HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1839 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 19 January 1994
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE JOHN JOSEPH SWAINE, C.B.E., LL.D., Q.C., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR NATHANIEL WILLIAM HAMISH MACLEOD, K.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE 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 NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, O.B.E., J.P.
1840 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 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., J.P. 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, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, O.B.E., 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, O.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM KUI-CHUN
DR THE HONOURABLE CONRAD LAM KUI-SHING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1841 THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TIK CHI-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
THE HONOURABLE ROGER LUK KOON-HOO
THE HONOURABLE ANNA WU HUNG-YUK
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALFRED TSO SHIU-WAI
ABSENT
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., J.P.
IN ATTENDANCE
MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
MR ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, C.B.E., A.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
1842 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 MR CHAU TAK-HAY, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
MR HAIDER HATIM TYEBJEE BARMA, I.S.O., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
MR LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR CLETUS LAU KWOK-HONG
THE DEPUTY CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MR PATRICK CHAN NIM-TAK
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1843 Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Rabies Regulation ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/94
Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994 --------------------------------------------------------------- 6/94
The Hong Kong Association of Banks (Amendment of Schedule
1) Order 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7/94
Tramway Ordinance (Alteration of Fares) (Amendment) Notice
1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/94
Clubs (Safety of Premises) (Exclusion) (Amendment) Order
1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56/94
Declaration of Change of Title (Environmental Pollution
Advisory Committee) Notice 1994 ----------------------------------------- 57/94
Shipping and Port Control Ordinance (Exemption) (Amendment)
Notice 1994--------------------------------------------------------------------- 58/94
Sessional Papers 1993-94
No.50 ― Statement of Accounts and Report on the Administration of the Travel Agents' Reserve Fund for the Year Ended 31 March 1993
Miscellaneous
Second Periodic Report on Hong Kong regarding Articles 10-15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Oral answers to questions
District Board and District Management Committee
1. MRS SELINA CHOW asked: What is the relationship between district boards (DBs) and District Management Committees (DMCs), and what
1844 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
assurances exist for government representatives on a DMC to take into account views of the DB, particularly when a majority view is reached on an issue?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, district boards are set up under the District Boards Ordinance (Cap 366) to advise the Government on matters affecting the well-being of the people in the districts. On the other hand, District Management Committees are set up by the Government to enable representatives of government departments working in the districts to discuss how best to provide services in the districts efficiently and effectively. District Management Committees are chaired by District Officers and district board chairmen are invited to attend their meetings as observers.
In practice, departments working in the districts make full use of the District Management Committees as forums for discussing and resolving district problems. They co-ordinate departmental operations and services in the districts and respond positively to district needs. In this connection, District Management Committees develop and maintain a close, cordial and effective working relationship with the district boards.
As district boards are in the best position to advise on the impact of government initiatives on the local community and how the needs of local residents might best be served, their advice is normally followed provided it does not conflict with established government policies or practices. Where the advice of a district board is at variance with existing policies or practices, the relevant policy branch or department will be asked to carefully examine the merits of this advice to see if existing policies and practices could be refined, revised or applied flexibly to accommodate it. If it is decided not to accept the advice of the district board, a full explanation of the reasons for not accepting the district board's advice would be given to it.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, are the district boards represented in the meetings of the DMCs? If not, why not; if yes, how effectively would the views of the district boards be taken into account by the DMCs?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, as I have said, District Management Committees are interdepartmental working bodies. They are staffed mainly by government officials. District board chairmen are invited to attend District Management Committee meetings as observers. They are allowed the opportunity to represent to the District Management Committees the views of district board members and these views are often fully taken into account when the District Management Committees decide on a course of action to take.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1845
MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, very often district boards are not entirely happy with the work progress of DMCs in dealing with district matters. Now that the Administration says that district board chairmen attend the meetings of the DMCs as observers, may I ask the Administration how district board chairmen can, in the capacity of observers only, be expected to monitor the progress of work of the Administration? Are there any other ways to enhance the co-operation between the DMCs and the district boards, for example by holding regular joint meetings?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, I believe we all understand that district board members can express their views on local issues and suggest to the Administration ways to deal with them. Therefore, district board meetings themselves already provide sufficient channels for members to exchange their views. The primary role of a DMC is to take follow-up actions on the views of the district board and to implement the proposals of the district board in connection with district affairs. Therefore, members are allowed sufficient opportunities to exchange views. As for monitoring the progress of work of DMCs, progress reports on the work of the Administration are in fact regularly submitted to district boards for consideration.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, from the interviews with district board members, the Urban Council got two different pictures from district board chairmen about their right to speak at DMC meetings. Some like the Chairman of Sham Shui Po District Board claimed that they had no right to speak at DMC meetings while others like the Chairman of Mong Kok District Board told the Legislative Council that they could speak at those meetings. Will the Secretary account for these two different situations? Are district board chairmen working on DMCs allowed to speak at the committee's meetings? Has the Administration also considered allowing chairmen of other committees, like that of the Environment Committees, to attend those meetings as members or observers?
PRESIDENT: Sorry, are those two questions, Mr FUNG?
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, perhaps I would try to make my question clearer. During the interviews with district board members, the Legislative Councillors got two pictures from them. Some district board chairmen were allowed to speak at DMC meetings while others were not. They also brought up the issue of allowing chairmen of other committees, especially that of the Environment Committees,
to attend the committee's meetings. In fact, Members of this Council have raised the issue with the Administration after the interview. Can the Secretary give an answer to the question?
1846 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, all district board chairmen attending DMC meetings in the capacity of observers have a right to speak. As regards the situations mentioned just now, I believe that they are individual cases only. It might be due to misunderstanding as a result of unfamiliarity with procedures when members came for the first meeting. We have made clarification to the effect that all district board chairmen who come for DMC meetings have a right to speak at meetings to express their views. As to the question of allowing chairmen of other committees to attend, I do not believe that there is such a need. The main reason is that the role of a DMC is to take follow-up actions on the views of the district board, with the actual work being carried out by the government departments in the district. As I have mentioned just now, DMCs will submit progress reports to district boards on a regular basis. If we accept that, then I believe the problem that Mr FUNG refers to can be resolved.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, part of my question has been asked by Mr Frederick FUNG. I would like to raise another supplementary. Given that the situations mentioned earlier arose as a result of different ways in which District Officers chaired the DMC meetings, and to prevent recurrence of similar situations in future, will consideration be given to issuing a guideline to all District Officers, advising them of the capacity and rights of district board chairmen in attending the committee's meetings?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think it is not necessary to issue a specific guideline on this because we have clearly advised all our colleagues of the capacity and rights of district board chairmen in attending DMC meetings.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like the Administration to clarify one point. If district board chairmen attend the DMC meetings only in the capacity of observers, I would appreciate if the Administration will advise all district board members of that because in some cases, like the subject of the pace of democratization, district board chairmen may not represent the views of all its members.
If the DMC chairmen thought that the district board chairmen could represent the views of all the members, then it would run the risk of distorting public views.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, I could understand what Dr LAM meant to say. But I would like to make it clear that the primary role of a DMC is not to gather opinions. Rather it is to follow up and implement the work to be done in the district. As for expression of views, district boards can reflect their views to the various government departments direct. Therefore, there should be no confusion about the role of DMCs and I
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1847 believe there is no such confusion among district board members and our colleagues.
PRESIDENT: Do you have a further question, Mrs CHOW?
MRS SELINA CHOW: Thank you, Mr President. In his reply, the Secretary said that the DMCs are chaired by District Officers. As chairmen, they play a co-ordinating role, rather than a decision-making role. I just want to ask: when decisions have to be taken and government departments represented in the DMC happen to choose to go contrary to a decision or a request of the district board, what would the chairman of the DMC do to deal with the situation?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I think those cases would be very rare. But if they do arise, I think it depends on whether the advice we receive comes into conflict in any way with the established policies or practices of government departments. If the advice is in some way in conflict or at variance with government policies or practices, then, as indicated in my main reply, we will ask the relevant departments to consider whether their established policies and practices can in any way be modified, refined, changed or applied flexibly. If all these cannot be done, then the chairman obviously has to come to a view. If the view taken is not to accept the advice of the district board then he is obliged to give a very full explanation to the board as to the reason why their advice cannot be accepted.
Importation of skilled labour
2. MR JAMES TIEN asked: In view of the fact that the unemployment rate is consistently below 3% since importation of skilled labour of up to 25 000 was allowed two years ago, will the Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to increasing the quota by 12 500 as soon as possible?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the purpose of the general labour importation scheme is to help relieve bottlenecks in the employment market due to labour shortage at the technician, craftsman, supervisor and experienced operative levels so that economic growth is not impeded. In considering whether the scheme should be expanded, the Government takes into account a number of factors, of which the unemployment rate is just one of them. At present, there is no plan to further expand the general labour importation scheme.
1848 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, when the current scheme for 25 000 imported workers was introduced in 1990, the unemployment rate at that time of 3% was cited as the main factor ― or just one of the many factors, as the Secretary has said in his reply. Would the Secretary please inform us when the Government unilaterally changed the criteria for assessing whether the number should be increased, what other new factors are being considered and what the weighting is for each of these new factors?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, we did take into account a number of factors in making decision at various stages to expand the scheme in the previous few years. Factors, other than unemployment rate, that we took into account and still do include the overall labour relations in Hong Kong and other possible ways of relieving the shortage in the labour market, such as retraining and increasing the productivity. We do not have fixed weighting for these factors since obviously we have to deal with the situation pragmatically and flexibly. It is our judgement, having taken all factors into account, that there is no need to further expand the scheme at the moment.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration inform this Council whether it is aware of the stance and attitude of trade unions and local groups, which represent the middle and lower strade of society, on importation of labour? What will be their reaction if the Administration further expands the labour importation scheme?
PRESIDENT: Sorry, are you asking what the reaction of the Administration will be or the reaction of the unions, Mr SZETO Wah?
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, I was asking whether the Administration was aware of the attitude of trade unions and local groups on importation of labour and what their reaction would be if the Administration further expanded the scheme. I was asking two questions.
PRESIDENT: Yes, but you cannot ask the Administration what the opinion of the unions will be. That would be asking the Administration for an opinion or a view as to someone else's opinion. Would you like to rephrase your question?
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration should be aware of the views put forward by local groups.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1849 PRESIDENT: Secretary, insofar as you are able to assess opinion.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have had contacts with different trade unions, local groups and all other bodies interested in this issue. We think we have a clear picture of what their opinions are, to which we will refer when assessing the general labour importation scheme.
MR LAU WAH-SUM: Mr President, would the Government inform this Council if there will be quotas set for the importation of workers coming from different countries?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, under the present general labour importation scheme, the quotas are not confined to any particular nationalities. We do not see the need for doing that. And we would continue to operate the present quota system flexibly to suit individual needs.
PRESIDENT: Was that your question, Mr LAU?
MR LAU WAH-SUM: Could I ask a follow-up question?
PRESIDENT: Well, only if your question has not been answered, you think. If it is a supplementary, there are lots of people wanting to ask questions, I am afraid.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the increase of quota of one-way permits naturally will bring about an increase in the size of our work force. In such circumstances, will the Administration consider cutting down the quota under the general labour importation scheme?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, the increase of quota of one-way permits serves a specific purpose and it will take quite some time before more people can join the labour market. Therefore in the foreseeable future, we do not think an increase of quota of one-way permits should bring about a corresponding decrease of quota of imported labour.
1850 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, would the Government not accept that in view of the 70 000 vacancies and unemployment at a negligible rate of 2%, the quota level should be re-examined and in particular would it recognize that Hong Kong's future as an international business and tourism centre will depend on an adequate supply of labour in order to maintain service standards, bringing benefits to all the people of Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, we do monitor the situation very closely and do review the situation from time to time. We, of course, agree that it is important that Hong Kong should maintain its service standard, given the importance of Hong Kong as an international trade, finance and service centre. But we do consider that there are other ways to help relieve the labour market other than simply using the labour importation scheme. We have been working very hard through the Employees Retraining Board to retrain the displaced workers, many of whom were from the manufacturing sector, to join the service sector. That is one way. And, of course, over the last few years it is evident that the employers in the private sector have done quite a lot to enhance productivity and this has helped in relieving the labour shortage in the last few years.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration inform this Council whether importation of labour has any effect on inflation, and in its plan to combat inflation, whether importation of labour has been used as a weapon against inflation?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, as the number of imported labour represents less than 1% of the total work force, this is no evidence to suggest that the number of imported labour has a substantial effect on inflation. Of course, the main reason we import labour is that we do not want to see the territory's economic development being hampered by labour shortage. If curbing inflation can be a spinoff of importation of labour, we certainly will welcome it, but it is not our main purpose of having imported labour.
