 the respective figures are: 1 882 and 2 543.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, will the Secretary inform this Council if he is aware of a case in which a resident of Hong Kong was stopped at the airport and prohibited from leaving for his vacation because he owed the Government $60 in water charge subsequent to the sale of a premises?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 614 SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, I am not aware of this case.
Flood mitigation works in northwest New Territories
5. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Cantonese): With regard to the flooding problems in the northwest New Territories, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the specific works in hand to improve the flooding situation; when these works will be completed and what measures will be taken to ensure that the flooding problem will not be worsened when these works are in progress, and
(b) prior to the completion of the works concerned, what interim measures are being taken to alleviate temporarily the existing flooding problem?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr Deputy President, as regards the first part of the question: (A) Long-term flood mitigation projects
The long-term works to mitigate flooding in the northwestern New Territories floodplains comprise river training schemes and village flood pumping schemes. The specific works are presented below under their respective drainage basins:
1. For Tin Shui Wai
The main drainage channels in the Tin Shui Wai hinterland have recently been completed. There are also four flood pumping stations in operation at Kiu Tau Wai, Lo Uk Tsuen, Sik Kong Tsuen and Sik Kong Wai. In addition, two flood pumping stations are under construction at Ha Mei San Tsuen and Sheung Cheung Wai. Meanwhile, planning of further minor channel improvement works at Shek Po Tsuen, Ha Tsuen Shi and Kau Lee Uk Tsuen is in hand with a view to starting construction in the end 1994 for completion by the end of 1999.
2. At Yuen Long and Kam Tin
The main drainage channels will be improved in two stages:
(a) Stage I comprises the training of the Shan Pui River, and the lower and middle reaches of the Kam Tin River. This project will cost
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 615
about $1,100 million and is scheduled to start in mid 1993 and be complete by 1998.
(b) Stage II comprises the training of the upper reaches of the Kam Tin river. This project will cost about $520 million and is scheduled to start at the end of 1995 and be complete by 1998.
There is at present one flood pumping scheme in operation at Nam Bin Wai (Kau Hui). Under planning are six further flood pumping schemes to protect Sha Po Tsuen, Ma Tin Tsuen, Shui Pin Wai, Shui Pin Tsuen, Tai Kiu and Lam Uk Tsuen and neighbouring villages in Wang Chau. The construction of the Sha Po Scheme is scheduled to start at the end of 1994 and be complete by 1997. The construction of the remaining schemes will start at the end of 1997 and be complete by 2003. These six flood pumping schemes together with two similar schemes in Ngau Tam Mei will cost $275 million.
3. At Ngau Tam Mei
The river training will be carried out under a $290 million project which is scheduled to commence in early 1994 and be complete in 1998. Also under planning are two flood pumping schemes to protect Pok Wai and Chuk Yuen Tsuen/Ha San Wai. Construction of these schemes is scheduled to start at the end of 1994 and be complete by 1997.
4. At San Tin
The river training works plus three flood pumping schemes to protect the San Tin group of villages, Chau Tau and Mai Po Lo Wai/Mai Po San Tsuen will be implemented under a $370 million scheme. This project is scheduled to start in early 1995 and be complete in 1999.
As regards the concern raised that the flooding problem should not be worsened during the progress of the above projects, this has obviously been an important consideration in determining the phasing and the design of these projects. In addition, during construction as with all public works projects there will be contractual provisions for the works not to interfere with the free flow of the existing drainage system and for construction sequences and temporary works to receive independent checks by the resident engineers. They will be particularly watchful to ensure that these contractual provisions are complied with, especially during the wet season.
As regards the second part of the question, Mr Deputy President,
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 616 (B) The short-term flood mitigation measures
Because it will take some time for the benefits of the long-term flood mitigation projects to be realized, the Government is undertaking a variety of short-term flood mitigation measures.
1. Floodplain management
A Drainage Impact Assessment process has been introduced for major development projects on the floodplains so as to prevent the flooding situation from further deterioration. Under this process, at the beginning of any major development project, its likely impacts on the drainage patterns must be carefully studied and appropriate mitigation measures included in the project. Also, the enforcement of the Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance since 1991 has slowed down the proliferation of indiscriminate land filling.
2. River maintenance
Efforts to maintain natural rivers have been hampered by the problem of access through private land. To overcome this difficulty, a Land Drainage Bill is being drafted to empower the Government to gain access to the main rivers to carry out maintenance works. It is scheduled to submit the Bill to Legislative Council in early 1993.
In the meantime, a budget of $25 million over three years has already been obtained for clearing streamcourses in the New Territories and to bring early relief; clearance will be undertaken at flooding blackspots wherever and whenever the land access problem is overcome.
3. Local drainage improvements
In the Rural Planning and Improvement Strategy programme, there are 21 local stormwater drainage improvement items at various stages of planning, design and construction with an expenditure of $69 million over the next five years for the entire New Territories. These works are small-scaled projects aimed at relieving bottlenecks in the local drainage systems.
4. Finally, flood warning
At present, there is a territory-wide flood warning system operated by the Royal Observatory. Pilot-testing is also in hand of flood sirens at San Tin, Kwu Tung, Tai Tau Leung and Tai O arranged this year. Also, a Real Time Flood Forecasting System is under development and will be pilot-tested next year. These pilot testings will indicate the practicability of an improved flood warning service to the New Territories villagers.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 617
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Secretary mentioned in his reply that the vast majority of the improvement schemes would not be complete until 1998, 1999 or even 2003. As I have pointed out during the debate on the policy address, the situation now is a pressing one. If the Government can build a new airport at the cost of over $100 billion before 1997, why does it take as long as over six to seven years to carry out these schemes which cost just over $2 billion?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr Deputy President, for the airport projects we are basically making new land, our own land. Unfortunately, the problem with the New Territories is that most of the land that we require for these drainage and improvement schemes comes under various ownerships and much of the time before the works can actually be started is taken up in obtaining access to the land and the right to use the land for these schemes. And secondly, as I have indicated in my reply, the phasing, planning and implementation of the various schemes has to be carefully co-ordinated so that the impact of any part of a scheme does not adversely affect the flooding risk of other areas.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, could the Administration inform this Council which department is responsible for handling problems relating to flooding? And what ad hoc measures does the Administration have to gain entry to blocked streamcourses so as to carry out desilting work?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr Deputy President, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands is obviously deeply involved in many of the access problems relating to the New Territories. He and I must necessarily work very closely together in these flood amelioration projects. As far as the implementation is concerned, it is the Drainage Services Department together with the Territory Development Department who are the responsible departments, and as far as implementation performance is concerned, they report to me.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The next question touches on the role of the Executive Council in 1990, in connection with constitutional development in Hong Kong. As I was an Executive Council Member at the time, I will not preside over this question, to avoid any possible conflict of interest. The senior ex-officio Member present will now take the Chair for this item. The Financial Secretary, for the record, was not a Member of the Executive Council at the relevant time.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 618 THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY took the Chair as presiding Member at this point.
Sino-British diplomatic exchanges on constitutional development
6. MR FRED LI asked (in Cantonese): As the OMELCO consensus on political reform reached in 1989 was not mentioned in any of the recently released diplomatic letters exchanged between the British and Chinese Governments in early 1990 on the constitutional development of Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it is aware of the reasons why the British Government did not mention the Omelco consensus in these letters addressed to China;
(b) whether the then Governor and Executive Council had seen all the relevant materials apart from the above-mentioned letters and whether they had been informed of the details discussed throughout the negotiations between the British side and Chinese side on the pace of political development in Hong Kong; and
(c) whether it is aware of the reasons for the British Government to agree in principle with the arrangements proposed by the Chinese Government for an Election Committee to be established in Hong Kong in 1995, as stated in its letter to the Chinese Government on 12 February 1990?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, the Hong Kong Government was fully consulted at all times about the position being adopted by Her Majesty's Government with the Chinese Government on constitutional matters. The OMELCO consensus was passed to the Chinese side at an earlier stage: it was pointed out that it commanded wide public support in Hong Kong. The reason why it was not mentioned in the published documents is that the negotiations had by then moved beyond that stage.
The Executive Council were kept fully briefed throughout these discussions. Her Majesty's Government's aim in these discussions was to seek the maximum extent of democracy for the future consistent with the expressed desire for the smooth transfer of government in 1997.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr Acting Deputy President, the Administration is trying to evade the third part of my question, namely, why did the British Government agree to the arrangements proposed by the Chinese Government for an Election Committee to be established in Hong Kong in 1995? I would like to have a formal reply from the Secretary.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 619
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, I thought that I had answered the question but I am prepared to elaborate on that. The answer is that there was no agreement. Mr Douglas HURD agreed in principle with the arrangements prepared by the Chinese side which could be established in 1995 but stated that details of how these should be done would need to be discussed between the two sides. He also expressed the hope that the five principles agreed between the two sides could be reflected in the Basic Law. In the event, the Chinese Government did not take the steps required to turn the proposal in principle into a binding undertaking. The five principles were not fully reflected in the final version of the Basic Law. More significantly, the Basic Law makes clear that the Election Committee of the first SAR Legislature would not be the Election Committee for 1999. It was therefore incumbent on the Governor to put forward proposals for discussion; he has done so. There is nothing in his proposals which is inconsistent with the Basic Law.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr Acting Deputy President, after the OMELCO consensus had been dropped by the British Government in its negotiations with the Chinese Government, what was the reason for not informing the then non-government Members of this Legislative Council of this fact, since all such Members had contributed to the formation of the OMELCO consensus and all of them had, by virtue of such non-disclosure, been fully kept in the dark until the recent publication of the seven secret documents?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, by that time the Basic Law had been promulgated and the number of directly elected seats for 1991 and 1995 decided. The Secretary of State made clear that in the light of the results of the 1991 elections, the British Government would approach the Chinese Government on the question of a faster pace of democracy, and this the Secretary of State carried out on 25 September this year.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: The Secretary, in his answer, has not really answered question (b) which asks whether the Executive Council had been shown all the relevant documents that were disclosed recently, and whether in fact there are any other documents relevant to these discussions that have not as yet been published. Could he perhaps answer that part of the question?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, I think in my main reply I have said very clearly that the Executive Council was fully briefed throughout those discussions. As to what matters were discussed or brought to the notice of the Executive Council, these must remain confidential.
MEMBER PRESIDING: Elucidation, Mr ARCULLI? Yes.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 620
MR RONALD ARCULLI: The Secretary still has not answered the question; "fully briefed" does not answer the question as to whether Members of the Executive Council were shown the secret letters that we have now been shown.
MR PETER WONG: My question would be exactly the same.
MEMBER PRESIDING: Thank you, Mr WONG. Yes, Mr ARCULLI?
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Sir, I asked for elucidation and you did not either rule me out of order or whether the Secretary should answer.
MEMBER PRESIDING: Sorry, Mr ARCULLI, I thought you were elucidating what your question was. I do not think it is for the questioner to judge whether the answerer has answered the question fully.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: With respect, Sir, if you think that the Secretary has answered the question, then perhaps you will rule my question seeking clarification as being a question out of order.
MEMBER PRESIDING: I believe that my ruling was quite clear. I move to the next question.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Sir, after the exchange of the so-called "secret letters" there were some 11 visits by Ministers from the British Government. In each visit, as I can recall, there were points raised on the OMELCO consensus and at the same time questions were asked of these Ministers whether the British Government had backed down from its original promises, and yet, every time, this Council was given the answer that that was not the case. Would the Secretary care to elucidate on that particular point?
MEMBER PRESIDING: Can you please, Dr LEONG, relate the visit of Ministers to the original question or the answer?
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Ministers from Britain were questioned every time they visited Hong Kong by the then Members of this Council on the position of Britain. In spite of the fact that secret letters had been passed and presumably certain agreements had been made, yet, every time, Ministers from Britain gave the assurance to Hong Kong people, or this Council at least, that Britain had not backed down from its original stand. Could the Secretary comment on this?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 621
MEMBER PRESIDING: Your question related specifically to the OMELCO consensus, Dr LEONG?
