HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1119 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 9 December 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 CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., 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 ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., 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.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1120 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.
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 MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, J.P. 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 CONRAD LAM KUI-SHING
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1121 THE HONOURABLE GILBERT LEUNG KAM-HO
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG
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
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM KUI-CHUN
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
IN ATTENDANCE
MR DAVID ALAN CHALLONER NENDICK, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS
MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
MR ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, O.B.E., A.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1122
MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
MR ANTHONY GORDON EASON, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR CLETUS LAU KWOK-HONG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1123 Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Hong Kong Examinations Authority Ordinance
(Amendment of Schedule) Order 1992.................................................... 396/92 Public Order Curfew (Variation) (No. 4) Order 1992...................................... 397/92
Telecommunication (Hong Kong Telephone Company)
(Exemption From Licensing) (Fees) (Amendment)
(No. 2) Order 1992 .................................................................................. 398/92
Sessional Papers 1992-93
No. 33 — Sir Murray MacLehose Trust Fund
Trustee's Report for the period
1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992
No. 34 — General Chinese Charities Fund
Income and Expenditure Account with Balance Sheet and
Certificate of the Director of Audit
for the year ended 31 March 1992
No. 35 — Report of the Brewin Trust Fund Committee
on the Administration of the Fund
for the year ended 30 June 1992
No. 36 — Report by the Trustee of the
Police Children's Education Trust
Police Education and Welfare Trust
for the period 1 April 1991 - 31 March 1992
Oral answers to questions
Contracts, leases and agreements straddling 1997
1. MR HENRY TANG asked: In view of the statement made by the Chinese on lack of validity after 30 June 1997 of contracts, leases and agreements signed or ratified by the Hong Kong Government unless they have been approved by the Chinese Government, will the Government inform this Council:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1124
(a) of the number of contracts, leases and agreements straddling 30 June 1997 which have been signed or ratified without the explicit agreement of the Chinese Government, and what they are;
(b) whether the Government would now seek the explicit agreement of the Chinese Government for the contracts mentioned in (a) above in the light of the statement; and
(c) of the contracts, leases and agreements which the Government intends to sign or ratify between now and 30 June 1997?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, it is not clear from the Chinese Government's statement exactly what is meant by the expression "contracts, leases and agreements". It is thus not possible to give any figures in answer to parts (a) and (c) of the question.
As regards part (b) of the question, the Government's position is as follows:
(a) Firstly, the Joint Declaration makes clear that after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, which include the law of contract, shall be maintained, save for any that contravene the Basic Law and subject to any amendment by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region legislature.
(b) Secondly, according to the Basic Law, contracts which are valid under Hong Kong's existing laws will continue to be valid and recognized and protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, provided that they do not contravene the Basic Law.
(c) Thirdly, following an understanding reached at the 17th meeting of the Joint Liaison Group in December 1990, we have discussed major government franchises straddling 1997 in the Joint Liaison Group. These discussions have been productive and we are glad to note that the Chinese side intend in future to take a positive attitude to post-1997 investment in Hong Kong.
MR HENRY TANG: Mr Deputy President, in the main reply the Attorney General states that the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law and the December 1990 Joint Liaison Group meeting have laid down sufficient provisions to ensure that contracts valid under Hong Kong's existing laws will continue to be valid and protected by the SAR Government. What will the Administration do to ensure that position with the Chinese Government in view of the recent statement referred to in the main question, and if not, considering that one of the parties who has been awarded the Container Terminal No. 9 contract is now having
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1125
problems borrowing from banks in view of that recent statement, how can the Government simply ignore or do nothing to safeguard Hong Kong's interests?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, the legal position is, I believe, quite clear. As I have stated in the second part of my answer, the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law make clear provision for the continuance in force of contracts existing before 1997, provided that they do not contravene the Basic Law. As regards the Container Terminal No. 9, the land allocation for that has been agreed with the Chinese side and that will be followed by a lease in the normal way.
MR HENRY TANG: Mr Deputy President, I seek further elucidation.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think it strictly arises upon Question Time, Mr TANG. We have got a lot of supplementaries.
MR SIMON IP: Mr Deputy President, in subparagraph (c) of the answer it is stated that: "we have discussed major government franchises straddling 1997 in the Joint Liaison Group". Can the Attorney General please tell us (1) what those major government
franchises are; (2) whether the discussions were in relation to major franchises that are in existence now or those which the Government intends to grant between now and 1997; and (3) if the Hong Kong Government's position is that contracts that are entered into by the Hong Kong Government before 1997 are valid beyond 1997, then what the reason was for having these discussions in the JLG in the first place?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, as regards the first of Mr IP's questions, that is, the one on major franchises, each case is looked at individually and on its merits. I am afraid that Mr IP became indistinct thereafter; so could I ask him please to repeat the second question because it was not coming through very clearly?
MR SIMON IP: Yes, the second part of my question was this: With regard to the statement that "we have discussed major government franchises straddling 1997", are these franchises already in existence which will straddle 1997, or are they franchises which the Government intends to grant between now and 1997?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, the position is, as has previously been announced, that the discussions held concern the renewal of China Light and Power's Scheme of Control Agreement and the grant of a franchise to Tradelink for the operation of the community exchange system. As
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1126
regards the third part of the supplementary, once again Mr IP was indistinct; so would he care to repeat it?
MR SIMON IP: I was speaking louder than normal but perhaps I was speaking too loudly. The third part of my question was this: If the Hong Kong Government's position is that contracts which are granted or entered into by the Hong Kong Government before 1997 will continue to have effect after 1997, then what was the reason for agreeing in the 17th meeting of the JLG to discuss matters relating to franchises that straddle 1997?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, i am in some difficulty because I was not present, of course, at the 17th meeting and I can only surmise. But clearly as regards future agreements that straddle 1997, it would be regarded as sensible that the Chinese side should be aware of them.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could Members keep their supplementaries to single questions please? We have a large number still to be raised.
MR MOSES CHENG: Mr Deputy President, will the Administration be seeking clarification from the Chinese Government on the exact meaning of the expression "contracts, leases and agreements" as referred to in the first paragraph of the answer?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, I think, with respect, that rather misses the point. I think the point is — as we have made clear, I hope, this afternoon and in a statement issued earlier — that the legal position concerning existing contracts that straddle 1997 is made perfectly clear by the provisions of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in his reply the Attorney General mentioned that in December 1990, an understanding was reached between China and Britain regarding the signing of contracts, leases and agreements. However, China made it clear in the recent statement that such contracts, agreements and leases would not be recognized after 1997. Could I be advised whether that statement is in breach of the understanding reached between China and Britain in December 1990? Will the Administration release the information on the understanding reached at that time?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, I do not think it is for me to comment on the Chinese Government's statement and get into any question of whether or not there has been breach. The Government's position remains as I
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1127
have described it this afternoon. As regards the second part of Mr CHAN's question, as has been made clear before in this Council, discussions within the Joint Liaison Group must remain confidential.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy President, the Hong Kong Government must know what contracts, leases or agreements the Hong Kong Government has signed. Likewise, the Hong Kong Government must know whether these straddle 1997 and whether these have had the explicit agreement of the Chinese Government. So, with respect to the Attorney General, the first paragraph of his answer that it is not clear as to what the Chinese Government meant when it referred to contracts, leases and agreements is no reason why Mr Henry TANG's question, as far as part (a) is concerned, cannot be answered. I just wonder whether the Attorney General agrees with what I have stated, and if so, could he perhaps list out the contracts, if not now, then in writing, and perhaps identify them in a suitable fashion?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, as I have said — and I do not intend any disrespect — it rather misses the point. I believe the real point is: what is the law that relates to such contracts? Our position on that is quite clear.
DR PHILIP WONG: Mr Deputy President, irrespective of what the Chinese Government has said, does the Administration consider it proper to commit the future SAR Government in terms of contracts, leases and agreements?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy President, it is normal international practice that following any change in the government of a particular area the private law obligations undertaken by the previous government are inherited by the administration which has replaced it. That international practice was followed in the Joint Declaration which provided for the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, including the common law, to be maintained provided they do not contravene the Basic Law. Mr Deputy President, the continuation in force of the common law carries with it the continuation of contractual rights and obligations which derive from it and this was made explicit in Article 160 of the Basic Law which provides that:
"Documents, certificates and contracts, and rights and obligations valid under the laws previously in force in Hong Kong shall continue to be valid and recognized and protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region provided that they do not contravene this Law".
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1128
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Deputy President, can the Administration inform this Council whether in their assessment such contracts, leases and agreements include those signed and ratified by independent bodies such as the Hospital Authority, and if so, what will the Administration do to clarify the issue with the Chinese Government to ensure that there will be a clear operation in the future for the Hospital Authority?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: The statements in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law would, in my view, clearly encompass private contractual arrangements.
Slow-drive
2. MR VINCENT CHENG asked: There have been previous incidents in which drivers of goods vehicles and public vehicles have expressed their collective grievances by driving slowly or parking at prohibited areas in large numbers, causing traffic congestion and inconvenience to the public. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether any drivers have been prosecuted in these incidents;
(b) whether the Government is reviewing current legislative provisions to ensure that they are effective in deterring drivers and any other persons from expressing their grievances through these means; and
(c) what measures the Government is taking to discourage drivers or any other persons from resorting to these means when they wish to express their discontent?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, the police do not keep separate statistics on the prosecution of drivers in such incidents, but I am not aware that there have been any recent prosecutions of persons for driving slowly or parking in prohibited areas during public demonstrations.
The Public Order Ordinance and the Road Traffic Ordinance contain powers to enable the police to deal with such situations effectively. As I have mentioned previously in answer to questions in this Council, Part III of the Public Order Ordinance, which deals with the control of meetings, processions and gatherings, is being reviewed to ensure that its provisions are effective and in line with present day circumstances.
When groups of drivers intend to air grievances or express their opinions by way of a slow-drive or parking in prohibited areas, the Administration would try to persuade the organizers to settle their problems through discussion and without inconveniencing the public.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1129
If drivers take part in processions in the form of slow-drives, in large numbers, the police would make every effort to minimize the disruption caused. They will also ensure that the event does not pose a danger to other road users or to the public in general. They would do this by containing the number of vehicles involved, and by driverting them to localities where there will be less impact on traffic.
MR VINCENT CHENG: Mr Deputy President, I refer to the second paragraph of the Secretary's answer. Could the Secretary remind this Council what is in Part III of the Public Order Ordinance that allows the Government to deal with such incidents and activities so that traffic would not be blocked?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, Part III of the Public Order Ordinance covers, amongst other things, processions for which a licence is required and it gives the police various powers to deal with processions. This includes processions by vehicles as much as it includes processions on foot, and all the powers in the Public Order Ordinance relating to processions would apply in such cases. And there are also several regulations under several parts of the Road Traffic Ordinance which might be applicable in such cases.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Secretary mentioned some of the measures adopted by the Administration in the third and fourth paragraphs of his answer. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration considers such measures effective enough? If yes, why were there still incidents of slow-drive in the past? If no, does the Administration have any other measures to deal with them?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, we do not have any further measures in mind at present. We believe that the present provisions both in the Public Order Ordinance and in the Road Traffic Ordinance are adequate, although, as I have said, we are reviewing the provisions in the Public Order Ordinance. The point here, I think, is that in all these cases it is necessary to reconcile the right of the public to free association and free assembly and free expression with the requirement that they do not breach the law or unduly inconvenience the public. A balance has to be struck and it is in the final analysis, in our view, best left to the operational police on the ground to decide how that balance should be struck and how processions or demonstrations of this kind should be dealt with. And I believe they do so very effectively.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1130 Public Sector Reform Programme
3. MR PETER WONG asked: Will the Administration inform this Council of the progress in implementing the Public Sector Reform Programme, in particular the achievements so far in terms of savings in recurrent expenditure and improving the quality of service?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, in May of this year we established the Efficiency Unit to give added impetus to the Public Sector Reform Programme. Since then the Unit has concentrated on the following three areas:
(a) Firstly, the Performance Pledges initiative which was announced in the Governor's address to this Council on 7 October: as I explained in this Council last week, the first seven pledges by government departments will be made by the end of the year. These pledges will enable the public to understand more clearly the levels and quality of service they are entitled to expect and enable us to monitor that we are meeting these targets;
(b) Secondly, the development of structured programmes, which will help to define clearly a department's activities and enable costs to be allocated to each activity making: the Unit is seeking to introduce these, with performance measures, across the main appropriate government departments by April 1993. This initiative will facilitate the further devolution of responsibility to Policy Secretaries and to departments thus enabling them to be more pro-active when examining the benefits obtained from a given level of resources;
(c) Thirdly, the development of draft legislation to permit the introduction of trading funds into certain government departments: the Trading Funds Bill was introduced into this Council on 18 November. A trading fund, when implemented, will provide certain departments with greater flexibility to bring about the kind of efficiency improvements that we are seeking.
There is ample evidence that civil servants at all levels have served the community well over the years, using imagination, initiative and new technology to respond to increasing and changing demands. Essentially, the initiatives I have outlined are targeted at seeking a change in the attitude and approach to the spending of public money. The objective is to enable civil servants to continue to improve efficiency and give a better service to the public.
In addition, and this relates to the point of achieving specific savings on recurrent expenditure, the Management Services Grade will continue to carry out value for money and top-down reviews in departments. An information
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1131
paper on this work was recently issued to Members of the Establishment Sub-committee of the Finance Committee of this Council. In summary, over the last three years 73 value for money studies and 16 top-down reviews have led to savings of some 2 900 posts.
MR PETER WONG: Mr Deputy President, the Chief Secretary has said that the initiatives are targeted at seeking a change in the attitude and approach to the spending of public money. What action has been taken to impress on all civil servants that procedures should be geared to the needs of the public and less to their own convenience?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, the whole exercise of working on structured programmes for departments is with the view in mind of achieving a situation in which those programmes which are targeted towards the public, and other programmes as well, are analysed as to their effectiveness, their value for money, and also for the service they provide. I think in analysing these programmes we will achieve the very aim which Mr WONG is seeking.
MR LAU WAH-SUM: Mr Deputy President, will the Chief Secretary inform this Council which departments are scheduled to be converted to trading fund departments over the next few years?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, subject to the passage of the Trading Funds Bill, we plan to introduce the first funds into the Companies and Land Registries of the Registrar General's Department by 1 July 1993. Both provide an important service to the business community and we believe the introduction of trading funds will facilitate improvements in efficiency and the quality of the service to the public. We will consider a programme for other funds separately. Broadly speaking, potential trading fund departments fall into two types, those which provide services to other government departments, such as the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, and those which, like the Companies and Land Registries, provide services to the public.
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr Deputy President, the Chief Secretary in the last paragraph of his reply mentioned top-down reviews in departments to achieve savings. Can the Chief Secretary inform this Council what consideration has been or will be given to "bottom-up" suggestions by the staff for improvements?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, we do of course have within the service a system where suggestions for improvements from the staff are welcome, and indeed we even have a reward system which enables those suggestions to be encouraged. Clearly, as part of the general management
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1132
review, we intend to engage the staff to make sure that they are totally in agreement with what we are trying to achieve.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Deputy President, will the Chief Secretary inform this Council whether, apart from the savings of 2 900 posts, there have been any other savings in costs achieved through the reviews that he has referred to?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, it is very difficult to quantify in absolute terms the public savings which can result from these studies. Of course, by analysing the programmes in the way in which I have described, we hope that there will be a much greater degree of efficiency in that accounting officers and secretaries will be able to see the way in which public money is being spent and also how that can be more efficiently spent. And so it is a general approach rather than a specific approach. As far as top-down reviews are concerned, I can give an example, namely, that of the Immigration Department. This led to an implementation study which will be carried out in 1995-96, and through a fully integrated computer system the department now aims to improve efficiency with the savings of no less than 600 posts anticipated over that period. This is an example of the sort of savings which I hope we will be able to achieve.
MR PETER WONG: Mr Deputy President, will the Chief Secretary inform this Council what performance pledges his own office and the efficiency unit, which comes under him, will be making?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, in my answer to a question last week I referred to the various government departments which are giving performance pledges and we will certainly make known all the performance pledges in the course of next year.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, has this programme been affected by the present sour relationships between China and Britain and Hong Kong, or by other factors of uncertainty in such circumstances?
CHIEF SECRETARY: No, Mr Deputy President.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1133 Noise nuisance complaints
4. REV FUNG CHI-WOOD asked (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council of the number of complaints relating to noise nuisance received in the past two years; the number of cases in which the noise levels have exceeded the stipulated limits and those below them; and given that the public, in many cases, might still be seriously affected by the noise nuisance which is slightly below the statutory levels, such as those generated from air conditioning and ventilation systems in commercial complexes, whether the Administration would take steps to tighten the statutory limits?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the answer to the first part of the question is that in the years 1990 and 1991 the Environmental Protection Department and the police received a total of 8 835 complaints relating to noise.
Mr Deputy President, in order to answer the second part of the question as to the number of cases in which the stipulated limits have been exceeded or not exceeded, I must point out that complaints are made about noise from a variety of sources. There are five main categories: noise from industrial or commercial premises, from construction sites, from domestic premises or public places, from traffic and the inevitable miscellaneous. In the two-year period the breakdown is as follows:
Industrial/commercial 4002 or 45.3%
Construction 837 or 9.5%
Domestic/public 3413 or 38.6%
Traffic 178 or 2.0%
Miscellaneous 405 or 4.6%
Furthermore, Mr Deputy President, there are different limits for different types of noise, and these limits are set down in various Ordinances. For example, noise emanating from industrial and commercial premises is dealt with by the Environmental Protection Department using objective noise level limits specified in the Technical Memorandum made under the Noise Control Ordinance. Neighbourhood noise is dealt with by the police using subjective judgement. There is at present no specific statutory control on traffic noise apart from the requirement to fix exhaust silencers under the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulation, although there is currently before this Council a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance to enable traffic to be controlled under certain circumstances to alleviate traffic noise in residential areas.