PRESIDENT: Your question has not been answered, Mr TANG?
MR HENRY TANG: Yes, Mr President. (In Cantonese): In fact what I would like to ask is: Given that in Singapore, the proportion of imported labour against the entire work force is higher than that of Hong Kong, yet it has a lower inflation rate and higher productivity, why has the Administration not studied the case of Singapore when looking at the question of inflation?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1851
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, every country or region has its unique political and economic situation. When evaluating the labour market situation in Hong Kong, one should look at the objective factors. The different levels in respect of the two places are governed by different local factors as well as many complicated factors. So I would not comment on them. But we do think that objective factors should be used as the criteria in assessing whether the territory needs to import more labour.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have not made good use of our marginal workers, including housewives, older people who are physically fit and the disabled. Will the introduction of relevant laws and policies help in any way in lowering the quota level?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration has all along been encouraging housewives and other people who can work to join the labour market as far as possible. In fact, a considerable number of those retrained by the Employees Retraining Board are women, and some of them are housewives who are interested in rejoining the labour market. We believe that some of these housewives have already benefited from the scheme and they have helped in boosting the size of the work force. The Employees Retraining Board has allocated $10 million this year to organize retraining programmes for disabled people who are still fit to work so as help them join the labour market.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to ask a question on retraining. In the 1992 policy address, the Governor announced that $300 million would be spent on retraining 15 000 workers within the next two to three years. Will the Administration inform this Council whether it will use the placement rate as a key indicator in deciding whether or not to reduce the quota of imported labour?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, from our experience of retraining last year, about 80% of those retrained were very keen and active in looking for jobs and among them, three quarters were able to find a suitable job within a short time. In the past year, we have retrained more than 8 000 workers and actually the majority were able to rejoin the labour market very quickly. Through regular review and close monitoring of our labour market situation, we will determine whether appropriate adjustments should be made to the labour importation scheme.
1852 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is mentioned in the Secretary's reply that the purpose of the general labour importation scheme is to help relieving bottlenecks in the employment market and that a number of factors have to be taken into account. Apart from unemployment rate, will vacancies in different industries be taken into account? I have just read the 1992 Manpower Survey Report which indicates that the vacancies in the tourism industry are as high as 4% while that of the hotel industry may even be higher. If the vacancy rate is higher than the unemployment rate, does it mean that there is labour shortage?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to the quota allocation formula we are using, vacancies in different industries is one of the criteria in determining the quota level. In other words, if long-term vacancies exist in a certain industry and the situation is more serious than other industries, and presuming other factors remaining unchanged, that industry will be given more places under the existing quota of 25 000.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, as the labour importation policy has led to unemployment of a large number of unskilled middle-aged and old-age workers, in particular underemployment as well as wage reduction and blockage of wage increase, this has adverse effect on the livelihood of workers. In such circumstances, will the Administration reduce the quota or even abolish the labour importation scheme?
PRESIDENT: We are straying a distance from the original question and answer, Secretary.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have been closely monitoring the underemployment and unemployment situation of different industries. Figures in the past two years show that the underemployment and unemployment rate stays in the region of 2% with no significant changes. We certainly understand that older workers and particularly displaced workers looking for new jobs will need greater assistance. Therefore, we would pay particular attention to the need of this category of people and retrain them under our retraining programme. Regarding the quota level, as I have mentioned, we would regularly and closely monitor the changes in the overall labour market and would make adjustments only if necessary.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1853 Taxi service
3. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Cantonese): Given the substantial fare increases in mid-November 1993, taxi services should be improved accordingly. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the corresponding policy to monitor and improve the quality of taxi service;
(b) whether it will be stipulated that a Code of Practice for Drivers should be posted inside taxi compartments;
(c) whether organizations concerned or trade unions will be encouraged to organize short courses for taxi drivers, so as to teach them the proper manners and some practical English; and
(d) whether prosecution will be stepped up against drivers for refusing hire and charging excessive fare and whether consideration will be given to increasing the level of penalties for such offences?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) In his preamble, the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung referred to "substantial fare increases". Indeed the urban and New Territories taxi fares went up in November last year by 17.7% and 19.2% respectively, but in perspective, it should be remembered that these were implemented after a gap of almost two full years since the previous adjustment in fares.
The quality of taxi service is primarily dependent on the availability of taxis and the conduct of taxi drivers. The Transport Department monitors the quality of taxi services through regular surveys of passenger waiting times and times between empty taxis at popular locations, as well as through complaints against taxi services received by themselves, the Transport Complaints Unit and the police. Regular meetings are held between the taxi operators and the department to discuss taxi services and possible improvement measures.
Taxi services are regulated by law. This covers:
(i) the standard and quality of the vehicles;
(ii) the accuracy of the taxi meters;
(iii) the standard of driving; and
1854 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 (iv) the conduct of drivers.
The Transport Advisory Committee (TAC) is now finalizing its review on taxi policy, with particular emphasis on the measures to improve the quality of taxi services and it should complete its deliberations by the end of this month.
(b) A Guide to Taxi Service was published by the Transport Department as an information booklet. This contains information on how to hire taxis and where to make complaints. The department intends to revise the booklet later this year and update the code of practice for taxi drivers. The Honourable CHIM Pui chung's suggestion that such a code to be posted inside taxi compartments will be considered as part of the exercise.
(c) A number of taxi associations have already taken the initiative to organize training courses for potential and new taxi drivers. These courses cover good manners but not practical English. The Transport Department assists in the organization of these courses and the suggestion to include some English in these courses will certainly be borne in mind.
(d) The major complaints against taxi malpractices relate to refusing hire and charging excessive fares. The police have stepped up enforcement and prosecution action.
In the last four months of 1993, 132 large-scale operations were mounted, resulting in an average of 255 prosecutions per month. This compares with an average of 12 operations and 52 prosecutions per month in the first eight months of 1993. The courts do take into account previous convictions. For example, three taxi drivers had their taxi licences suspended. This intensified enforcement action has resulted in a fall in the number of complaints against taxis from the peak in July 1993 to a figure of 203 in December 1993.
The Honourable Member's suggestion to impose heavier penalties for refusing hire and charging excessive fares, and the feasibility of making these offences punishable by fixed penalty tickets, will certainly be considered by the Administration.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration's reply seems to imply that a 9% increase a year is very reasonable. Will the Secretary inform this Council if the scope of the review will cover the attitude of taxi drivers? With a taxi licence costing almost $2 million and the monopoly of consortia, will these be the reasons for taxi fare increases and deterioration of quality of service? Has the Administration considered issuing more taxi licences for the benefit of taxi drivers?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1855
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, applications for increase in taxi fares are considered on their own merit each and every time when they are submitted by the taxi operators. In considering such applications the main factors or criteria that are taken into account include the financial viability of the taxi trade, that an acceptable level of service should be provided for the public, whether or not there is a reasonable differential in the fares between taxis and other modes of transport and of course whether or not this new fare structure would be acceptable to the public. The applications for increases in taxi fares are considered by the TAC. It does not follow necessarily that the increase next time will be in the same order as that of the last increase in November 1993. As regards the premium quoted by the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung of $2 million for a taxi licence, this particular subject is also a matter which is being reviewed by the TAC. And whilst it would be premature for me to pre-empt the decision that will be taken by the TAC, I do believe that a practical solution would be to offer more taxi licences in the coming year.
MR MARVIN CHEUNG: Mr President, will the Government advise this Council what priority the police assign to dealing with complaints against taxi malpractices relative to their other duties?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, police operations and priorities are a matter for the police. Certainly operations against taxi malpractices have been stepped up, as I indicated in my reply. And in a recent discussion with the police, they have assured me that they will continue to pay due attention to the problem. But I think the exact number of operations and the priority they accord must relate to their other commitments.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration inform this Council whether it is the taxi drivers or owners who stand to benefit most each time taxi fare is increased? Will the Administration consider putting in place measures to balance the interests between them so as to minimize conflicts and to improve the quality of service? If yes, what are the measures, and if no, why?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, as I indicated earlier on, when considering applications for fare increases, a variety of factors and criteria are taken into account and it is not as a result of pressure either from the taxi owners or taxi drivers themselves. And it is the fare level and whether or not it is acceptable that is paramount. As I mentioned, factors to be considered include the financial viability of the taxi trade, whether or not there will be an acceptable level of service and the fare differential between different transport modes.
1856 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, it was mentioned in the last paragraph of the Secretary's reply that heavier penalties would be considered. I understand drivers associations are also in favour of this. May I ask the Secretary how long it will take before a decision can be made and the factors that will be taken into account? Moreover, will this be included in the taxi policy review of the Transport Advisory Committee which will be completed by the end of this month?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the answer is yes. Certainly the views of taxi drivers and operators will be, and indeed have been, taken into account by the TAC. And I think once any recommendations are made and decisions are taken, there will be plenty of opportunities for further dialogue with the trade.
Car park rent increase
4. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Cantonese): Regarding the recent hefty car park rent increases in some private residential estates by developers who own all the car parking spaces in the estates concerned and increase the rents indiscriminately, will the Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to:
(a) adopting measures to safeguard consumers' interests; and
(b) vesting the Consumer Council with statutory powers to investigate and study any complaints arising therefrom?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, on part (a) of the question, the level of provision for parking spaces in private developments is stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. These planning standards are being reviewed as part of a Parking Demand Study recently commissioned by the Transport Department. The review of the planning standard will help to ensure that consumers' interests are safeguarded through the provision of adequate parking facilities. However, there are no plans to control parking charges in private carparks. These must be determined by market forces.
On part (b), under the Consumer Council Ordinance, the Council is empowered to examine complaints by consumers and to take such action as it deems fit on the basis of the information available. In response to recent complaints from the public on increases in car park rent in some private residential estates, the Council has decided to conduct a study on the subject. We do not consider it necessary to provide the Council with additional powers to investigate and study these complaints. The Council has, as the result of public complaints, conducted studies on the operation of government and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1857
commercial carparks in the past and has not found that it needs additional powers to perform these tasks satisfactorily.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary has said in the first paragraph of his reply that "there are no plans to control parking charges in private carparks. These must be determined by market forces". As we all know, the demand for car parks far outstrips supply and the so-called "market forces" referred to by the Secretary seem to have been controlled by a small group of people. Although the Administration has said that the planning standards for car parks will be reviewed, may I know when such a review can be completed at the earliest? Before the completion of the review, will the Administration just look on unconcerned, as it does now, while the car owners affected have to resort to different means of protests to counter the monopoly?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: With your permission, Mr President, I will pass that question to my colleague, the Secretary for Transport.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the Transport Department has recently commissioned a study on the level of both public and private parking spaces. This study commenced in October last year and is estimated to take about a year to complete. In the meantime, as my colleague has said just now, the Government does not believe that there is a need to intervene in the price levels determined by the market.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I do not know if the Secretary will refer my question to the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, who is not in the Chamber at the moment. Is the Administration aware that in many areas, especially in remote places, most of the car parks are controlled by a small number of developers? Is the Administration considering measures to break such a monopoly, like providing more land in these areas for building public car parks so as to counter the control and monopoly of developers?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, I think that question, too, falls to my colleague.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I think the answer to the Honourable Member's question must await the outcome of the study to which I referred. As far as parking is concerned, there is a dilemma: on the one hand, of course, we all know that there is a problem with the number of cars and, on the other, perhaps, to provide more parking spaces might further aggravate this
1858 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
particular problem. But having said that, obviously parking has to be provided but the provision of more government parking spaces will have to wait until the study to which I referred is completed.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr President, in its study, will the Government consider tackling this problem by requiring developers to give purchasers the option of purchasing the car parking spaces when they purchase their flats?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, this is really a question of the Land Grant Conditions, and I believe it is a question for my colleague, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, to answer. I shall refer this to him and request him to provide a written answer. (Annex I)
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration has remained indifferent to the problem of parking spaces; is that part of the Administration's policy to curb the growth in vehicles?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, this obviously is a possible solution but no decision has yet been taken. I think the Honourable Member has asked, in her capacity as chairperson of the Legislative Council Transport Panel, for a particular briefing on this subject. And I am happy to say that early in February colleagues from the Administration will respond to this request and we can discuss this in further detail.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I am following up the question from the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU. Can the Administration inform this Council whether, in considering its policy, it has decided that the presence of car parks will increase the number of cars and therefore to prevent proliferation of cars the number of car parks must be suppressed, or alternatively, that since we have so many cars one way to keep them off the road is to provide carparks? Would the Administration please decide which way it wants to go rather than keep switching all the time?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, yes, I hope that we will come to a decision soon. But the question asked by the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI is whether or not a decision has been taken, and the answer is no.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I agree with what the Administration has said in its reply that parking charges must be determined by market forces, but it is obvious that in many remote places, there is a monopoly of some of the parking spaces. Can the Administration inform this Council how
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1859
it can ensure that these parking spaces will not be controlled and that market forces can operate smoothly?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I believe that in remote places, for example in certain parts of the New Territories, there are sites available on short-term tenancy grants. And I think anyone who is interested in acquiring such a site and running it as a carpark can apply to the authorities concerned.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the monopoly of parking spaces is in fact related to supply and demand. Besides that of private residential estates, the hourly rentals of car parks in some crowded areas are also very high. In some commercial cities of developed countries, there are town planning laws that provide that the lowest two levels or the two basement levels of commercial or residential buildings have to be used as car parks and that the parking places can be for sale or for rental. Will the Administration consider adopting this kind of town planning?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I believe that parking spaces in private residential blocks are available both for sale and for rental, and certainly I do believe that the Administration has taken into account the mode of operation in other countries. I also understand that for residential development, depending on the nature and the density of the project, the number of carparks is adjusted accordingly.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, there is no tenancy for most of the rental parking spaces. Will the Administration consider asking big developers to enter into tenancy agreement with unit owners, which will state for example the period of notification for rent increase and other conditions, so as to protect the interests of unit owners?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, on the first question, I think certainly it is a question of the Conditions of Sale and it is a matter between the developer and the prospective purchaser. I understand that some car-parking spaces are in fact sold and others are rented but I shall take this up further with my colleague, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands. (Annex II)
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, does the Secretary for Transport agree that every time the Government increases illegal car-parking fines, car park rents increase accordingly? That being the case, does the Government agree that it is leading the rise in car-parking charges?