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Yes, Sir, to the OMELCO consensus.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, the answer is very simple: the Secretary of State said so very clearly in his visits to Hong Kong that Her Majesty's Government is still very much attached to a faster pace of democracy, and Her Majesty's Government will continue to press this particular issue.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Acting Deputy President, in the second paragraph of his reply, the Secretary said, "the Executive Council were kept fully briefed throughout these discussions", but in his subsequent answers to Member's questions, he also said that many of them could not be disclosed due to confidentiality. Therefore, I could see two things. One is that the Governor may every now and then reveal matters relating to the Executive Council; the other is that the British Foreign Office released seven secret documents which might have been seen by the Executive Council. These give the impression that the authority can do whatever it wants while members of the community are not allowed to do anything. Will the Administration consider allowing the incumbent Executive Council Members who have also taken part in the discussions to speak openly?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, I would like to clarify the circumstances regarding the release of the seven exchanges to which Mr FUNG referred. The Secretary of State, on the recommendation of the Governor and at the suggestion of the Chinese side, decided that, in the interest of openness, the seven diplomatic messages should be published, so as to make plain the true nature of the discussions which had taken place and which had already been partially disclosed by the Chinese side. As to whether the principle of confidentiality should be relaxed in the case of Executive Council Members who were serving at that time, in other words, allowing them to do what Mr FUNG suggests, I think the Governor has on many occasions reiterated that the principle of confidentiality and collective responsibility with regard to Executive Council discussions would be maintained.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr Acting Deputy President, in the second paragraph of his reply, the Secretary said that the Executive Council were kept fully briefed throughout these discussions. He has used the word "briefed", but in the document he sent us last week, he said that the "Executive Council Members saw" the relevant diplomatic exchanges. Since there is a difference between the words "briefed" and "saw", can the Secretary clarify
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 622
whether the Executive Council Members actually "saw" the documents or were just given a "briefing" on them?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: I think, Sir, the Executive Council Members saw the relevant diplomatic exchanges.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Acting Deputy President, I refer to the last sentence of the Secretary's reply which mentions the expressed desire for the smooth transfer of Government. Can he clarify whether this "expressed desire" is a unilateral desire of the British Government, the Chinese Government, or the people of Hong Kong, or a common desire of the three sides?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, I do not think anybody, wherever they stand, whatever their views are, would object to the smooth transfer of power.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like to follow up the question of Mr LEE Wing-tat. The Administration has said that the Executive Council Members saw the exchanges, but it has also been reported by the media that the then Executive Council Members denied having seen them. In order to let the public know who have betrayed the people of Hong Kong, will the Administration consider publishing the relevant documents of the Executive Council so that the people of Hong Kong can see who have betrayed us?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Sir, this would require the disclosure of Executive Council minutes and proceedings. As I have said in my previous reply to another question, these must remain confidential.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY stood down as presiding Member at this point and the DEPUTY PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
Written answers to questions
Buildings acquired by LDC for purposes of urban renewal
7. DR YEUNG SUM asked (in Chinese): In view of the time needed for the Land Development Corporation to acquire and develop the area designated for urban renewal project, will the Government inform this Council of:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 623
(a) the measures taken to ensure that dilapidated buildings within the designated areas for development are in safe condition pending the reconstruction work; and
(b) the number of structurally unsafe buildings that have been acquired by the Corporation?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the maintenance of buildings, including those within areas designated for urban renewal, is the responsibility of the owners. Nonetheless, pre-war buildings in the urban area are inspected by staff of the Buildings Ordinance Office periodically.
Buildings Ordinance Office staff also investigate complaints about the condition of buildings and take action to secure their repair, closure or demolition under sections 26 and 27 of the Buildings Ordinance if they are found to be structurally unsafe.
There are no records which show specifically that structurally unsafe buildings have been acquired by the Land Development Corporation. However, 15 buildings have been closed and are being demolished or are awaiting demolition in areas to be redeveloped by the Corporation.
The Land Development Corporation itself regularly inspects buildings it has acquired and generally will keep them under repair until they are redeveloped. However, where their condition warrants it, buildings, once vacated, will be demolished provided this can be done without affecting adjacent buildings.
Fiscal reserve
8. MR DAVID LI asked: In view of the prospect of increased government spending on social welfare and public works programmes in the years ahead and the fact that the Financial Secretary has mentioned the need for a "reasonable cushion" of fiscal reserve when speaking in this Council on this year's Appropriation Bill, will the Administration inform this Council what measures are being taken to formulate more concrete guidelines to ensure this "cushion" remains "reasonable" for the years ahead?
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: I am glad to be able to reassure the questioner that the spending proposals on social welfare and other key programme areas over the forecast period conform with the budgetary guideline that the growth rate of public expenditure will not outpace the trend growth rate of the economy. Thus the spending proposals announced in the Governor's address will not reduce the level of the fiscal reserves that we have
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 624 shown in the last Budget, in our Medium Range Forecast for 1992-93 to 1996-97.
Against this background, it is not necessary to formulate more concrete guidelines. How large the reserves should be must inevitably remain a matter of judgement, which would be influenced by a number of factors. These include the level of annually recurrent expenditure; the level of outstanding contractual commitments; the extent of our contingent liabilities; and any commitment such as that under the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Construction of the New Airport in Hong Kong and Related Questions.
Inspections under the Companies Ordinance
9. MISS EMILY LAU asked: In view of the Government's reply to a Legislative Council question on inspection of companies on 21 October 1992, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether, in view of the large sums of money spent on company inspections, it will consider amending the Companies Ordinance to give the Securities and Futures Commission the power to carry out company investigations and to fund the work by imposing a levy on transactions of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange; and
(b) the number of inspections conducted over the past 10 years under the Securities Ordinance, the costs borne by the taxpayers, the time taken by the inspectors to complete their investigations and whether the final reports have been completed and published?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS:
(a) There have been on-going discussions between the Securities and Futures Commission and the Administration on some proposed legislative amendments to allow the powers of investigation under the relevant sections of the Companies Ordinance and/or other Ordinances to be exercised more effectively. Members will be able to examine the detailed proposals when a Bill is submitted to this Council.
Until concrete proposals are developed, it is premature for me to say whether or not any further levy, in addition to the present transaction and the special levies, would have to be envisaged. But I am conscious of the need to ensure that the Hong Kong securities markets remain competitive as far as intermediation costs are concerned.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 625
(b) There were three inspections conducted over the past 10 years under the Securities Ordinance. The total costs for the three inspections amounted to about $47 million and the time taken by the inspectors to complete their tasks varied from 7.5 months to four years and two months. A summary of the information requested can be found in the attached table.
Annex
Cost borne
Year
Company involved
by Government $
Time taken
Whether report
completed and published
(1) 1982 Dollar Credit (Holdings)
Limited
(2) 1982 Mercantile Foundation
Limited
0.1M 7.5 months Completed but not published because of concurrent prosecution
and police search for wanted
persons, whose trials could be
jeopardized by publication of
report.
2.1M 18 months Not completed because of suspension of enquiries. Draft
report and papers were passed to
ICAC and publication was
inappropriate.
(3) 1983 Eda Investments Limited and Carrian
Investment Limited
Commission
(a) Eda
(b) Carrian
45M
2 years and 8
months
4 years and 2
months
Eda report completed but not published, on legal advice. The Carrian investigation was curtailed at the request of the then Securities Commission because of its complex and costly nature, with no indication that the outcome would be commensurate with the
substantial expenditure of public funds likely to be incurred further should it be allowed to continue. The Carrian inspectors did not make a formal statutory report. They produced a paper on their investigation, which is subject to a confidentiality agreement between the Government and the
inspectors.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 626 Radioactive shipments
10. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: With regard to a Japanese vessel, Akatsuki Maru, carrying a cargo of radioactive plutonium from France to Japan, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of its contingency plans in the event of the vessel requiring emergency assistance, given that Hong Kong is an international emergency port;
(b) of the controls that are in place over the shipment of radioactive or toxic materials that may enter Hong Kong waters or use Hong Kong as a transhipment port; the number of such shipments that have entered Hong Kong waters in the past two years;
(c) whether inspections are carried out to determine if there are radioactive or toxic materials without proper labelling on board vessels entering Hong Kong waters; what penalties have been imposed for such improper labelling;
(d) whether there are legal provisions regarding the payment of compensation to Hong Kong residents whose health is damaged due to exposure to shipments of radioactive or other toxic materials from abroad; and
(e) whether the Government's policy is in any way affected by Britain's national interests, given Britain's exchange of radioactive shipments with Japan and possibly other Asian countries.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr Deputy President,
(a) The route to be followed by the plutonium carrier "Akatsuki Maru" has, for security reasons, not been made public. At present, we have no reason to believe that its course will bring the vessel close to Hong Kong, but we have been assured by the Japanese Government that should the carrier enter the South China Sea, it will, in normal circumstances, remain in international waters and not navigate closer than 200 miles to Hong Kong.
(b) The question refers to Hong Kong as "an international emergency port". I wish to make clear that although Hong Kong has an international obligation to conduct and to co-ordinate search and rescue missions within a defined geographical area, such missions are directed to save human life in circumstances where the lives of the rescue personnel are not likely to be put at grave risk. Notwithstanding the above obligation, our port authorities would, in accordance with international regulations, be entitled to deny entry
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 627
into Hong Kong waters of any vessel deemed to pose a grave and imminent threat to the safety of the port or to the environment.
(c) The shipment by sea of radioactive and toxic substances is regulated by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. The Code, which is applied under our local Merchant Shipping (Safety) (Dangerous Goods) Regulations to all ships which wish to enter Hong Kong waters, lays down standards for the packaging, documentation, marking and stowage of all such goods.
(d) The provisions of the Code are supplemented by provisions in the Import (Radiation) (Prohibition) Regulations, made under the Import and Export Ordinance, which prohibit the import of radioactive substances into Hong Kong except under licence. A licence for import is only issued to an importer who holds the appropriate permit issued by the Radiation Board. A licence is also required for the transhipment of radioactive substances and is only issued to those holding a permit issued by the Radiation Board.
(e) The number of import licences issued in respect of radioactive substances transhipped or landed in the last two years was 1 140 (in 1990) and 1 180 (in 1991) respectively. The great majority of these were in respect of materials and equipment required by hospitals and by laboratories in educational institutions.
(f) Further controls in regard to toxic materials are provided under the Dangerous Goods Ordinance, the Merchant Shipping (Safety) Ordinance and the Waste Disposal Ordinance, depending on their nature. Shippers carrying goods subject to control under the Dangerous Goods Ordinance must, on arrival in Hong Kong waters, submit to the port authorities a manifest detailing the nature and quantities of the goods being carried and some 200 such manifests are processed daily by the Marine Department.
(g) As regards inspection, under the Radiation Ordinance, the Radiation Board is empowered to appoint inspectors to enter and inspect vessels which are licensed to import radioactive substances into Hong Kong or to use Hong Kong as a transhipment port for such substances. However, inspections as to labelling are not normally carried out on board vessels. There have been no recent cases of improper labelling of such substances.
(h) As regards the legal provisions regarding the payment of compensation to Hong Kong residents whose health is damaged due to exposure to shipments of radioactive or other toxic materials, the Employees Compensation Ordinance deals with compensation for death or personal injury suffered or incurred in the course of and arising out of the employee's employment. Outside of that context,
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 628
the Nuclear Installations (Hong Kong) Order 1972 gives a right to compensation to persons in Hong Kong injured or suffering damage to property and this is in addition to any claim which might be made at common law for example in negligence against the consignors, consignees or shippers of such shipments.
(i) The Government's policy in relation to the shipment of radioactive substances is not affected by the national interests of the United Kingdom.
Squatters in the New Territories
11. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): Regarding the squatter problem in the New Territories, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of squatter huts and the existing squatter population in the New Territories; and of the number of the New Territories squatter huts that are located on slopes;
(b) whether there are plans to clear the squatter areas in the New Territories; if so, what the details and the schedule of such plans are?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, as at the end of September 1992, there were about 414 000 squatter structures in the New Territories, of which some 88 000 were used for dwelling purposes, housing about 228 000 people. The number of squatter structures for domestic use on steep slopes is around 16 000.
Squatters in the New Territories are cleared either when the land is required for public works or on safety grounds when recommended by the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO). Studies by the GEO between 1988 and 1991 showed that about 6 000 squatters were especially vulnerable to landslips during periods of heavy rainfall. To date, about 5 000 of these have been cleared and the remainder will be cleared by the next wet season.
The GEO is carrying out a re-inspection of the New Territories squatter areas previously covered by the studies between 1988 and 1991. This will be completed by June 1993 and additional areas will be inspected thereafter. Further clearances on safety grounds are likely to follow.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 629 Kindergarten education
12. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Chinese): As kindergarten education has not been given due attention in the Governor's policy address, will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) the numbers of children aged two to five enrolled in various kindergarten grades and those reaching the age to attend Primary I in each of the past three years; whether the Government will, based on these figures and information and having regard to the importance attached to kindergarten education by parents and the public, re-assess the necessity of pre-school education; and whether the Government has conducted studies to examine if children enrolled in Primary I direct without completing kindergarten education are more likely to have learning problems;
(b) the respective numbers of private non-profit-making kindergartens and other private kindergartens in Hong Kong, the places available and the actual enrolment in various kindergarten grades in each of the past three years; how subsidies are provided by the Government to the above two types of kindergartens; the range of school fees charged by these kindergartens; and how parents benefit from the Kindergarten Fee Remission Scheme; and
(c) the Government's total expenditure on kindergarten education and its share of the total budget for education in each of the past three years; whether there are plans to improve this ratio as soon as possible?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr Deputy President, the answers to Mr CHEUNG's questions are as follows:
(a) (i) The numbers of children aged six, which is the normal age of entry into Primary I, in the past three years were estimated to be:
1989 1990 1991
86 867 81 992 77 043
The numbers of 2-6 year olds enrolled in various kindergartens grades over the same period were:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 630
1989 1990 1991
Nursery classes 62 013 60 766 64 902 Lower KG classes 68 538 65 543 63 236 Upper KG classes 71 199 70 157 65 620 ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 201 750 196 466 193 658 ====== ====== ======
(ii) The Government's policy is to enable all to have access to kindergartens. Non-profit making operators are subsidized with rebates on rent and rates. Needy parents are given assistance under a Fee Remission Scheme. This Scheme is being improved to allow more parents to become eligible for financial assistance, thereby making it possible for the operators to improve the quality of their teachers. The Government will consider the need for legislation to achieve a minimum proportion of trained teachers.