As can be seen from the figures I have quoted, the source attracting the most complaints is industrial/commercial noise, with just over 4 000 cases. I will therefore use this category to illustrate the position as regards noise exceeding or not exceeding the stipulated limits. Noise levels in this category
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1134
are controlled by objective standards known as acceptable noise levels, or ANLs specified in the Technical Memorandum under the Noise Control Ordinance. Action in the form of advice, warning or the service of Noise Abatement Notices was required in 1 515 or 38% of the 4 002 cases because the noise levels exceeded the stipulated limits. The remaining 2 487 or 62% were found to be within the noise limits.
The next part of the question, Mr Deputy President, asks whether steps will be taken to tighten the statutory limits on the assumption that there might be cases in which the public is still affected even though the noise, from air conditioning and ventilation systems for example, is below statutory levels. The extent to which this assumption is valid is of course open to question. The Environmental Protection Department considers that noise below the stipulated limits will generally be acceptable to the public. Inevitably, however, there will be people who find even low noises annoying since noise can be assessed subjectively as well as objectively. However, in anticipation of an increasing public expectation of a quieter environment, provisions have already been made to reduce the stipulated levels set down in the Technical Memorandum under the Noise Control Ordinance. The revised ANLs were introduced on 1 November this year.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I am glad to learn from the Administration's reply that it has tightened the statutory limits just when I draw attention to such a need. In view of the fact that most of the complaints are against industrial/commercial noise, how will the Government go about publicizing the revised ANLs among the industrial and commercial sectors and provide them with guidance on how to comply with the new statutory requirements?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I agree that it will be appropriate to renew some publicity on these revised ANLs. The point I should make is that the new ANLs introduced from 1 November this year were in fact predicted to be introduced three years ago when the original levels were introduced under the Technical Memorandum.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Deputy President, as regards the actions taken with respect to the 1 515 cases where the noise levels exceeded the stipulated limits, will the Secretary inform this Council whether prosecutions have been carried out, and if so, in how many of the cases?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I do not have the detail of the breakdown that Mr HO asks for, but I shall gladly provide it in writing. (Annex I)
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1135
MR HENRY TANG: Mr Deputy President, some noise which may be acceptable in the day time may become much more intrusive in the evening when the ambient noise is generally lower. Will the Environmental Protection Department regard it as appropriate to consider setting a lower ANL in the evening for facilities such as pump rooms in residential buildings?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, the ANLs, under the Technical Memorandum, already vary according to time period and the difference is between the period of 7 am and 11 pm when the ANLs are for three different areas, (a), (b) (c): 60, 65, and 70 decibels, and the night period of 11 pm to 7 o'clock in the morning when they are 50, 55 and 60 decibels.
MR PETER WONG: Mr Deputy President, as a follow-up on the Honourable Henry TANG's question, could I ask what action will be taken to minimize noise in the public cargo working areas of Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, i believe this was the subject of a different question at a different time and I believe the answer given at that time was that those who are responsible for noise in cargo working areas will be advised, in the public interest, to reduce the amound of noise they make.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in the main reply, the Secretary did not indicate the number of noise complaints, apart from complaints of noise from industrial and commercial premises, which either exceeded or were below the statutory limits. Can the Secretary provide those figures to this Council?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President, I will provide the information. (Annex II)
Insurance premium for motor vehicles
5. DR TANG SIU-TONG asked (in Cantonese): As the sharp increase in the insurance premium of motor vehicles far exceeds the current inflation rate, will the Government inform this Council whether a monitoring system has been established within the existing legislative framework to scrutinize the manner of operation of the motor vehicle insurance industry and its revision of the premium rate with a view to protecting the interest of the consumers and ensuring that the insurance companies are dealing fairly with their clients; if so, whether consideration would be given to reviewing the system?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1136
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, the Government's arrangements for the monitoring of insurance companies are directed at ensuring that such companies are controlled and managed by fit and proper persons and are financially capable of meeting their liabilities.
The statutory powers granted to the Commissioner of Insurance to obtain information and to impose requirements specifically prevent him from requiring an insurer to amend the premiums payable in respect of any policy or class of policy. This limitation has been stipulated because both the Government and this Council have felt that the proper level of insurance premiums should best be achieved through market forces. Motorists may compare the policies and terms offered by any of the 86 companies that are authorized to write motor vehicle insurance before choosing the one that is best suited to their needs. There are also many insurance brokers who can provide them with professional advice.
A consumer who feels that the general policy terms and levels of premia he or she is offered are too high can approach the Consumer Council. If the complaint relates to an insurance claim, the Insurance Claims Complaints Bureau, which, in the light of the industry's Codes of Practice, adjudicates complaints relating to motor vehicle claims of up to $250,000 can be approached.
The Government will continue to monitor insurance companies, and continue to keep its arrangements for monitoring them under review.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, will the Administration or the Consumer Council discuss the levels of increase with the Accident Insurance Association?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, I cannot, of course, speak for the Consumer Council. That would be a matter for them to decide for themselves. I think I should explain that the Accident Insurance Association is not a cartel as I think it has often been represented in the media. It serves to provide its members with statistical and other information which enables them to gauge the extent of risks, and the premium rates that it promulgates are only advisory and in practice many of the Association's members vary the recommended terms. And, indeed, of the insurers that are authorized to write motor car insurance, only some 86% are members.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I may have to declare interest since I am a motorist. The Secretary said the Government felt that the proper level of insurance premiums should best be achieved through market forces. However, many people feel that basically the motor insurance industry lacks healthy competition as far as the rate of premiums is concerned.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1137
They charge motorists very high premiums under an unfair "cartel" agreement. Can the Administration inform this Council of the information available to support his claim that this is not the case?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, as I have already indicated, the Accident Insurance Association is not a cartel and it recommends rates only — rates that are not necessarily followed — and certainly there are a number of motor insurance companies that do not follow its rates even if they are members. As far as the question of whether the charges are fair or not, I mean that is a matter which we leave to competition. But may I point out that in 1990 the insurance industry — and this is based on published figures — made a loss of some $97 million on motor vehicle insurance and the preliminary returns for 1991 suggest that they made further losses although of a smaller amount.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I would refer to a very strange point mentioned in the Secretary's reply and that is, "A consumer who feels that the general policy terms and levels of premia he or she is offered are too high can approach the Consumer Council." As the Secretary has just indicated that the level of insurance premiums should be achieved through market forces, will he explain what is the point of approaching the Consumer Council?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, what may be regarded in general as fair terms may not be regarded as fair terms by an individual, and I think the answer to that question is a matter for consideration by the individual person who wishes to get insurance. If they feel that the terms are unfair, then they can approach the Consumer Council. It may be that their concerns are relieved when they find that the Consumer Council judges the terms to be not unfair.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Deputy President, in view of the atrociously high level of premiums that motorists have to pay as a result of rampant car theft plaguing this community in the last three years, the Government must accept that this is no longer a normal insurance market. What would the Government do to ensure that unethical insurers are not exploiting the opportunity to rip-off motorists to line their own pockets?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, I do not think I necessarily accept the assumption that because there has been a very large increase in premia this is a sign that there has been ripping-off by insurance companies of the general public. I have already identified that in 1990 the insurance industry made losses of some $97 million on motor vehicle
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1138
insurance. They also made further losses in 1991. The Accident Insurance Association has estimated that losses attributable to motor car theft this year are likely to exceed $450 million. It is clearly necessary for insurance companies to protect themselves against losses of this magnitude.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr Deputy President, can the Secretary indicate how many insurance companies have in fact given up motor car insurance as being too risky and too expensive, especially with the continued high rate of car theft all travelling in one direction?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, I do not have the figure. If it is available, I will provide the answer in writing.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, as every buyer of motor vehicles has to take out a third party policy, it would just be very easy in this circumstance for insurance companies to join hands to push up the premium rates. As such, the so-called "market forces" may merely be empty words. Can the Administration inform this Council whether it would set up a mechanism or draw up a profits guideline to check whether the levels of increase are too high so that consumers' interests can be protected?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, I think I have already indicated in my main answer that the Government does not believe that it would be right or proper to try and control the level of premiums, or to intervene in the market mechanism. I do know that in those economies where the government has sought to intervene, the tendency has been for insurance companies to withdraw from the particular market and therefore at the end of the day the person who wishes to get insurance is not better off.
MR HENRY TANG: Mr Deputy President, the Secretary for Monetary Affairs claims that the insurance industry is not a cartel. However, I just heard recently that on a certain type of vehicle the loss coverage for theft has been reduced unilaterally by insurance companies from 90% to 70% which is different from the contractual agreement. How will the Secretary substantiate the claim to this Council that they are not a cartel?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, they are not a cartel; there are many insurance companies that offer discounts on the recommended rates or do not follow the recommended rates. The fact that you have a general reaction to a particular set of circumstances does not, to my mind, of itself, prove that it is a cartel.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1139
MR PETER WONG: Mr Deputy President, what is the existing average delay between notification of a claim for a stolen car and the actual settlement of the claim?
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, I do not have an answer to that question. Again, if it is possible to obtain an answer, I will provide it in writing.
Patients' rights
6. MR TIK CHI-YUEN asked (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the existing system for safeguarding patients' rights, including ways to monitor the quality of private medical services and to deal with complaints;
(b) of the role of the Consumer Council in safeguarding patients' rights; and (c) whether there are plans to improve the existing system?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, in Hong Kong we have a fundamental principle that no person should be prevented, through lack of means, from obtaining adequate medical treatment. This is enshrined in the law under the Hospital Authority Ordinance. By this fundamental principle it is meant that services should be available on the basis of clinical need irrespective of one's ability to pay.
This is safeguarded by the Government's policy of providing heavily-subsidized health and hospital services, universally accessible and generally affordable. Additionally, in respect of the private sector, all private hospitals and clinics are subject to registration under the Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Maternity Homes Registration Ordinance and the Medical Clinics Ordinance.
To protect further the interest of patients, the quality and standard of health care professionals are set by their respective registration Ordinances and the relevant codes of practice. These are regulated and enforced by the relevant professional boards and councils, to whom the medical professionals are accountable as regards matters of ethics, good practice and discipline.
As regards part (b) of the question, under the Consumer Council Ordinance, the Consumer Council performs its function of protecting and promoting the interests of consumers of medical services in many ways. The Consumer Council collects and disseminates information. The Council answers
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1140
enquiries through its Consumer Advice Centres throughout the territory on the rights of patients and channels for patients to seek redress. It also publishes articles on general health and medical matters in its monthly magazine. Jointly with the relevant professional bodies and appropriate authorities, they advise on codes of practice and on ways to protect consumers. In handling complaints from consumers relating to medical services, when appropriate the Council refers cases to the relevant authorities for further action.
To further improve the existing system for better service to the community, providers in both public and private sectors are encouraged to develop a more patient-oriented culture. in the public sector, with the support of all concerned, the Governor in his October address has pledged to do this. We have made a start by undertaking to reduce waiting times at Accident and Emergency Units and at clinics. We are also taking the initiative to improve medical record-keeping and extend the labelling of prescribed drugs to all public hospitals and specialist clinics.
We further support the initiatives of the medical profession and other organizations in their proclamation of patients' rights and obligations. This is a significant step forward in safeguarding consumer interests in the use of medical services and consumers are encouraged to exercise their rights.
Mr Deputy President, the more people are aware of their rights, the better it is to ensure that their rights are protected.
MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I agree very much with the last sentence of the Secretary's reply that "the more people are aware of their rights, the better it is to ensure that their rights are protected." Will the Administration inform this Council whether it will take the initiative in laying down a patients' charter in order to better protect the interests of patients?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, as I mentioned in my main reply, a patient's fundamental right in law, as we see it, is to adequate medical treatment at an affordable price. The other quoted rights are only part of a bigger picture. Whether we call this a patients' charter, or any other charter, or a patient-oriented culture of service, the aim is the same. The aim is to improve the service to the patients and therefore to the community. In the public sector, this will be achieved through steady improvement of performance and performance pledges which are made public, and these service targets are monitored all the time.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Deputy President, with reference to private medical service, the Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Maternity Homes Registration Ordinance and the Medical Clinics Ordinance, as mentioned by the Secretary, only provide for the Director of Health to examine the records of the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1141
private hospitals. Does the Administration consider this adequate to regulate the standards of private hospitals and will the Administration seek to improve the regulatory machinery of private hospitals to ensure that the patients they serve are given maximum care and protection?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, indeed it is quite right to say that under the respective Ordinances (Cap. 165 and Cap. 343) the Registrar, who is the Director of Health, ensures that people serving in private institutions are fit to serve, that the premises are suitable, and that the functions of the various institutions are carried out in exactly the manner as prescribed under the law. At the present moment, the Director of Health, who is the Registrar of Hospitals and Clinics, finds that there is sufficient mechanism in place to enable him to check the performance of the private institutions.
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, as more and more people are aware of patient's rights, more complaints will be lodged. Does the Administration intend to set up independent complaints committees so as to follow up complaints more effectively; and if their allegations are found to be true, will the patients or their family members be given the right of claim?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, indeed it is quite often argued, and argued with great eloquence, that a committee, or a body of people, or what is often described as Medical Ombudsmen could either help with the medical services or the level of fees charged, or could either underline, or indeed undermine, the regulatory role of other professional boards and councils. As far as the Government is concerned, we are very conscious of the arguments for and against, and I think the positive and negative aspects of the proposals will have to be very carefully analysed. But I understand that the Consumer Council and the Medical Association are currently examining the feasibility of such a mechanism to investigate complaints of the kind referred to in the main question. I look forward to the outcome of their investigation.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr Deputy President, calling to mind a statement from the Secretary herself some time ago that she herself had to wait for a number of hours before she received attention in a government hospital, will the Administration, through the Secretary, inform this Council what steps have been taken by her to protect her rights as a consumer?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not really a public matter, I think, for which the Government is responsible, Mr LEE.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1142
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, will the Secretary inform this Council whether it is also a patient's right to end his suffering and leave this world so as to preserve his human dignity? If so, what has the Administration done in this regard?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that raises a very fundamental question that is not fair to raise on a supplementary to the general question that was put, Dr Conrad LAM.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in the third paragraph of her reply, the Secretary mentioned that private medical professionals have their own professional boards to which they are accountable so as to ensure the maintenance of discipline and the quality and standard of their practice. Does the Administration intend to encourage these professional boards to increase their transparency, thereby convincing the public that their decisions are impartial and that their existence is not for protecting the interests of the medical professionals themselves? I ask this because sometimes in responding to complaints, the boards would say, "There is no problem as we have had an investigation and found that there was no problem." In this way, not even an explanation was given. Will the Administration encourage these boards to include members from outside the medical field, or to increase their transparency in some other ways in order to render themselves accountable to the public?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, I will refer the substance of the question, that the deliberations of certain councils and boards should be as open and fair as possible, to the relevant boards and committees for their action.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in order to further protect the interests of the public as consumers, will the Administration look at the practices in Australia and some other Western countries, and set up an accreditation system under which private hospitals may register on a voluntary basis if they want to be recognized as having attained a certain standard and by which the public may know the standards of these private hospitals?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, I would take reference from the Australian study before I would venture a reply to the question. I would first of all obtain a copy of the report from Australia.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A written reply?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1143
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, that is not a study but a set of criteria laid down by the Government, and private hospitals may so register on a voluntary basis. If they meet the relevant requirements, they will be certified to have attained a certain standard. By this, the public may know the professional standards of different private hospitals. That is in fact not a report.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: I would take reference from the Australian Government and obtain certain details of their regulations and rules before I would venture a reply. I would have to see whether these regulations and rules are applicable to Hong Kong, because every country has its own system, and Hong Kong's system may not be susceptible to similar application of the rules and regulations.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr Deputy President, is the Administration aware that a body was set up by the now defunct Medical Development Advisory Committee to consider and set standards for public and private hospitals, and could the Administration inform this Council of the progress, if any, of this committee as it concerns the provision of standards in both public and private medical services?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, indeed, I was a member of the Medical Development Advisory Committee. These standards are being pursued by the current Registrar who is the Director of Health.
Written answers to questions
Thefts in southern Lantau
7. MR LAU WONG-FAT asked (in Chinese): In view of the recent outbreak of thefts in various villages on southern Lantau Island which are suspected to have been committed by criminals coming by sea, and the threats of such incidents to the peaceful life and property of the residents, will the Government inform this Council of the progress of the investigation into these incidents and the measures to be taken by the police to combat such criminal activities?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, during the period from 1 July to 1 December 1992, two cases of theft, 14 burglaries and four robberies were reported in various villages in the southern part of the Lantau Island. These offences are suspected to have been committed by criminals who arrived by sea. The latest report of such an incident, a case of burglary, was made on 5 October 1992, although the police believe that the crime had occurred some
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1144
time before the victim reported to the police. The situation over the past two months has been relatively quiet.
The police conducted full investigations in all these reported cases. No arrests have yet been made but enquiries continue.