1860 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, no, I do not agree. (Laughter)
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, in order to bridge the chasm between the number of parking spaces and the number of vehicles, will the Administration consider requiring the prospective car purchaser to prove that he has a parking space before a licence is issued?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, at present there is no requirement that the prospective purchaser of a car has a parking space but this can certainly be taken into consideration.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, in regard to government-owned car parks, will the Secretary advise whether the charges for these are aligned to private sector market charges or aligned to actual cost of operation? And where government car parks are contracted out, as is the case with Wilson, what proportion of charges goes to the Government? I understand that that may be something over 80%, in which case the Government itself would be contributing to the inflationary trend.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, in government-owned car parks ― these are now contracted out to operators, as Mr McGREGOR has quite rightly stated ― the level of the charges is partly determined by the prevailing market rate in private carparks. As regards the percentage of charges that the Government takes, I do not have the answer at hand and I shall provide this in writing. (Annex III)
Identity card information
5. MR PETER WONG asked: When a person uses his Hong Kong Identity Card to leave Hong Kong, the information is captured by the computer. Through this information, the movement of a person can be traced. Will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) what data are captured in the computer;
(b) what are the criteria to permit the use of this information by either the Immigration Department or any other government department;
(c) what are the criteria to permit the use of this information by foreign governments; and
(d) what measures are being taken to prevent personal privacy of the individual from being infringed?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1861 SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) The computer captures the following data: the Identity Card number, the nationality of the person concerned, the date and time of immigration clearance, the control point, the person's destination and the carrier.
(b) The use of this information by the Immigration Department is restricted to immigration clearance purposes, and the preparation of statistical records. The use of this information by other government departments is restricted to criminal investigations. The handling of data, in both cases, is guided by the Data Protection Principles and Guidelines, issued by the Government in 1988, copies of which have already been made available to Members.
(c) Movement information is provided to foreign governments only in connection with international criminal investigations. Requests for such assistance are made either through consulates or through Interpol.
(d) In the case of immigration records, stringent measures are taken to guard against unauthorized access, alteration, or disclosure of individuals' movement information. These measures include:
(i) limiting access to computer data through the use of application codes and user passwords;
(ii) logging computer transactions for monitoring and audit purposes; (iii) adopting procedural safeguards to ensure data protection; and
(iv) installing physical security safeguards at computer sites and terminal areas.
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, within the Immigration Department computers, is there any cross-referencing to any local or foreign passport that the resident may possess, and is there any intention on the part of the Government to change the existing policy of using the Permanent Resident Identity Card as the sole document to leave Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I believe that in both cases the answer is no. The Immigration Department computer is not linked to other computers and so other users cannot have immediate access to the Immigration Department information. The use of identity cards to enter and leave Hong Kong by permanent residents is an option, it is not compulsory. They can
1862 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
use travel documents if they wish but for ease of travel they are able to use identity cards. There is no intention to change this; indeed, we have in recent years gradually extended the use of identity cards as travel documents.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the handling of data mentioned just now is guided by the "Data Protection Principles and Guidelines" issued by the Government in 1988 which, however, are no more than administrative rules and measures, and cannot guard against abuse. Does the Administration consider it important that the legislative process should be speeded up to protect privacy of the individual? Will such information be passed on to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Administration is considering the introduction of legislation in this area. I believe that the Law Reform Commission is actually studying this subject, but no decisions have yet been taken. And we will await the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.
PRESIDENT: Yes, you had a second question, Mr TO.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the second part of my question is: Will the information be passed on to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government?
PRESIDENT: Yes, the second question, Secretary.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, could I ask for clarification: what information?
MR JAMES TO: The information referred to in paragraph (a) of the answer, Mr President.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the answer is yes. The information is kept for 10 years and we intend to continue with that practice.
MS ANNA WU: Mr President, will the Administration inform us which agencies, government departments or officials are entitled to have access to the computer data without reference to the Immigration Department? And is there a computer record kept of accesses to or requests for information made?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1863
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not believe that anybody is allowed to have access to these records except through the Immigration Department. There certainly are records kept of requests for information made to the Immigration Department. For example, I have information here that some 600 requests were made last year by individuals asking for access to information on them. There were also some 200 requests from local consulates and some 300 requests made through Interpol. There is a full record kept of all these.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is mentioned in paragraph (c) of the Secretary's reply that "Movement information is provided to foreign governments only in connection with international criminal investigations". At present, there are a large number of residents emigrating to other countries like Canada and Australia and it is quite likely that these emigrants may fail to report to the authorities concerned the number of days in a year they have resided in the country. Should the governments of these countries approach the Hong Kong Government for movement information in connection with these emigrants, will their requests have anything to do with "international criminal investigation"?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I think what I can say is that it is a generally accepted principle of mutual legal co-operation in criminal matters that there should be some commonality of offence between the two jurisdictions. Now we do not have any agreements with other countries on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, although we are hoping to negotiate and conclude such agreements in the next few years. But we do follow that principle in guidelines that we have issued to departments and they would have to consider each case on its merits as to whether the criminal investigation related to an offence which would be an offence both in Hong Kong and in the other country.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the Secretary's reply that the use of computer data by other government departments is restricted to criminal investigations. Then if a person is found to be missing after leaving the territory, will the Administration assist the wife or husband of the missing person in locating his or her spouse?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I am not sure. I will have to answer that question in writing. (Annex IV)
1864 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to follow up Mr CHIM Pui-chung's question. Have other foreign governments, in checking their immigration records, requested the Hong Kong Government to disclose movement information, and did the Hong Kong Government provide the information as requested?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, as I said, I think, in answer to a previous supplementary, we do regularly get each year a number of requests from foreign governments for movement record data. We had some 300 requests through Interpol last year and a further 200 or so direct from consulates, and we have guidelines as to when we provide such information: it has to be in connection with a criminal investigation.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary mentioned just now that more than 600 requests from individuals for access to their personal records had been granted. Are there cases in which requests for access to personal records have been denied. If so, why? Furthermore, if people find that the information held on them is incorrect, can they ask for amendment?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, individuals are entitled to ask for information on themselves and are required to pay a fee for such information. I do not believe that any such requests have been or would be refused. Very stringent steps are taken to ensure that the immigration movement records are correct and I am not aware that any case has arisen where an individual has disputed the records. But, clearly, if someone could prove that the information was wrong in some way, then no doubt the Immigration Department would consider that.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to follow up the question raised by Miss Emily LAU. Referring to the several hundred requests the Immigration Department received last year from foreign governments for records of Hong Kong people entering and leaving the territory, how many of these requests were granted?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I think the figures I gave, which were approximately 200 through consulates and 300 through Interpol, relate to requests which were granted. But I will have to give the detail of that in writing. (Annex V) I do not know the exact figures.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1865 Manslaughter
6. MR LAU WONG FAT asked (in Cantonese): In a number of "manslaughter" conviction cases, the sentences passed by judges were but a few years of imprisonment, which were far below the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the offence and, on some occasions, were even lighter than the sentences for robbery cases not involving casualties. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the annual figure of "manslaughter" conviction cases and their respective terms of imprisonment in the past five years; how many of them involved defendants who were originally charged with murder but subsequently convicted of the offence of manslaughter; and
(b) how the authorities concerned will arouse public awareness of the gravity of the "manslaughter" and whether, for instance, a minimum penalty will be set for the offence in order to enhance the deterrent effect?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, attached to the written copy of this answer are statistics relating to convictions and sentences for manslaughter recorded in the last five years. In each of these years, the majority of convictions were of defendants who had been charged originally with murder.
Turning to the second part of the question, any killing of a human being is of course an extremely grave matter. I do not believe there is any need to arouse public awareness of this.
Mr President, the offence of manslaughter covers killings in a wide variety of circumstances that make the offence less blameworthy than murder. It includes a killing that is provoked, a killing by a person suffering from an abnormality of mind, and a killing where there was no intention to kill or to do grievous harm but where the defendant acted recklessly. The maximum penalty in all cases is life imprisonment.
It would be contrary to legal policy for the law to attempt to lay down a minimum penalty for this offence. As the law stands, a judge, when sentencing, is able to decide what sentence within the statutory maximum is just and appropriate having regard to all the facts and circumstances. A minimum penalty would inevitably create unfairness. Some cases of manslaughter do not involve serious misconduct, for example where the defendant merely punched another, but the victim fell, struck his head, and died as a result. In such circumstances, if the defendant is of good character a fairly light sentence is appropriate. In addition, in cases where the defendant is suffering from mental illness a hospital order, not a prison sentence, is appropriate. But other cases
1866 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
may be very serious. It all depends on the facts and one should not fetter the discretion of the sentencing judge.
MANSLAUGHTER
1. Convictions
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
(a) Total number of convictions 31 50 53 40 41
(b) Number of convictions where defendant was
charged with murder
Notes
31 45 49 36 38
1. Where a defendant has been convicted of several offences of manslaughter these statistics record one case only.
2. Where an appeal has been allowed and a retrial ordered, only details of the retrial are recorded.
2. Sentences imposed
1989 25 sentences of imprisonment ranging from 1 year to 12 years, the average sentence being 5.3 years
3 hospital orders
2 probation orders
1 training centre order
1990 40 sentences of imprisonment ranging from 1 year to 12 years, the average sentence being 4.7 years
6 hospital orders
2 probation orders
2 training centre orders.
1991 46 sentences of imprisonment ranging from 1 year to life imprisonment, the average sentence (if the life sentence is treated as a sentence of 20 years imprisonment) being 5.6 years
5 hospital orders
2 training centre orders.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1867
1992 32 sentences of imprisonment ranging from 1 year to life imprisonment, the average sentence (if the life sentence is treated as a sentence of 20 years imprisonment) being 5.2 years
4 hospital orders
3 probation orders
1 binding over
1993 35 sentences of imprisonment ranging from immediate release to 25 years, the average sentence being 6.7 years
5 hospital orders
1 probation order
PRESIDENT: Before Members go to supplementaries, I would remind them of Standing Order 18(1)(g) that a question shall not reflect on the decision of a court of law. So Members should avoid referring to specifics.
MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, as a Chinese saying goes "Life is sacred and therefore should be our foremost concern". Does the Administration intend to review the existing sentencing for manslaughter so as to fully reflect the gravity of the crime of killing and to give due regard to the community's concern in this respect?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, as I said in my main reply, the crime of manslaughter covers a very wide range of circumstances. The law lays down, at the moment, a statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment and, as the figures show, that has been imposed on some occasions. In relation to specific cases, I have a power to seek a review of any particular sentence where I believe that that sentence is wrong in principle or is manifestly inadequate, and that is a power that I have from time to time exercised.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the past five years, has the Legal Department ever asked for a review of sentences for manslaughter which it considered manifestly inadequate and sought a heavier sentence? If yes, how many of these review cases are there?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, I have, in the past five years, sought a review of two sentences for manslaughter. In one case a death resulted from a triad revenge attack, but it was accepted that there was no intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. A sentence of imprisonment for one and a half
1868 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
years was imposed which, after a review of sentence which I had sought, was increased to three years. In the second case a prostitute was killed in the course of a robbery. The two defendants, who did not actually commit the killing, were both convicted of robbery and manslaughter. One of these received concurrent sentences of seven years for robbery and two years for manslaughter, and after a review these sentences were made to run consecutively. The other defendant received concurrent sentences of three years for robbery and two years for manslaughter. On a review of these sentences, the Court of Appeal decided that the sentences were manifestly inadequate but, in view of special circumstances concerning the defendant's way of life since her release, it would not interfere with the actual sentences imposed by the trial judge.
MR SIMON IP: Mr President, for the four years 1990 to 1993, those who received hospital orders accounted for over 10% of all the convictions. Does the Attorney General or the Government think that to be of any significance, and if so, what is the Government going to do about it?
PRESIDENT: Attorney General, did the question come through?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, thank you, Mr President. Hospital orders would usually be imposed following psychiatric reports and following a finding of diminished responsibility. That is a matter that turns entirely, of course, on the medical and psychiatric evidence that would be adduced in court.
Written answers to questions
Autotoll system of the Cross Harbour Tunnel
7. MRS MIRIAM LAU asked (in Chinese): With regard to the autotoll system which has been installed at the Cross Harbour Tunnel, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) the effectiveness of the system has been assessed; if so, what are the findings;
(b) the system has increased the traffic flow and reduced the congestion at the Tunnel; and
(c) any efforts have been made to promote the system and to encourage drivers to make use of it?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1869 SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) The autotoll system at the Cross Harbour Tunnel has so far proven to be effective. The number of users has increased from about 10 000 when the system was introduced in August 1993 to about 24 000 by the end of 1993. Operation of the system is subject to ongoing monitoring by both the Cross Harbour Tunnel Company and Transport Department which has resulted in various improvements, including the broadcasting in the tunnel of more frequent messages advising motorists of the location of autotoll lanes and the stationing of more tunnel staff to direct the traffic.
(b) The traffic flow at the Cross Harbour Tunnel is limited by the capacity of the tunnel, which is about 3 200 vehicles per hour in each direction. Autotoll cannot in itself reduce traffic congestion since the tunnel is operating beyond its capacity during peak hours and the approach roads and exit points are also constraining factors. But users of the system do enjoy the benefit of a quicker passage through the toll booths and, thus, can save a little time.
(c) The autotoll system is provided by the Cross Harbour Tunnel Company. They have taken steps to promote it, particularly prior to the implementation of the system at the Cross Harbour Tunnel in August last year. This has been done by way of publicity posters, leaflets and brochures. The system has also been advertised on the radio and in the newspapers.
Country park trails
8. MR LEE WING-TAT asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the facilities of the country park trails, such as the signposts and surface of the trails, are regularly checked and given the necessary maintenance;
(b) what measures have been or will be taken to protect hikers from attacks by village dogs when they must pass through villages to gain access to country parks trails; and
(c) whether consideration will be given to prohibiting vehicles from approaching the reservoir zones in all country parks during holidays, so as to reduce the safety hazards and nuisance faced by the hikers?
1870 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) Country park trails are regularly patrolled by Park Wardens. Signposts, trail surfaces and other features are also regularly checked and properly maintained.
(b) Owners are required to control their dogs properly in public areas under the Dogs and Cats Regulations. One of the duties of the Park Wardens when they pass through villages is to advise residents to keep their dogs under control, and residents are usually co-operative in this respect. Dog Catching Teams are deployed to catch stray dogs found in country parks.
(c) The entry of vehicles to country parks is subject to control under the Country Parks and Special Areas Regulations. Permission is normally given only to the residents of an area and their visitors, and to government employees and others on duty. Otherwise, a daily quota of only 30 coaches is allowed to enter the Sai Kung Country Parks through the Pak Tam Chung Barrier for recreational purposes. The restrictions apply on weekdays as well as Sundays and public holidays to keep vehicles in country parks to the minimum.
Nursing staff at special schools
9. MR SZETO WAH asked (in Chinese): With regard to the manning scale of nursing staff at special schools and the existing policy of providing only one nursing staff to each special school, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the rationale for not assessing the requirements for nursing staff in proportion to the size of the school; and
(b) whether the existing policy of providing only one nursing staff to each special school will be reviewed so that an adequate number of nursing staff will be provided in proportion to the number of students?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the policy of providing one nurse for each special school is to recognize the need to provide nursing care for these children, particularly to handle emergency cases. It is considered also that children who are sick or have complex or acute health problems would not be attending schools. They would instead be under the care of a medical practitioner. It is, hence, considered that the provision of one nurse would be sufficient for rendering nursing care and dealing with emergencies.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1871
The provision of nursing staff in special schools has been reviewed by the Education Department, in conjunction with the Hong Kong Special Schools Council. Improvement measures based on the size of special schools are proposed. When justified, these measures will be implemented.
Racial discrimination
10. MR MARTIN BARROW asked: Will the Government inform this Council what steps it plans to take to eliminate racial discrimination by residents or owners of apartment buildings?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, the Hong Kong Government fully subscribes to the principle of equality between persons of different race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The Bill of Rights Ordinance provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.
There is no evidence of widespread racial discrimination in Hong Kong. In fact, Hong Kong can pride itself as a place where people of different races and cultures live in peace and harmony. The Government has therefore not found it necessary to introduce legislation to govern this aspect of inter-citizen relationships, whether in apartment buildings or elsewhere. We are of course aware of isolated incidents involving discrimination, but these incidents have always been resolved rapidly among the private parties concerned. This is probably due to the strong public support for the view that racial discrimination has no place in an open, progressive and dynamic society such as Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Government is not complacent. In order to perpetuate and build on this tradition of respect for people of different races and cultures we must continue to cultivate a spirit of appreciation for racial diversity through sustained human rights education. This is being carried out in schools by the Education Department and in the community at large with particular vigour by the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education.
The Human Rights Education Subcommittee under the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education has recently published a teaching kit for secondary schools. One of the central messages contained in the kit is the concept of equality and the right to be free from discrimination. The Administration will continue to give its fullest support to the committee in their efforts to promote human rights education.
1872 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 Draft Basic Law
11. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: In a paper presented to the Foreign Affairs Committee in respect of the inquiry into "Relationship between Hong Kong and China up to and beyond 1997," the Deputy Legal Adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr Kevin CHAMBERLAIN, indicated that "The British Government followed the drafting of the Basic Law closely and drew the attention of the Chinese side to areas in the draft Basic Law which in our view were inconsistent with the Joint Declaration or which might cause the Hong Kong Government practical difficulties. Indeed some of our suggestions have been reflected in the final version of the Basic Law, although we would have liked to see more of our suggestions accepted by the Chinese side. However, the Basic Law was not a document to which the British Government gave or had to give its agreement." Will the Government inform this Council whether it is aware of:
(a) the areas in the draft Basic Law which were considered to be inconsistent with the Joint Declaration; and
(b) the suggestions that have been reflected in the Basic Law, and those that have not been reflected?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, the British Government's views and suggestions on the draft Basic Law were conveyed to the Chinese side through diplomatic channels. As these exchanges were confidential, it would not be appropriate to disclose the contents.
MTRC's post of Managing Director
12. MR STEVEN POON asked (in Chinese): It has been specified in sections 4 and 7 of the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Ordinance that the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) shall have a Managing Director on the board. According to the annual reports of the MTRC, however, the post has been deleted. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the Government agrees to the deletion of the post of Managing Director by the MTRC and whether the Attorney General has been consulted on this decision to determine whether it is in conformity with the spirit and letter of the Ordinance; and
(b) if the Government agrees to such decision, why should the creation of this post be specified when the Ordinance was first enacted?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1873
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, section 4 of the MTRC Ordinance (Cap 270) does indeed provide for the corporation to have both a Chairman and Managing Director. The latter post has not been deleted but, rather, is currently held by Mr Hamish MATHERS, in addition to his appointment as Chairman of the corporation. This is quite in order. Legal advice was obtained before this arrangement was introduced in November 1986.
In the earlier years of the corporation, the Managing Director was responsible for the co-ordination of the construction of the Mass Transit Railway System. Following the completion of the system in 1986 and in accordance with the requirement to operate the corporation business on prudent commercial principles, the Chairman was also appointed Managing Director. This arrangement remains in place today.
Traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol
13. MR ROGER LUK asked: Will the Administration inform this Council what measures are being taken to reduce traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the statistics on prosecutions for the offence of driving under the influence of drink or drugs are annexed.
While these statistics do not appear to indicate a serious problem, the fact is that it has been difficult to take enforcement action since existing legislation on the subject is inadequate. Present legislation does not set limits for alcohol concentrations in breath, blood or urine beyond which drivers will be prosecuted, nor does it require drivers to be subjected to tests to establish such alcohol levels. Proposals for amending the legislation so as to remedy these deficiencies are now being considered by the Road Safety Council, which is chaired by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) and includes representatives of relevant government departments and outside bodies concerned with road safety.
Publicity on television to remind the public of the consequences of driving while under the influence of alcohol are broadcast regularly, particularly before major festivals. In addition, opportunities are taken at road safety campaigns to highlight the dangers of drunken driving and the subject has also been given coverage in the latest issue of Transport Department's Road Safety Quarterly magazine.
1874 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
We seek therefore to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents caused by driving under the influence of alcoholy by means of police enforcement action, driver education, publicity, and, in the future, through enhanced legislative provision.
Annex
Numbers of Prosecution for the Offence of
Driving under the Influence of Drink or Drugs
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993* 25 18 16 20 38 (*Provisional figure)
Home Ownership Scheme flats
14. DR TANG SIU-TONG asked (in Chinese): Under the terms and conditions for sale and purchase of new Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats, no resale or letting is permitted within the first 10 years of their intake. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) what measures the Housing Department has to prevent HOS flat-owners from violating this restriction; whether such measures are regularly reviewed;
(b) whether the Housing Department has found any cases of HOS flat-owners breaching the terms and conditions mentioned above; if so, how such cases were dealt with; and
(c) whether those who have bought or rented HOS flats will be affected if the vendors/landlords of their flats are found to have violated this restriction?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the sale of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) and Private Sector Participation Scheme (PSPS) flats is subject to the terms, covenants and conditions in the Schedule to the Housing Ordinance. The Schedule states that a purchaser shall not alienate, convey, purport to alienate or convey or part with possession of his flat unless a period of 10 years has elapsed from the date of the assignment and he has paid to the Housing Authority a premium.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1875
It is a criminal offence under section 27A of the Housing Ordinance for a HOS or PSPS flat owner to breach the restrictions referred to and this can lead to a maximum fine of $200,000 and maximum imprisonment for one year.
(a) Prevention and monitoring
HOS and PSPS owners are regularly reminded of these restrictions by the Housing Department through notices in estate management offices, estate newsletters, and regular meetings between management and Mutual Aid Committees and Residents Associations.
Unlawful lettings or sales are not easy to detect. In the past, violations or purported violations have come to attention as a result of complaints from neighbours, relatives or friends of the owners and prospective tenants or purchasers, and through estate agents or, in one case, by referral from the Land Registry. Cases are referred to the Attorney General for prosecution action under section 27A of the Housing Ordinance. The Housing Department will continue to monitor and review the situation and initiate appropriate action where irregularities are detected.
(b) Prosecution
To date, a total of five cases have been referred by the Housing Department to the Attorney General for prosecution. The offenders in three cases have been successfully prosecuted and convicted and legal action is in progress on the other two cases.
(c) Consequences for purchasers adn tenants
Under section 17B of the Housing Ordinance, the sale or letting of a HOS or PSPS flat which is unlawful is void. Purchasers and tenants who suffer loss as a result of the unlawful sale or letting of a HOS or PSPS flat may sue the vendor or landlord and any estate agent or solicitor involved for damages through civil proceedings.