(iii) The Government has not carried out any specific study to examine whether children enrolled in Primary I direct without having completed kindergarten education are more likely to have learning problems. The present Primary I curriculum does not presuppose that pupils starting their schooling have any prior academic knowledge. We are aware, however, that one research project, which is being undertaken by the University of Hong Kong, may throw light on the relationship between kindergarten experience and possible learning problems encountered by Primary I pupils. This study has started but is not expected to publish its findings on the issue in question for some time.
(b) (i) The numbers of non-profit-making and other private kindergartens in Hong Kong, places available and actual enrolment in the past three years were:
1989 1990 1991
No. of kindergartens
Non-profit-making KGs 375 399 403 Other private KGs 416 386 364 ----- ----- -----
Total 791 785 767 === === ===
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 631
1989 1990 1991
No. of places available
Non-profit-making KGs N.A. N.A. N.A. Other private KGs N.A. N.A. N.A. ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 224 267 224 718 223 376 ====== ====== ======
Actual enrolment
Non-profit-making KGs 105 274 107 006 109 955 Other private KGs 96 476 89 460 83 703 ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 201 750 196 466 193 658 ====== ====== ======
The breakdown of enrolment by grade is given under (a)(i) above; a further breakdown by type of kindergarten is not available.
(ii) The Government subsidizes non-profit-making kindergartens by reimbursing their rents and rates. Expenditure in 1992-93 amounted to $113 million. In addition, the Government assists parents who pass a means test with fee remission, regardless of whether their children are in non-profit-making or other private kindergartens. The Education Department also trains kindergarten teachers on a no-fee basis.
(iii) The school fees charged by the two types of kindergartens are, in dollars per annum:
1989 1990 1991
For whole day operation
Non-profit-making kindergartens
Minimum 840 3 552 3 680 Maximum 19 139 20 910 27 063
Weighted average
5 988 8 125 8 771
Median 4 860 6 780 8 094
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 632 1989 1990 1991
Other private kindergartens
Minimum 2 940 2 940 2 940 Maximum 35 340 43 600 43 600
Weighted average
8 117 8 813 9 972
Median 6 930 9 000 10 012
For single session operation
Non-profit-making kindergartens
Minimum 1 000 1 000 1 200 Maximum 23 100 27 400 30 800
Weighted average
2 806 3 632 4 294
Other private kindergartens
Median 2 532 3 410 3 960 Minimum 450 650 650 Maximum 19 500 34 800 34 800
Weighted average
3 736 4 727 5 632
Median 2 940 3 908 4 716
(iv) Parents who pass the means test under the Fee Remission Scheme are reimbursed the standard fee, either in full or in part, depending on need. In 1991-92, these reimbursements ranged from $100 to $400 per month in the case of single session kindergartens or $200 to $800 per month in respect of whole day operations. About 22% of eligible parents were reimbursed the full standard fee. Total disbursements amounted to $24.7 million for the parents of 10 988 children, representing 5.7% of the total kindergarten enrolment.
(c) (i) The total government expenditure on kindergarten education in absolute amounts and as a percentage of the total budget for the Education Department was:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 633
Financial Year
Expenditure* ($million)
As % of ED Expenditure
1989-90 83.7 1.0
1990-91 93.0 0.9
1991-92 128.9 1.1
* Comprising reimbursement of rents and rates to non-profit-making kindergartens, disbursements under the Kindergarten Fee Remission Scheme and an apportionment of staff costs in the Department.
(ii) Funding for the Fee Remission Scheme will be increased from $26 million at present to $63 million by 1996-97. It is not possible at this stage to say how this increase will be translated into a new ratio as other factors to be involved in the calculation are unknown. However, given the large size of the Education Department budget, a dramatic increase is not expected.
Illegal car racing
13. MR JAMES TO asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the extent of illegal car racing activities in the vicinity of the Cross Harbour Tunnel at night;
(b) whether public complaints against nuisances caused by these activities have ever been received over the past two years; if so, what the total number of such complaints is; and
(c) what measures are being taken to clamp down on these activities?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, there are illegal car racing activities in the vicinity of the Cross Harbour Tunnel but such activities are intermittent as a result of police action. These activities cause nuisance to nearby residents. Princess Margaret Road on Kowloon side is popular among illegal car racers, especially during the early hours of weekends. Those who take part are fairly well organized. For example, it is suspected that they have their own towing trucks to clear away cars that have broken down. They may also have their own speed observation, radar tracking devices and radio communication equipment to monitor police action against them. They are extremely alert to police patrols and any other operations that the police may mount.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 634
Members of the public have made 112 complaints in 1990, 89 in 1991 and 90 in the first ten months of 1992 to the police about noise nuisance caused by cars. Some of these complaints may relate to illegal car racing. All these complaints were received on the Kowloon side of the Cross Harbour Tunnel.
It is an offence under section 55 of the Road Traffic Ordinance to participate in car racing. The maximum penalty is a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of 12 months as well as disqualification to hold a driving licence for 12 months upon conviction. Other traffic offences such as speeding, reckless driving, driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance, may be invoked as appropriate.
The police deal with the problem through various measures. They set up traffic patrols, radar speed detection and road block checks to detect offenders. Police task forces are formed to mount special operations in conjunction with routine police traffic patrol teams to counter illegal car racing activities. Since January 1990, some 60 operations have been mounted.
Interception of telephone transmissions
14. MR GILBERT LEUNG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council the total number of orders made under the Telecommunications Ordinance for tapping private telephone conversations in the past three years; and whether the Administration has conducted any review, since the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance came into effect last year, of such tapping activities undertaken by the departments concerned to ensure that the provision on the protection of privacy as stipulated in Article 14 of the above Ordinance could be complied with?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, orders under section 33 of the Telecommunications Ordinance to intercept telephone transmissions are made only when the public interest so requires and only in cases involving the prevention or detection of serious crime, including corruption, or in the interests of the security of Hong Kong. Such orders are authorized by the Governor, who has to be satisfied personally that these criteria are met. It would not be appropriate on law and order and security grounds to disclose details of orders made, including numbers. However, Members can be assured that all applications submitted and decisions made are considered carefully on their own merits.
I can confirm that we are looking at our legislation to see if it is in need of modernization in the light of the introduction of the Bill of Rights, and a review is now underway. In this review we will take carefully into account the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, which is presently examining existing Hong Kong laws affecting privacy, including the interception of communications.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 635 Air services between Hong Kong and Taiwan
15. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council whether existing air passenger and freight services between Hong Kong and Taiwan are able to cope with current demands and those projected for the coming five years; if not, what improvement plan for these services is being contemplated in order to enhance the commercial and trade activities between Hong Kong and Taiwan?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr Deputy President, I can confirm that existing air passenger and freight services between Hong Kong and Taiwan are generally adequate to cope with current demands. The planning of additional services to meet increasing demand is a matter for the airlines in which the Government does not intervene.
Ventilation in underground public car-parks
16. DR SAMUEL WONG asked: Will the Government inform this Council what statutory requirements are in place concerning the provision of mechanical ventilating systems in underground public car-parks, what statutory controls are available to ensure that such systems are running properly, and how the relevant legislation in enforced in practice?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the Building (Ventilating Systems) Regulations govern the ventilating systems installed in private buildings which involve the use of ducting or trunking passing through compartments, including those in underground car-parks open to the public.
The Regulations specify safety requirements in respect of the construction and materials used in the ventilating systems to minimize fire hazards. The owner of the ventilating system is required to maintain it in safe condition and efficient working order at all times, and to employ a registered ventilation contractor to inspect the dampers, filters and precipitators fitted in the system at intervals not exceeding 12 months. Failure to comply with this requirement is an offence punishable by a fine of $2,000 on conviction.
After the inspection, the contractor is required to issue certificates, with copies to the Director of Fire Services, to the owners confirming that the dampers, filters and precipitators are in safe and efficient working order. Failure to comply with the requirement is an offence punishable on conviction by a fine of $2,000 and imprisonment for six months. Again the Director of Fire Services is responsible for enforcing this provision.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 636 Illegal parking of heavy duty vehicles
17. MR FRED LI asked (in Chinese): In view of the growing problem of illegal parking of heavy goods vehicles and trailers of container trucks on the roadsides and in the vicinity of public housing estates, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether action will be taken to step up the prosecution of offenders and to raise the level of fines; and
(b) whether consideration will be given to restricting the issuance or renewal of the relevant vehicle licences only to those owner of heavy goods vehicles and container trucks who are able to secure fixed parking spaces for their vehicles?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr Deputy President,
(a) The police invariably take enforcement action against illegal parking, particularly where this causes traffic congestion or poses a danger to pedestrians and other road users. They intensify enforcement measures in blackspot areas where possible, commensurate with their manpower resources and other priorities. Consideration is being given to raising the level of fixed penalty fines for illegal parking and other offences.
(b) Making the availability of fixed parking spaces a licensing requirement for heavy goods vehicles and container trucks would be very difficult to enforce. Instead, the Administration is concentrating on increasing the supply of parking spaces as a better solution to the problem. As the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands said in his written reply to a question on 21 October 1992, the Government plans to provide about 2 000 parking spaces for heavy goods vehicles in the coming year. Container terminal operators have been encouraged to provide spaces within their terminals for overnight parking, and one operator has already agreed to designate 300 such spaces. Over the next five years, the parking problem associated with the container port should be relieved with the commissioning of terminals 8 and 9, which will have 52 hectares of back-up land, including space for heavy goods vehicle parking.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 637 Quality of reproduction of government written material
18. MR MARTIN BARROW asked: Is the Government aware that the poor reproduction quality of material which it distributes to Members of this Council reflects badly on professionalism of Government and is causing increasingly severe eye strain amongst Members of this Council and if so, what steps will it take to improve the quality of reproduction of its material?
CHIEF SECRETARY: We are aware that on occasions the documents presented to Members are quite difficult to read because of the poor quality of faxes or as a result of faxing a facsimile copy. We will be reminding government offices that the written materials given to Members should be of a good legible quality. The Secretary General OMELCO has also taken the necessary steps to ensure that this is done.
Recreational and cultural activities for the disabled
19. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of recreational and cultural activities organized for the disabled by the relevant government departments such as Social Welfare Department, Urban Services Department and Regional Services Department and so on, the number of participants and the expenditure incurred in the past three years; and
(b) whether the relevant government departments have set a certain ratio with regard to the number of activities to be held for different target groups when organizing the activities for the public; if so, what the proportion of the activities for the disabled in relation to the total number of activities organized is; and whether consideration will be given to increasing the number of activities for the disabled to participate in?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: The following response, seriatim, is based on information supplied by the Secretary for Recreation and Culture and the Director of Social Welfare.
As regards part (a) of the question, cultural activities are organized mainly by the Urban and Regional Councils for the general public, including disabled persons who have access to most of the venues. No breakdown is therefore available. The information in respect of recreational activities organized by the municipal councils for disabled persons is set out below:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 638
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92
Urban Council
No. of Activities 140 170 156 No. of Persons 8 530 9 340 8 700 Expenditure $330,000 $540,000 $550,000
Regional Council
No. of Activities 88 93 91 No. of Persons 4 311 4 581 4 860 Expenditure $116,000 $178,000 $224,000
These activities include excursions, fun days, camping and sports training courses. The expenditure set out above relates to direct programme expenses such as the hiring of instructors, temporary organizers and transport. Other costs such as staffing, administrative costs as well as venue charge have not been included.
The Social Welfare Department in collaboration with non-governmental organizations organize social and recreational activities for disabled persons through social and recreational centres, sports associations and social clubs. Their able-bodied relatives and friends also take part in such activities. The information in respect of social and recreational activities is as follows:
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92
Social Welfare Department
*No. of Persons in Daily Activities
No. of Special Activities
*No. of Persons in Special Activities
74 270 76 470 74 540 3 480 2 930 3 060 119 640 118 210 110 450
Expenditure $9.8 M $11.6 M $13.1 M
* These figures include relatives and friends of disabled persons. No further breakdown is available.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 639
In addition, Work Group Units and Youth Offices of the Social Welfare Department also organize programmes for disabled and able-bodied persons. The total number of persons/times of disabled participants in these programmes amounts to 38 972 over the past three years. Within the limited time given, it has not been possible to arrive at a breakdown of the cost of these programmes.
The interest cultivated by sports training courses organized by the two municipal councils and the talents of our disabled athletes have enabled them to achieve resounding success in international sports events. A total of 344 gold, 227 silver and 171 bronze medals have been won over the last decade.
As regards part (b) of the question, no ratio has been set on the number of activities for different target groups. Our ultimate goal is to achieve integration of disabled persons into the community. They should be encouraged as far as possible to take part in our daily activities.
Commander British Forces's Executive Council membership
20. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) in announcing the stepping down of the Commander British Forces as an ex officio member of the Executive Council on 7 October this year, whether the Governor has considered:
(i) that the withdrawal of the Commander British Forces is in violation of clause II of the Royal Instructions;
(ii) that the decision of the withdrawal, being announced to take effect before the relevant legal provision is suitably amended, will affect the credibility of the Government; and
(b) whether the decisions taken by the Governor in Council subsequent to the stepping down of the Commander British Forces as an ex-officio member of the Executive Council are legally effective?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS:
(a) The Commander British Forces is an ex-officio member of the Executive Council, as provided for by clause II of the Royal Instructions. The Secretary of State endorsed the Governor's proposal that the Commander's ex-officio membership should cease. The Commander will of course remain formally a member of the Executive Council until the necessary amendments are made to the Royal Instructions to abolish his membership. There is therefore no question of any violation to clause II of the Royal Instructions.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 640
It is not uncommon for the Government to announce, in the public's interests, certain policy decisions before the relevant legal provision is in place. Providing the public with timely information on Government's decisions improves, rather than weakens, the Government's credibility.