Police coverage on land and sea has been stepped up to prevent further occurrence of such incidents. A co-ordinated operational plan involving local police crime units, neighbouring divisions of Marine Police and the Police Tactical Unit has been formulated, the objective being to provide a prompt and effective response to any further outbreak of crime in the area.
Chlorine content in potable water
8. REV FUNG CHI-WOOD asked (in Chinese): In view of the advice given by a number of experts that excessive chlorine in potable water may be hazardous to health and may even cause cancer, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the chlorine content in potable water in Hong Kong; whether the level of chlorine content in potable water may vary in different districts and in different seasons; and what the maximum and minimum levels of such chlorine content are;
(b) whether the Administration would compare the chlorine content of potable water in the territory with those in other countries such as Japan, the United States, Singapore, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, whether the chlorine content is on the high side or on the low side; and
(c) whether the Administration has any plan to reduce the chlorine content in potable water; and whether measures would be taken to educate members of the public on ways to allay the effects of chlorine in potable water on their health?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr Deputy President, the average free residual chlorine content of the final treated water upon leaving our treatment works is 0.9 mg/l. This chlorine content may vary to cater for variations in water quality, seasonal variations and other special situations. For example, during periods of water restrictions or cholera epidemics, the level of chlorine may be raised by about 20% to provide enhanced safeguard to the wholesomeness of the water.
Minimum and maximum values of 0.1 mg/l and 1.5 mg/l were occasionally recorded.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1145
The chlorine content will decrease on its way through the distribution system and the average residual chlorine content at the tap level, as indicated by previous samples taken, is normally within 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l, the desirable chlorine concentration as recommended by the World Health Organization.
We do not have records of residual chlorine levels in treated water of the mentioned countries. It should be noted that the chlorine level adopted by different countries will vary depending on the local water quality, treatment practice, climatic factors and hygienic conditions.
There is no evidence to suggest that "excessive" chlorine in potable water directly causes cancer. Studies have been undertaken to correlate trihalomethanes, chemicals formed when chlorine reacts with organic matters in water, with cancer. As reported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Science Safe Drinking Water Committee in its review of 13 epidemiology studies concluded that a causal relationship between trihalomethanes and cancer had not been established.
There was a study carried out by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in which 150 persons at a military base consumed water with chlorine level of 50 mg/l, and it was reported that no adverse health effects were noted. According to another study cited by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, chlorine content of more than 90 mg/l in drinking water would result in constriction of the throat and irritation of the membrane of the throat and mouth.
As the chlorine content of our potable water is very much lower than that which will cause adverse effects to health, there is no plan to reduce the chlorine content, which is required to ensure the wholesomeness of our potable water. There is also no need to take any action at this stage to educate members of the public on ways to reduce the effects of chlorine in potable water on their health. This subject, however, will be kept under review, in light of the findings of latest researches.
Illegal radiocommunication equipment in taxis
9. MRS PEGGY LAM asked (in Chinese): In view of recent reports on the use of illegal radiocommunication channels by some taxi drivers to communicate with one another, including passing on false traffic information to deceive passengers into using less direct routes so as to obtain higher fares, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of cases detected involving illegal radiocommunication equipment installed in taxis, the related number of prosecutions and convictions respectively, and the average and maximum penalties imposed by the courts in each of the past three years; and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1146
(b) whether it will consider increasing the maximum penalty under the relevant legislation and stepping up spot checks by law enforcement officers to achieve a deterrent effect?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr Deputy President,
(a) In the past three years, 395 cases involving the installation of illegal radiocommunication equipment in taxis have been detected. To date there have been 295 prosecutions in respect of these cases, all of which have been successful. The average fine imposed by the courts for these offences during the past three years has been $900-$1,000 while the maximum fines imposed have risen from $3,000 to $5,000 over this period.
A detailed year-by-year breakdown of the relevant statistics is attached.
(b) Section 20 of the Telecommunication Ordinance (Chapter 106) currently provides for a maximum fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for two years for the illegal possession or use of radiocommunication apparatus. We are now reviewing the level of fines throughout the Ordinance, and intend to put forward draft legislation which will provide for an increase in fines of up to ten times. The statistics I have quoted indicate that law enforcement action in this area is already effective. The frequency of spot checks carried out by the Post Office in collaboration with the police will be stepped up further as resources permit.
Cases involving illegal installation of
radiocommunication equipment in taxis
Year No. of cases detected
No. of
prosecutions
Average fine
Maximum fine
1990 90 89 $994 $3,000 1991 130 105 $996 $3,500
1992 175 101 $934 $5,000 (to November)
Notes
1. All prosecutions since 1 January 1990 have resulted in convictions.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1147
2. The number of prosecutions is lower than the number of cases detected simply because prosecutions often take place some time after the detection of cases.
3. No custodial sentences have yet been imposed by the courts for the cases prosecuted since 1 January 1990.
Loan sharks' dunning tactics
10. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): In view of the means employed by the loan sharks in demanding payment of debts from their borrowers, such as putting up dunning posters at various locations in the common areas of buildings where the debtors live, spraying paint, pouring water into the debtors' flat and even committing arson, which constitute a serious nuisance to the debtors as well as their neighbours, will the Government inform this Council of the measures it will take to curb such dunning practice so that the debtors and their neighbours will no longer be subject to such nuisance?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, loansharking, that is the lending of money at excessive interest rates, is an offence under section 24(1) of the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap 163). Any person who uses unlawful means to demand payment from his debtors, such as putting up posters in common areas of buildings, spraying paint, pouring water into or setting fire to the debtors' residence, would be committing a criminal offence.
The police give high priority to the prevention and investigation of loansharking activities. Publicity emphasizes the advice to the public not to borrow money from loan sharks. The police also encourage the public to report suspected loansharking activities and to be willing to give evidence in court against offenders. The police investigate thoroughly all reports on associated criminal activities to demand debts.
Many loansharking activities are operated by organized crime syndicates. Thus section 24(1) of the Money Lenders Ordinance is included in Schedule I of the Organized and Serious Crimes Bill so that the enhanced special investigative powers proposed in the Bill can apply to this offence; so that a person convicted of this offence may have his proceeds of crime confiscated; and so that the prosecution can present infromation to the court to argue for a heavier sentence. We believe that the Bill, once enacted, will enhance police powers to curb loansharking activities and other associated criminal acts of debt collection.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1148 Curriculum Development Institute
11. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Chinese): Since the Curriculum Development Institute has been in operation for more than six months after its establishment in April this year, will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) the work schedule and objectives of the Institute for both this year and next year and the progress achieved so far;
(b) whether the Institute will regularly submit annual reports to Legislative Council Members and educationslists for their reference, so as to enable them to keep abreast of the progress on curriculum development; and
(c) whether the Institute has drawn up priorities in reviewing and improving the existing curicula for primary and secondary schools; if so, how the priorities are drawn up and what consultative procedures have been adopted; if not, what the reasons for not drawing up priorities are?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr Deputy President, the answers to Mr CHEUNG's questions are:
(a) The objectives of the Curriculum Development Institute (CDI) are to draw up subject syllabuses and curriculum guides for schools and to support schools in implementing the recommended curriculum and other school-based curicula. The CDI seeks to develop a coherent, broad and balanced school curriculum for different levels, keep it under constant review, engage in research and evaluation, develop resource materials, train teachers and tender advice both generally and in specific cases.
In addition to its on-going tasks, the specific work schedules adopted by the CDI for 1992-93 are:
(i) to set up the CDI;
(ii) to conduct initial investigations into the four new curriculum projects recommended in Education Commission Report No. 4 (ECR4). These are the further integration of subjects at primary and junior secondary levels, the introduction of a modular curriculum at junior secondary level, the development of curicula for both ends of the ability range and the feasibility of introducing a Mastery Learning Programme;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1149
(iii) to develop learning targets, programmes of study and assessment guidelines for Chinese, English and Mathematics with a view to implementing the first Targets and Target Related Assessment (TTRA) for Primary IV and Primary V in 1993;
(iv) to publish, for public consultation, draft curriculum guides for levels ranging from kindergarten to sixth-form;
(v) to develop syllabus outlines and curriculum guides for Advanced level and Advanced Supplementary level subjects in collaboration with the Hong Kong Examinations Authority;
(vi) to develop curriculum guides for the hearing-impaired and visually impaired;
(vii) to negotiate with tertiary institutions on mounting in-service training courses for teachers implementing AS-level subjects.
As of December 1992, (i), (iv), (vii) and the bulk of (v) and (vi) have been completed. Work on the others is continuing.
At this stage, the specific work schedules drawn up by the CDI for 1993-94 are:
(i) to continue development of the four curriculum projects recommended in ECR4;
(ii) to finalize the curriculum guides for different levels of education in the light of comments from schools;
(iii) to review the Guide to the Curriculum for Mentally Handicapped Children;
(iv) to further develop, evaluate and review the TTRA learning targets, programmes of study and assessment guidelines and to extend them to Primary I to III;
(v) to broaden the expertise of the CDI by recruiting more non-civil servants. (b) The CDI will produce an annual report on its work for general information.
(c) In drawing up its work schedules, the CDI has been guided by the Curriculum Development Council (CDC) and the priorities specified in ECR4. The particular recommendations on curriculum
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1150
development in ECR4 have undergone extensive public consultation and received unequivocal public support.
The CDC itself operates through a system of co-ordinating committees and subject committees. Besides expertise within the Education Department, they comprise heads of schools, practising teachers, academics from tertiary institutions, representatives from the Hong Kong Examinations Authority, parents and employers. About 1 000 persons are involved directly in this work.
Import and export of high-tech products
12. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): In view of the recent policy changes of the international community in the export of high-tech products to China, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether there is any plan to amend our legislation relating to import and export of such high-tech products so as to facilitate trade activities;
(b) if so, when it will be effected and whether the procedures could be streamlined to cope with future changes expeditiously?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Deputy President, the Government maintains export control on high-tech products through the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60). Control is exercised in line with various international security export control regimes, including that of the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), and the list of controlled commodities is published as a Schedule to the Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations. The Schedule is regularly updated to take into account changes in international practice.
COCOM last year agreed on major revisions to its embargo lists. These involve significant liberalization in many areas, with the number of dual-use items (that is, items which have both civil and military applications) under control being much reduced. The Director-General of Trade has just completed a comprehensive review of the Schedule to the Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations with the aim of reflecting in Hong Kong legislation the changes agreed by COCOM. The necessary amendments to the Schedule, which will be promulgated shortly, will apply to China as well as other export destinations.
Major revisions to the Schedule necessarily take time because of the complexity and technical nature of the control lists. However, apart from major revisions, changes introduced in the international security export control regimes are implemented by the Government as quickly as possible. The legal
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1151
procedures are designed with this in mind. The Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations provide that the Director-General of Trade may, by order published in the Gazette, promulgate amendments to the list of controlled commodities.
Complaint mechanism in hospitals
13. MISS EMILY LAU asked (in Chinese): In the briefing on the Governor's policy address held on 10 October 1992, the Secretary for Health and Welfare mentioned that the Administration will consider setting up a mechanism in hospitals to receive complaints lodged by patients and their families on matters concerning the hospitals and the doctors. Will the Government inform this Council when this mechanism will be in place and how it will operate?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, the mechanism in place comprises several levels as follows:
(a) At the hospital level, public complaints are handled by the Hospital Chief Executive or Medical Superintendent assisted by a Patient Relations Officer.
(b) At the head office level, appeal cases and referrals from OMELCO or the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints are handled by a Public Complaints Committee, chaired by a non-official and comprising mainly non-officials, set up under the Hospital Authority Board. The membership of this committee has recently been expanded to include two members outside the Hospital Authority Board to ensure that complaints are investigated in an open and objective manner.
(c) Separately, the trends of complaints relating to individual hospitals or specialties will be monitored by the Patient and Community Relations Committee comprising a majority of non-officials so as to detect any underlying problems.
(d) Additionally, the Health and Welfare Branch scrutinizes the quarterly reports prepared by the Hospital Authority on the incidence of complaints or expressions of appreciation, based on the statistics supplied by individual hospitals.
(e) Finally, regular visits are made by Justices of the Peace to psychiatric hospitals at monthly intervals and to other hospitals at three-monthly intervals. Their comments and observations will be taken up by the Hospital Authority and monitored by the Health and Welfare Branch for necessary improvements.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1152 Statistics on documentary credits for imports and exports
14. MR ROGER LUK asked: Will the Government inform this Council whether there are any plans to request the authorized institutions to provide statistics on documentary credits for imports and exports with a view to complementing the orders-on-hand statistics now compiled on the basis of only a sample of manufacturing establishments?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Deputy President, in so far such statistics can be regarded as indicators of Hong Kong's general economic and trade conditions, the authorized institutions are already supplying to the Government information on loans to finance Hong Kong's visible trade and to the manufacturing sector. Summary figures on these loans are published periodically. As these figures have a wider coverage than those on documentary credits for imports and exports, and as the reporting of the latter figures would mean additional work for the authorized institutions, collection of the latter is not intended at this stage.
Noise caused by vessels
15. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): Over the past year, a number of complaints have been lodged by residents of Tsing Yi North and Tsuen Wan West about the noises caused by vessels using the waters near their residential areas at night. These include noises generated from the operation of machines and the use of loud-hailers. Will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the present control measures in respect of noises generated from vessels; (b) the number of complaint cases received in the past year;
(c) the number of successful prosecutions and the penalties imposed; (d) the measures to be taken to rectify the present situation?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy President,
(a) Noise from vessels, including machine noise and the use of loud-hailers, is controlled under sections 4 and 5 of the Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 400). The police are responsible for the enforcement of these provisions. The Director of Marine also ensures that the engine noise level of vessels is taken into account when annual licensing inspections of vessels are conducted.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1153
(b) In the past year, 44 complaints of noise from vessels have been received. These cases include complaints received by the Environmental Protection Department, District Offices, and the Marine Department. Of these 44 cases, six were from residents of North Tsing Yi and West Tsuen Wan. All cases are referred to the police for action.
(c) Three summonses have been issued and one prosecution has been completed with a fine of $5,000 being imposed. This is maximum fine for offences against sections 4 and 5 of the Noise Control Ordinance. The other two cases are pending.
(d) The police issue warnings about such noise and, through Police Community Relations Officers, advise people involved in maritime trades on how to abate noise. They agree that more emphasis should be put on summons action. The Marine Department are also advising tug operators to avoid making unnecessary noise, especially at night. These measures were reviewed by the Kwai Tsing District Board at a meeting on 14 May 1992, and its Environment and Planning Committee on 22 May 1992, during which representatives of the Environmental Protection Department, the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, the Marine Department and District Lands Office/Kwai Tsing discussed the problem. The District Office/Kwai Tsing is now arranging a meeting with the Hong Kong Cargo Vessel Traders Association and the Hong Kong and Kowloon Motor Boats and Tug Boats Association, to urge self-discipline among their members when using loud-hailers, particularly in the waterways between North Tsing Yi and West Tsuen Wan. Consideration is also being given to tightening up control on the use of loud-hailers and loudspeakers at night, and to requiring that the owners of vessels install more sophisticated communication equipment that will enable the use of loud-hailers to be avoided.
Imported labour
16. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the procedures and the time taken in processing applications for imported labour and in renewing such applications; and
(b) whether it will consider streamlining and simplifying existing procedures in the light of concerns expressed by some employers that their efforts in the training of imported workers would be wasted, and that a gap in production would result, if their applications for imported labour cannot be processed before the expiry of the contracts of existing imported workers?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1154
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr Deputy President, all employers, whether or not already holding quotas, are eligible to apply under the general labour importation scheme announced on 18 November 1992. They are allowed three weeks to submit their applications. These applications will be vetted by the Employment Visa Co-ordinating Committee before submission to the Steering Group on Importation of Labour, which I chair, for approval. Depending on the number of applications received, the analysis and vetting process will normally take five to six weeks. Successful applicants will be allowed four months in which to recruit workers. The recruited workers will normally submit formal visa applications to the Director of Immigration through the nearest British visa post. In the case of nationals of the People's Republic of China (PRC), however, the applications will be submitted via the Visa Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PRC in Hong Kong. It would take about a month to process a visa application counting from the time when the application is received at the Immigration Department.
These procedures have been simplified and streamlined wherever possible. For example, we have combined in one form the applications for quotas to import workers with the notification of vacancies which applicants are required, as a condition of the general labour importation scheme, to submit to the Local Employment Service of the Labour Department. We are studying the feasibility of allowing imported workers already working in Hong Kong, and who are re-employed by their existing employers who are allocated with fresh quotas, to complete their re-entry process in Hong Kong before taking their home leave. Whether or not these workers can do so would depend on the requirements of the respective countries from which they came to Hong Kong. A gap in production is unavoidable since employers are obliged to arrange for imported workers to return to their place of origin on the expiry of an employment contract. The opportunity to return home is stipulated in International Labour Convention No. 64 which Hong Kong has applied without modification since 1943.
Women's Commission
17. MR FREDERICK FUNG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) what progress has been made in respect of the proposal for the setting up of a Women's Commission by the Government, and which government department is responsible for taking follow-up action;
(b) whether the terms of reference of this Commission have been drawn up? (c) what sort of membership the Government has in mind for this Commission?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1155
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, the Administration has been examining the proposal for a Women's Commission and a decision on this matter will be announced shortly.