Landslides caused by torrential rain
15. MR MICHAEL HO asked (in Chinese): The torrential rain on 5 November 1993 caused landslides and floods in many areas of the town centre of Tuen Mun, with very serious landslides on the hill slopes along the section of Castle Peak Road near Castle Peak Bay in close proximity to Alpine Garden. Will the Government inform this Council:
1876 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
(a) whether and when slope investigations were carried out at the above location after the incident;
(b) of the causes of the landslides on the hill slopes at the above location; and (c) of the measures to be adopted to prevent recurrence of similar incidents?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,
(a) The serious flooding that occurred at Alpine Garden on 5 November 1993 was accompanied by erosion of the slopes to the east of Alpine Garden. The incident was reported to and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) of the Civil Engineering Department on 5 November 1993. GEO undertook to investigate the causes of the flooding incident and the work commenced on 10 November 1993. An interim report, which documented the factual information collected in the first stage of the investigation, was prepared in early December 1993. A final report, which presents the full findings of the investigation, is nearing completion.
(b) The investigation so far has shown that the incident was in part related to the overflowing of the Tai Lam Chung Catchwater. It should, however, be noted that catchwaters are designed to discharge water at predetermined points when the water level in the catchwater channel is too high, due for instance to extreme rainfall in the catchment area. This is a safety measure to prevent uncontrolled overtopping of the catchwaters.
On 5 November 1993, the water level in the Tai Lam Chung catchwater east of Alpine Garden was high because of heavy rainfall. The partial blockage of the catchwater by landslip debris would have further raised the water level in the catchwater. Water discharged from the overflow weirs above Alpine Garden as intended. Water from the overflow weir discharged into a natural stream course that is intercepted by a network of drainage channels.
Field observations of erosion that occurred on 5 November suggested that some of the channels could not cope with the water flow because they were blocked in places, partly as a result of squatter activities on the slope. Partial blockage of the channels and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1877
a catchpit resulted in the overflow of water, erosion of the cut slopes and flooding in Alpine Garden.
Along with the investigation of the flooding incident, the cut slopes behind Alpine Garden have been fully inspected and the designs reviewed. It has been confirmed that these slopes meet the current standards of stability and safety, and they pose no danger to life even during exceptionally heavy rainfall.
(c) The Government will improve the drainage channels on the slopes to the east of Alpine Garden before the onset of the next wet season. Eroded parts of the slopes will be reinstated, and the channels concerned will be reconstructed to improve their drainage capacity. The drainage channels will also be kept in good working condition by regular maintenance.
Relocation of Kwun Tong Government Offices and Jockey Club Health Centre
16. MR FRED LI asked (in Chinese): As the Government's plan for the relocation of the Kwun Tong Government Offices and Jockey Club Health Centre has caused dissatisfaction among many residents in the district while the Kwun Tong District Board Members have unanimously requested the Government to develop the vacant site at Fuk Tong Road first before relocating the Government Offices and Health Centre, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of available options for relocation and their details; whether one of the options is to maintain the status quo and withdraw the relocation plan; and
(b) whether consideration has been given to inviting private developers to develop as soon as possible the land on Fuk Tong Road and the existing site of the government offices so as to save government expenditure and expedite the entire redevelopment plan?
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr President, there are essentially three options in considering the future of the Kwun Tong Government Offices and Jockey Club Clinic (which includes both a health centre and methadone clinic). These are:
- to maintain the status quo;
1878 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
- to incorporate the government offices and clinic in a new government or joint venture development at Fuk Tong Road; and
- to make other appropriate arrangements for the temporary and permanent relocation of the government offices and clinic.
The first option would deny a valuable opportunity to upgrade facilities at the clinic, to meet identified space shortfalls in government offices in the existing building, and to provide a modern public transport terminal and commercial complex in the Kwun Tong town centre for the benefit of residents.
The second option would have the same effect. The limited requirement for additional government office space at Fuk Tong Road does not justify a self-contained composite government building developed there to the full potential of the site. In any case, such a composite government building will command a low priority in the Public Works Programme among many other more worthy claims.
The alternative of joint venture has been considered. However, the inclusion of government facilities, and in particular the need to place the health centre on the more valuable, lower floors of the building, would make a joint venture commercially unattractive. We have also explored the possibility of including both the Fuk Tong Road and Tung Yan Street sites in a joint venture. But the requirement to complete the Fuk Tong Road development first, before the redevelopment of the Tung Yan Street site could physically start, would make such a project quite unattractive to a private developer because of the long delay ― at least three years ― in the possession of the latter site.
For these reasons, the Government has pursued the third option.
Following consultation with the Kwun Tong District Board, and members of the local community, the Government now intends:
- to house the government offices in nearby accommodation. However, key government facilities, such as the District Office, and the District Board Secretariat, will be reprovisioned in due course to the Tung Yan Street redevelopment;
- to reprovision and upgrade the health centre at Fuk Tong Road; and
- to reprovision the methadone clinic to a carpark site at the rear of the East Kowloon Government Offices Building. Arrangements will be made to shelter the clinic from residential buildings.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1879 Complaints not investigated by the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints 17. MR JAMES TO asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of complaints in each of the past three years which were not investigated by the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints for the reason that they related to civil or criminal proceedings before a court of law and were not subject to investigation by the Commissioner, broken down by the government departments or organizations under complaint; of these, how many cases not investigated involved proceedings handled by the Legal Aid Department;
(b) of the number of complaints which were not investigated by the Commissioner for other reasons in the same period, broken down by government departments or organizations under complaint; of these, how many cases were not investigated due to lack of professional knowledge in the Commissioner's office; and what arrangements exist to ensure that professional expertise is available to the office to investigate complaints, if required; and
(c) of the number of complaints which were considered by the Commissioner to be within his jurisdiction to investigate but considered otherwise by the government departments or organizations under complaint in the same period, broken down by departments and organizations, with details of the nature and outcome including reasons for investigating or not investigating these complaints?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President,
(a) The number of complaints received but not investigated by the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (COMAC) because they related to civil or criminal proceedings before a court of law is as follows:
1990-91 11
1991-92 2
1992-93 5
1993-94 (up to 8 January 1994) 6
1880 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
Of these, three cases in 1990-91 and one in 1992-93 involved proceedings handled by the Legal Aid Department. A breakdown by departments is at Annex A.
(b) The number of complaints received but not investigated by COMAC for reasons other than those related to civil or criminal proceedings is as follows:
1990-91 40
1991-92 36
1992-93 65
1993-94 (up to 8 January 1994) 48
A breakdown by departments and reasons is at Annex B.
So far, no complaint has not been investigated due to the lack of professional knowledge in the COMAC Office. To ensure that all complaints are handled professionally, all complaints received are scrutinized personally by the Commissioner as to whether they fall within his jurisdiction under the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints Ordinance, and subsequent investigations are undertaken by a team of full-time investigators seconded from the Civil Service. They are all experienced civil servants who are conversant with the practices and procedures of the Government. They are well qualified to assist COMAC's work given the remit of COMAC, that is, the investigation of alleged maladministration.
(c) No separate record is kept of complaints that were considered by the Commissioner to be within his jurisdiction to investigate but were considered otherwise by the government departments under complaint. A reliable figure cannot be ascertained without a laborious search through all the case files. Nonetheless, according to the experience of the COMAC Office, the number should be very small. In those few cases, the differences of views were usually resolved through further discussion between the COMAC Office and the departments concerned and by the provision of more information on the cases. So far there has been no serious disagreement between COMAC and departments on COMAC's jurisdiction.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1881
Annex A
Cases Not Investigated
because of Court Proceedings
(Section 10(1)(e)(ii) of COMAC Ordinance)
Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94
(up to 8.1.1994)
Departments
Buildings and Lands 3 1 1
Department
(Reorganized into the
Buildings Department and
the Lands Department on
1.8.93)
Civil Aviation Department 1
Correctional Services Department 1 Fire Services Department 1
Government Secretariat (PELB) 1
Hospital Services Department 1
Hospital Authority 2 1 Housing Department 1 Judiciary 1 1 Labour Department 1
Lands Department 1 Legal Aid Department 2 1
Marine Department 1
Urban Services Department 1
Water Supplies Department 1 Total 11 2 5 6
1882 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
Annex B
Complaints Not Investigated For Other Reasons
Year: 1990-91
Reasons
Complainant
untraceable
Contractual/ Commercial transactions
Dept not
subject to
investigation
Frivolous or Vexatious
complaints
Investigation Not
necessary
No consent to referral
No injustice sustained
Departments (note 1) (note 2) (note 3) (note 4) (note 5) (note 6) (note 7) Agriculture & Fisheries 1 Buildings and Lands 1
City and New Territories
Administration
Department of Hearth 1 Education
Fire Services
Government Secretariat
Government Supplies
Hospital Services 1 Housing 1 Immigration
Information Services
Judiciary
Legal Aid 1 Medical Council 1
Royal Hong Kong Police Force 2
Social Welfare
Territory Development
Treasury 2 Tung Wan Group of Hospitals 1
total 0 1 4 0 6 0 1
Explanatory Notes
Complaints not investigated under:
(1) Section 10(1)(c) of the Commissioner for Administration Complaints Ordinance 1988 (the Ordinance)
(2) Schedule 2(4) of the Ordinance
(3) Section 7(1) of the Ordinance
(4) Section 10(2)(c) of the Ordinance
(5) Section 10(2)(d) of the Ordinance
(6) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance
(7) Section 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance
(8) Section 10(1)(d) of the Ordinance
(9) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1883
Non
Aggrieved party
Not referred by MLCs
(note 15)
Personnel matters
Previous similar case no
maladministration
Resolved By
mediation
Statutory right of appeal
Time
barred
Trivial
matters Withdrawn
(note 8) (note 9) (note 10) (note 11) (note 12) (note 13) (note 14) Total 1
1
1 12
1 2
3 3
1 1
21 1 4
1 1
2 36
2 1 1 16 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
1
2
1
1 1
2
1 1
4 0 13 2 0 0 6 1 2 40
(10) Schedule 2(5) of the Ordinance
(11) Section 10(2)(a) of the Ordinance
(12) Section 10(1)(e)(i) of the Ordinance
(13) Section 10(1)(a) of the Ordinance
(14) Section 10(2)(b) of the Ordinance
Others:
(15) MLC ― Member of the Legislative Council
1884 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
Annex B1
Complaints Not Investigated For Other Reasons
Year: 1991-92
Reasons
Complainant
untraceable
Contractual/ Commercial transactions
Dept not
subject to
investigation
Frivolous or Vexatious
complaints
Investigation Not
necessary
No consent to referral
No injustice sustained
Departments (note 1) (note 2) (note 3) (note 4) (note 5) (note 6) (note 7) Administration (note 16) 1 Buildings and Lands 1 1
City and New Territories
Administration
Correctional Services
Education
Government Secretariat 2 Highways 1 Hospital Services
Housing 1 1 Immigration 2
Independent Commission
1
Against Corruption
Inland Revenue 1 Labour
Post Office 1 Regional Services 1 Royal Hong Kong Police Force 2
Social Welfare
Transport
Treasury 1 Urban Services
Total 1 0 3 0 9 4 0
Explanatory Notes
Complaints not investigated under:
(1) Section 10(1)(c) of the Commissioner for Administration Complaints Ordinance 1988 (the Ordinance)
(2) Schedule 2(4) of the Ordinance
(3) Section 7(1) of the Ordinance
(4) Section 10(2)(c) of the Ordinance
(5) Section 10(2)(d) of the Ordinance
(6) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance
(7) Section 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance
(8) Section 10(1)(d) of the Ordinance
(9) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1885
Non
Aggrieved Party
Not referred by MLCs
(note 15)
Personnel Matters
Previous similar case no
maladministration
Resolved By
mediation
Statutory right of appeal
Time
barred
Trivial
matters Withdrawn
(note 8) (note 9) (note 10) (note 11) (note 12) (note 13) (note 14) Total 1 2
1 2 2 7 1 1 2
1 1
2 1 3 2
1
1 1
2
1 3
1
1
1 1 1
1 2 2
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
6 4 3 0 0 1 1 0 4 36
(10) Schedule 2(5) of the Ordinance
(11) Section 10(2)(a) of the Ordinance
(12) Section 10(1)(e)(i) of the Ordinance
(13) Section 10(1)(a) of the Ordinance
(14) Section 10(2)(b) of the Ordinance
Others:
(15) MLC ― Members of the Legislative Council