(b) Pending the completion of the necessary amendments to the Royal Instructions, the Commander British Forces will remain on the Executive Council. Whilst the Commander has agreed that he will not normally attend Executive Council meetings in the interim, this will not in any way affect the Council's operation. There is no requirement that meetings of the Executive Council must be attended by all Council members.
Motion
TELEPHONE ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES moved the following motion: "That the Schedule to the Telephone Ordinance be amended in Part V - (a) By adding after item 27 -
"28. Tie Line Access Facility for "Centrex" Service (see Note 10) -
(a) Connection $200 for each
inter-system leased
circuit
(b) rental $600 per annum for each
inter-system leased
circuit"; and
(b) by adding after Note 9 -
"10. The amounts indicated for Tie Line Access Facility are for one way access (i.e. either inward or outward access) only; charges for
access both ways are double the amounts indicated."."
She said: Mr Deputy President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 641
Under section 26(1) of the Telephone Ordinance the Hong Kong Telephone Company may charge for its services at levels which do not exceed those shown in the Schedule to the Ordinance. Section 26(2) empowers this Council to amend the Schedule by resolution.
The Company wishes to introduce a new service, the Tie Line Access Facility, to subscribers to its Centrex service. Centrex is a centralized private branch exchange service for business customers.
Briefly, the new service will allow Centrex subscribers to communicate directly with other Centrex users and private branch exchanges, without the need to go through the public switched telephone network. This will allow subscribers to set up virtual private networks between Centrex and private branch exchange systems. Such networks will be particularly useful to companies with branch offices, as it would allow all network users to benefit from the same enhanced network features, such as call-forwarding or conference calling.
To provide the new service, the Company will need to install new processing and signalling equipment. The Company proposes to charge $200 for installation and $50 per month rental for each one-way circuit access to the service. The Administration has examined the basis for the charges and considers it to be reasonable.
Mr Deputy President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
First Reading of Bills
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1992
LORD WILSON HERITAGE TRUST BILL
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1992
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Crimes Ordinance."
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 642
He said: Mr Deputy President, I move that the Crimes (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1992 be read a Second time. The purpose of the Bill is to remove capital punishment from our statute books.
Capital punishment is currently the mandatory penalty for:
(a) murder, under section 2 of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance (Chapter 212);
(b) treason, under section 2(2) of the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200); and (c) piracy with violence, under section 19 of the Crimes Ordinance.
The death penalty may also be imposed by the Governor in Council under the Emergency Regulations (Chapter 241).
On 26 June 1991, this Council voted in favour of the introduction of legislative measures which would abolish the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment.
The purpose of the Crimes (Amendment) Bill is to make all of the adjustments to legislation necessary to abolish the death penalty.
In its place, it is proposed that life imprisonment should be the mandatory sentence for murder, treason and piracy with violence and that mandatory life imprisonment will be the maximum sentence that may be provided for by the Governor in Council under the Emergency Regulations.
In cases where a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, the Governor will call on the trial judge to give him a written report indicating any special considerations or mitigating circumstances and, where appropriate, what in his view should be the minimum term of imprisonment to be served. This is currently the practice with regard to sentences of capital punishment.
Life sentences will be reviewed by the Board of Review initially after five years and subsequently every two years, unless the Governor directs that a case should be reviewed earlier after having considered the trial judge's report.
Once the Bill becomes law, all those who are then under sentence of death will have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Currently there are 32 prisoners who fall into this category.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 643 LORD WILSON HERITAGE TRUST BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to establish the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust and to provide for its administration and related matters."
He said: Mr Deputy President, I move the Second Reading of the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust Bill.
The Bill seeks to provide for the establishment of the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust whose objects are the preservation and conservation of the human heritage of Hong Kong. The Trust is named after Lord Wilson to commemorate his term of office as Governor of Hong Kong.
Since the enactment of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in 1976 and the establishment of the Antiquities and Monuments Office in the same year, the Government, on the advice of the Antiquities Advisory Board, has made significant progress in the preservation and conservation of Hong Kong's heritage. So far, 47 historical buildings and archaeological sites have been declared as monuments, including the exterior structure of this Council building. Excavation of sites in northern Lantau and western New Territories over the years have uncovered significant artefacts of archaeological interest, some of which date back to as long ago as 6 000 years in history. That we have come this far is due in no small measure to the dedication and contributions of many individuals and organizations including the universities, the Hong Kong Archaeological Society and the two municipal councils. However, much more remains to be done, in particular, in promoting community awareness of the importance of heritage protection in Hong Kong. While the Government will continue to provide the lead, the establishment of the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust will strengthen our efforts by providing additional financial support for educational and publicity activities, and where appropriate, the purchase or restoration of historical buildings and monuments for the purpose of their preservation and making them accessible for public appreciation.
The Trust will be funded entirely by donations. So far, over $26 million has been received and an additional $17 million pledged, of which $15 million is from the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club.
The Bill provides for the appointment by the Governor of a Board of Trustees and a Council. The Board of Trustees will be responsible for managing the Trust assets both for the purpose of promoting the objects of the Trust and for investment, while the Council will undertake activities to promote the objects of the Trust under the direction of the Board. The Bill provides for matters relating to the auditing of the accounts and tabling of reports in the Legislative Council. The Bill also empowers the Board and the Council to employ staff to assist in the discharge of their respective functions. However, initially, the intention is that the Trust will be serviced by the Antiquities and Monuments Office and no additional staff will be required.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 644
The establishment of the Trust has the full support of the Antiquities Advisory Board, and the public at large as indicated by their generous donations.
Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
WATERWORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 14 October 1992 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 Bill
Council went into Committee.
WATERWORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Clauses 1 and 6 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bill
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
WATERWORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
had passed through Committee without amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Third time and passed.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 645 Member's motion
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN HONG KONG
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would remind Members of the agreement of the House Committee that Members' speaking time should be limited as follows: the mover of the motion, including the reply, 15 minutes; the movers of amendments to motions, seven minutes; and other speakers, seven minutes.
In accordance with recent practice, the buzzer will sound one minute before the allotted time expires and at the expiration of the allotted time the buzzer will sound continuously. I would expect Members to honour the agreement of the House Committee as to this restraint on length of speeches.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH moved the following motion:
"That this Council urges the British and Hong Kong Governments to adopt the principles of openness, fairness and acceptability to the people of Hong Kong when engaging in future dialogue with the Chinese Government on the political development of Hong Kong."
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Deputy president, I rise to move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper.
To the extent that the Joint Declaration commanded the confidence of Hong Kong in 1984, it did so by offering a series of important promises in unambiguous terms. It promised:
- That Hong Kong would enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" from the Chinese Central Government;
- That the legislature would be elected to office;
- That Hong Kong would be invested with independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication;
- That rights and freedoms would be protected and extended;
- And that until 1997, Britain alone would be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong, with China promising its "co-operation" in that regard.
Those were the pillars on which Hong Kong's future was to rest.
Mr Deputy President, these pillars are tottering.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 646
They are being undermined by a force of which we were told nothing in 1984. Which made no appearance in the Joint Declaration. And which was imported by stealth into the transitional arrangements sometime between November 1985 and January 1986.
The force of which I speak here is what we now call "convergence" — a misleading name, since it suggests a mutuality of movement by the parties deemed to be converging. In the case of Hong Kong, "convergence" seems only to mean what China says it wants, and that Britain, after a decent interval of hesitation, agrees.
We have been hypnotized by "convergence". It is a device introduced by China to serve China's ends. Convergence is not a strategy. It is a tactic. Yet we are told to treat it as a virtue, a necessity, even, incredibly, as a high principle capable of eroding promises set down in the Joint Declaration which we once so trustingly assumed to be sacrosanct.
"Convergence" is frustrating the desire of Hong Kong for the rapid development of democratic government. It is contesting the authority of the present Administration. It mocks our expectation of a "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong after 1997.
Why do we suffer this? We do so because we are told that "convergence" is the necessary basis for a "smooth transition" in 1997. But let me suggest otherwise.
At Britain and China's behest, we have been attempting to "converge" with a post 1997 political system which, as set down in the Basic Law, falls dangerously short of our standards and requirements.
I remind this Council that we have already declared our support for the Honourable Jimmy McGREGOR's motion on 14 October that the election committee should be composed of the democratically elected district board members. China's ill-reasoned denunciation of the proposed 1995 election committee structure shows that "convergence" serves mainly as a useful cover for instinctive hostility towards democratic reform.
There is then the publication on 28 October of correspondence between the British and Chinese Foreign Ministers, on the subject of constitutional reform in Hong Kong. Though these letters do not, as China claimed, reveal a secret "agreement" with Britain, they do reveal an attitude towards democracy which is scarcely less distressing. They show that democracy in Hong Kong has been regarded, by London and by Beijing alike, not as a value, but as a commodity — something to be bartered, bargained over, managed and exploited.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 647
Mr Deputy President, I fear that some may accuse me of failing to justify my argument by reference to fact and to detail. I would like, therefore, to remind the Chamber of some of the specific problems which will confront it during the 1997 transition, however diligently it might seek to "converge". For "convergence" is powerless to solve problems inherent in the Basic Law itself. Indeed, by denying the capacity to amend, to oppose or to innovate, convergence merely makes the situation worse.
This Council's "reward" for "converging", we are told, would be the "through train". Very well. But how, then, do we accommodate Article 67 of the Basic Law? It provides, as you will remember, that:
"..... permanent residents of the Region who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries may ..... not exceed 20% of the total membership of this Council."
The problem is that we do not know who will or will not be considered a Chinese national after 1997. China's Nationality Law is too vague and untested for us to be sure how objectively that law will or even can be applied in Hong Kong after 1997.
Would Article 67 restrict those who can stand in all constituencies, or just in some constituencies? Would we do better to see who was elected and then draw lots as to who should be compelled to stand down? And would we then hold fresh elections to fill the vacancies, starting the cycle all over again?
This is the direction in which the logic of convergence pushes us. Is this our idea of a "smooth transition"?
Surely, it cannot be. Article 67 of the Basic Law alone makes it impossible to reconcile the principle of "convergence" with the idea of a "smooth transition".
Let me now proceed to another contradiction. I remind this Council of the decision that was adopted on 4 April 1990 by the National People's Congress on the method for the formation of the first government and the first Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It provides that members of the legislative Council may only continue to serve onward from 1997 to 1999 after they have been "confirmed" in office by a Preparatory Committee appointed by the Chinese Central Government.
The identity of this committee is still a mystery to us. The mandate of this Preparatory Committee is not only to scrutinize the composition of this Council for conformity with the Basic Law, but also to examine the individual Council members themselves. It must ensure that only those members who "uphold the Basic Law" and "pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" will continue to serve beyond 1997.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 648
I do not think that any of us here will have any problems pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR. But what does it mean to "uphold the Basic Law"? Does it mean to obey the Basic Law in so far as it prescribes particular courses of action? Or does it mean to espouse the Basic Law in every detail and not to question it?
If the latter, then any Member of this Council who has suggested that the Basic Law should be amended in any way has theoretically rendered himself vulnerable to the Preparatory Committee's mandate.
The fact is that, as in all other matters of interpretation, it is up to China. They are to be decided upon by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress — a body under the political control of the Communist Party. And because we cannot possibly forecast how the Communist Party will choose to exercise its absolute discretion in interpreting the Basic Law during and after 1997, we cannot "converge" in any sure, verifiable way.
Some of the Members elected to this Council in 1991 may not be acceptable to China come 1997. Yet those same Members have every prospect of being re-elected in 1995 if they choose to stand. We must expect that the Preparatory Committee and perhaps the nationality rules will then be used to block their way. Fresh elections will presumably be inevitable, and the possibility of a "smooth transition" will again be frustrated — not by any failure of "convergence", but by criteria invented and imposed by China without any basis in the Joint Declaration.
If elected representatives of the people can be removed from this Council by the Preparatory Committee, that would be a total abnegation of democracy and would make a mockery of the Basic Law's promise in Article 68 that the ultimate aim is the election of all members of this Legislative Council by universal suffrage.
Those who say that bumping off "one or two" elected legislators does not affect a smooth transition are totally misguided.
The Joint Declaration promised Hong Kong the freedom of speech and the freedom of the ballot box. Let us not be lured into conspiring against those freedoms in the name of "convergence". Let us remain true to our own beliefs and to our own values. And let us urge Britain and China alike to respect our right to do so.
Mr Deputy President, I come now to the text of the motion. It says nothing about convergence.
- The motion looks forward to a continuing dialogue between the British and Chinese Governments on political reform.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 649
- The motion requires that the dialogue be an open one. When the future of Hong Kong is being negotiated, the people of Hong Kong must know what is being said on their behalf. That is a matter of right and common decency. It should not be an occasional or accidental privilege.
- The motion requires that the reforms be fair ones, in which due weight is given to the democratic wishes of Hong Kong.
- Finally, the motion requires "acceptability to the people of Hong Kong" as the objective criterion for reform.