Auxiliary police
18. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): In view of the unsatisfactory state of law and order in some public housing estates and the manpower constraints of the police force, will the Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to deploying Auxiliary police officers to be stationed in the neighbourhood police units in housing estates on a regular basis and increase the frequency of their patrol duties; if so, what the current staffing and recruitment situation of the Auxiliary Police Force is?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, approximately half of the total population in Hong Kong resides in public housing. This ratio is not reflected in the number of crimes reported to the police. The total number of reported crime cases in public housing estates was 14 160 in 1990, 13 327 in 1991 and 5 867 in the first six months of 1992. These compare with the territorial totals of 88 300 in 1990, 88 659 in 1991 and 40 621 in the first half-year of 1992.
The manpower situation of the police has been improving steadily since August. The Force continues to be able to put extra policemen onto the streets. In line with this policy, a maximum of 850 auxiliary police officers each day are deployed to various police formations throughout the territory to complement regular police patrols and operations. Deployment is concentrated in areas more prone to crime.
In general, neighbourhood police units are not manned on a continual basis because we believe putting more policemen onto the streets is more effective to fight and prevent crime. Police officers, however, do frequently visit neighbourhood police units while on patrol duty.
The current strenght of the auxiliary police is 5 700. It is almost at its full strength and does not have recruitment problems.
Revision of textbooks by publishers
19. MR MAN SAI-CHEONG asked (in Chinese): In view of complaints about the unnecessary and indiscriminate revisions of textbooks by publishers and the possibility of publishers using illegal means, such as offering bribes, to persuade schools to use new editions of textbooks, will the Government inform this Council of:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1156 (a) the guidance given to schools for the selection of textbooks;
(b) the measures taken to ensure that new textbooks, new editions and reprint of texbooks with minor amendments by publishers will not be selected without good educational reasons so as to avoid undue financial burden on the students' families; and
(c) the measure which it will take to reduce the opportunities for corruption relating to the selection of textbooks for schools?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr Deputy President, the answers to Mr MAN's question are:
(a) The Education Department issues the following guidelines to schools on the selection of textbooks:
(i) textbooks should not be changed unnecessarily to avoid undue financial burden upon parents;
(ii) changes should be made only if the current textbooks are judged to be unsuitable. Where a series of graded books is to be replaced, the new series should be introduced progressively, beginning at the lowest level, and not simultaneously at all levels throughout the school, except in the event of implementating a new syllabus;
(iii) any proposal to replace a book on the Recommended Lists (see (b) below) by another book which is not on those lists should be supported by good educational reasons;
(iv) to help parents decide whether to buy new or second-hand books, schools should give full details of all textbooks required for the new term in their book lists;
(v) the selection of textbooks and instructional material is a matter requiring care and thought. The guiding principle should be the specific educational needs of the pupils. Workbooks, supplementary exercises and tests which bear little or no relevance to the curriculum and teaching programmes should not be recommended for use.
(b) The Education Department issues Recommended Textbooks Lists regularly. Schools are advised to select textbooks from these lists. Those who choose books which are not on the lists may be required to justify their choice.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1157
In response to a recent Education Department initiative, publishers have agreed to the following:
(i) a title once put on the Recommended Lists will not normally be reviewed again for three years, except for justifiable reasons;
(ii) revisions to and new editions of recommended textbooks must be submitted to the Education Department for review;
(iii) any reprints involving minor amendments other than typographical errors must have the Department's prior agreement;
(iv) titles involving unnecessary amendments will be removed from the Recommended Lists.
We believe that these measures, together with the guidelines described in (a) above, are sufficient to protect the interests of parents.
(c) The Education Department reminds schools regularly of the need to minimize opportunities for corruption relating to the selection of textbooks. This advice was last updated in April 1992 after the ICAC's Corruption Prevention Department had conducted an in-depth review of textbook selection processes by schools. If these guidelines are adhered to, textbooks would be selected by collective decision, based on the assessment of individual teachers, with deviations backed up by documented reasons to protect against allegations of unfairness or impropriety. Headmasters consider these guidelines to be clear and helpful. Moreover, ICAC staff regularly visit schools to explain the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and to offer advice as appropriate.
Statement
Commission of Inquiry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Chief Secretary has a statement.
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, the Administration understands that Members of this Council are concerned about the acquittal without trial of the defendant in a recent murder case. The specific concerns relate to the refusal of the key witness to testify in court and the decision to offer no evidence in that case. A main general concern is whether prosecution witnesses are given adequate protection where this is appropriate.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1158
Mr Deputy President, in the light of these concerns, the Administration is prepared to recommend to the Governor in Council the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance and to give any such Commission its full co operation in the inquiry.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs Miriam LAU, you have a question?
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Yes, Mr Deputy President. I wish to seek elucidation from the Chief Secretary. The statement from the Chief Secretary does not cover points like terms of reference and who the Commission should report to. Would the Chief Secretary inform this Council whether the terms of reference set out in my amendment to Mr TO's motion will be included in the appointment of the Commission, whether the Commission will be directed to report to the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, and whether the Government will give an assurance that this will be done?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr Deputy President, any such Commission of Inquiry is established under the instruction of the Governor with the advice of the Executive Council. I will certainly make sure that the points raised by Mrs LAU are taken into account in the consideration of the inquiry.
Motion
IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY moved the following motion:
"That section 18(3) and parts VIIA and VIIB of the Immigration Ordinance shall expire on 31 December 1993."
He said: Mr Deputy President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It seeks to extend section 18(3) and parts VIIA and VIIB of the Immigration Ordinance for a further one year.
Section 18(3) of the Immigration Ordinance removes the limit of two months during which an immigration officer must remove a person refused permission to land in Hong Kong, if it appears to the Director of Immigration that person was previously resident in Vietnam. This subsection has been re-enacted annually and will expire on 31 December this year unless extended by resolution of this Council.
Parts VIIA and VIIB of the Ordinance were enacted in 1979 to provide more effective sanctions against the traffic in illegal immigrants. Under these provisions, any person who helps illegal immigrants to enter Hong Kong
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1159
commits an offence. Offenders are liable on conviction to a fine of up to $5 million and imprisonment for life. The ships and other property involved are liable to forfeiture. These two parts have also been re-enacted annually and will expire on 31 December unless extended. I believe that these provisions are still necessary.
They are necessary despite progress in the repatriation of Vietnamese migrants over the last year, which I will take this opportunity to summarize for Members. In the first eleven months of this year, only 12 asylum-seekers from Vietnam have come to Hong Kong. Over the same period, the number returning to Vietnam under our Orderly Return Programme and the UNHCR's voluntary programme has averaged over 1 000 a month. But it will be some considerable time before all migrants (of whom there remain over 43 000) are repatriated. There is also the particular problem of what are called ECVIIs, Ex-China Vietnamese Illegal Immigrants. It is a particularly difficult and time consuming exercise to ascertain in each such case the fact of their previous residence and settlement in China which we must do before we can seek Chinese agreement to take them back. We need to retain section 18(3) to enable us to continue with our programme of repatriation in these cases.
Illegal immigration from China also remains a very serious problem. In the first eleven months of this year, there were 32 427 arrests of illegal immigrants: nearly 40% up on the same period last year. The main cause has been the illusion of jobs on the new airport site and other major projects, encouraged as always by deliberate misrepresentation and false rumours spread by the "snakeheads" who traffick in illegal immigrants. It is necessary to retain the strong sanctions provided by parts VIIA and VIIB of the Ordinance against those who engage in this trade. If we simply removed these sanctions, it would send quite the wrong message generally, and specifically it would mean that we could not prosecute effectively either couriers of minor illegal immigrants or crew members of snakeboats. Although there are other sections of the Ordinance that can be utilized against trafficking, none would be as effective as these provisions, which were designed to meet the serious problems of large-scale syndicated illegal immigration. That is still very much with us.
It is against this background that we need to retain these provisions in the Immigration Ordinance. As on previous occasions, we propose extending the provisions by one year.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr Deputy President, this resolution looks very innocuous. And since 1979, this Council has passed a similar resolution without debate at the end of every year.
But this year is different, because the number of illegal immigrants from Vietnam has dwindled to, I believe, only 12 so far this year.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1160
Section 37B of the Immigration Ordinance provides that the Governor in Council may by order declare any class or description of persons to be unauthorized entrants. And by the Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) Order dated 7 August 1979, the Governor in Council declared all persons resident or formerly resident in Vietnam and Macau and all persons who leave the PRC without exit permits to be unauthorized entrants. This section of the law, to say the least, is racist. And I ask whether such provisions of law are acceptable to Hong Kong at this date and age.
The relevant provisions under the Immigration Ordinance which the Administration seeks to extend for another year are extremely draconian; and I will give just one example to Members to show how objectionable some of these provisions are.
Section 37K(2) of the Immigration Ordinance provides (inter alia) that where a person is charged with an offence of being a member of the crew of a ship which had brought illegal immigrants into Hong Kong, all that the prosecution need do is to produce a certificate signed by a police superintendent certifying that the defendant was a member of the ship's crew, and the Court will presume that as a fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. And if convicted, this crew member may be fined the maximum of $5,000,000 and imprisonment for life.
I would like to remind Members of Article 11 of the Bill of Rights which provides: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Quite apart from BOR considerations, these provisions under the Immigration Ordinance, as evidenced by the penalty I mentioned above, are extremely draconian and this was known to this Council when they were first enacted in 1979. Thus, it is expressly provided that these parts would expire automatically at the end of the year unless extended for another year by positive resolution of this Council.
With the passage of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and with the sharp drop in boat people arriving from Vietnam, there is no justification for these parts to be extended for another year without modification.
But I have been assured by the Secretary for Security that it is his intention to conduct an overall review of the Immigration Ordinance in relation to the problem of illegal immigrants from Vietnam and the PRC. I welcome such a review, and I would suggest that it should include the policies of the Administration in relation to the different treatment given to different illegal immigrants from the PRC. For example, if three or more illegal immigrants from the PRC are found in a construction site, not only are they prosecuted but the prosecution expects an immediate custodial sentence of 15 months to be imposed on them even though they are first offenders and even though they are
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1161
as young as 14. But if only one or two are found, they would be repatriated to the PRC if they are first offenders.
I hope that when the Administration is conducting the review, they would work with the Security Panel of this Council so that we could bring back some respectability into our Immigration Ordinance.
On the promised undertaking of the Secretary for Security for a review, the UDHK will abstain from voting on this resolution rather than vote against it.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy President, I have had the opportunity to discuss with Mr Martin LEE the points he has raised this afternoon. I accept that there is a need to look again at these provisions, particularly in the light of the recent much more favourable signs of a resolution of the long-standing problem of illegal immigration from Vietnam. I also agree that we should review the statutory presumptions of guilt in parts VIIA and VIIB of the Immigration Ordinance relating to trafficking in illegal immigrants generally. As I have said, we still have a serious problem of illegal immigration from China and we need to retain effective power to combat that problem. But it is our intention to retain only those powers which are justified and necessary and no more than necessary. I am therefore very willing to undertake that we will review these provisions and bring forward for the consideration of Members of this Council proposals on that basis. As regards the final point which Mr Martin LEE makes relating to prosecution, I do feel however that I must make it clear, as I have in the past, that prosecutions are a matter for the Attorney General.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
First Reading of Bills
HOUSING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
HOUSING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Housing Ordinance."
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1162
He said: Mr Deputy President, I move the Second Reading of the Housing (Amendment) Bill 1992, the basic purpose of which is to improve the efficiency of public housing estate management and to tie up some loose ends in the existing legislation.
The Bill will empower the Housing Authority to make bylaws for the issue of fixed penalty parking tickets to control parking offences on estate roads. Under existing legislation, the Housing Authority has powers to impound or tow away vehicles illegally parked in its estates, or to prosecute the offending motorists by summons. The procedures are time-consuming, require considerable manpower and supporting resources and have little deterrent effect. There is thus a need to strengthen the Authority's powers. Under the Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance, the fixed penalty ticket system has proved to be a very effective means to deter indiscriminate parking on public roads. The Authority proposes to introduce a similar system for more effective control over estate roads.
The Bill also seeks to enable the Authority to delegate certain of its powers and functions to other persons in relation to the control and management of commercial facilities and carparks. In recent years, the Authority has increased the private sector involvement in the management of its shopping centres and markets in order to take advantage of its expertise and better responsiveness to market needs. In line with private sector practice, there is a need to allow for greater flexibility in management contracts, to allow, for example, for granting a tenancy to a tenant with a proven track record who may then sublet or license parts of department store, food court, super store or market premises while retaining overall management responsibility. There is also a need to provide for this explicitly in the Housing Ordinance as proposed in the Bill. As regards car park management, the Bill will enable private operators under a management contract to exercise the powers available to the Housing Authority in connection with road and vehicle management in the estates except the powers to prosecute offending motorists and to issue fixed penalty tickets.
Another aspect of the Bill relates to the hearing of tenancy appeals. It has been the practice of the Housing Authority's Tenancy Appeals Committee to hear appeals in tribunals formed by selecting a few members by rotation for administrative convenience. For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill will give express power to the Housing Authority to appoint tribunals from a panel to hear these appeals.
Various other minor amendments of a technical nature are proposed on which I do not consider it necessary to elaborate at this stage.
Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1163 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Water Pollution Control Ordinance."
He said: Mr Deputy President, I move the Second Reading of the Water Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill.
The 1989 White Paper Pollution in Hong Kong — A time to act indicated the need to review the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. The Water Pollution Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1990 replaced exemptions for existing discharges and deposits with an entitlement to a licence under specified conditions and provided for better control over discharges in water control zones. The latest Bill seeks to improve enforcement under and the effectiveness of the Ordinance further, and to add regulation-making powers necessary for the construction of sewerage and related works required to control water pollution.
Members are aware that we have embarked on a massive new sewerage programme for Hong Kong. At present, there is no statutory power to require private property owners to connect their wastewater to new public sewers when these are provided. This means that our intentions as regards improving water quality could be frustrated and some of our substantial investment in new sewerage facilities wasted. Clause 28 therefore proposes that, under regulations to be made under the Amendment Bill, the Authority, which is the Director of Environmental Protection, may serve notice and require property owners to convey their wastewater to a terminal manhole specified by the Authority and to complete the works within a time specified in the notice. The Government may then connect up the terminal manhole to new public sewerage.
Clauses 24 and 28 of the Bill also seek to enable the Governor in Council to make regulations to require owners of private wastewater treatment facilities to construct works, effect repairs or carry out operations to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of their facilities. This amendment is required because private wastewater treatment facilities in many existing residential developments are not working properly, and result in pollution to nearby streams and beaches. It is therefore proposed that where the works or repairs are not effected within the specified time, the Authority may construct the works or effect the repairs and recover the costs from the owners. If and when the situation warrants it, the Authority may also apply to a magistrate for an order empowering authorized officers to enter premises, and under the regulations to be made under the Bill, to take over the operation of a communal treatment facility and recover the costs from the owners. Management of the private treatment facility would be handed back to the owners when they can prove that the facility will be operated and maintained to the required standard.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1164
As mentioned above, because domestic discharges from private treatment plants which are not operated properly can cause pollution to nearby streams and beaches, a new power to make regulations under the Ordinance is proposed in clause 28. These regulations will provide that only persons registered under the regulations may operate and maintain communal wastewater treatment facilities. This is to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of private wastewater treatment facilities, especially in large residential developments. However, the proposed regulations will not be brought into effect until sufficient trained personnel are available.
To bring the penalty provisions of the Ordinance into line with other environmental Ordinances, the penalties for making illegal discharges of waste and polluting matter in water control zones will be amended to include a maximum of six months' imprisonment to create a deterrent effect. To protect our sewerage infrastructure further, a separate offence will be created for discharging poisonous and noxious matters into communal sewers or drains. Such discharges are potentially damaging to a drainage or sewerage system and could endanger the health of any person engaged in the operation or maintenance of the system. The maximum penalties in clause 7 for discharges of such matter are a fine of $200,000 and one year imprisonment for the first offence, a fine of $500,000 and two years imprisonment for a second and subsequent offence, and in the case of a continuing offence, a fine of $20,000 for each day the offence continues.
Finally, the Bill seeks to make amendments to improve the effectiveness of the Ordinance. These amendments include the removal of the requirement to publicize in a newspaper an application for a discharge which involves low volumes of water, the extension to the whole Ordinance of the offence of making false statements in an application, and the establishment of a term of office for the chairman and panel members of the Appeal Board that is consistent with similar provisions in other environmental Ordinances.
Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
EXCHANGE FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 4 November 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).
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1165 ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1992
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 18 November 1992 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I rise to support the Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1992. The enactment of the bill will enable to set the traffic management scheme in motion which could mitigate the impact of traffic noise.
Ever since the Tsing Yi North Bridge became operational in 1988, the residents of Tsing Yi North and Riviera Gardens have been complaining that the noises made by heavy goods vehicles are a great nuisance to them. The proposed piece of legislation, which prohibits a particular type of vehicles from using certain roads during a particular period of time on environmental grounds, is a reasonable and legitimate approach.
In the past, the Transport Department, the district boards and the residents concerned repeatedly put the request to the authorities that heavy vehicles should not be allowed to use Tsing Yi North Bridge between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am in the next morning to minimize the noise nuisance from heavy vehicles. With no appropriate law in place, however, not a single department was empowered to prohibit a particular type of vehicles from using certain road sections to reduce such noise nuisance. Furthermore, as a result of the present town planning policy, many residential complexes are situated in the vicinity of highways subject to the noise nuisance caused by passing heavy vehicles. After the enactment of the Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1992, I believe that the residents concerned can be relieved from the noise nuisance created by heavy vehicles.