(16) Administration ― complaint against the Government in general
1886 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
Annex B2
Complaints Not Investigated For Other Reasons
Year: 1992-93
Reasons
Complainant
Untraceable
Contractual/ Commercial transactions
Dept not
subject to
investigation
Frivolous or Vexatious
complaints
Investigation Not
necessary
No consent to referral
No injustice sustained
Departments (note 1) (note 2) (note 3) (note 4) (note 5) (note 6) (note 7) Administration (note 16) 1 1 1 Buildings and Lands 2 Census & Statistics 1
City and New Territories
Administration
Civil Aviation
Correctional Services 1 Customs and Excise 1 Education 1
Electrical and Mechanical
1
Services
Environmental Protection 1 Fire Services 1 Government Secretariat 1
Highways
Hospital Authority
Housing 2 Immigration 1 Inland Revenue 2 Labour 1
Legal 1 Legal Aid 1 Regional Services
Registrar General's
Royal Hong Kong Police Force 2
Social Welfare 1 Transport 1 1 Urban Services 1 1 Water Supplies
Total 1 0 2 1 16 7 1
Explanatory Notes
Complaints not investigated under:
(1) Section 10(1)(c) of the Commissioner for Administration Complaints Ordinance 1988 (the Ordinance)
(2) Schedule 2(4) of the Ordinance
(3) Section 7(1) of the Ordinance
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1887
Non
Aggrieved Party
Not referred by MLCs
(note 15)
Personnel Matters
Previous similar case no
maladministration
Resolved By
mediation
Statutory right of appeal
Time
barred
Trivial
matters Withdrawn
(note 8) (note 9) (note 10) (note 11) (note 12) (note 13) (note 14) Total 1 1 5 32 1 3 11 1 2
1 23
1 1
2 3
1 2
1 2
1 2
1
2 1
1 3
1 1
1 2 1 11 1 7 2 2
4
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
2
1
1 3 2
1 1
5 5 6 1 9 0 1 2 8 65
(4) Section 10(2)(c) of the Ordinance (11) Section 10(2)(a) of the Ordinance
(5) Section 10(2)(d) of the Ordinance (12) Section 10(1)(a)(i) of the Ordinance
(6) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance (13) Section (10)(1)(a) of the Ordinance
(7) Section 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance (14) Section 10(2)(b) of the Ordinance
(8) Section 10(1)(d) of the Ordinance
(9) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance Others:
(10) Schedule 2(5) of the Ordinance
(15) MLC ― Member of the Legislative Council
(16) Administration ― complaint against the Government in general
1888 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
Annex B3
Complaints Not Investigated For Other Reasons
Year: 1993-94 (as at 8.1.94)
Reasons
Complainant
Untraceable
Contractual/ Commercial transactions
Dept not
subject to
investigation
Frivolous or Vexatious
complaints
Investigation Not
necessary
No consent to referral
No injustice sustained
Departments (note 1) (note 2) (note 3) (note 4) (note 5) (note 6) (note 7) Administration (note 16)
Buildings and Lands
(reorganized into the Building
Dept & the Lands Dept from
1.8.93)
Buildings
Correctional Services
Duchess of Kent Children's
1
Hospital
Education
Government Secretariat
Home Office (UK) 1
Hospital Authority
Housing 1 2 Immigration
Information Technology Services
Inland Revenue 1 Judiciary 1 Labour
Land Development Corporation 1
Lands 1 Legal Aid
Legislative Council 1
Marine
Rating and Vaiuation 1 Regional Services
Royal Hong Kong Police Force 4
Social Welfare
Telecommunications Authority
Transport
Treasury
Urban Services
Water Supplies
Total 0 0 8 0 3 4 0
Explanatory Notes
Complaints not investigated under:
(1) Section 10(1)(c) of the Commissioner for Administration Complaints Ordinance 1988 (the Ordinance)
(2) Schedule 2(4) of the Ordinance
(3) Section 7(1) of the Ordinance
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1889
Non
Aggrieved Party
Not referred by MLCs
(note 15)
Personnel Matters
Previous similar case no
maladministration
Resolved By
mediation
Statutory right of appeal
Time
barred
Trivial
matters Withdrawn
(note 8) (note 9) (note 10) (note 11) (note 12) (note 13) (note 14) Total 1 1 2 1 1
1 1 2 1 1
1
11 1 3 1 1 2 1
1 1 3
1 2 14 1 1 2
1 2 4 1
2 2
1
1 2
1 1
1
1 1 1
1 1
4
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 7 7 0 14 0 0 0 3 48
(4) Section 10(2)(c) of the Ordinance (10) Schedule 2(5) of the Ordinance
(5) Section 10(2)(d) of the Ordinance (11) Section 10(2)(a) of the Ordinance
(6) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance (12) Section 10(1)(e)(i) of the Ordinance
(7) Section 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance (13) Section 10(1)(a) of the Ordinance
(8) Section 10(1)(d) of the Ordinance (13) Section 10(1)(a) of the Ordinance
(9) Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance
Others:
(15) MLC ― Member of the Legislative Council
(16) Administration ― complaint against the Government in general
1890 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 Route 3 (Country Park Section)
18. DR SAMUEL WONG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) why construction work of the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road, which was recently announced in an information brochure on Route 3 (Country Park Section), will not officially commence until early 1995 while tenders for the two projects will be closed on 8 April 1994 and contracts awarded in the latter part of 1994; whether this has anything to do with the Government's delay in commencing land resumption work at the northern approaches of the tunnel and Pat Heung in Yuen Long;
(b) whether the Government can, according to the current rate of land resumption, complete a major portion of the required land resumption work by the end of 1994, so that contractors can commence construction immediately after being awarded contracts without undue delay;
(c) whether the Government will consider speeding up the land resumption work so that the whole Route 3 (Country Park Section) project can be implemented at an early date; and
(d) the exact commencement and completion dates of the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road projects of the Country Park Section of Route 3?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) The timing for starting construction of the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road will depend not only on progress with land resumption, but also on a number of other equally important steps which must be taken before a franchise can be awarded.
After the close of tenders on 8 April 1994, the bids will need to be carefully evaluated following which the Administration will need to negotiate with the tenderers. In parallel we shall work on the draft legislation for the award of the franchise with a view to introducing an enabling Bill to the Legislative Council by October/November 1994 and enactment by the end of the year. These steps are complicated processes and, based on the experience of the Western Harbour Crossing exercise, could take up to nine months to complete. The programme is already tight and the scope for compression is very limited.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1891
In addition, since the franchise for the new road will span 1997, it will also be necessary to consult the Chinese side of the Joint Liaison Group.
(b) The current land resumption programme allows for the handover of the site for the project in phases, so that land will be made available to tie in with the construction programme. Handover of the first site is scheduled to take place at the beginning of the franchise period. This will enable work to begin as soon as the franchise is awarded.
(c) One major constraint is the statutory procedure that has to be followed to process objections received under the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap 370). Preliminary work, for example, identifying land that has to be resumed, has already commenced and we believe that the land resumption timetable is realistic.
(d) Construction work on the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road is targeted to commence in early 1995, for completion in late 1998, that is, a four-year construction period. The exact start date will depend on the progress with negotiations, consultation, land resumption, and the enactment of the enabling legislation.
Publication of changes in school fees in the Gazette
19. MR TIMOTHY HA asked (in Chinese): According to the provision of Education Regulations, all particulars relating to changes in school fees should be submitted for publication in the Gazette through the Education Department. Such notices took up only limited space in the Gazette years ago when there were not so many schools. However, the demand for space to publish these notices has grown substantially with the increase in the number of schools.
Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has reviewed the necessity of publishing such particulars in the Gazette in order to avoid waste of gazette space; and
(b) if the publication of these particulars is still deemed necessary, whether consideration has been given to publishing such information through other means instead of the Gazette?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the gazetting of inclusive fees (that is, tuition fee and Tong Fai) is a requirement under Regulation 60 of the Education Regulations. Other than serving the
1892 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
purpose of informing students and parents, the gazette notice also serves as evidence of public notification.
The Education Department recently reviewed the need for gazetting these notices and has concluded that the Fees Certificates issued to schools under Regulation 67 already serve as evidence of notification. Students and parents can enquire at the Education Department about school fees instead of looking up gazette notices.
The Education Department will therefore seek to amend Regulation 60 of the Education Regulations to remove the requirement to gazette inclusive fees.
Multi-storey Buildings (Owners Incorporation) Ordinance
20. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): Under section 34E(4) of the 1992 Multistorey Buildings (Owners Incorporation) (Amendment) Ordinance, the Secretary for Home Affairs may exempt the manager of a building from termination of appointment by the owners' corporation for a period of three years, and the criteria governing the exercise of such discretion were gazetted on 23 July 1993. Will the Government inform this Council of the respective numbers of:
(a) numbers of the public who have expressed their views on the criteria after their gazettal; and
(b) applications from building managers seeking exemption from termination of appointment by owners' corporations so far?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, my reply to the question is as follows:
(a) since the gazettal on 23 July 1993 of the guidelines pursuant to section 34E(8) of the Building Management Ordinance, we have not received any views from the public on the guidelines; and
(b) there has not been any application from any building manager for exclusion from termination of appointment by owners' corporations.
First Reading of Bills
POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF PRISONERS BILL
CIVIL AVIATION BILL
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1893
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF PRISONERS BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to provide for the release under supervision of certain categories of prisoner, on the order of a board established for the purpose."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Post-Release Supervision of Prisoners Bill be read a Second time. This Bill seeks to establish a statutory supervision scheme to help discharged adult prisoners reintegrate into society and discourage them from reoffending.
There is, at present, a statutory supervision scheme for discharged young offenders, which has been working successfully since it was introduced in 1980. Statistics show that over 70% of the young offenders placed under supervision have not committed an offence again after their release. No such scheme exists for adult prisoners and we now propose to set up a similar statutory care and guidance system for selected categories of adult prisoners after their release.
Under the proposed scheme, an independent, statutory Post-Release Supervision Board, chaired by a Judge, or a former Judge, of the High Court or District Court, will be set up to administer the scheme. The board will examine the case of each prisoner falling under the scope of the scheme. It will decide whether a supervision order should be made and, if so, the appropriate length and conditions of supervision. It will also be empowered to suspend or vary a supervision order, depending on the supervisee's behaviour or any change in circumstances.
The categories of prisoners to be covered by the scheme will be set out in the Regulation to be made under the Bill. It is the Administration's intention that, at the initial stage, the board will consider prisoners serving sentences of six years or more and those prisoners sentenced to two years or more for specific types of offences, such as triad-related offences, sexual offences, and crimes of violence. Consideration will be given to amending or extending the scope of the scheme at a later stage in the light of experience.
Prisoners placed under supervision will be supervised by Correctional Services and police officers, who will visit the released prisoners regularly in their homes or workplaces to provide care and guidance to them. It is envisaged that the supervision period recommended will normally be between one and two years; in any event, the supervision period cannot be longer than the remitted part of a prisoner's sentence. The scheme will not, therefore, alter the length of a prisoner's sentence.
1894 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
Mr President, I believe that the scheme I have just outlined will be welcomed by the public, as it will help and encourage ex-prisoners to reintegrate into society as law abiding citizens, and thereby reduce recidivism.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
CIVIL AVIATION BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to repeal and re-enact with appropriate modifications certain provisions relating to civil aviation."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Civil Aviation Bill be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to replace, through the enactment of local legislation, a number of provisions covering civil aviation management and air transport regulations which are currently applied to Hong Kong by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Act 1949 (Overseas Territories) Order 1969.
To date, the legislative framework for the regulation of civil aviation in Hong Kong has, for the most part, been governed by United Kingdom enactments applied to the territory. As United Kingdom enactments cannot remain in force after 30 June 1997, they must be replaced by a comprehensive set of civil aviation laws enacted in Hong Kong.
The Bill before Honourable Members marks an important first step in the process of localization of civil aviation legislation. It replicates a number of technical provisions in the United Kingdom Order relating to the day-to-day operation of civil aviation management. Modifications to the United Kingdom law have been made where considered necessary to suit Hong Kong's particular circumstances.