Mr Deputy President, since I still have some time, if I may, I would like to comment on all the amendments now because I think that may save time later on. Would you permit that?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have the right to speak to each of the amendments after the amendments are proposed. So it is really your option, Miss LOH.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: I think it would save time perhaps if I do it all now because I am conscious that many speakers would like to speak. If I may, I would like to carry on.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Certainly.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH:
(1) Mr Deputy President, the Honourable Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment to my motion is about further democratic reform for Hong Kong and supports in general the Governor's reform proposals. I therefore support his amendment.
(2) The Honourable CHIM Pui-chung's amendment offers hollow sentiments, in hollow language.
I have made my arguments against convergence and against illusory appeals to a "smooth transition" on that basis. There is nothing in Mr CHIM's amendment to undermine my case, and much to reinforce it. Convergence means not merely deference to China's wishes, but uncritical, unconstructive, unthinking deference. Such deference cannot possibly be in the "long-term interests" of the people of Hong Kong. The amendment is thus logically and politically wrong.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 650
As to the idea that discussions should be conducted on the basis of their "realistic acceptability" to the people of Hong Kong, I am torn between incomprehension and disbelief. Are we telling Hong Kong people that they have to accept whatever is thrusted at them?
The people of Hong Kong understand a very great deal, they understand much more than the governments of Britain and China often seem to appreciate. Mr CHIM cannot expect acquiescence and he certainly cannot be allowed to propose it as this Council's mandate. Our problem is to secure respect for Hong Kong's views. Mr CHIM's amendment is thus regressive and patronizing. It should be discarded in its entirety.
(3) The Honourable Andrew WONG's proposed amendment unfortunately does not answer our present needs.
Of course we hope that discussions between Britain and China will be "friendly" ones. But it would be naive to issue this proposition as our mandate. Discussions and negotiations of every kind have their ups and downs, their periods of rapid progress and their periods of reflection. If the interests of Hong Kong require the British Government to be firm, then it must be so. So long as it does so courteously and justly, no offence should be given or taken.
Much of the wording of Mr WONG's amendment has unfortunately been borrowed for less noble ends in more recent years, and I worry about the construction which might be put on Mr WONG's references to "prosperity and stability" and a "smooth transition". These are phrases which have been appropriated by the advocates of "convergence" in order to inhibit democratic reform in Hong Kong.
Accordingly, while I respect Mr WONG's sentiments, I cannot support his amendment, which would tend both to weaken and to confuse the message which we are trying to send.
(4) The Honourable FUNG Kin-kee's amendment is a virtuous one. But I am concerned that it would lead us away from the main matter of the moment, which is the principle by which Sino-British dialogue should be conducted. Accordingly, I oppose this amendment, not because I think it wrong in principle, but because I think the matter needs to be developed more fully at another time.
With these remarks, Sir, I beg to move the motion with the Honourable Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment.
Question on Miss Christine LOH's motion proposed.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 651
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Members may now express their views on the main motion as well as each of the four Members' amendments listed in the Order Paper. I shall ask the four Members who intend to move amendments to speak first, but no amendments are to be moved at this stage.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in 1840, the United Kingdom occupied Hong Kong by means of the Opium War. In 1984, that is 144 years later, the British and Chinese Governments reached an agreement and signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration. After four to five more years' joint efforts and numerous debates, the Basic Law was formulated. The Chinese Government, realizing that the Hong Kong community is incapable of adapting itself to communism and the communist way of life, put forward the idea of "one country, two systems" in its own interests and some Hong Kong people's interests. Actually, "one country, two systems" provides us with a very good choice.
Being members of the Hong Kong community, we should bear in mind the following four conditions or rights:
First, we should acknowledge that the Chinese Government will have absolute sovereignty over Hong Kong after 1997. In other words, the sovereignty of Hong Kong after 1997 will undeniably be in the hands of China.
Second, if we have no confidence in the implementation of "one country, two systems" and the Basic law, what should Hong Kong people do? The answer is: we should fight for the right of abode in the United Kingdom because the British Government bears absolute responsibility for us and has absolute obligation to do so, just like what the Portuguese Government does to the people of Macau.
Third, if we are not going to fight for the right of abode, we should respect the promise of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law. We should at least give them a chance to be implemented and give tacit consent to them. I am very confident in "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law which are going to be put into practice after 1997. The situation in Taiwan and Singapore indeed boost our confidence. Are these two territories not run by ethnic Chinese? Furthermore, we have experienced expatriates to assist Hong Kong after 1997.
Fourth, if we negate completely all the above-mentioned, it means that we have chosen the wrong path to move ahead.
Mr Deputy President, Hong Kong acutely needs a smooth transition and convergence in 1997. Convergence means the last Legislative Council elected in 1995 is to be converged with the first Legislative Council to be elected in 1997. Naturally some Members are against this view and say that it is unnecessary. Their reason is that if they are required to get off the train, then they will
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 652
certainly raise objection to it. This is in fact a selfish statement which is made not for the Hong Kong people and does not have their interests at heart. We must realize that if we cannot have convergence by that time, Hong Kong may not necessarily come to an end. But if there is no need for convergence, there is utterly no point in conducting any discussion and one can simply say that "I support all the 60 seats to be directly-elected in 1995". After 1997, the Chinese Government can exercise its sovereignty over Hong Kong and implement what it considers to be right in accordance with the Basic Law. It is undeniably laid down in the Basic Law that Hong Kong has absolute rights in running its own affairs. But we should not lose sight of the fact that China has sovereignty over Hong Kong. We must realize that we cannot say that Hong Kong belongs 100% to the Hong Kong people. If this argument were valid, does it mean that Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese? Does it mean that Tibet belongs to the Tibetans? Such a point of view will not be acceptable to the Chinese Government, nor will it be supported by the Chinese who really care about China. As Members of this Council, we must appreciate this fact. Actually, we have to be fully aware that according to the Basic Law, the Legislative Council in 1995 shall be composed of 60 Members. We all know that the seats will be fairly distributed and that all Members be returned by any one of three types of election. The introduction of different election methods is to suit different situations. There are 21 Members returned by functional constituencies including Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr PANG Chun-hoi, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Mr HUI Yin-fat and myself. How can anyone challenge that they are not representing the interests of the grassroots, or championing democracy? It is too arbitrary for the so-called liberals to say that others are not liberals and claim themselves to be the only liberals. As a legislator, I have the obligation and responsibility to echo the feelings of some people to this.
Miss Christine LOH's attitude is very arrogant just now. It is within her rights to voice her own opinions but if you look at her background you will not be surprised why she expressed such views. Her backstage boss is Ming Pao Daily. And she has practically allied herself with the United Democrats. Therefore, I think that she .....
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr LEE?
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I would like to know whether it is proper during debates to impute motives to another Member or to make unsubstantiated claim with intent to slander or to smear one's integrity and character. Thank you.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Let me rule on this, before you intervene, Mr CHEUNG. Members are well aware of the rules in Standing Orders by which offensive and insulting language is not to be used in respect of another Member
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 653
and no Member may impute improper motives to another Member. Mr CHIM, please be guided by those principles.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I will fully comply with these rules. I still have approximately one minute .....
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr CHEUNG, do you have a point of order? MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG: Yes, Mr Deputy President.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): I would like Mr CHIM Pui-chung to clarify in what way Miss Christine LOH is related to Ming Pao Daily News and the United Democrats of Hong Kong. And on what basis did he make such an allegation?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr CHIM, that is a point of elucidation which you are at liberty to elucidate or not elucidate.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I could decline to answer the question posed by Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong but I am willing to give a reply. Miss Christine LOH works for CIM Company Limited which at present is managing Ming Pao Daily News while Mr NG Sung-man, the treasurer of the United Democrats of Hong Kong, also works for CIM Company Limited. Therefore basically they have a very close relationship. If my observation is correct, this is how things stand. I will continue with my speech, therefore .....
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr YEUNG Sum.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, you have mentioned earlier that under Standing Orders, contents of speeches should not contain any statement that is damaging to a Member's reputation or any imputation about the motives of another Member. I would like Mr Deputy President to make a ruling on whether Mr CHIM should be asked to delete that part of the speech he made.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is very often a matter of degree, Dr YEUNG Sum. I have reminded Mr CHIM of the provisions of those Standing Orders and I have called on him to exercise restraint. Mr CHIM, please proceed.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 654 DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Miss LOH. Is it a point of order?
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Deputy President, I appreciate Members helping me out. I would like to just say that I excuse Mr CHIM for those comments. So we do not have to come back to this issue again.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is a matter for my ruling, Miss LOH, although you are very generous. (Laughter)
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the press in the public gallery should have realized the actual situation, therefore, I am not going to make a reply.
Being a Member of this Council, I am obliged to put the public in the picture. It is indeed necessary for Hong Kong to maintain wholehearted co-operation between the industrial and business sector and the working population to strive for a more prosperous future. If we disregard the importance of convergence, any motions and debates are in essence meaningless, and we may support the Hong Kong Government to do whatever it thinks fit for the 1995 elections. But this is totally unacceptable to the Hong Kong community and all thinking men. Therefore, it is necessary for the Chinese and British Governments to hold discussions in order to achieve convergence and to come up with solutions which are in the real interests of Hong Kong people.
Lastly, I would like Members of this Council to bear in mind the three points that I have just mentioned. After all, we should not forget that if we have no confidence in the Basic Law and "one country, two systems", there are still other alternatives available. Mr Deputy President, all my remarks are made with the aspirations of some Hong Kong people in mind. Thank you.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr Deputy President, the issue before us is very clear. The Governor, and therefore the Government, has put forward, for consideration by all the parties concerned proposals for the further development of representative and democratic government through the 1995 elections. It is the responsibility of the Government to do so. It is the responsibility of this Council to consider these proposals and to take a view on them. It is irresponsible for Members of this Council to suggest that, somehow, this vital issue is not one which should be put to the Council. If it should not then why on earth are we sitting here? Why did the Governor appoint many Members of this Council? Why did the functional constituencies and the people of Hong Kong elect many other Councillors? Did we go through this process so that we could "chicken out" when important and controversial issues come before us for consideration and decision? We would be a poor bunch if that were indeed the situation. We are supposed to be leaders of the community and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 655
yet some of us become very nervous when required to lead. Leaders do not wail and wring their hands and look to the North Star for guidance. They make decisions.
The Governor's proposals have pushed democratic reform in Hong Kong to the limit within the constraints of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. China claims that some of them have gone beyond these limits, if not in legal terms then in terms of the spirit and intention of these documents. On the basis of the secret correspondence we have now seen on the subject, I would say that the British position is legally correct but that the Chinese have at least one very reasonable point to make. They should make it in discussion and negotiation, not by megaphone and certainly not through their chosen business and professional friends in Hong Kong whose one-sided bias has been apparent to all of us for some of these years. Who are these people who allegedly speak for business? What element of business recognizes their status in continually backing China against Hong Kong and in particular the Hong Kong Government whenever a problem arises between the two territories. This group of wealthy, elite businessmen do not, in my view, represent anyone other than themselves and a very narrow and shortsighted sector of the business world. I say that with some feeling. They were virtually all opposed to me at two elections; so I know them very well. Yet twice I was elected to this Council by business voters. Every member of the Chamber knew that my political orientation was towards democratic reform; yet they voted me back into office. A great many businessmen support Mr PATTEN's proposals in principle and in general although they recognize that some changes may have to be made in negotiation and in the course of taking legislation through this Council. It is time we heard more from businessmen like Roger THOMAS and Simon WONG who have faith in democracy and not so much from those whose quavering voices are guided by profit and not people.
I amended Miss Christine LOH's motion because it did not require Members to take a view on the proposals and to vote in support or against. That is the least what the Governor should be able to expect from this Council. It is a strange situation to me that, as far as I can judge, the majority of elected Members support the Governor with some understandable reservations whilst the majority of the appointed Members, who have no elective mandate, seem prepared to vote against him. These proposals represent major government policy. Those Members appointed by the Government, if they really feel so strongly against these policy proposals, should, in my view, resign from the Council. That is the recourse they have and they should use it. Virtually all of them have called at various times for greater democracy in Hong Kong and I am on record for saying so. Yet when our Governor tries to provide it they turn away. The people will judge them.
As to the proposals, there is little need to discuss those affecting the Election Committee. These arrangements were already strongly endorsed at the motion debate on Wednesday, 14 October.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 656
The proposal for one-seat constituencies for 1995 has also been endorsed and no objection has been seen to the lowering of the voting age to 18.
So which proposals need negotiation? Only one major issue. That is the question of the nine functional constituency seats. The Governor's proposals for these are interesting, democratic and ingenious but I can see clearly that they cut across the understanding that we all had that such constituencies would represent narrowly defined elements of our society. Most people in Hong Kong thought so. China thought so. The new formula seems to me to have been thrown together without much thought for the practical difficulties. These will be considerable.
I support the concept but these particular proposals should be the subject of much detailed examination. If in the course of further discussion here or with China these particular proposals were substantially modified, I would not be surprised.
We must not be frightened by China nor accept bullying by Chinese officials. We have a strong case for further reform and we must answer to our consciences and ultimately to the Hong Kong people. China must be made to understand that nothing we do is intended to harm China. Indeed the very opposite. But we must deal with each other as equals and our views must be put forward to China without fear. We must go forward together or we may not go forward at all.