Therefore, I support the Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1992.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I fully support the Bill before us because it empowers the Government to make regulations and formulate measures to restrict road use for the purpose of environmental protection. And the Bill was initiated by the serious traffic noise nuisance in Tsing Yi. I have to point out that the Government, while formulating transport policies and traffic measures, should keep in mind all environmental protection aspects instead of just focusing on noise pollution. Other environmental protection aspects include air pollution, energy conservation and so forth. Air pollution indeed deserves our attention. For instance, many drivers of diesel vehicles like buses, lorries and taxis tend to leave their engines idly on for quite some time when they are waiting for passengers or loading and unloading goods. They are not only wasting energy but also inadvertently polluting the air breathed by us.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1166
Mr Deputy President, the air quality in Hong Kong is deteriorating and the amounts of the pollutants in air, namely nitrogen dioxide and suspended particulates, are higher than the acceptable levels of 10% to 15% and 30% to 40% respectively. It is a good start for the Government to keep environmental protection in mind while formulating transport policies and traffic measures.
Tsing Yi is not the only area affected by noise nuisance and other areas fall victim to it as well. Let me quote another example. Some heavy goods vehicles are often illegally parked overnight at housing estates or near residential areas and the drivers usually go to fetch them around 4.00 am to 5.00 am. Since it usually take five to 10 minutes to heat up the engine and start the vehicles, they tend to step hard on the accelerators. The noise would wake the residents living in the neighbourhood. Indeed, restrictions should be imposed on such inconsiderate behaviour.
The Bill also seeks to lay down measures to make it more convenient for disabled drivers to park their cars. I fully support this and hope that more measures will be introduced in the territory to assist these people so that they can integrate into the community more easily and lead a normal life.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Deputy President, I am very grateful for the comments made by the Honourable Albert CHAN and the Rev FUNG Chi-wood who spoke on this Bill and whose support for the Bill also focuses on the noise control aspect of the Bill as it has a bearing on the traffic flow in the Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing areas. I am sure the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands will join me in noting the comments made on the importance of the environment in deliberating the Bills in question.
Members will recall that this particular Bill is an enabling amendment to the main Ordinance. This part of the Bill provides for the implementation of individual schemes. They will be introduced on the basis of individual merits.
With these remarks, Mr Deputy President, I commend the Bill for Members' passage. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1167 Committee stage of Bills
Council went into Committee.
EXCHANGE FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Clauses 1 to 3 and 5 to 45 were agreed to.
Clause 4
SECRETARY FOR MONETARY AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 4 of the Bill be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
The amendment to the proposed section 5A(1) will make the appointment of the Monetary Authority mandatory. This is to address the theoretical, but highly unlikely, possibility that the Financial Secretary might fail to appoint a Monetary Authority, thereby creating a lacuna in banking supervision. The amendment to the proposed section 5B(2) will reinforce the intention that any delegation or subdelegation of powers and duties by the Financial Secretary will not preclude him from exercising such powers and duties himself.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended —
(a) in the proposed section 5A(1), delete "may" and substitute "shall". (b) in the proposed section 5B(2) add "or a subdelegation" after "delegation". Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 4, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1992
Clauses 1 to 5 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1168 Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
EXCHANGE FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
had passed through Committee with amendment and the
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1992
had pased through Committee without amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to. Bills read the Third time and passed.
Members' motions
HOUSING SUBSIDY POLICY
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would just remind Members of the decision of the House Committee that the normal rule will apply to this debate, which is that movers of motions will have 15 minutes for their speech including reply and other Members will have seven minutes.
MR LEE WING-TAT moved the following motion:
"That this Council urges the Government to revoke the Housing Subsidy Policy (Double Rent Policy) of the Housing Authority."
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Mr Deputy President, the core issue which we are debating today is how we are going to provide a definition for the term "public housing"; whether we are going to define it as a kind of commodity, or as a public service whose provision cost we have to recover, or as a form of social welfare. Different groups of Hong Kong society will come to vastly different conclusions on the policy regarding "well-off" tenants, depending on how they look at this basic issue.
The United Democrats of Hong Kong have always taken the view that, given the fact that Hong Kong is a small place with a large population, and also given the prevailing high land price policy, private property is not only something which the low income groups are not able to afford, but also more
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1169
importantly, something which even the middle income groups are not able to afford. If we take into account the great profits which the Government, the developers, the construction companies and also the property dealers are making out of the situation, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the man in the street to become the owner-occupier of a home no more than the size of a cubicle. We take the view that housing is not essentially different from basic education and medical and health service; it is a form of social welfare that the Government should provide to the low income groups so that their basic livelihood can be protected. With everybody living in appropriate housing, social stability can be enhanced and this will in turn result in the enhancement of a sense of belonging among Hong Kong people to the Government and society as a whole. It can therefore be said that the provision of a suitable living environment is a very important factor in terms of enhancing social stability.
If we are to define public housing as a form of social welfare, then the Government and the Housing Authority should not resort to demanding that the low income groups who are the recipients of this social welfare benefit should pay double rent, people who have been commonly labelled as "well-off" tenants just because their livelihood has become relatively more stable. Similarly, the Government will not stop providing nine-year free education to primary school children of multi-millionaires; nor will the Hospital Authority, for that matter, see fit to charge the multi-millionaire double medical fees who prefers to check into a public hospital and actually take up a third class ward bed.
The Government has always argued that it is appropriate to make people whose economic means has improved pay higher fees. But one wonders whether this policy of the Government is consistent and thorough in its application. Why, in terms of taxation, for example, is the profits tax set at an upper limit of 17.5%? Why is this philosophy of paying according to ability not reflected in the policy regarding taxation such that the school teacher and the multi-billionaire have to be taxed to the tune of the same 15% of their income, according to the standard rate?
All this talk about paying according to ability in matters of social welfare is a specious specimen of equity when one comes to think of the protection given to the genuinely rich in terms of the Government's taxation policy. The double rent policy will only result in low income groups of people subsidizing those who have still lower incomes; it is a horizontal kind of wealth redistribution and a retrogressive step to take.
To the extent that public housing falls within the sphere of social welfare, the proposed principle of paying according to ability has the implication that the Government is reducing its commitment to that particular form of social welfare. Indeed, public housing, medical and health services and tertiary education are areas to which there has been reduced government commitment in recent years.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1170
What after all is the extent of the Government's commitment to public housing? Is it true that public housing involves only government spending and yields no revenue at all? The government input has been the free provision of land for the building of public housing. But it is debatable whether the value of such government land is as valuable as it is claimed to be. The value of the land allotted for public housing development is assessed only after the completion of the development project. It is obviously much higher than the value of the land before development, when it was just a remote and uninhabited piece of land. Furthermore, in the cases of Tseung Kwan O and Tin Shui Wai, people are encouraged to move into the housing development at these remote parts of the territory out of no other choice at all. As these areas begin to prosper, it is discovered that if the land is sold for private development, it would be even more valuable. The Government has never considered that the public housing tenants have actually contributed to the enhancement of the value of land in such areas, that they have indeed boosted its revenue from the land sales.
The second form of government investment in public housing is its capitalization of public housing, which was under the administration of various institutions, as a permanent capital fund which comes to a total of $16.3 billion. That amount of money has been fully injected into the Housing Authority. The Government undertakes also to provide the Housing Authority with another capital injection of $10 billion for the period going from 1989-90 to 1993-94. It is unfortunate, however, that this capital injection of $10 billion has yet to fully materialize. The Government actually exacts a price for this capital injection into public housing development. The central government is to take 5% of that permanent capital annually as interest. Also, half of the profits from the management by the Housing Department of the shopping arcades at public housing estates have to be turned over to the central government. Insofar as the year 1991-92 is concerned, the two sums add up to a total of $2 billion. It is estimated that from 1988 to 2001 the central government will be able to obtain a return of $31.6 billion from public housing tenants, which will be $5 billion over and above its investment of 26.3 billion.
On the issue of subsidy, the consultation paper mentions that a public housing unit going for a monthly rent of $1,000 has a market rental value of $3,500, which is to say that the tenant is subsidized to the tune of $2,000 per month. This is not a reasonable argument in that the unreasonably high private property rent already includes the high land price and the profits due to the developers, the construction companies and the owners. Furthermore, the quality of public housing is inferior to that of most private property; there are also stringent constraints governing the use of public units. Seen in this light, the comparison is totally inappropriate.
In summing up my views on the issue of subsidy, I would like to quote the following remark of a senior lecturer of the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong: "The public housing programme has also elements of a form of social investment by the Government. The present practice of the Housing Authority to unilaterally stress that its policy represents a subsidy to public housing tenants
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1171
is actually to overlook the fact that the public housing programme, quite apart from benefiting the public housing tenants, has also the function of reducing the cost to the community as a whole in terms of extra-housing spending by the Government. It is in this regard that the investment brings benefits going beyond public housing."
As public housing tenants are able to enjoy a better standard of living with increased incomes, a better arrangement would be for them to choose, of their free will, to purchase private property or home ownership flats so that they will vacate their flats to other needy people waiting for public housing. The public housing tenants are not intent on refusing to let go of their flats. It is not true that they have not considered the above two options. They have the same wish to become home owners. However, the escalating private property prices are totally beyond their reach. Insofar as home ownership flats are concerned, there are over ten times more applicants than flats available for each sale. Indeed, with the home ownership flat prices being adjusted to private market level, they too have gradually become unaffordable by public housing tenants. If the Housing Authority would only come up with adequate provision of rental public housing and home ownership flats, if it would only fix the home ownership flat prices at a more reasonable level, I am sure that there would be many more so-called "well-off" tenants who would be willing to move out of public housing, of their own free will, in a bid to improve their living conditions.
Another cause for the strong objection to the Double Rent Policy is that there are no objective criteria for the definition of a "well-off" tenant. The definition could even be described to be rather arbitrary. Why has the Housing Authority seen fit to set the income limit for double rent at twice the Waiting List income ceiling? Why not three times or four times that income ceiling? The Housing Authority has never come up with a satisfactory answer. It will only stress the point that the well-off households in the public housing sector already account for one third of the highest income households of the territory. But that statistic does not reflect anything other than the fact that the distribution of wealth is extremely uneven in Hong Kong. Whereas 10% of the highest income households account for 37.3% of the gross income of all Hong Kong people, 20% of the highest income households account for 52.8% of that gross income. In this connection, it can be seen that households which are said to make up one third of the highest income households are after all households of modest means.
A household with four members will be classified as a well-off household if it has a total income of $19,400. If all four members are working, then each one of them will only need to have a monthly income of $5,000 in order for them to be collectively labelled as a well-off household. How rich is a person making $5,000 a month? Indeed, the so-called well-off household living in public housing is in most cases one with more working members. The children have grown up into working adults and the household income apparently has risen significantly as a result. These working members find employment as
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1172 garment workers, helpers in fast-food joints or office assistants. Are they so rich after all?
The Housing Authority has always claimed that even after being made to pay double rent the affected household ends up paying a very low percentage of its income on rent. But the Housing Department has never given any consideration to the fact that most working youngsters like to live their own lives, that they will only give a small portion of their income to their parents, and that even though their parents have to pay double rent, they will probably give the same amount to them to pay for the monthly household expenses. In this connection, the greatest victims of the Double Rent Policy are the householders who have to pay anything from $600 to $1,000 extra in the way of monthly rent. The inflated rent which comes to an additional one fifth of the household income represents a heavy burden indeed. It is not surprising therefore that there are many public housing tenants who have actually been reduced to deleting their higher income earning children from their tenancy card in order to avoid being labelled as "well-off" and their children so deleted have to hang on as illegal lodgers.
Mr Deputy President, it is unfortunate that the consultation paper published by the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Public Housing Subsidy Policy of the Housing Authority makes no mention of the option of giving up the Double Rent Policy. It is in this regard not so much a comprehensive consultation exercise as a fake consultation exercise. The consultation paper represents no more than an effort to paper over the cracks of the Double Rent Policy, to protect it at all costs.
Whereas Singapore is a country which, like Hong Kong, is equally faced with scarcity of land and a large population, its government has a greater public housing commitment. It has 90% of its population living in public housing. Indeed, most of them are owner occupiers and they need only devote 20% of their household income to paying for a housing unit of not less than 1 000 sq ft. In Hong Kong, the same proportion of the household income can only allow one to rent from the Housing Department a housing unit measuring 300 to 400 sq ft.
Lastly, I would like on behalf of the United Democrats of Hong Kong to ask the Government to put an end to the Double Rent Policy of the Housing Authority. With these remarks, I move the motion.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, it is a well-known fact that the Hong Kong Government has never made the mistake of being over generous with taxpayers' money in terms of committing itself to social welfare spending. In this regard, whether it be medical and health services, education, public housing or social welfare, the long-standing policy of the Hong Kong Government has always been only to meet the basic needs of the public and to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1173
give assistance to only those most in need of help. It is in line with this practice that it would appear almost unquestionably right that, when the low income groups have been able to enjoy a gradually better quality of life such that their incomes have actually exceeded the prescribed levels — thanks to the government subsidy which they have been receiving — they will have to make do with reduced levels of government subsidy.
It is for this reason, too, that, when the preliminary findings of the opinion survey conducted by the Applied Social Sciences Department of the Hong Kong Polytechnic on the Public Housing Tenant Subsidy Policy were released recently, the community at large have not been unduly surprised that actually 65% of the 3 000 respondents polled indicated their approval for the Housing Authority to reduce its subsidy to the so-called well-off tenants living in public housing estates. What is even more encouraging is the fact that over 50% of the public housing tenants themselves were in support of this policy. It would appear that there are a great many people in our community who are quite prepared to put aside their personal interests and who are perfectly capable of being fair-minded and appreciating the larger principles at stake.
If one looks at the issue from the perspective of public subsidy, if the affected tenants have to cut back on their other living expenses upon being made to pay double rent, or even decide to move out of their original flats because they are not able to cope with the double rent, then I would have a lot of reservations. However, according to the statistics provided by the Housing Department, the double rent actually accounts for 5% of the median income of the well-off household; it is even less than the percentage of the median income of the average public housing household to be spent on rent, which is 7%. Furthermore, according to the statistics under Category A of the Consumer Price Index, the non-housing expenses of the public housing household are 25% more than those of their counterpart in the private sector. Statistics from these two sources would be convincing evidence that not only do most of the affected tenants have the means to pay the double rent, but they also will not suffer any decline in terms of quality of life as a result of retrenchment on non-housing expenses.
As a matter of fact, according to my personal contact, most public housing tenants are not so much opposed to the spirit of the policy as to the practice of calculating children's incomes into the household income. It is also my belief that most children will not turn over all of their incomes to their parents for their disposal. In this regard, while I would agree with the new method of calculation mentioned in the consultation paper, I would also hope that the Housing Authority would introduce elements of a progressive taxation system into the calculation such that the difference of several hundred dollars would not have a totally disproportionate implication regarding who should be made to pay a great deal more rent. In addition, given that the criteria for the definition of a well-off household are based on the income ceiling applicable to the public housing applicants on the Waiting List, I would suggest that, to the extent that the financial position permits and that the public housing building
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1174
programme will not be consequently held up, the authorities concerned can actually exercise their discretion to raise the income limit so as to reduce the number of affected "well-off" tenants.
Mr Deputy President, within the framework of the existing public housing policy, it has become a basic principle which has the endorsement of the greatest number of people that the amount of public housing subsidy should be reduced for public housing tenants with better economic means. And the public housing subsidy policy is indeed the only policy instrument designed to accomplish this objective. However, the motion before this Council today is essentially for the retraction of this policy; the adoption of this motion would suggest that the principle for the better-off tenants to receive less subsidy from the Housing Authority should be abandoned as well. If the motion is carried in this Council, it may apparently please some of the public housing tenants who have a vested interest in this issue, but it will also quite obviously go against the wishes of the vast majority of Hong Kong society and be tantamount to the abandonment of the principle of a fair deal for all.
Over the past six years or so, I have always been a defender of social justice and the well-being of Hong Kong people. I have taken part in the formulation of the policies of the Housing Authority. For example, immediately after the authorities came up with measures to combat inflation, I took the lead in suggesting that the Housing Authority should freeze public rent increase as part of the anti-inflation effort. I can say, speaking from conscience and experience, that whereas the public housing subsidy policy may have its flaws in terms of implementation and there is certainly room for making improvement, the policy has nevertheless a worthy goal and spirit to which this Council and Hong Kong people should still lend their support. This is particularly so in view of the fact that neither the Housing Authority nor the opponents of the policy have any viable or reasonable alternative to offer. That is why we have to preserve this policy and make improvement to it in the meantime.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, and having regard to the above statistical evidence and the above mentioned arguments, I oppose the motion.
MR PANG CHUN-HOI (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I recall a public statement made not so long ago by a government official. It was pointed out that notwithstanding the inadequate social security, Hong Kong still had a social relief system which was based mainly on public assistance, and social welfare in the form of medical services and public housing. The recently published consultation paper by the ad hoc committee on the review of the Housing Subsidy Policy considers that public housing is a social service rather than a form of social welfare. It can be seen therefore that the Government shifts its position at whim to suit its different needs, and that it has yet to classify housing as a right to which Hong Kong people should be entitled.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1175
According to the statistics provided by the Housing Authority regarding the general Waiting List for public housing allocation, there are still 180 000 households in Hong Kong, or over 500 000 people, awaiting the allocation of public housing. Given that the Government is not able to come up with the resources required to meet the housing needs of Hong Kong people, the Housing Subsidy Policy has been introduced as an attempt to reduce the level of assistance meted out to those households whose livelihood has already been improved to a certain extent.