Specifically, the Bill provides for:
- the investigation of aircraft accidents in Hong Kong or occurring elsewhere to Hong Kong registered aircraft;
- the re-enactment of provisions to enable regulations to be made requiring air transport and commercial flying to be licensed;
- the supply of information regarding air transport or related undertakings to be provided to specified authorities, for example, the Director of Civil Aviation and the Air Transport Licensing Authority;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1895
- the exemption in certain circumstances of operators of aircraft from liability arising from their flight over property; and
- the detention of aircraft to secure compliance with regulations and enactments specified in the Bill.
The Bill also provides for the saving of the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations and the current Air Transport (Licensing of Air Services) Regulations to enable these to remain in force after 30 June 1997.
Mr President, the enactment of a comprehensive body of local civil aviation legislation is crucial to ensuring that Hong Kong maintains its status as a centre of international and regional aviation. The proposed Bill is the first step towards that objective. I commend it to this Council for favourable consideration.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
FIXED PENALTY (TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1993
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 10 November 1993 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).
FIXED PENALTY (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 10 November 1993 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).
1896 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
PROTECTION OF WAGES ON INSOLVENCY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1993
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 8 December 1993 Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee stage of Bills
Council went into Committee.
FIXED PENALTY (TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1993
Clause 1
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be amended as set out on the paper circulated to Members.
This is a minor technical amendment which does not affect the substance of the Bill Proposed amendment
Clause 1
That clause 1 be amended, by deleting "(No. 2) Ordinance 1993" and substituting "Ordinance 1994".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 1, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause 2 was agreed to.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1897 FIXED PENALTY (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993 Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
PROTECTION OF WAGES ON INSOLVENCY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1993
Clause 1
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
This is a minor technical amendment which does not affect the substance of the Bill. Proposed amendment
Clause 1
That clause 1 be amended, by deleting "(No. 2) Ordinance 1993" and substituting "Ordinance 1994".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 1, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
FIXED PENALTY (TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1993 and
PROTECTION OF WAGES ON INSOLVENCY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1993
had passed through Committee with amendments and the
1898 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 FIXED PENALTY (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
had, passed 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
PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to time limits on speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 17 January. The mover of the motion will have 15 minutes for his speech including his reply and another five minutes to reply to proposed amendments. Other Members, including movers of amendments, will have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech.
FARE INCREASES OF THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS COMPANY AND CHINA MOTOR BUS COMPANY
MR LEE WING-TAT moved the following motion:
"In view of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (KMB)'s application to the Government for a fare increase of 19.6%, this Council urges the Government to rigorously examine the operation, efficiency, future development and service improvement of the company and, on the premise of safeguarding the livelihood of the public, to set the increase at a level below the inflation rate of 1993; and to promptly conduct a review of KMB's Scheme of Control."
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name on the order paper.
Most colleagues are private car owners so I believe that the increase in the monthly tally of public transport fees even at a dramatic rate is not going to have any real impact at all on their livelihood. However, in so far as a family on a modest income is concerned, the annual fare increase sought by public transport operators will translate into a heavy financial burden to them. It is for this reason that they naturally will be very concerned about the annual substantial fare increase by the franchised bus companies. The share of the bus companies in the public transport market is nearly 50%. To a great many daily commuters, the bus is the only mode of transport available for them to get to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1899
work and school everyday. However, the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (KMB) has seen fit to take the lead at this point when inflation remains high to demand a fare increase of up to 19.6% for 1994. It is a demand which has surprised not only members of the public and Members of this Council, but also government officials. In this regard, my motion requests firstly, that the financial position and operational data of KMB should be subject to rigorous scrutiny, and secondly, that bus fare increase should be set at a level below inflation, and thirdly, that the scheme of control applicable to KMB should be reviewed as expeditiously as possible.
First of all, I would explain why I cast doubt on the justification put forward by KMB for fare increase, and after that, I will discuss the grounds of the fare increase put forward by KMB, from the perspectives of its operation, inflation, its service development and public acceptability. Finally, I will expound why we are requesting that the fare increase should be set at a level below the inflation rate.
The justifications for fare increase put forward by KMB include the perceived need to make up for the shortfall between proposed and permitted fare increases of last year, rising costs and wages, large-scale maintenance of its bus fleet, purchase of new buses, development of new bus routes, and the anticipated loss of hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the introduction of concessionary fare for senior citizens. Of course, there is also the justification, which KMB has refrained from using publicly, that the currently proposed fare increase will enable the company to achieve a 16% return on its assets value, which is the highest rate of return permitted by law.
In its application for fare increase this year, KMB has initially stressed that it wants to recover the shortfall of 2% from last year's fare increase and the loss caused by delayed implementation of fare increase which it was forced to accept last year. However, given the strong public outcry, this argument has been played down. It is clear then that KMB is quite aware that this line of argument does not really stand up to reason. As a matter of fact, the fare increase approved by the Executive Council last year was already higher than the rate of inflation. Nobody dare say that the increase is on the low side. In this regard, it is odd that the bus company should still be acting as if the Government and the travelling public are owing it a big favour. Indeed, if KMB is allowed to recover the shortfall, it would practically overrule the decision of the Executive Council. Once a precedent is established, other utility companies will surely be tempted to make the same requests. The result of this trend will make members of the public debtors to all of the utility companies.
In so far as cost is concerned, the point has been stressed by KMB that 60% of its operational costs will go to wage payment. KMB employees were given a 10.5% wage rise last year. However, a wage increase of 10.5% does not mean that the overall operational cost will also rise by 10.5%. Indeed, it does not follow that the rising costs will necessarily mean that there is no room for KMB to achieve greater cost efficiency and cost reduction. This line of
1900 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
argument cannot justify KMB's application to seek a fare increase of 19.6%. In this regard, I would like the Government to scrutinize KMB's application all the more rigorously, and reject it, if at the end of the day no justifiable arguments could be found.
The maintenance of a safe and efficient service is the basic responsibility of every public utility company. If KMB is to use as a ground for fare increase the need to subject its large bus fleet to large-scale maintenance, one is prone to ask why the maintenance costs, which one gathers should be part of the day-to-day operation cost, should after all be treated rather like additional costs. Why should the passengers be made to pay extra fare to cover such additional costs? It is hard to believe that the usual fare does not already cover the maintenance costs. Meanwhile, the purchase of new buses should be financed by the development fund or by the shareholders themselves. After all, the development of new bus routes is a profitable long-term investment. Among the 320 new buses, in particular, 90% have been air-conditioned buses which could ensure speedy and high return. There is no reason why KMB should be allowed to make its present patrons finance its investment plans which will yield long-term profits for the company. Unless KMB is able to prove that all of its new bus routes are loss-making, there is no reason why the Government should allow the company to boost its profits by drawing $30 million from its development fund and to accede to its absurd request of asking the commuters to fund its development plans.
KMB claims that nine months after the introduction of concessionary fares for the elderly the company has incurred a loss of over $40 million and a fare increase is called for so that the company can recover that loss. First of all, we would like to question the way in which KMB reached the conclusion that the loss of over $40 million is the result of offering concessionary fares. Under normal circumstances, it is very rare for senior citizens to travel during peak hours. If however there have been more journeys made by senior citizens during off-peak hours, then this would not add to any additional cost but would actually jack up KMB's off-peak income. In any case, even if the introduction of concessionary fares for the elderly has led to any additional cost, the Government has already paid for the scheme on behalf of the public by way of waiving land tax and bus licence fee for KMB. According to the agreement between the Government and KMB, the rest of the cost of implementing the concessionary scheme has to be borne by shareholders, rather than passengers. If KMB should wish to shift the cost of the concessionary scheme on to other passengers, then it would have to formally secure the agreement of the majority of its passengers and rename the scheme in such a way as to truly reflect the benefactors, that is, KMB passengers rather than KMB itself. Unless KMB is prepared to do that, it has absolutely no right to ask passengers to pay a higher fare and bear the cost of running the concessionary scheme.
In devising the fare increase, KMB sets it at a level commensurate with the 16% return rate on its assets value. I would like to draw the attention of the Executive Council and the Government to the fact that the 16% return rate on
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1901
assets value is not assured profit. The Executive Council is in no position to assure KMB on behalf of the people of Hong Kong that under whatever circumstances it will be able to achieve a 16% return. There is no question of assured profit in a fair and openly competitive society. In any case, the net profit of $330 million which KMB was able to achieve in the year 1992, which represented 14.8% of the prevailing value of its corporate assets, has been the highest level of profit achieved among all public transport operators. I would regard KMB's target this time of a 16% return to be nothing but greedy.
From the perspective of inflation, KMB's fare increase application will certainly create inflationary pressure. It is estimated that the accumulated fare increases introduced by KMB over the 10 years from 1983 to 1993 have added up to 190%. Inflation over the same period of time has been 130% only. Put in another way, the accumulated fare increase has been 60% above the rate of inflation over the last 10 years. Let us not forget that were it not for the abolition of the fuel tax by the Government in 1992 the aggregate bus fare increase would have been definitely much higher. According to a government report of January 1993, KMB's bus fare increase, higher than any other public utility tariff increases, has had the greatest impact on Consumer Price Index A since 1990. It is fair and reasonable therefore that, in order not to further fuel inflation, KMB's bus fare increase this year should be set at a level lower than the inflation rate of 1993. It is difficult in any case to imagine why such a large increase by KMB is actually called for in 1994, given that the corporate results announced by KMB in early January this year for the year 1993 has improved dramatically and been most gratifying. Turnover has grown by 9.3% and after tax profit has reached an enviable $1.566 billion, or four times the net profit of 1992. KMB has achieved a profit which is higher than any other public transport companies. Looking at these figures, we wonder why KMB, despite its huge and growing profits, is still seeking to raise its fares. Admittedly, KMB has claimed that $1.2 billion of its profit has been derived from land sales and has nothing to do with its bus operation. However, let me just say that were it not for the government lease of other interim and permanent depots for KMB to replace the depot sites in question, the company would still have had to use the same sites and there would have been no question of those sites being put up for sale in the first place. In this regard, it is unreasonable to argue, and therefore very difficult to accept, that proceeds from land sales have nothing to do with either the Government or the taxpayers, and that KMB has received no concession whatsoever from the Government.
In so far as public acceptability is concerned, we can see clearly wide public discontent, judging by the opinions expressed on radio programmes and through newspaper columns, judging by the over 100 000 signatures collected by the United Democrats in the short space of two weeks, of people who are against fare increase by the two companies.
Mr President, inflation is certainly a factor to consider whether the proposed fare increase is fair or not. Yet, after all, given that the justifications given by KMB are not at all convincing, that the proposed fare increase is too
1902 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
high, that KMB has in fact been able to reap impressive profits for 1992 and 1993, and that there has been widespread strong public resentment against the fare increase, it is more reasonable for the fare increase to be set in a more objective manner, in such a way as not to cause hardship for the common people and at a level below the rate of inflation. However, I want to stress that we are not requesting that the rate of inflation be used as the only criterion for considering applications by all bus companies for fare increases at all times. Whereas KMB took advantage of the scheme of control to greatly expand its fixed assets in the 1980s, it has failed to make significant improvement to the efficiency of its operation. The increase in fixed assets has provided KMB, ironically, with an excuse to ask for a large fare increase. It is becoming a vicious circle. Now that neither the China Motor Bus Company (CMB) nor the City Bus Company has such a scheme, it is time for the Government to consider a review of the scheme of control applicable to KMB. Mr LAU Chin-shek will later on take up this issue in greater detail.
In moving this motion today, I must bring up CMB's case. CMB imitates KMB's move and asks for a fare increase of 19.1%. The justifications given are even more ridiculous. Since I have missed the deadline for re-wording my own motion to deal with CMB's fare increase application, Dr HUANG Chen-ya of the United Democrats is going to move an amendment which will seek to limit CMB's fare increase to no higher than the rate of inflation, in order that the interests of commuters as a whole will be taken care of properly.
Mr President, with these remarks, I move the motion.
Question on Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Mrs Miriam LAU have given notice to move amendments to this motion. As Members were informed by circular on 17 January, under Standing Order 25(4) I shall ask Dr HUANG to speak first, to be followed by Mr TAM and Mrs LAU; but no amendments are to be moved at this stage. Members may then express their views on the main motion as well as each of the three Members' amendments listed in the Order Paper.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, Mr LEE Wing-tat has already explained why he would like me to amend his motion.