I say to you that Mr CHIM Pui-chung's amendment is an invitation to vote against the Governor, the Government and the clear wishes of the people of Hong Kong. My amendment will provide a vote for the Governor's proposals on further democratic development and for the people. Mr Andrew WONG's amendment will allow Councillors to sit on the fence. It is like a dog's dinner, so much promise and so little substance.
I now ask Councillors to support Miss Christine LOH's motion as amended by me.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, two days ago, that is, 9 November, I submitted my amendment to Miss Christine LOH's motion with a heavy heart. Today, I take part in this debate with the same heavy heart.
The focal point of today's debate is neither on Miss LOH's motion nor my amendment to her motion, to say nothing of Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment. It is actually on the amendments moved by Mr CHIM Pui-chung and Mr Jimmy McGREGOR.
In his amendment Mr CHIM Pui-chung emphasizes the importance of convergence, the convergence with the Basic Law and the convergence with the future political system stipulated by the Basic Law even though this political
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 657
system may not be good enough or democratic at all. To put it nicely, such a position is realistic and practical but to put it cruelly, it is submissive and kowtowing. Of course, it can even be described in more unpleasant manner but as a responsible legislator, I do not wish to and should not say such things on any occasions, not to mention inside the stately chamber today.
Mr McGREGOR's amendment shows his clear-cut stance to support the Governor's proposed political reform. He emphasizes the importance of democratization in the sense of democratization of our political system and stepping up the pace of democratization of our political system, disregarding the possibility that the relationship between China and the United Kingdom may rupture and China may set up a shadow government elsewhere. To put it nicely, such a position is idealistic but to put it cruelly, it is also idealistic but a kind of romantic idealism. There are naturally some harsher words about it but as responsible Legislative Council Members, should we really have to be scathing about it and go on endless rattling and hurling abuses?
Unfortunately, Mr Deputy President, the battle line has been clearly drawn and the battle has already taken place. However, Mr Deputy President and my honourable colleagues, have you ever thought that such a battle can be avoided? Even if it is inevitable, have we considered whether this is the most appropriate moment to open fire? Mr Deputy President, I earnestly urge my honourable colleagues to think it over again.
Mr Deputy President, the amendment I submitted two days ago seems to be a combination of different opinions but actually it is not so. My amendment is characterized by the deliberate omission of the two opposing phrases: "convergence with the Basic Law" and "in support of the Governor's political reform package".
Some people have already called me a fence-sitter and I forgive them. In fact, I am dissuading Hong Kong people as a whole family from painting ourselves into a cornor. Hong Kong is our home. Although we cannot decide everything ourselves, we really have the ability to bring about internal strife or disorder and the total destruction of this beautiful home. Should this happen, are we going to blame China and the United Kingdom, or indeed ourselves?
Mr Deputy President, the aim of my amendment is to remind myself and all of us of the fact that our pressing task is to urge China and the United Kingdom to conduct some constructive discussion in a friendly spirit. The sovereignty is not in the hands of Hong Kong but China and the United Kingdom instead. These two sovereign powers, in possession of sovereign rights, are responsible for ensuring that all future arrangements will be made in the interests of Hong Kong people and in line with their wishes. This is the responsibility of China and the United Kingdom. On the other hand, they should do so as this is what they owe us. We should unite to press them for discharging their responsibilities or repaying their debt.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 658
Mr Deputy President, my amendment is also aimed at reminding China and the United Kingdom of abiding by the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The most important and basic principle is to work for the interests and wishes of Hong Kong people and to abide by the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Mr Deputy President and my honourable colleagues, let me repeat that the pressing task upon us is to urge China and the United Kingdom to sit down and have a sincere discussion rather than to stir things up or even pour oil to the fire. If we go different ways and drive China and the United Kingdom to confront each other, thus ending their good relationship, we, as a family on board the same boat, will only be trapped in a situation beyond redemption.
Mr Deputy President, I have recently composed a poem in response to the current situation and I would like to share it with all of you:
The thin thin Hong Kong dollar coin
Heads the western Cleo
Tails the northern Leo
O you brave people of Hong Kong
O make your choice
The daily thinning Hong Kong dollar coin
On the casino table
spinning O its endless spin
Heads the northern Leo
Tails the western Cleo
O you clever people of Hong Kong
O place your bet
The thinly thinned Hong Kong dollar coin
On the casino table
still spinning its spin
Heads the western Cleo
Tails the northern Leo
The two wagering sides
squabbling O their endless squabble
O you poor people of Hong Kong
O what can you do
The thin thin Hong Kong dollar coin
Heads the northern Leo
Tails the western Cleo
O you brave people of Hong Kong
O make your choice
Mr Deputy President, I have already made my choice. My choice is Hong Kong; my choice is life. I am against Mr CHIM Pui-chung's amendment not because I do not support convergence and I am also against Mr Jimmy
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 659
McGREGOR's amendment not because I do not support the quickening of the pace of democratization. I think if you care to see my track record of supporting democratization, you should be very clear about my stance. It is my wish as well as Hong Kong people's wish to serve both God and Mammon, so to speak. Is it really impossible for us to do so?
Mr Deputy President and my honourable colleagues, I choose to call for unity. This is the moment we unite ourselves to press China and the United Kingdom for discharging their responsibilities. Mr Deputy President, may I earnestly ask my honourable colleagues again to courageously vote against the amendments of Mr CHIM Pui-chung and Mr Jimmy McGREGOR respectively and courageously support Hong Kong, our Hong Kong?
Mr Deputy President, there are bound to be people saying that this is a critical moment to decide some cardinal questions and we must take sides. It is precisely for this reason that I am calling upon different parties and political groups to allow their representatives in this Council to make an independent choice in voting. Let us make a choice out of our conscience at this very critical moment.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, today's debate actually touches on the fight for political reform and at the same time might involve the Legislative Council in the tug of war between China and the United Kingdom. I would like to look at these two issues separately. On the issue of political reform, I think that political reform has always been the goal for which our social organizations have been persistently striving. We have never given up; the fight is still on. I believe that we will continue to fight for political reform after 1997. Let me talk about my personal experience and some of the experience of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood. Before the Association came into being, while the review on district administration was underway in 1984, we were already, as a group of young people, fighting for the provision of more directly elected seats. In 1987, when representative government came under review, the Association was also working hard to secure more directly elected seats. I also set up an Association for the Promotion of Democracy with other political groups to fight for direct elections in 1988. We were demanding that the Legislative Council should have at least half of its seats returned by direct elections after 1997. We continued to work towards that end in the follow-up review of representative government conducted in 1989. In this regard, we can see that social organizations have never given up on their fight for democracy and political reform.
China and the United Kingdom contested each other on three issues. First of all, there were the Sino-British talks which later produced the Joint Declaration. Secondly, the two countries were engaging in negotiations on the airport and afterwards they announced the Memorandum of Understanding on the Airport. Thirdly, at the Joint Liaison Group meetings, the two countries
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 660
have frequently quarelled with each other, only to make up again each time. Hong Kong people are amazed at the spectacle of the two making war, and peace, time and again; it is just like adapting to the regularly changing weather conditions. The question remains, though, how much say do Hong Kong people have in the discussions concerning their own future. To what extent are their wishes respected? To what extent are the wishes of Hong Kong people incorporated into the policy decisions? If the seven diplomatic exchanges are anything to go by, I think the answer to these questions has to be none at all.
I would like to focus on social organizations campaigning for political reform. Spatial and temporal constraints do not apply in terms of a social organization staging a campaign for its own government to adopt what it regards as the appropriate, or desirable, pace of democracy. There is no way constraints can be superimposed on such campaigning either. There is no question of exception in respect of the different circumstances of country or people. There are people fighting for more democracy and greater justice in democratic countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and West Germany. In authoritarian societies, such as the Chinese society, there are equally people campaigning for political openness. In this connection, I do not see any temporal, spatial or geographical constraints concerning the campaigning for democracy. Insofar as the Sino-British rivalry for power is concerned, I think that it is something beyond the comprehension of our social organizations. We are not equipped to take sides. The reason is that we do not know what they are arguing about. Secondly, we do not know whether they have reached a secret deal behind the scenes. Since we have no knowledge of what they are arguing about, or what sort of deal they have reached, their rivalry for power should be a matter of their own. Since it is a matter of their own, it should not have a bearing on the campaigning of Hong Kong social organizations for political reform. In this connection, I do not think that we should get drawn into the Sino-British dispute, whether in today's motion or in any amendment motion. I think that today's motion or amendment motion should only reflect, and have bearing on, the attitude of this Council on the political reform proposals for 1995. To me, it is not a question of stating where one stands. Indeed, how many Councillors have still not yet indicated where they stand on this issue? On the very day the Governor gave his policy address, Members affiliated to the Co-operative Resources Centre, the United Democrats, Meeting Point and the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood have already taken turns to express their views; more than half of Members of this Council have already spoken. Independent Members have also stated their views. 60% to 70% of Members have already stated where they stand. It is for this reason that I consider today's debate should not be used as another opportunity for publicizing our political stance.
Insofar as the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood is concerned, we presented a political reform proposal in early September, one month before the Governor's policy address. Comparing our own proposal with the eleven reform proposals of the Governor, we can see some measure of agreement on one proposal, difference on another proposal, but total agreement
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 661
on all the other nine proposals. Put in another way, there is over 90% convergence between the Governor's proposals and our own. We believe that the Governor's political reform package has incorporated most of the views articulated in the past by the various organizations advocating democracy. It is, as such, more like a package emanating from the democrats, or shall we say Hong Kong people as a whole, than one invented by the Governor. It is for this reason that we are not so much supporting the Governor in this debate as supporting a political package of Hong Kong people, a democratic political reform package as it were. We support using that package as a basis with which to conduct dialogue with China. It should be a dialogue which has no superimposed constraints or pre conditions. However, there is one point which I would like to clarify about our position. We are very upset about the provision in the Governor's package for functional constituency elections. The Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood would go for the scenario in which each voter has uniformly one, or two votes. What the Governor has proposed is a scenario in which whereas the 21 old seats will be returned by one man one vote, the newly created nine (functional constituency) seats will give rise to some voters having two, or even three votes. Whereas the new arrangement is nevertheless an improvement on the old system in terms of greater openness, it is still not fair and not in keeping with the Governor's own principle.
Returning to the subject of this motion debate, I can see that the motion moved by Miss Christine LOH was originally to urge both the United Kingdom Government and the Hong Kong Government to conduct constructive discussions on the political development of Hong Kong with the Chinese Government on the basis of the wishes of Hong Kong people as indicated by the findings of a comprehensive consultation exercise. I would agree with that motion, but in its final version, the phrase concerning comprehensive consultation of public views is missing. I would like to ask Members whether the wishes of Hong Kong people have ever been valued since the start of Sino-British talks in 1983. To what extent have the wishes of Hong Kong people been mentioned in the Sino-British Memorandum of Understanding on the Airport? If at this Legislative Council debate we are still unable to talk about the wishes of Hong Kong people, then how are we going to go about this comprehensive consultation exercise? It has always been my view that democracy is not something which is bestowed on us, that it is something that people have to fight for themselves. We do not need a middle man; we do not want the Governor to play the role of a middle man. I do not wish to see the British acting as our agent. The Governor's political reform package is one that belongs to the people; we hope that the Governor would accept it, but we have no wish to see the Governor acting as our agent. We feel that the only thing the Governor needs to do is to provide a channel through which we Hong Kong people will have the opportunity to express our own views, and our own inclinations. Once these have been given direct expression, then they should form the conditions and contents of the negotiations between the British and the Chinese Governments. It is in this context that a comprehensive consultation exercise is required. And by comprehensive consultation I mean that a
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 662
comprehensive, scientific, and all embracing survey should be conducted, or a Green Paper published. It is an exercise in which everybody expresses his or her wishes on the basis of one person one vote. I think that the Legislative Council can at the end of the day pass the enabling law for the Government to make the final decision or leave that to a referendum. But what I have said about decision making by the Legislative Council, the Government or a public referendum is actually a separate issue from what we understand by a comprehensive exercise. Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
MR STEPHEN CHEONG (in Cantonese): Today's debate is a good debate. First of all, I have to apologize to you, Mr Deputy President, and other Members of this Council, for I may have to exceed the time limit of seven minutes, though I will certainly do my best to compress the points I wish to make. Given the fact that we in Hong Kong uphold free expression and freedom of speech, I would think that any restriction on the speaking time of legislators is fundamentally in contravention with the spirit of debate and the overall social climate.
Mr Deputy President, we are faced with a chaotic situation. It is up to us as a responsible government, and a responsible legislative body, to come up with an objective analysis and enable the public to look at the overall picture in its proper perspective. As a responsible legislator, I would think that we have the obligation to bring up issues which we should address in order that Hong Kong people will be able to conduct a rational analysis and make a sensible choice.
You will recall that while the Chinese and the British Governments were engaging in their talks over the future of Hong Kong, while the Chinese Government was putting together the Basic Law for the future Special Administrative Region, and indeed while the Foreign Ministers of China and the United Kingdom were conducting their diplomatic exchanges, the guiding principles involved in each process were invariably the maintenance of prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and a smooth political transition. These principles provide an important safeguard for Hong Kong people during the latter half of the transition period, and for their lifestyle to continue beyond 1997. We can see from the history of Hong Kong, and the present situation of other countries, that stability is a very important factor in social development. Hong Kong is no exception. I very much hope that this will be borne in mind by both China and the United Kingdom when they engage in further talks on Hong Kong.