Two methods of calculating the highly controversial subsidized income limit are proposed in the consultation paper. The first option is for the household concerned to enter the gross income of all of its members or to enter one half of the earnings of the children of the householder. The second option is for the gross household income to be set at a certain multiple of the Waiting List income ceiling and the amount of rent payable is to be determined accordingly. I think that while flexibility should be exercised in terms of the calculating methods, the subsidized income limit should also be raised.
Whereas the household which has to pay double rent is supposed to have an income twice the income ceiling of the households on the Waiting List, the fact that the tenants have been living in the public housing flat for over 10 years means that the household head's children have already grown up and most of them have already had employment. The use of the subsidized income limit as a criterion to assess the average income of individual members of a given household will reveal that it is in fact lower than the median income of Hong Kong. In this regard, the well-off household label is not appropriate.
Indeed, the Housing Authority does not need to look farther than the property prices in the private sector to appreciate why most of the affected households have opted to put up with the double rent rather than move out of public housing. The going price for a flat under the Home Ownership Scheme is upwards of a million dollars. It is not easy at all for a lower or middle income family to save that amount to buy a home of their own.
The objective of the Housing Authority is to solve the housing problem of the needy families. It has set the standard of a minimum living space of 5.5 sq m per person. However, there were still as many as 45% of the public housing tenants who were not able to enjoy that standard living space. What is even more disappointing is that the Housing Department has drastically reduced the quota for overcrowding relief from 2 597 for 1990-1991 to 500 for 1991-1992. The available quota for overcrowding relief for this year is still standing at 500. This means that many public housing residents will still have to live in very cramped conditions. Whereas some of them have been made to pay double rent, they are not able to enjoy any improvement in terms of living conditions. Meanwhile, the number of vacant public housing units is now approaching a staggering 30 000. This unreasonable phenomenon is proof that there is a whole lot of room for improvement within the vast organization of the Housing Department, which has no transparency at all.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1176
The Government has already taken the decision that beginning April next year the terms of reference of the Office of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints will be expanded to cover the handling of complaints against statutory bodies such as the Housing Authority. I totally agree with this arrangement. I am hoping that this will go some way towards monitoring the work of the Housing Authority.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, in the decades following the end of the Second World War, the Government has consistently pursued a policy of keeping the price of land, property and rent at a high level, which may as well be called a policy of three highs. Proceeds from land sales, and tax revenue related to the transaction of property, have become the most significant source of revenue for the Government. The multi billionaires of Hong Kong are invariably linked to the real estate business. Meanwhile, the great majority of Hong Kong people have been made victims of this policy of three highs, being subject to ruthless exploitation. The heaviest burden for most families is finding the money to meet the rental or mortgage payment. The skyrocketing rental spiral has become the most important factor which fans inflation. Meanwhile, the high rental bill being footed by businessmen and factory operators is invariably passed on to the man in the street, adding further to his financial burden.
The public housing programme was launched by the Government in order to avert the intensification of the social tension caused by its policy of three highs which might otherwise easily have led to social crisis shaking Hong Kong to its foundations. The public housing programme represents an attempt as much to mitigate the growing social tensions, which can easily get out of control, as to pacify the wrath of the grassroots. It can even be said that the public housing programme is employed to ensure the success of the policy of three highs. Meanwhile, the public housing programme has succeeded in making the grassroots to spearhead the Government's efforts to build new towns and develop more land. This in turn has created a new source of wealth for both the Government and the real estate developers.
These facts speak to the nature of the public housing programme. From this perspective one is prone to ask the question of who is subsidizing whom after all. It is not that the Government is subsidizing the public housing residents; rather, it is the vast majority of our grassroot residents who have subsidized the Government and enriched the multi-billionaires who have prospered as a result of their engagement in real estate development.
Whereas the household income may have in most cases increased significantly over 10 years since a family settled down in public housing, the reason for this is almost invariably that its young members who have been raised at great parental sacrifice have grown up and found employment in
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1177
society. These young people will very soon get married and have their own family. With this in mind, their income should be considered to be income of a family which will soon come into being. In any case, it should not be regarded as the income of the old household which is required to pay double rent.
Progressive taxation is not implemented in Hong Kong. However high the profit level of the industrial and commercial corporations, no matter how many times their profit level has increased within a certain time span, all they have to do is to pay their profits tax according to the standard rate. That completely runs counter to the principle behind the Double Rent Policy. Why is it that the Government is so generous to the commercial and industrial sector but so mean to the grassroots of Hong Kong society?
Kowloon East, which is my constituency, has 65% of its population living in public housing. I have been to almost every housing estate to consult with my constituents but I have yet to hear anyone voicing their support for the Double Rent Policy. I have never seen a policy which has caused so much public resentment.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I speak in support of Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion.
I consider that the present housing policy is riddled with problems and completely unable to address the needs of the present Hong Kong society. The Government has all along refused to conduct a comprehensive review of its housing policy. It is only concerned with finding cures to the symptoms as and when they occur. The Double Rent Policy is just another dose of the strange medicine prescribed in this spirit. It is up to us not only to abandon this strange medicine but more importantly, to conduct a comprehensive diagnosis of the patient, that is the existing housing policy. Or else, we will only be substituting one strange brand of medicine for another. It may very well cause the premature death of the patient who has been denied proper treatment. The victims will of course be the common people of Hong Kong.
Rental public housing forms the core of the housing policy but it is also an utter failure. Offered in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s as a form of welfare, it did go a long way towards solving the problem of inadequate housing supply. With the advent of 1980s, the economy took off and there was a substantial improvement in terms of quality of life for the man in the street. It was then that the shortcomings of rental public housing began to surface. One of its many shortcomings is that once the applicant has been allocated a public housing unit he or she will be able to enjoy in perpetuity the rights of tenancy. In other words, whatever change may happen to his or her economic circumstances, the tenant, and his or her descendants, will be able to enjoy the housing welfare, which is paid for by the public at large. That is not only
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1178
against the principle of equitable allocation of welfare benefits; it will also result in the monopoly of public housing units such that those who are in genuine need will not able to get any assistance.
The Double Rent Policy is an attempt to address this issue. It is unfortunate, however, that whereas the rationale behind the policy is right, the method used for its implementation is wrong. The Double Rent Policy has failed to achieve its goal of an equitable allocation of resources and it has become more like a public nuisance in practical terms. It is not feasible at all to define who is a well-off tenant and who is not by means of a simple mathematical formula which is supposed also to decide how much more rent one has to pay. The decision to set a 10 year time frame and limit the gross household income to no more than twice the income ceiling for applicants on the Waiting List for public housing is entirely a bureaucratic whim. The arbitrary way in which a public housing household is labelled as a well-off household, an average household, or even a poor household, as the case may be, will only give rise to cases of injustice and family dispute. The living standard of a family, very often, cannot be reflected by the level of its household income, let alone mere figures entered in the book. The most typical scenario is one in which, whereas the earnings of all of the tenant's children are included in the gross household income, only a small part of these earnings in fact contributes to the expenses of the household. And there are cases in which the income earning children do not bother to pay towards meeting the household expenses at all. Of course, the other alternative is for the high income earning children to be deleted from the tenancy card while they continue to live as illegal public housing residents.
The strange medicine which comes in the shape of the Double Rent Policy does not provide a solution to our problematic housing policy. In a debate on the housing strategy which took place in the last session of the Legislative Council, I already explained how an all-out sale of public housing will resolve all the shortcomings of our existing housing policy in one fell swoop. What I had in mind is certainly not quite what the Housing Authority is trying to do. I propose an all-out sale of public housing to be complemented by a form of housing subsidy for those who are in genuine need. My proposal has already gone to press and it will very soon be presented to the relevant organizations. I very much hope that the Government, colleagues of the Executive Council and this Council, will be able to give it their endorsement.
I consider that the right way forward for our future housing policy is for the Government to enable those public housing tenants who are interested in, and who are capable of, becoming owner-occupiers to do just that, by selling to them public housing units at attractive prices. Those who do not have the means to buy public housing units will be able to enjoy housing subsidy as part of the welfare policy. This arrangement will, first of all, help the Government to free itself from the present embarrassment of having to provide indefinitely welfare to those public housing tenants who have no genuine need for such welfare. Secondly, it will also allow private owners of public housing units to sell or rent
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1179
their property as they see fit. This will enliven the supply of public housing and enable the Government to acquire the resources with which to provide public housing to those who are in genuine need so that more people will be able to benefit. Thirdly, the encouragement for people who have the financial means to buy their own homes is in line with the common aspiration and life goal of Hong Kong people in the 1990s. Fourthly, it is up to the Government to provide those households who are genuinely in need with housing subsidy.
It is in this spirit that I would like to call upon the Government, and Members of the Executive Council and this Council, to have some consideration for the dying patient as they discard the strange medicine I am talking about. I hope that Members would study carefully the appeals and views expressed by the community as whole with regard to a comprehensive review of the housing strategy, including of course my proposal, so that we will be able to formulate, through our joint efforts, a good housing policy for the betterment of our living environment.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I read a couple of days ago an article published in a newspaper in which the issue of the very serious gap between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong was discussed. The author conducted a very serious analysis of the problems involved. He came up with the conclusion that the wealth gap which Hong Kong is faced with is not only aggravating and will persist for a long time to come but also, more importantly, the problem is extremely serious indeed, particularly if we compare Hong Kong with other cities with comparable per capita income. That article left me with a very uneasy feeling. We know very clearly from that article, and from our daily observation, that even though Hong Kong may have very impressive economic achievement, there are still many people in Hong Kong who are living from hand to mouth. They have to live with the anxiety which comes with a sense of economic insecurity. The continuing high inflation, combined with the economic transformation which comes as a result of the restructuring of our economy, means that the price of property far exceeds the purchasing power of the man in the street. Factors such as these have made life very difficult for the grassroots of Hong Kong. Of course, the economic development has also made it possible for some people to break the poverty trap. It therefore appears quite reasonable that these people should contribute more to society so that the people who are more needy will be able to benefit.
Over the past five years, the Government has certainly gone to great length to make sure that no "well-off" public housing tenant will be able to escape from paying the double rent. The result is that the Government ends up with a windfall of hundreds of millions of excess rent without, however, achieving its objective of persuading great numbers of "well off" tenants to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1180
move out of their units. I received a letter from a public housing tenant a couple of days ago. He said in his letter that the increase in household income and the decision to move out of public housing are separate issues. He certainly has a point there and I think his revealing observation enables one to see the ambiguity of the policy objective of getting the well-off to pay double rent. I cannot help wondering whether the Government has been too arbitrary in terms of its definition of a "well-off" tenant, whether the Government has in fact over estimated the purchasing power of the "well-off" tenants, whether the Government has come up with this simplistic definition through its failure to consider the Double Rent Policy in the overall context of actual economic realities, or alternatively, whether the Government has some ulterior policy objective, whether the Government is actually hoping that this policy will develop into an instrument with which to boost its revenue. The consultation paper which the Government published in September is essentially consistent with its long-standing policy. I think that it is very dangerous to continue to implement this policy arbitrarily, without any serious attempt to review the principle which lies behind it. The reason is that the logic of the policy, that no one is spared or given the benefit of the doubt, means that just because the Government is intent on getting at the minority of truly "well-off" tenants, the interests of the vast majority of so-called "well-off" tenants will be sacrificed in the process. This kind of logic is neither rational nor reasonable. It cannot be supported in any case.
The Governor in his policy address stated that the Government will by the year 1997 enable 60% of the households in Hong Kong to have homes of their own. The Government, not very long ago, also stated that by the year 2001 the goal of enabling two thirds of Hong Kong's households to have privately owned homes will be achieved. That goal is of course a most worthy one. A decent home and a steady job is what everybody is hoping for. But how are we going to achieve this goal? It would appear that the Government is intent on selling public rental and home ownership flats with reference to private market prices. Public housing units are marked for sale. Home ownership flats figure more and more prominently in the provision of public sector housing. These trends, and even the new government concept of embarking on a home building project for the sandwich class, are all linked in spirit to the existing Double Rent Policy. The reality which we are faced with is that, following the implementation of the Double Rent Policy, there is an increasing number of people who have been caught up in a most embarrassing situation. According to a survey carried out by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions in the middle of last year, the great majority of the public housing tenants who have been made to pay double rent considered that they were not able to afford home ownership flats or flats on the private market. It would seem therefore that on the one hand, the Government considers that the level of subsidy to the "well-off" tenants should be reduced such that they will eventually be persuaded to move out of the cheap public units; but on the other hand, the Government is shepherding them into the private property market whose exorbitant prices they can ill afford. The sure result of this is disillusionment among the would-be home buyers. How is the Government going to help those people caught up in such an embarrassing
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1181
situation? What purpose does the "double rent" policy serve other than adding to the financial burden of this unfortunate group while decimating their savings. According to the findings of an academic research, the households with income in the bottom 40% make up a mere 10% of the gross household income of the territory. I believe many of these people are public housing residents. That the Government has seen fit to attack this group, and on such a brutal scale, is certainly a sad joke on public justice which its policy has made such a big fuss about.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Housing Subsidy Policy is intended to help members of the public who cannot afford private housing rentals to solve their housing problem. In this connection, the community will take the view that public housing is a kind of social service. If it is really a social service, then it should have as its target, people who are in genuine need of help. It is very unfortunate, however, that even now the provision of public housing is still inadequate. Unlike other social services, such as medical and health services and education, which are available to all who have a need for them, public housing is still not available to a large number of people. The latter still have to rent private flats and the rent which they are paying are many times that of public housing flats. They live in very cramped conditions and their lodgings have only the crudest facilities. They enjoy no government assistance in the way of housing. Over the last couple of years, the problem is getting more serious with the skyrocketing property prices and the spiralling rental cost.
Social resources are limited, it is up to us as legislators to see to it that the general public are properly looked after and that resources are allocated in an equitable way. To uphold the principle of equitable allocation, it is quite inevitable that we may hurt the vested interests of some people. However, Hong Kong people are well known for their fair mindedness and their sense of justice. There are public housing tenants whose economic circumstances have improved and who have higher incomes than before. They understand that they should receive less subsidy from the Government in order that the limited resources can be more equitably allocated, so that people who are most in need can enjoy housing subsidy earlier, that is, moving into public housing.
Public housing tenants belong to a group of people who are receiving subsidy. That is to say, each and every taxpayer is providing, year in, year out, subsidy to this group of people. It goes without saying that taxpayers will be most reluctant to see the Government making use of their hard earned money to subsidize households who do not need the subsidy. This sentiment is particularly prevalent among the sandwich class. They are not eligible to apply for public housing. While they have no other alternative but to live in pricey apartments and to put up with the exorbitant rent, they find themselves actually
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1182
susbidizing the public housing tenants whose incomes have already significantly improved. Is it fair and just that this should be happening?
The motion of today's debate is: To revoke the Housing Subsidy Policy (Double Rent Policy). In considering this issue, we should listen to the views of the households affected by this policy as well as ascertain the reaction of the public at large. A recently conducted independent opinion survey, which covered a total of 3 000 households, found that 66% of the respondents approved of the Double Rent Policy while 22% disapproved and another 12% indicated that they did not have any comment on the issue. Households living in public housing as well as in the private sector were surveyed. It is worth noting that the approval rate among non-public housing households was 73%. The approval rate was 53% among public housing households not paying double rent, and a significant 35% even among public housing household paying double rent. I fail to understand why a policy which has the approval of over half of the number of the respondents should be revoked immediately. Are we implying that opinion of the people who have voiced their support for this policy is not worthy of our consideration?
It goes without saying that the Double Rent Policy still needs some fine tuning. The first thing we have to look at is the label of a "well-off" tenant, and how to define the term properly. Indeed, I think it is misleading to label those tenants who have slightly better income than before as "well-off tenants". Their living standard may have improved comparing to the time when they were allocated public housing. There is a Chinese saying which goes that unless names and references are used properly, there is no way we can make a convincing case. That explains why the Government has come under such criticism from various sectors of the community since it came up with this Double Rent Policy for "well-off" tenants. On the issue of definition, it has been suggested that the household income should be determined with reference to the prevailing median income in the labour market. I think that it is a suggestion which we can consider.
There are households whose income may have reached the level of a well-off household but some of these households may have special mitigating circumstances. For example, the household may consist of old folks who need looking after; it may have chronically ill members who need expensive medical care. The household may even have too many members all of whom have expenses of their own. It is my opinion that these problematic "well-off" households should be dealt with in a flexible way, each according to their special circumstances. The Double Rent Policy should not be implemented arbitrarily, but rather in keeping with the principle of fairness for all. We have no wish to see the affected households ending up in financial hardship as a result of paying double rent. But we have no wish either to see people who are perfectly capable of paying double rent continuing to enjoy the very cheap rent, thanks to the subsidy of other taxpayers.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1183
In the adjournment debate in January this year on the Housing Subsidy Policy, I made the suggestion that the household who has been living in public housing for 10 years should be subject to a vigorous means test in order to make sure that only the most needy will be given the housing subsidy. This suggestion is one which is in keeping with the principle of fairness for all, for both taxpayers of Hong Kong and for those who are in genuine need. It is true that the suggestion may have a few problems in terms of administration. However, in order to avoid the wasting of social and housing resources, I would consider that it is still a suggestion which is worthy of consideration.
Of the many criticisms levelled against the Double Rent Policy, the most noteworthy is that which points to the fact that the policy has failed to induce the "well-off" tenants to move out. Indeed, we should all understand that there is a great discrepancy between the public housing rent and the market rent. The double rent, on average, is only half that of the going market rent. It is quite unrealistic for us to expect that a substantial number of double rent payers will opt to move out of public housing units. If the housing objective of the policy is to force more households to move out, then it might be necessary for the Housing Authority to collect a higher rent on the highest income groups among the public housing tenants. Alternatively, the Housing Authority may also consider my suggestion that the eligibility for public housing should be reviewed every 10 years.
Lastly, I believe that the Housing Subsidy Policy has a correct objective and that it should not be abolished totally just because some of the people who have vested interests have voiced their objection to it. However, the Housing Authority should at the same time come up with a more effective means of enabling public housing tenants to understand clearly the true meaning of this policy, in order to make them less resentful. Meanwhile, encouragement should be given to the households with higher income to move out so that the cheap housing units which they vacated can be allocated to households who are more in need of help.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks and for the above reasons, I cannot support Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion.
MR LAU WAH-SUM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, it has been 30 years since the Housing Authority was set up in 1962. Over the past 30 years, we have been able to provide subsidized housing for a great number of Hong Kong people. At present, over 40% of our population are living in subsidized housing provided by the Housing Authority. Flipping through the annual report of the Housing Authority, we can see that the Government has committed huge sums of taxpayers' money to the building of public housing. As a matter of fact, the achievement of the Housing Authority is something which we can all see for ourselves.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1184
I wish to talk about origin of the double rent concept so that Members will know the background to the issue. In as far back as the late '60s, the far-sighted legislator Mrs Ellen LI had already pointed out that the tenancy right granted by the Housing Authority should not be enjoyed indefinitely. Under the present policy, the tenancy is not set within any limiting period and the tenant may go on living in the premises indefinitely. The suggestion made at the time was that the tenant should move out after a period of 10 years so that applicants on the Waiting List would be able to move in and enjoy the housing subsidy. It was unfortunate that her suggestion was not accepted.
Then came the '70s which saw the prosperity of the early settlers in the public housing estates. One could see many luxury cars parked at the public housing estates. Although the public housing tenants had significantly improved income, they were reluctant to move out of their units. So the Housing Authority conducted a very comprehensive survey and study of the situation in the mid-1980s. There were three options open for the Housing Authority. The first option was to request that tenants who had lived in public housing for 10 years to move out, if they happened to have an income which exceeded the set limit, in order that people on the Waiting List could move in. The second option was to encourage these people to buy House Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats so that they would vacate their public housing units. The third was to introduce a double rent policy which was geared to achieve the goal of reducing the level of subsidy so that more resources could be devoted to the building of public housing units. Public consultation was conducted on the choice of all of these options. Finally, since we did not wish to see some of the public housing tenants being forced to move out, we decided to give up the first option. We were then left with the second and third options. Insofar as the second option is concerned, since we did not have an adequate supply of HOS flats, we found that were we to sell them all to public housing tenants, other members of the public would have no chance of winning the lottery. In this regard, the present (double rent) policy has been the result of open public consultation and it has been adopted and implemented only after securing the agreement of all parties concerned.
The double rent policy has been implemented for five years. The implementation has been going very smoothly and the Housing Authority has had an additional income of $400 million each year. We can see from its annual report that every part of the revenue of the Housing Authority has been used for the building of public housing estates. The result is that applicants on the Waiting List will be able to wait a shorter time for the allocation of public housing and that the people currently living in temporary housing areas due to clearance will also be able to move into public housing in a shorter time. With regard to the findings of a recent survey (some of which have been mentioned by Mrs Peggy LAM just now and I do not repeat), I would like to highlight one point: insofar as the people who are paying double rent are concerned, the double rent as it were, only accounts for 5% of their median income. We can compare this to the rent which tenants living on private premises have to pay. It
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1185
takes up to 25% of their income. We can see from this point that the double rent is affordable by the people who are paying it.
The present policy of the Housing Authority should not be one which continues to subsidize the above mentioned tenants on the basis of their income level over 10 years ago. We should have a fairer way to allocate our resources so that those who are in genuine need will be able to get what they need, hoping that those who are no longer in need of such subsidy will move out. Under the present circumstances, there is no way we could meet the public needs fully even if we go on building more public housing estates because there are still a lot of people on the Waiting List. I hope that Members will take a fair stand and fight for the interests of the people on the Waiting List as well as those living in temporary housing areas who are waiting for public housing. I cannot agree with the motion before us today. Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I object as a matter of principle, and most strongly, to the implementation of the Housing Subsidy Policy which is also generally known as the Double Rent Policy. The reason is that the policy failed to achieve its desired goal and live up to its original spirit. According to the Green Paper on Housing Subsidy to Tenants of Public Housing published in 1985, the Double Rent Policy has as its stipulated goal the reduction of the level of subsidy to those public housing tenants whose financial circumstance has improved considerably. The idea is that the "well-off" tenants will be encouraged to move out so that more housing units vacated as a result can be allocated to needy applicants. However, the reality is that ever since the implementation of the Double Rent Policy in 1987, there have been only 4 500 households who have moved out because of having a income higher than the limit set for subsidy. That number represents only 7% of all the affected "well-off" households. The percentage of removals is approximately the same as that which existed before the policy has been implemented. It can be seen from these statistics that the policy has failed to achieve its stipulated goal. That stipulated goal is the creation of a larger pool of housing units for allocation to the needy. Given that the policy has not been able to achieve its stipulated goal, what is the use of keeping it?
Last Thursday, the Housing Authority suddenly released the findings of an opinion survey. Indeed, a number of Members have mentioned in their speeches just now that survey which is called Support for the Continued Implementation of the Double Rent Policy. It was suggested that 58.9% of the respondents polled indicated that the Double Rent Policy should be maintained. I was greatly amazed at the result of the survey because it differed dramatically from the views expressed by residents whom I contacted in my constituency. It actually reminds me of the report published by the Assessment Office in October 1987 which suggested that only a quarter of the Hong Kong population were in support of direct elections for 1988. I have grave misgivings about the objectivity of such a survey result and it would seem that the Government is again playing the public opinion card.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1186
I find the sample of the survey highly problematic. I would like to share my observations with Members, particularly those who also happen to be members of the Housing Authority. I hope they will give ear to my observations.
It was originally suggested by the Ad Hoc Group on the Double Rent Policy towards the end of May that 50% of the sample of the survey should be public housing residents. But the published findings of the survey indicates that public housing residents only accounted for 38% of its sample. What is more, it makes no mention of the number of residents affected by the Double Rent Policy. Whereas permanent private housing residents accounted for 49.2% of the Hong Kong population, they made up only 28.8% of the sample. That is clearly an instance of under-representation. Meanwhile, the sample contained a great proportion of residents of temporary housing areas and residents living in private temporary housing, which was 300% to 100% more than their demographic strengths, respectively. That is another instance of selection bias and misrepresentation. Whereas the spokesman for the Housing Authority maintained that the survey had given appropriate weighting to the various categories of households, each according to their proportional strength in the population, it would appear from the methodology used in its sampling that it was a goal which had not been fulfilled. I would say as a graduate majoring in social policy and social studies that the composition of such a sample is not acceptable in scientific research. The survey findings, therefore, are not acceptable either. It is for this reason that I would consider the findings of this survey to be inaccurate reflection of the situation, and of public views for that matter.
After commenting on the findings of the survey, I would also like to talk about my feelings and observations as a directly elected Member, based on contacts with my constituents. For I can see that many Members expressed their views from a theoretical point of view or on the basis of some superficial phenomenon. I believe there are many Members among us who have never been to the public housing estates or have had any real contact with the residents to understand the views and feelings of these residents, and the plight of some of them in particular. I think there are many Members among us today, particularly those who will vote against the motion, who do not have the kind of understanding of the issue which could only have been gained through personal experience and direct contact. It is for this reason that I would like to share with them my views and I would also hope that they would in the future take time out to visit the public housing estates and really get in touch with some of the old folks affected, and listen to what they have to say.
Insofar as my constituency is concerned, the implications of, and the nuisance caused by, the Double Rent Policy are obvious. The Fuk Loi Estate in my constituency, for example, has a history of over 20 years. Many of the householders are old folks in their 60s and 70s. They moved into the estate 10 years ago, while their children were quite young. Now their children have grown up and many of them have even found employment. However, because
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1187
they have just started their careers, their income may not even cover the heavy expenses they have to incur. They are probably just making enough to keep themselves going. The implementation of the Double Rent Policy means that the householder has to pay double rent because of the inflated gross household income. But it is clear from their daily expenses and their basic needs that the double rent has constituted a heavy strain on the parents who have to meet the payment on their own incomes. In order to reduce the rent payable or to be exempt from paying the double rent altogether, some households have decided to delete their young and economically active members from the tenancy register. The result of this is the fragmentation of the family. Young people have been forced to move out of public housing so that the household income can be maintained within the limits set for subsidized housing. And the burden of rent on the old folks will be lightened. Some of the older public housing householders may actually have to live frugally. Some of the old folks whom I have contacted have been forced to give up their daily visit in the morning to the tea house in order that they can save enough money to pay the extra rent. The Double Rent Policy does not only have a negative effect on the daily lives of the public housing residents; it has also aggravated the problem of ageing of the public housing population. The old folks are not properly taken care of, with their children being forced to move out and leave them behind.
Given the fact that the Double Rent Policy for "well-off" public housing tenants has failed to achieve its original goal and that it has caused great nuisance to the public housing tenants, I would take the view that it should be abandoned without delay. I also hope that Mr HUI Yin-fat will, as a representative from the social welfare functional constituency, appreciate the problem faced by our senior citizens, and echo the views of the common people in the Housing Authority. And I hope that he will change his original stand and support the abandonment of the Double Rent Policy.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, Hong Kong is a free society. Generally speaking, it is in the last two decades that the economy of Hong Kong has really taken off. People who have currently been classified as "well-off" tenants were allocated public housing in the 1960s. But now they regret having lived in public housing. The going price for one square foot of residential space then was only a few dozen dollars. If the Government had not pursued its housing policy for their benefit, they would have been forced to buy their own homes. And the property which they would have bought may now translate into a substantial fortune. They would have had a house to their name.
In any case, the Hong Kong Government has never provided any assistance to any industry at all. Neither does it have any concrete policy in aid of the local industrial development. Any assistance the Government may give to industry is minimal at best. In this regard, it is clear that Hong Kong owes its present achievement not at all to the promotion of any social class; rather, our achievement is more the result of the concerted efforts of Hong Kong people.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1188
Some Members were talking just now about some of our multi-billionaires making their fortunes from real estate development. I would like to offer another perspective on this issue. Over the past eight to 10 years, many Hong Kong businessmen and manufacturers have in fact benefited from the open door policy of China to achieve economic success on an international scale. Directly and indirectly, they have paid enormous amounts of tax to Hong Kong and the money in turn has been used to subsidize a wide cross section of the community.
I take the view that since people opted for public housing in the first place they should accept the arrangement that the amount of rent they have to pay be assessed according to their income. It is only fair that it should be so. We all know very well as legislators that the public housing estates have a large pool of voters. It is natural that legislators will be concerned about the need to establish better communication channel, with the elections of 1991 and 1995 in mind. At any rate, I quite agree personally that the Government should, as far as practicable, take care of all the people in our society. It is in this spirit that I would agree in principle with Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion, that the Double Rent Policy should be abandoned. But the point is that the amount of their rent should be increased to a reasonable level in the wider social context. (Meanwhile, special attention should be given to those who cannot afford the rent.) I will not stand for those tenants who can afford higher rent continuing to enjoy the extremely "unreasonable" rent. And by "unreasonable" I mean rent which is way below the reasonable level of rent in the marketplace. Put in another way, they have an obligation, indeed a moral obligation, to each and every taxpayer, in that they should help to achieve a rental level which is in a sense fairer to the community as a whole. They should not be allowed to continue to enjoy the "unreasonable" rent.
Mr Deputy President, it is understandable that the affected tenants find the label of "well-off" tenant unacceptable because they do not regard themselves as very well-off. But the reality is that they are considered "well-off" in view of the unreasonably low rent they have to pay. It is the dismally low rent which is unreasonable, and which constitutes an injustice to society as a whole. Mr Deputy President, we have to understand that to contribute our share to our economy, it is the obligation of everyone, whatever their social background and income level, to pay tax. That is to say, one should fulfil this obligation for as long as one is able to earn an income. I would consider that insofar as Hong Kong society is concerned, rent, on average, accounts for 25% and 40% of the household income. It is for this reason that people who have been labelled "well-off" tenants but who somehow do not like to be called that, should try putting aside 15% to 20% of their income for rent, which is a quite reasonable level. If rent is set at too low a level, it is not fair to the community as a whole.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I express my reservations about the motion.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1189
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the opinion survey commissioned by the Housing Authority between August and November of 1992 was conducted by the Survey Research Hong Kong Limited, and it was co-ordinated by the Statistical Systems & Research Section of the Housing Department. Whilst the press release of the Housing Authority states that the survey was an independent assessment of public opinion, the fact that it was co-ordinated by the Housing Department would suggest that it was not so independent after all.
In terms of the design of the questionnaires, most of the questions are misleading. For example, one question reads as follows: "Do you consider that the Housing Authority has the responsibility of assisting those high income households?" That question does not make any sense at all. Ask anyone whether he considers the Hospital Authority, or the Education Department for that matter, has the responsibility of assisting "high income" households, and you will invariably get the same negative answer. And if you follow this up with the question, whether the Housing Authority should reduce its level of subsidy to the "high income" households, you will quite naturally get an affirmative answer. That is how the public have been misled into showing their support for the Double Rent Policy. The problem lies really with the term "high income". It makes people think that the tenants are so well-off that they do not deserve government subsidy. As a matter of fact, the point has already been very explicitly made by United Democrat legislators that most of the tenants who are required to pay double rent are not well-off at all.
What is worse, before asking each of these questions, the pollster provides the respondents with a leading, elaborative background. For example, before the question about whether the Housing Authority has the responsibility of subsidizing the high income households, the respondents are first provided with the background that the Housing Authority provides public housing for low income households in order to help them solve their housing problem. And before the question about whether the respondents agree that the level of subsidy should be reduced for the high income tenants, it is stressed that the Double Rent Policy is designed to get those tenants whose financial circumstance has improved and who in fact belong to the high income category to pay more rent. The press release of the Housing Authority makes no mention of the fact that the questions are raised in the context of leading background information. In addition, no sample of the questionnaire has been formally published. And it seems to be an attempt to mislead the public.
In terms of the questionnaire survey, there are a great number of options with regard to the reasons why the Double Rent Policy should not be implemented. But none of the major arguments advanced by the grassroots organizations against the Double Rent Policy is put forward for the respondents' consideration. For example, this whole business of public housing subsidy is superficial and misleading; most of the so-called well-off tenants are after all the more relatively well-off among the poor; the Double Rent Policy cannot achieve the objective of promoting social justice and will, on the contrary, widen the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1190
gap between rich and poor; it will aggravate the problem of ageing of the public housing population; it runs counter to the goal of encouraging people to buy their own homes; it will lead to a decline of the quality of life of those affected tenants; its formulation as a policy has not been the result of a democratic process. The omission of the foregoing arguments means that the questionnaire is not quite convincing in the section analysing the proposal that the Double Rent Policy should not be kept. Meanwhile, whereas 56.5% of the respondents indicated, as the findings of the survey would have us believe, that they supported the continued implementation of the Double Rent Policy, one would have thought that if they had been given to understand that the Double Rent Policy would only result in even more inequitable distribution of social resources, they would have joined the ranks of the opponents to that policy.
The questionnaire consists of 20-odd questions, some of which are leading questions about whether the Government should reduce the level of subsidy to high income households. The way the order of questions is arranged is also problematic in that, immediately following a number of questions about categories of households being exempted from paying double rent, a question is asked about whether the implementation of the Double Rent Policy should be maintained. This kind of arrangement will surely have an implication on the findings of the survey. We cannot accept the survey because its findings are not truthful. I am greatly disappointed that the Housing Department has seen fit to deliberately fiddle the questionnaire in order to fabricate a public opinion which is in line with its own position. Hong Kong people invariably support democracy and respect public opinion. Public opinion should not be fabricated to deceive the man in the street. To do so is to commit a crime against the community. I would like to call on the Housing Department to conduct a truly independent opinion survey to enable us to see where the public stands on this issue. I believe that the public is genuinely against the Double Rent Policy. In this connection, the public sentiment will be reflected in the way how the directly elected Members of this Council would cast their votes later on.
With these remarks, I support Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion. I urge that the unreasonable, unfair Double Rent Policy be abandoned without delay.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, before I deliver my prepared speech, I would first of all like to respond to a number of criticisms which Mr CHIM Pui-chung has made. He said that a lot of times Members who have spoken in support of the motion invariably did so for the sake of canvassing votes because their constituencies may have considerable public housing populations. But I can tell him that his point of view has not been reached after any careful analysis of the situation. It is completely wrong in my case. For example, in Sham Shui Po which falls within my constituency only 40% of the population are public housing tenants. In my constituency as a whole, which is Kowloon West, public housing tenants only account for 30% of the population. Why should I wish to oppose the views of 70% of my electorate only to try to win the votes of 30%? It can be seen that by Mr CHIM
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1191
Pui-chung's logic, there is no way I could hope to achieve the objective which he alleges me to have. His analysis is wrong. Whilst it is true that many legislators have spoken each according to their own motives and with different purposes in mind, one should refrain from making any attempt to employ label-bandying tactic without grounds to support one's action. For otherwise there is no way the discussion can go on in a rational manner.