Governor PATTEN put to this Council his political reform package a few months after taking office. Not only has China not been consulted as the future sovereign country of Hong Kong, but the views of this Council too have not been solicited in putting together that package. The Governor considers his package to be the result of his best judgement of public opinion since his arrival in Hong Kong. But how should public opinion be judged after all? No one can give a definite answer to this question. For example, whereas the Governor perceived public opinion to be going for the abolition of the appointment system
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 663
in district boards, we can at the same time see that most of the district boards, which represent public opinion, are opposed to the abolition move. Can we conclude that public opinion can be right sometimes, but wrong at other times? Should we, alternatively, select public opinion on the basis of certain preconceived notion in order to resolutely pursue a policy which suits that notion?
If the Hong Kong Government is determined to disregard the priority of convergence, which the British officials have stressed in the past, if it does not care whether the through train model will be derailed, choosing instead to implement this reform package of the Patten Administration, then we have a duty to inform Hong Kong people of the kind of consequences which this will bring about. We have to fulfill that duty as responsible legislators. For responsible legislators should not, and cannot, indulge in shouting empty slogans while turning a blind eye to the possible consequences. We should not misguide Hong Kong people and sacrifice their right to continue to enjoy a stable life style.
This reform package has already been labelled by the Chinese Government as going against the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. If implemented in Hong Kong, the result will be, when Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty, that the Chinese Government will reorganize the legislature in accordance with the provisions in the Basic Law. When non-convergence becomes a reality, then major changes will be made to the power structure. One should like to ask whether the social, political and economic impact which this will create should be borne exclusively by the six million people who will remain in Hong Kong.
Over the past month or so, many supporters of the Patten proposals have chosen to evade the issue of consequences of non-convergence, preferring instead to talk obliquely about their hope that China will, for the sake of convergence, decide not to, or dare not, change the status quo after all. But the reality which everybody can see is that China has repeatedly made it clear, and indeed the diplomatic exchanges between the Chinese and British Foreign Ministers have also indicated very clearly, that there existed a certain tacit understanding and agreement. Why do we have to force Hong Kong to get back to the drafting stages of the Basic Law? Why do we have to force Hong Kong to take the road which is socially divisive and will only lead to further intensification of dispute? The Sino British talks have been able to achieve results by keeping to the principle of seeking consensus and accommodating differences. If we are unable to uphold that principle, I wonder how we are going to solve all the obstacles which we will encounter in terms of the new constitutional arrangement and the discussion of other real issues which lie ahead. Who have forgotten to live up to the spirit of the years of Sino-British co-operation after all? Who have after all instigated the confrontation and made us forget the importance of convergence? Who have put the interests of Hong Kong people at risk after all? Who after all have seen fit to open the already
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 664
resolved issue of the future of Hong Kong again, in the remaining years of the transition period?
I have to remind the Governor that Hong Kong people invariably want stability and prosperity and that the smooth political transition is a matter of overall social interest. The Governor should not allow himself to be misled by politicians. He should not unrealistically and blindly expedite the pace of democratic development, merely to satisfy the selfish ends of politicians, and sacrificing the interests of Hong Kong people in the process.
The other point which I think is also worth looking at is that some politicians are misleading the people ......
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr CHEONG. Yes, Mr McGREGOR?
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: A point of order, Mr Deputy President. Time has gone well fast for Mr CHEONG. We are all subject to the same rules in this Council and I suggest that his speech be brought to an end.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As Members are aware, the time limit as to seven minutes is one that was agreed by the House Committee. I have no power under Standing Orders to enforce the agreement and the decision of the House Committee in this regard. So it is very much a matter for the individual Members to honour the terms of the decision of the House Committee. But I cannot stop Mr CHEONG.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Then, Mr Deputy President, may I protest that this information was not provided to all other Members before this meeting. We would all have taken a much longer time. We have subjected ourselves to restrictions in the interest of getting through the work of this Council. I think it is very wrong indeed for one Member to go beyond that time limit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So far as Standing Orders are concerned, Mr McGREGOR, I cannot take any further steps.
MR STEPHEN CHEONG: Mr Deputy President, I would like to respond by saying when the House Committee considered this particular issue we did not know that there would be four amendments and further possible amendments to the amendments. And in the interest of freedom of speech, there would seem to be little reason here in this Council to limit the speaking time of any Member. If I may continue.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 665
MR STEPHEN CHEONG (in Cantonese): We have to distinguish between a high degree of autonomy and independence. Given the indisputable fact that China will become the sovereign state of Hong Kong in 1997, any alteration to the system cannot be decided unilaterally by Hong Kong people. Looking back on the colonial history of Hong Kong, we cannot see any instance of Hong Kong people being allowed to vote decisively on any crucial issue. For otherwise, why would the British Government have described as unrealistic our request that it should grant the right of abode to our six million population. Also, whereas the majority view of Hong Kong people has always been that Hong Kong should cease to be the port of first asylum so we could get the burden of Vietnamese boat people off our back, the British Government, under the pressure of the United States, eventually exercised its powers as the sovereign state of Hong Kong and effectively made it impossible for Hong Kong people to take any decisive action other than voicing our protest. There are many instances of this kind; we have not forgotten. As responsible legislators we have to take it as our first priority, in keeping with the principle of a high degree of autonomy, to lead Hong Kong people to take the road which points to a smooth transition. We should not recklessly encourage Hong Kong people to turn a blind eye to the inescapable political reality, to go for a utopia which only exists in our dreams.
There are some irresponsible politicians who frequently use the economic achievement of Hong Kong as a bargaining chip with China, thinking wishfully that the Chinese Government has to rely on the economic power of Hong Kong to develop its economy. They foolishly seek to pressurize China into allowing them to experiment with their unrealistic political ideal. I regret their ignorance of the economic development in China. China has had a need for the economic power of Hong Kong to develop its economy in the past 10 years. But now China has already developed a dynamism of its own in terms of economic development. Furthermore, investors of South Korea, Japan and South East Asia have been eyeing China for its rich resources, vast market and phenomenal potential for economic development; they are only too eager to take over the role of Hong Kong in the China market.
It is admittedly true that over the past several years the flourishing economic development of Hong Kong has resulted in the improved living standard for Hong Kong people. The dynamism behind our economic development, however, has been attributable to China's policy of reform and openness and the excellent relationship between China and the United Kingdom. If a solution cannot be found to the Sino-British impasse and we actually end up with a situation where there is no question of Sino-British co-operation, then this will lead to instability, erode the confidence of Hong Kong and overseas investors and have a direct impact on the economic activities of Hong Kong.
It is feared that, given our present economic and cost structure, we will not be able to achieve the 5% economic growth forecast by the Governor, without the economic development in China which will contribute to our economy. It is in the context of this economic reality that Hong Kong should
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 666
devote itself to promoting Sino-Hong Kong economic co-operation and actively support the policy of reform and openness in China. We should refrain from blindly confronting China and become die-hard anti-communist fighters. On the contrary, we should patiently help China to go for even greater openness. For otherwise, Hong Kong's value to China will diminish, due to its own short-sightedness.
I am sure that there are people who will accuse me of talking like a scaremonger. But the fact is that these things can happen as they happened before in history. I want members of the public to be wary of, and take lessons from, what happened in former British colonies like India and Pakistan. The policy of decolonization pursued by the British Government following the end of the Second World War has resulted in democratic governments being set up overnight. However, it turned out that the sudden change actually came as a blow to the economic development in the countries involved, leading to political instability. This is not only proof that democratization should only progress gradually, but also that excessive speed in democratization will only have an adverse effect on development. This should serve as a reminder to us that as colonization comes to an end we must be all the more wary of any sudden generosity; we have to think very clearly about the consequences before we allow ourselves to be carried away.
Mr Deputy President, I would like to end by quoting another public opinion poll. According to a survey conducted by the South China Morning Post in May, it was the consensus of the respondents that the first priority of the Governor upon taking his office was to address the issue of inflation and Sino-British relationship was only a second priority. This is evidence of the far greater importance which Hong Kong people attach to the local economy and the issue of livelihood; they are far less interested in constitutional development. The reason for this is that Hong Kong people realize that economics is the key to their livelihood and it is after all a stable investment environment and a stable political situation which will form the basis of sustained economic development.
I support the amendment motion of Mr CHIM Pui-chung.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Deputy President, in the debate of 14 October in this Council, Co-operative Resources Centre's convener, the Honourable Allen LEE, succinctly stated our position and I quote: "CRC considers that Hong Kong must have progress in democracy. At the same time we demand a smooth transition through 1997. In order to reach this objective there must be convergence in the political system. In paragraph 128 of the policy address the Governor mentioned that most citizens are hoping for constitutional reforms that would be compatible with the Basic Law and thereby transcend 1997."
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 667
In the same debate the mover of the motion, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, concurred with this view. He said we are only concerned with the pace of democratic reform and a system which will bring this about allowing a smooth transition of sovereignty and authority to China.
On 24 October, on the Governor's return from China, CRC went on public record to state our position yet once again. We do not believe that it would be in Hong Kong's interest, nor do we believe it is the wish of our people, to adopt a package of reforms which has no hope of surviving 1997. Today we firmly maintain this view. For if Hong Kong is to pursue this route of uncertainty, not only will the constitutional development face disruption or possibly even an abrupt end, but other important areas where continuity of development rely on the good will and co-operation of both governments will also suffer. These include issues currently under discussion in the Joint Liaison Group. In other words, disruption would not only be contained in the political side but would overflow into other social and economic areas. Some such vital issues are franchise agreements straddling 1997, air service agreements and other international negotiations, law and order and many other day to-day problems that may be common to both Hong Kong and China and the solution of which depends entirely on joint efforts on both sides.
The latest poll published today by the Hong Kong Economic Times brings new revelation on the views of our people on this question of continuity. Over 50% of the respondents consider that the failure in reaching agreement by the two governments will undermine the stability and political development of Hong Kong. In other words, it confirms people's recognition of the negative effect that a break in communication between the British and the Chinese sides will have on Hong Kong and their overwhelming wish that the two governments should return to a course of dialogue and compromise so as to find a way which would put Hong Kong back on to the safe and sure course assured by the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
On this basis, we at the CRC urge both governments to demonstrate their sincerity and resolve by untying this knot, which they have both played their part in creating, by engaging in useful talks across the table with each other. Efforts so far put by both sides to muster support are polarizing and dividing our community and pushing us further and further away from the goal that Hong Kong people would like to see achieved. Communication, not confrontation is needed now. Convergence, not collision, must remain the goal. But if — and it is a very big if and it is not an if that Hong Kong wants to face — the Governor does decide one day to put forward a package of political arrangements to this Council, which clearly has no chance of survival beyond 1997, we regard it his responsibility to tell the people of Hong Kong that, contrary to a decade of consistent policy on the part of the British Government to secure convergence, he has decided to forgo the assurance of convergence and thereby put at risk the smooth transition of sovereignty. We maintain that such an important choice should be put to our people through a referendum.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 668
In his first speech to Hong Kong the Governor put forward the five key principles of his governorship, one of which is the importance he places on the building of trust between Hong Kong and China. Recent developments are seriously threatening this aim. Our people are anxious that both governments should take urgent steps to rectify this situation for the sake of Hong Kong.
As for Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, who calls himself a democrat, he has consistently ignored the views of the people who disagree with him and has called on those who disagree with him to resign from this Council, even today. This is not the way of a democrat. He advocates the killing of the enemy, the annihilation of dissent and pushing disagreement between the British and the Chinese to the brink of breakage to the detriment of our people who have to live with the consequences for years to come.
May I now say a few words about our views regarding the key elements in the package proposed by the Governor. These have been arrived at by CRC in the light of recent disclosure of exchanges between the two governments and views put forward by the community. Regarding the electoral committee for the Legislative Council, the 10 Legislative Council seats, we agree with the five principles and the arrangements for the proportional composition of the committee proposed and agreed by the two sides as indicated by the exchange of papers in January and February of 1990. We believe discussions on details should take place as soon as possible, basing on the guidelines laid down and agreed upon. And regarding functional constituencies, CRC considers the arrangements proposed by the Governor on the new constituencies to be philosophically a departure from that contained in the 1984 and the 1988 White Papers on development of representative government in Hong Kong. While we support that elections in these new constituencies as well as existing ones should be as open and democratic as possible, we believe the definition and scope of functional constituencies as contained in the White Papers mentioned above should be adhered to.
Mr Deputy President, I agree with Mr Andrew WONG that we need to be courageous and to answer to our conscience when we vote. CRC members know that those who advocate pressing ahead with the existing package regardless will call us names or label us pro-China, for we vote for convergence. But we have to do right for Hong Kong. We therefore support Mr CHIM's amendment, we oppose Mr McGREGOR's amendment which is unrealistically idealistic and irresponsible and does more to harden and deepen the dispute than to facilitate communication and compromise.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, since the Government made Hong Kong's political system more open by introducing representative government more than 10 years ago, the people of Hong Kong have never let slip any opportunity for practising democracy. The general public thirsts for more democracy and freedom, particularly in this transitional period. The reason is that they find the quest a more practical way of realizing "one country,
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 669
two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" in comparison with the guarantees offered in the documents, namely, the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. With this and the pragmatic spirit consistently shown by the people of Hong Kong in mind, I think that the Chinese Government should not look at Hong Kong people's pursuit of democracy in terms of a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, neither the Chinese nor the British Government has shown any respect to the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, thus resulting in the lasting, interminable argument about political development. This is a situation one is sorry to see and find it regrettable.