I would like to look at the motion from five different perspectives. What after all is the rationale of the Double Rent Policy for well-off tenants? I think it is much too hasty for us to jump to any conclusion before we get to know the rationale for the policy. According to my knowledge and understanding of the problem, there are three ways in which a public housing tenant may be classified as a well-off tenant.
The first scenario is one which I am sure we are all very familiar with. One third of the public housing tenants live in public housing as a result of clearance operations or land resumption. They did not have to satisfy any income criteria in order to qualify for public housing. Although there is a view that public housing is exclusively for low income groups, the reality is that in view of this scenario there is a possibility that some public housing tenants have always been high income earners from day one. Mr Deputy President, you may be aware that there are two possibilities in this scenario. One is that public housing is used as a compensation. The public housing unit is offered to compensate for the loss of the dwelling place of the person affected in a clearance operation or land resumption. From the government point of view, the compensation deal facilitates the clearance operation after which the land cleared will be put to new use or marked for sale to boost the coffers. The second possibility is that most of the affected residents or proprietors affected in a clearance operation may have a feeling that the public housing policy is a low-rent policy and that by opting for public housing they will solve their housing problem once and for all. But out of the blue came the Double Rent Policy. It breaches the terms of compensation offered to them. Supposing they could start all over again, and they had been informed that in 10 years' time they would have to pay double rent, chances are that they would have opted for cash compensation with which to buy a flat at the prevailing market price. That option might actually leave them better off than remaining as public housing tenants. It can be seen hence that the rationale for the Double Rent Policy is problematic in itself.
Another way in which a tenant may be classified as a well-off tenant is that after the applicant has been through the waiting process and found after careful screening to be eligible for public housing, his or her income has increased substantially over the years.
In the third scenario, the number of working members of the public housing household has actually increased. Whereas previously, the household consisted of a couple and three or four children, the children have all grown up over the past 10 to 20 years and they have found employment. The increase of
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1192
working members means that the household as a whole has a larger income. But we must bear in mind that the working members have also their expenses which tend to increase through the years. The increased gross household income may only marginally improve the economic well-being of its members, but it would appear superficially, from the absolute size of the gross income, that there has nevertheless been a substantial gain.
We may ask then, with regard to these three scenarios, who are the people which the Double Rent Policy has made its target? I think that first of all, we should not discriminate against those people who became public housing tenants as a result of clearance or land resumption because public housing was a form of compensation to which they were entitled. Secondly, I think that people whose circumstances fit into the third scenario, whose gross household income has increased relative to the increased number of working household members, should not be discriminated against either. The only group who might be considered to be the target of this Double Rent Policy would be people whose incomes have increased substantially in real terms because to them, public housing has ceased to be meaningful welfare or social service.
It is based on the above considerations that I would like to ask whether the Double Rent Policy considers as its target the millionaires, multi-millionaires living in public housing, or all of the public housing tenants, irrespective of how much money they actually have, such that they have to apply for remission of rent if they insist that they are not well off at all. I think that the present practice of regarding all relevant tenants being well-off arbitrarily and giving the right of appeal to those who do not consider themselves to be well-off, has failed to address the issue properly.
The next question I would like to ask is, insofar as the public housing tenants whose incomes have increased substantially are concerned, whether we should use punitive rent or provide them with some incentive in order that they will vacate their units. Whereas on the one hand, the Government has declared its desire for Hong Kong people to become home owners, the question which we have to answer then is whether we should build more home ownership flats and encourage the well-off tenants to vacate their public housing units. It would appear that the present housing policy does not provide any special treatment or incentive for this group of well-off tenants. I can see from the way the problem is presently dealt with that it has failed to get to the core of the problem.
Some Members have commented on some of the problems relating to the Double Rent Policy; I have no intention of repeating their arguments at this point in very great detail. Their arguments may be summed up as follows. Incomes of the children of the householder are included in the calculation of the gross household income. The old folks do not realize that they are officially regarded as well-off tenants and that, after filling out the forms, they are entitled to remission of rent if their incomes are lower than the prescribed level. I have also come across cases in my constituency in which the householder does not realize that after filling out the forms, they do not have to pay the double
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1193
rent. It is unfortunate that they have already unwittingly paid the double rent for four years. And there are cases which involve the family cycle. Put in another way, the children have grown up and the gross household income has increased as a result of their paid employment. However, as they start dating and later get married and move out, the household income will subsequently be reduced. The household income, after all, has not significantly improved in real terms. It is problems such as these which will encourage the householder to remove his or her children's names from the tenancy card. The result of this is the ageing of the population of the housing estates. I will not elaborate on this argument further.
I would like to move on and approach the issue from the fourth perspective. I wish to talk about the definition of subsidy. The whole issue of subsidy is raised in the consultation paper in the context of the two arguments as follows. One is that public housing rent is only one third of the going rent on the private market. But I would like to remind Members that public housing rent is not comparable to private market rent at all. While private premises have their market value, public housing is subject to many restrictions. For example, public housing rent cannot be adjusted at random and public housing units cannot be put on sale. In this regard, how can it be compared with private market rent? Supposing we put the 640 000 public housing units on the market, I wonder whether the rent differential would still be 1:3 or 1:2, or even 1:1. It is anybody's guess.
The second reason why the Government is subsidizing the public housing tenant at a monthly rate of $140 is because we have a deficit. But Members may be aware that before 1988, there was a perfect balance of income and expenditure insofar as category A public housing estates were concerned. There was no question of a deficit. The deficit occurred as a result of financial arrangement. The Government ended up with a deficit because, for instance, the dividends had to be divided. The fact is that the central government has taken away the money of the residents and that has caused the deficit. In this regard, I think the subsidy policy is totally problematic.
Lastly, my conclusion is that until a really good way has been found to evict people who could be millionaires and multi-millionaires among the public housing tenants, the Double Rent Policy should be suspended. These are my remarks. And I lend my support to Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion. Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I should focus on the implications of the Double Rent Policy for the public housing tenants who have not gone through the Waiting List and for the single parent families.
Public housing tenants who have not gone through the Waiting List for allocation accounted for two thirds of the population living in public housing in 1991-92. As a matter of fact, over the years, close to 80% of the public housing
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1194
tenants have been allocated public housing either based on rather relaxed income criteria or at any rate, without the need to go through the means test altogether. Ten years into their tenancy, these public housing residents have been required to pay double rent on account of their income having exceeded the subsidy income limit. But is this requirement legitimate?
The ad hoc group on the Double Rent Policy takes the view that the exemption from means test already was a preferential treatment. And given that these households have at least enjoyed the preferential treatment for 10 years, there is no reason why they, having enjoyed the benefit for so long, should continue to receive special treatment. However, the whole issue of preferential treatment is based on the premise of public housing subsidy. The argument advanced by Mr LEE Wing-tat, that public housing is in fact a social investment, is actually more convincing than any theory about government subsidy.
Furthermore, quite a number of public housing tenants have been provided with public housing as a result of land resumption, as Mr Frederick FUNG has said just now. A typical case in point is, while the construction of the Mass Transit Railway was underway, many residents were forced to move their homes to make way for the construction works. Given that the Government could only offer limited cash compensation, it usually supplemented its compensation deal with the provision of public housing. It could hardly be said to be a preferential treatment for the affected residents, given the inadequate cash compensation, that they be allowed to move into public housing without having to satisfy the income criteria. In any case, I wonder if it ever occurs to the Government that how much the property value over the past ten years or so would have gone up, had there not been land resumption and consequently, the demolition of the buildings to make way for development. The residents have been denied the benefits resulting from the appreciation of their property. If we look at the issue from the perspective of the loss incurred by the residents in the land resumption process, then we can see that the Government has in fact owed them a great debt. It can even be said that, given the great contribution made by the residents to the Government, it is only fair and just that they should be exempt from paying the double rent for the rest of their lives.
While the ad hoc group on public housing subsidy policy takes the view that there is no reason why the single parent families should enjoy total exemption from double rent, it also says that some of the households concerned who have been classified as well-off may apply for special treatment if they have extenuating circumstances and it is up to the Housing Department to exercise its discretion to grant exemption to these households on a case by case basis. But are there any guidelines which the Housing department will adhere to in exercising its discretion? Will this in fact lead to abuse of power and further injustice? Does the fact that single parent families have to pay for child minding count as an extenuating circumstance?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1195
The implementation of the Double Rent Policy marks an important departure in terms of the housing policy. Public housing is no longer something a tenant can enjoy for the rest of his life. It is a subsidy only spanning 10 years and one has to go through an income screening in order to prove his eligibility to remain as a public housing tenant at the end of this period. As a matter of fact, from the perspective of the United Democrats, all public housing tenants should be exempt from paying the double rent; and as far as families which have not gone through the Waiting List and most of the single parent families are concerned, the policy is particularly unfair to them. Mr Deputy President, it should be the responsibility of the Government to help members of the public to free themselves from poverty and become prosperous, to have sufficient income so they can have savings and become self-sufficient, so they have no need for government handouts. People should have enough savings so they can make investments and increase their wealth, to make sure that their children have good education and upward social mobility. The goal of the public housing policy should be one which will enable all public housing tenants to become truly well-off tenants. We should be pleased that they are able to achieve an improved standard of living; we should be pleased that more Hong Kong people are able to enjoy the prosperity of Hong Kong. We should not become jealous of their achievement and discriminate against them. However, the Double Rent Policy actually runs counter to this goal and will only serve to undo whatever good that our public housing policy has been able to achieve. According to the Double Rent Policy, we are practically seeking to add to the economic burden of the public housing tenants just when they are beginning to have a slightly better standard of living. This will only once again reduce them to poor supplicants and permanent dependants on government handouts. They will not be able to become self sufficient, truly well-off tenants. At face value, the Double Rent Policy will reduce government spending, but the reality is that the Government may end up creating more poor people and aggravate the burden to society.
With these remarks, I support Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I will discuss the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Double Rent Policy from the perspective of the objectives of the housing policy and the Double Rent Policy per se.
In September 1986, the Report of the Housing Authority Ad Hoc Committee to Review Public Housing Subsidy Policy made the point that the social objective of the public housing programme is to allocate, in keeping with the principle of answering the housing need, public housing units to people whose incomes are relatively low and who cannot afford appropriate accommodation in the private market. The overwhelming majority of the so-called "well-off" tenants are in fact people of the lower strata of society who do not have the means of buying their own homes. In this regard, as long as the public tenants can meet the criteria set by the Government in terms of the allocation of public housing units, the Housing Authority should not seek to add to the financial burden on the pretext of reducing the level of subsidy.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1196
Another major objective of the housing policy is the encouragement of the tenants to buy their own homes. Encouragement of home ownership has always been the main focal point of the housing policy; it is the theme of the Long Term Housing Strategy promulgated in 1987 as well as the policy address delivered by the Governor two months ago. However, the Double Rent Policy will effectively weaken the tenants' saving capability. It will make it even more difficult for them to find the money to buy their own homes. It therefore contravenes the policy objective of encouraging home ownership.
As far as the Double Rent Policy is concerned, it has the dual objectives of, firstly, reducing the level of subsidy to public housing tenants who are economically better off, and of, secondly, making sure that more public housing units will be vacated.
The report on the Double Rent Policy released in September of 1986 made the point that the ad hoc group would encourage the economically better off tenants to move into home ownership flats or private flats. The vacating of public housing units so that those more in need can move in has been used as one of the main arguments of the Housing Authority in support of the Double Rent Policy. However, it has turned out that the policy is able to successfully encourage only 3% of the well-off tenants to move out, up 1% on the rate of removals involving tenants who are affected by the policy but who do not have to pay the double rent. That is why the removal rate of well-off tenants has been considered not to be a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of the policy, according to the consultation paper of September 1992. It is clear that the Housing Authority has been quite inconsistent, and overbearingly unreasonable, on this issue.
The assessment of the effectiveness of the policy should not be solely based on the removal rate, but the move-in rate is nevertheless still an important consideration. Given the fact that the quality, and state of repair, of public housing is not satisfactory, many public housing units which were completed nearly 10 years ago do not appeal to potential tenants. In terms of shortening the long queue of people waiting for allocation of public housing, it does not provide any significant relief at all.
The ad hoc group on the Double Rent Policy suggests that a tenant, upon paying double rent for five years, may enjoy a 50% discount and have priority in terms of buying home ownership flats. This measure is apparently not in line with the cause of making available more public housing units for re-allocation. For one thing, many of the so-called "well-off" tenants do not have the means to buy home ownership flats. If the sale price of the home ownership flats is raised, then this would inevitably dampen the desire, and hurt the ability, of the double rent paying tenants to buy them. Secondly, given the fact that the supply of home ownership flats is falling far behind demand, this proposal will not result in more public housing units being vacated. As a matter of fact, as the consultation paper states, the same effect can be achieved by the arrangement for other public housing tenants to apply for home ownership flats through
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1197
submitting the green forms. It can be seen hence that the suggestion of the ad hoc group is not based on sound reasoning at all. Meanwhile, the adoption of this measure effectively acknowledges in an indirect way the fact that the double rent is a form of punitive rent increase, which is why they have been allowed to buy home ownership flats on preferential terms.
The Double Rent Policy has brought a windfall of $400 million to the Housing Authority. It will generate a revenue of $240 million if the proposed assessment formula (I) is adopted, and a revenue of $300 million if the proposed assessment formula (II) is adopted. One wonders why the Housing Authority would go to the extent of causing such indignation among public housing tenants merely for the sake of an extra 200 or 300 million dollars, which is after all the very hard-earned money of the lower-income group. We hope that the Government will see the wisdom of allowing the people to become affluent, that the Housing Authority will seriously weigh the pros and cons of the issue and scrap the Double Rent Policy.
With these remarks, I support Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, since the Double Rent Policy was implemented by the Housing Authority in 1987, many residents have considered that it is a policy designed for profiteering. Some residents have asked this question, "Why are we forced to turn our hard earned money over to the Housing Authority?" They added, "Whenever we approach the Housing Department for a solution to the problems relating to both management and maintenance of our estate, they would play the delaying tactics. They are only concerned with collecting money from us. And the Housing Authority is itself made up of members who have vested interests. They do not represent the interests of the grassroots. There is no question of the Housing Authority striking a balance between the interests of different sectors." Mr Deputy President, that is a very common sentiment among public housing residents. I think this line of thinking is a reflection of the extent of residents' mistrust of the Housing Authority. Given that the residents are sceptical of the make-up of the Housing Authority, I think it is the responsibility of the Government to first of all consider how the Housing Authority is to be re-organized in order that it will adequately serve the interests of all sectors of Hong Kong society, including residents living in private housing, public housing and temporary housing, and last but not least, the 500 000 people who are currently on the Waiting List for allocation of public housing.
Mr Deputy President, the membership of the Housing Authority should have a degree of public recognition for its policy to be widely accepted by the people. As long as this problem remains unresolved, all important policies, such as the policy to put public housing flats on sale, the rental policies, or the Double Rent Policy for well-off tenants which we are discussing today, will quite inevitably be widely questioned by the public, particularly by public housing residents.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 9 December 1992 1198
Recently, there has been a report about members of the Housing Authority and the committees under its auspices being required to declare their interests. This is a most welcome move. As a matter of fact, the Government should have made that a requirement for the Housing Authority a long time ago. A couple of months ago, I made the point in a motion debate in this Council that the Housing Authority and its committees are mostly made up of professionals who come from the real estate sector or who are closely connected with it. Mr Deputy President, insofar as these people are concerned, the public housing policy has a direct bearing on their personal business interests. Given the serious conflict of interest, even if these people are required to declare interests, one would still be very doubtful whether that is quite enough to pacify the public outcry. I am convinced that this problem will not be solved so easily.
Mr Deputy President, in keeping with the principle of social justice, it behoves the Government to subsidize the households who do not have the means to pay the exorbitant rent whilst those people who are truly well-off tenants should be made to pay more rent. Some colleagues said just now that they never heard public housing tenants voicing support for this. I come from New Territories East and I have some voluntary helpers who too are living in public housing. They told me they were supportive of some form of a double rent policy, but they were very disappointed in the way in which the present policy was being implemented, because they felt that the criteria for the definition of a well-off tenant were set too low. A colleague said just now that a four-member household could easily be classified as a well-off household if each member was making $5,000 a month. It is cases such as these which even people who are inclined to uphold the principle of fairness for all will find it unacceptable. They think that the policy has some serious problems in terms of implementation. I would like to remind Members that the public housing residents in Sha Tin where I come from are in support of the spirit of the policy. But they find its implementation replete with problems.
Mr Deputy President, when the Double Rent Policy was just introduced, the consultation paper published at the time stated that it was the intention of the Housing Authority to encourage residents who had become more economically well-off to move out and opt for home ownership flats, so that more public housing units would become available for re-allocation for the more needy. But we can see that, through the years, only 3 000-odd people have moved into home ownership flats. On average, only 3% of the public housing tenants have made the move each year. In this regard, our conclusion is that the Double Rent Policy has not achieved its original purpose. At any rate, the consultation paper released in September this year states that this is the main objective of the Housing Authority. However, that objective originally had the support of many people. In this regard, we hope that the Housing Authority would give it some re-consideration and identify means of encouraging the truly well-off tenants to move out, or even further increase their rent. But the Housing Authority should not persecute those who are not so well-off by arbitrarily tacking on them the label of well-off tenants.