As everybody knows, the social services profession is one that is able to maintain the most extensive contact with the general public and understands their needs the best. During the past 10-odd years, professional social workers, particularly those involved with community development, made valuable contributions to the preparation of the ground for the establishment of residents' organizations, heightening people's civic awareness and monitoring district and central government policy. In addition, they stood in the front line with the citizens and acted as vanguards in pro-democracy movement. As a matter of fact, professional social workers are sensitive to the need of the times. They are not only concerned about political development, but also issues affecting people's livelihood or civic rights. Keeping their fingers on the pulse they have invariably taken the lead in suggesting timely improvements. Their professionalism has long won the recognition and trust of society at large.
With regard to democratic government, it is the belief of social workers that only a democratic and free society can give people full guarantee of the rights pertaining to their livelihood and of the fair distribution of social resources. All the time, from the Government's introduction of district administration, the Sino-British talks on the future of Hong Kong, the further development of representative government in 1987, the drafting of the Basic Law, the debate on whether we should have more directly elected seats in the 1995 Legislative Council elections to the recent political reform package, the social services profession has acted out of good-faith concern for society and called on both China and the United Kingdom to respect the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and to let them have a democratic government as soon as possible, which will produce a stabilizing effect on Hong Kong society during the transitional period. As history has told us, social commotion of a gigantic magnitude will follow if the pace of political liberalization fails to match that of economic development.
Against this backdrop, I think that the recent enthusiasm displayed by the people in offering comments on the Governor's constitutional package is in line with the trend. The reason is not only that this is their long-cherished wish to have a further democratization of government but also that they believe it to be their last opportunity available to win a greater measure of democracy before sovereignty is reverted. For these reasons, many recent public opinion polls not only indicate widespread popular support for the Governor's proposals but also
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 670
show that most of the people are not intimidated by China's threat to scrap the "through train" and smooth transition arrangements.
As a social worker myself and as a representative of the social services profession in this Council, I must stress that people's passionate call for more democracy is already loud and clear enough. In the policy address, the Governor actually proposed nothing new. He merely presented a well-defined package for discussion. Now the question is: Are the Chinese and the British governments willing to discuss and find a proper solution, based on Hong Kong's real needs to have a steady development in future and the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, and to do away with needless mutual suspicion, and to take a pragmatic and rational approach to remove prejudices and ideological differences over procedural matters? After all, the ultimate victims will be the people of Hong Kong if there is any Sino-British wrangle over their own interests or out of a matter of face. This is why I am supporting the debate in this Council today.
Mr Deputy President, I always hate gambling. I cannot agree with those who describe this constitutional package debate as a gamble involving Hong Kong's smooth transition and pace of democratic development. I do not think that it is a question of whether China, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong can afford to lose. On the contrary, I believe that what the people of Hong Kong would like to see is that both smooth transition and democratic development can be achieved at the same time. Our efforts will certainly pay off. In addition, it is the sacred mission of the people of Hong Kong to strive for greater measure of democracy as they seek to make" one country, two systems" a reality! I appeal to the Chinese and the British governments not only to go to the negotiating table expeditiously but also to disclose to the public details of their talk at every stage. Then, the people of Hong Kong will know that their wishes are not being used as a gambling chip by either the Chinese or the British Government. They will also know who should be damned by history for obstructing Hong Kong's democratic development.
Mr Deputy President, I have clearly stated the pro-democracy position of the social services profession. In regard to the original motion and the four Member's amendments, I think that the four amendments either are out of line with the original motion or attach so many conditions to it that they will not do any good to the Sino-British talks. None of them is better than the original motion. Therefore, I really cannot understand why colleagues in this Council wish to waste so much time on futile arguments. In view of this, I so make my submission in support of the original motion.
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in 1982, a Chinese leader made a point of asking a group of local reporters visiting Beijing, "What do you fear (about China's resumption of the sovereignty of Hong Kong)?" His question went unanswered at that point. However, it was common knowledge that the Communist Party was what people feared; they were afraid that the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 671
communists would not keep their promises, that they would go back on their own words. In 1984, the Chinese Premier of the time put it in black and white that "Hong Kong would be ruled by Hong Kong people by democratic means" at a reception which he gave to the delegation of the Students' Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Over the years, after endless discussions, Hong Kong people have now come to a consensus that democracy is a good thing for Hong Kong. Even the most conservative political groups also claim that they are supporter of democracy. I do not understand how it comes about that even today there is still a small group of people who will stop at nothing to oppose the Governor's political reform package which would give us a relatively greater measure of democracy. I think the most fundamental reason for this is that it has never been the wish of the Communist Party to allow Hong Kong to practise democracy. That explains why they have tried to thwart the democratic development of Hong Kong through the Basic Law. Whilst people all over the world are moving towards the ideals of democracy, freedom and rule of law, the Chinese Communist Party has spared no efforts in using the stick and the carrot to press Hong Kong people to give up their democratic demands. They keep on threatening Hong Kong people that if they fight for democracy, they are in fact heading for confrontation and sabotaging convergence with the post-1997 arrangements which is tantamount to undermining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. But I like to ask whether there is definitely no question of convergence if we are allowed to practise democracy. The answer is: absolutely not. Provided that the Chinese Government is willing to respect the common wish of Hong Kong people, that is, a greater measure of democracy, then there is a very good chance that the democratic institutions we put in place before 1997 will survive beyond 1997.
Mr Deputy President, democracy and convergence are not mutually incompatible. It is unfortunate however that the communists do not practise what they preach. While they like to say that Hong Kong people should rule Hong Kong democratically, they harbour deep hatred of democracy. They will try their best to demolish the political reform package of Governor PATTEN; they will not mind acting in contravention of the wishes of Hong Kong people. Indeed, if the former Governor, Lord WILSON, had not been so afraid of offending China and seen fit instead to go against the wishes of Hong Kong people, then the democratization process would have been much faster than it has been. Now that the British Hong Kong Administration has at long last agreed to respect public opinion and come up with a more democratic political reform package, albeit a bit belatedly, it is nevertheless better than no political reform package at all. Ever since the reform package was made public on 7 October, the vast majority of Hong Kong people have expressed their support for it. It is unfortunate though that there are people who are unable to resist the intimidation and coaxing of the communists. These are the people who have accepted their so-called "political reality" which makes it a requirement that developments in Hong Kong have to converge with an absolutely undemocratic system after 1997. They have forsaken their own conscience. Worse still, they hope that other people will follow suit, to give up their principles and accept the "political reality". It may be the case that they feel it less embarrassing if they
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 672
can get more people to join them in kowtowing to their northern masters. It is precisely due to this mentality that they will criticize anyone who is not willing to accept, as they have done, the convergence model; they will invariably accuse them of being unrealistic, engaging in confrontation, and sabotaging the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
Indeed, all this talk about political convergence and a through train model is nothing more than the weapon which the Chinese Communists use to intimidate Hong Kong people. It is also like a piece of cloth which the United Kingdom uses to conceal its shame over its betrayal of Hong Kong people. It can be clearly seen from the seven diplomatic exchanges which have been publicly disclosed earlier on, that the United Kingdom has always been afraid of offending China, that it reached a secret agreement with the Chinese side while repeatedly and publicly stating its support for the OMELCO consensus model. What it has done in the name of convergence is in fact an act of kowtowing to China at the expense of the wishes of Hong Kong people for democracy in the process. The Chinese Government, as well as the people who have sided with it, likes to repeat the same through train argument whenever Hong Kong people put forth their demand for greater democracy, in order to put pressure on them.
I am convinced that many Members of this Council are very clear about this point. It is only that some Members are just too keen on riding the through train, which means that they will choose to look the other way, or even tell tales unabashedly in broad daylight. I honestly hope that Members of this Council will no longer be obsessed by the temptation of riding the through train. I hope that they will wake up for otherwise this Council, which is made up mostly of elected Members, will effectively degenerate into a chamber which speaks with one voice only; it will literally be no difference from a wholly appointed body. If colleagues will always have to look over their shoulder and act in accordance with the wishes of Beijing, then each vote we take will be no more than a reflection of the prevailing edict from Beijing. How is our legislature different from the rubber stamp which it used to be before 1985? How can we put into practice the idea of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" which has been promised to us in the Sino-British Joint declaration? What we would like to have is a Legislative Council which will work in accordance with the wishes of Hong Kong people rather than a voting machine controlled by Beijing. What we would like to have is a through train which will take us to democracy, not one which we have to kowtow in order to get on.
There are people who are afraid of being forced to get off the train in 1997. They have decided to comply with the orders of the Chinese side; they will stop at nothing to please them. I gather they will feel that even if they are cursed by Hong Kong people, it will still be worth it. But I will have to warn them sternly that, however hard they try to please their masters, they cannot be sure that they will be assured a place on the train which runs through 1997. The reasons are that they may not be able to satisfy each and every demand of the Chinese side and they may also fail to outlast their short-lived usefulness.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 673
Though the Chinese side may value you today, there is no guarantee that you will not be driven out of the train some day and get someone else who is of even greater value to them then to take your place. It is in this regard that even if this through train will not allow just one of its passengers to get through to the destination, it is basically no longer a through train as such. There is no reason for any passenger at all to indulge in a false sense of security, thinking that the next person to be pushed off the train will never be him or her.
Nowadays, there are people, including some Members of this Council, who consider that if we implement the political reform package of Mr Chris PATTEN, then there will be no convergence in 1997 and what will happen then will be just as bad as the end of the world. I have to make it clear that advocates of the doomsday scenario are scaremongers; the real situation will not be what they would have us believe. If, come 1997, the Chinese Government did decide to start all over again, what this would entail is nothing more than another Legislative Council elections to be held in either July or August of 1997. Members who are to be returned by the 1995 elections can also take part in the 1997 elections. So long as they can secure the support of Hong Kong people, they will still be able to re-enter the new Legislative Council and to serve Hong Kong. It is for this reason that the starting over-again scenario is not a big deal. The world as we know it will not fall apart; the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong will not be at risk at all.
Mr Deputy President, the development of democratic government in Hong Kong has reached a critical point at this juncture. I wholeheartedly wish that my colleagues who have been fighting for democracy throughout the years will be able to hold on to their position. I also wish that all Members of this Council participating in today's debate will be able to decide according to their conscience so that their decision will be one based on Hong Kong people's interests at this critical point in the history of Hong Kong.
These are my remarks.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, since the Governor delivered his policy address, Hong Kong has been plunged into an extremely chaotic situation. The relationship between China and the United Kingdom has suffered a setback on account of the constitutional package. People with different political views in the community are becoming divided with the introduction of the package. The Legislative Council has been pushed to the centre stage to be held ultimately responsible for a political reform package which has been put together without its participation. The people of Hong Kong have been led to believe that democracy and a smooth transition are mutually exclusive, that they have to choose either one. Meanwhile, they also have to decide whether to support the Governor and to confront China. Before he has made any achievement in Hong Kong, the first thing the Governor did was to make arbitrary alterations to the existing political system and to demand that
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 11 November 1992 674
Hong Kong people themselves should be held responsible for whatever the consequences. This is extremely unreasonable.
On the issue of political reform, I think that the Governor disregarded the existing system and made at least three mistakes. First of all, it would appear that he has put together his reform package without prior consultation with the Executive Council. Secondly, he attempts to change the constitutional powers of the Legislative Council. Thirdly, he attempts to disregard the arrangements for Sino-British talks during the transitional period as stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. He has taken it upon himself to elevate the level of discussion of political reform.
It must be borne in mind that the policy of past Governors has always been to treat the Executive Council as the highest decision-making body with supreme authority. All policies and government decisions have always been cleared by the Executive Council before being prepared in the form of bills and put to the Legislative Council for endorsement. In this regard, the Governor in Council enjoys the supreme power but also assumes the ultimate responsibility. However, under the leadership of the new Governor, there have been some substantial changes at least on the surface. It seems that the political reform package was not put to the Executive Council of the preceding term for discussion. It is apparent also that the new Executive Council has not been able to participate in the decision-making process with regard to this package. For at the time of the reform package becoming public, the appointments to the current term of the Executive Council were not released yet. In this regard, it may be said that the Executive Council was not involved in the formulation of the reform package at all. It should not therefore be made responsible for it. Incidentally, by presenting this highly confrontational reform package in the form of a bill, the Governor has literally thrown the ball in the legislature's court. It is not only a deviation from the traditional practice of decision making, but it is also extremely unfair to the Legislative Council. The Governor has turned the Legislative Council into his pawn in his duel with China. He has pushed each and everyone of us into the front line to confront China, irrespective of whether we are eager, or reluctant, to do so, in the sense that we have been made to bear responsibility for the Governor's confrontational reform package. I would consider that legislators are made a scapegoat for his action.
I would like to give my earnest advice here that any attempt to manipulate the legislative mechanism of the legislature and to devolve to the Legislative Council the power to decide on policy and political matters in order that those legislators who are unable to join the Executive Council may still be able to share the powers that they have been craving for is as despicable as it is deceptive. It will effectively alter the nature of the Legislative Council as a non-policy-making body. It is also a constitutional change and in contravention of the spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. I would like to respond also to the view expressed by Mr Andrew WONG, which I disagree with, that if we seek to converge with the Basic Law, then our future