In the last few days, the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK) have launched a signature campaign in the Central and Western and Southern Districts in Hong Kong. That so many people had signed up in objection to the fare increase of the China Motor Bus Company (CMB) reflected how badly they were discontent with the exorbitant fare increase proposed by CMB. The discontent is especially serious in the Southern District where there is no Mass Transit Railway (MTR) and bus is the principal means of transport for the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1903
general public. CMB fares for the Southern District have all along been higher than those in other districts. Any further significant increase in fares will definitely increase the burden on the public who will find them unacceptable. The other Members of the UDHK and I definitely cannot agree to such a fare increase.
I will now speak on CMB's fare increase application while the other Members of the UDHK will later on comment on the fare increase of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company. First, I would like to briefly mention Mrs Miriam LAU's proposed amendment. Her amendment uses public acceptability of the fare increases as a yardstick for considering the rate of fare increase. This is in fact a euphemistic way of describing the situation. To put it bluntly, that is to let the two bus companies "grab" as much as possible until the public can "stand it no more". This I cannot accept.
The reasons offered by CMB for its fare increase application are: (1) cost increases, (2) drop in patronage and (3) the need to make up for last year's shortfall in fare increase. These three reasons are anything but convincing.
Firstly, the cost increases are mainly due to CMB's operational inefficiency. Why is CMB asking for a 19.1% increase in fares when its increase in staff salaries is only 10.5%? I think what CMB needs most is to improve its cost-effectiveness and economize on administrative costs instead of transferring the loss caused by mismanagement onto passengers.
Secondly, the significant drop in patronage is obviously due to CMB's competitiveness being weaker than its competitors. However, CMB considers the recent plunge in the number of passengers has been caused by (1) the loss of 26 routes, (2) the cancellation of peak-hour surcharge by the MTR, and (3) the opening for use of the escalators connecting Mid-levels and Central.
In fact, the relationship between competitiveness and products and services is really very simple. As long as the price is fair and the quality good, there is just no need to worry about clientele. But if your service quality is poor and your charge is high, then how are you supposed to compete with others?
CMB now needs improvement in many areas. According to surveys conducted by the UDHK, the public are quite dissatisfied with the insufficient frequency and unpunctuality of CMB's ordinary buses. There are problems even in the quality of the buses and the attitude of its staff. In the face of strong competition, CMB has not reviewed its bus services, nor has it initiated any improvement. Instead, it attempts to increase its fares significantly in order to protect its revenue. In these circumstances, how can it expect to win the confidence of the passengers?
If the rate of fare increase proposed by CMB is approved, the number of passengers will definitely drop further. Will CMB then not have to apply for an
1904 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
even higher percentage of fare increase in order to make the books even? This will only bring about a vicious circle in the long run, ultimately leading to the collapse of the company.
CMB's argument for recovering the shortfall of last year's fare increase is even more unreasonable. In fact, last year's 13% increase was already on the high side, far exceeding the inflation rate. But the service of CMB has still seen no improvement.
According to the surveys conducted recently by the UDHK, CMB's air-conditioned and cross-harbour buses operate in excessive frequency during peak hours, while the problem of unpunctuality and insufficient frequency is serious with its ordinary bus service. This clearly reflects that CMB cares only about its profits but is indifferent to the overall transportational requirements.
In a free market, all enterprises are subject to the natural law of the survival of the fittest. But since bus companies have franchises, they are protected to a certain extent. Hence the effectiveness of the market mechanism is undermined. Bus companies can therefore feel secure that they have the franchise as a strong backing, and take passengers' money as something in their bags. As a result, they do not rely on good services to encourage patronage. Nor do they endeavour to cut expenditure and attract more passengers as a means to increase profits. Instead, they try to squeeze profits from the public by fare increases. If the Administration does agree to the two bus companies' fare increases per se, it will be confusing reward with punishment, indulging the two bus companies to disregard their public obligations and encouraging them to remain inert in seeking improvements and progress. However, if we limit this year's fare increase to below the inflation rate, it will send a strong and clear message to the two bus companies that their prospects lie in improving their services and attracting more passengers.
When I visited the Transport Department to learn more about CMB's fare increase application, I found that the figures that it had provided to the Administration were very insufficient and there were even errors in such information. For example, the adjusted fares of some routes were even lower than the current ones and several runs of bus services had mysteriously disappeared.
The fare increase involves public interests and is not a trifling matter. Besides being conservative and stubborn, CMB has always turned a deaf ear to public opinion, not to mention its extremely low transparency to the public. Now even the information it provided to the Administration in respect of its operations is so insufficient. The UDHK and I therefore call on the Administration not to allow the CMB to continue in this way.
The buzzer sounded a continuous beep.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1905 PRESIDENT: Dr HUANG, you have to stop, I am afraid.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, I so submit.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is surprising that the first new year present that Hong Kong people received at the early beginning of 1994 should be a spate of fare increases requested by the various public utility companies. The most shocking of such increases are the fare increases requested by the two bus companies. The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (KMB) and the China Motor Bus Company (CMB) have requested fare increases of 19.6% and 19.1% respectively. Such near 20% increases not only far exceed the present inflation rate of about 8.5%, but will also certainly push up the local inflation rate and add to the already heavy burden on the public. Such unreasonable increases are simply unacceptable to me. Since the original motion only calls for government control over KMB's fare increase, I have amended the motion and requested the Government to set the two bus companies' fare increases at a level below the inflation rate.
Actually, the two bus companies' reasons for huge fare increases this time are totally unfounded. KMB's reason for fare increase is that its expenditure has increased as a reasult of the implementation of the elderly concessionary fare scheme. However, this scheme is a long-term policy. After the implementation of the scheme for a short span of only one year, one should not jump to the conclusion that it is necessary to increase fares to make up for the increase in expenditure. Moreover, the cost of the elderly concessionary fare scheme should be shared by the Government and KMB. If KMB has to increase its expenditure due to implementation of the scheme, they should negotiate with the Government in order to find a solution.
Moreover, KMB has reaped $1.7 billion through a recent auction of depot land. I consider that rather than increasing the fares drastically, the company should use the proceeds thus obtained to make up for the increase in expenditure. I recall that, four years ago, when the Government allowed the Hong Kong Tramways Limited (HKT) to use its depot for commercial development, the HKT promised the Government to freeze the fare increase of the company for four years. Why did the Government not make a similar request to KMB when it approved the land sale of the company now? I hope that the Government can explain this to the public.
In addition, the Government's imposition of the Scheme of Control on KMB in fact enables the company to increase its fares drastically on a regular basis. The ever increasing value of KMB's fixed assets over the past few years alway gives the company an excuse to increase the fares, and thus has very detrimental effects on people's livelihood. At present, the burden of travelling expenses on the public is already very heavy. With the rapid increase in population in the New Territories towns, the number of New Territories
1906 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
residents commuting to and from the urban area for work every day will definitely be on the increase. The impact of KMB's fare increase on them will naturally be greater. Therefore, KMB's fare increase must be set at a level affordable to the public and should not be an impetus for pushing up the inflation rate. The Government should also conduct a further review before 1997 on the Scheme of Control which connives at KMB's drastic fare increase.
CMB's reasons for fare increase are even more absurd. CMB applies for fare increase on the grounds of wage increase, rise of operating costs as well as the cancellation of 26 CMB bus routes by the Government. In fact, after the cancellation of the 26 CMB bus routes last year, CMB had laid off a lot of staff and cut down its expenditure, so where is the justification for a huge fare increase?
Since the fare increases requested by the two bus companies are very unreasonable and will be detrimental to people's livelihood, all branches of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong conducted opinion surveys on the streets at various locations in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon on 8 to 9 January and 14 to 16 January. A total of 3 595 persons were interviewed with a view to sounding out public views on the current fare increases requested by the two bus companies. The findings of the surveys indicated that over 90% of the respondents considered the fare increases above inflation rate requested by the two bus companies unreasonable. Most people considered that the two bus companies' fare increases should not exceed the inflation rate, that is 8.5%.
Mr President, since public opinion has clearly indicated that it is the wish of the public that the two bus companies' fare increases should be set at a level below the inflation rate, I urge the Government to take public opinion into consideration and conform to the wish of the people by restricting the fare increases requested by the two bus companies to the inflation rate.
Mr President, these are my remarks. Since there is another amendment to the motion similar to the one I proposed, I will respect the President's arrangements.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all, I would like to declare that the Liberal Party agrees with the amendments proposed by Dr HUANG and Mr TAM to Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion. The two bus companies have applied for fare increase at almost the same time. Today's debate offers us a very good opportunity to make some comments on their applications for fare increase. Admittedly, Members of this Council may not hold the same views on this issue. However, I believe that all of us would like to see that the bus fare increase will be reasonable and that the bus companies will be able to provide an efficient and sound service to commuters.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1907
The position of the Liberal Party on the current fare increase applications of the two bus companies has been very clear. Firstly, we are opposed to the proposed 19.6% increase of the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) and the proposed 19.1% increase of the China Motor Bus (CMB). We think that the proposed increases are too high and unlikely to be acceptable to the public. Secondly, we take the view that if a public transport company proposes a fare increase which is higher than the rate of inflation then it must be prepared to put forth convincing arguments which will justify its move. It is on the basis of this fair and right stance that we would, through the Government, ask the companies concerned to provide necessary data and materials. We are hoping that with the data and materials made available, Members will be able to have a better understanding of the reasons for their fare increase in order that a rational debate can take place and that a reasonable fare increase can be agreed upon at the end of the day.
Many people criticize the applications for such high fare increases by the two bus companies as greedy and extremely unreasonable. Yet, if one seeks to arbitrarily limit the rate of fare increase and fires salvos in an uninformed and trigger-happy sort of way without any knowledge of the operation of the two bus companies over the past fiscal year, their future development plans and the need to improve commuter service generally, then I must say that it is not a logical thing to do, that it is just like jumping to conclusion without studying and analysing the facts in an objective way or putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. The public transport companies are not operating in a food market. In a food market, while we will certainly not tolerate a vendor seeking to raise prices at will, which the proverbial food vendor is prone to do, we, the buyers, should not drive a hard bargain by making a totally unreasonable counter offer either. I would consider Mr LEE Wing-tat's original motion is logically flawed. If we think that the Government is obliged to examine objectively the operation of the bus company, taking into account such factors as its efficiency, future development and service improvement, then there is no reason that we should arbitrarily make a decision that fare increase cannot exceed a certain level. It is against the principle of fairness because this is to reach verdict before the trial has even begun.
In considering the applications of the two bus companies for fare increase, it is very important for us not to lose sight of the fact that they are business operations. The Liberal Party is well aware of the fact that it is the public's view that any fare increase, if necessary, must be moderate and in line with inflation. It is for this reason that we have asked the Government to take the public wish into account. However, the two bus companies are business operators. While they are running a service for the travelling public, there is also the need for them to achieve a reasonable return on the investment of shareholders in order to offer the latter the incentive to continue to invest in the development of bus services. After all, the public have had higher expectations of bus service. It is up to the bus companies to respond to these demands positively, in the way of increasing frequency, developing new routes, providing more air-conditioned coaches and so forth. This is the sort of healthy
1908 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
development which the bus companies should be going for. In this regard, inflation apart, the need to improve service would also drive up their operation costs. Of course the onus is on the Government to forestall any attempts by the companies to engage in profiteering on the pretext of improving service. However, it is also important to ensure that the companies would have reasonable resources to continue their normal operation and cope with future development for otherwise the quality of service will suffer.
In applying for fare increase last year, KMB informed the Transport Panel of this Council that of the proposed increase of 13.8%, 8.9% was for off-setting inflation, 2.5% for service improvement, and 2.4% was for compensating for inevitable waste of resources. And by waste of resources it was meant the need to retain routes which were incurring serious loss due to poor patronage. Those routes had to be heavily subsidized with the proceeds from other routes, hence the pressure on fare increase. Service improvement and the incurring of inevitable loss have nothing whatsoever to do with inflation. It goes without saying that the company must seek to provide a better service through better efficiency just as it must keep waste of resources to a minimum. However, if we are satisfied that the additional outlay by the bus company is still quite inevitable despite the best efforts made, then it would seem fair and reasonable that such factors should be taken on board in the examination of its application for fare increase.
The public certainly would want the fare increase to be kept as low as possible. However, they must realize that the bus company also has to meet some very real needs. How is the balance to be struck between public interest and corporate needs? It is up to the Government to conduct a prudent study taking into consideration not only the real circumstantial needs, but also the acceptability of this level of increase to the public and the consequential inflationary impact. The Government should also make public all relevant information as far as practicable in order that the application procedures and the rate of fare increase will be governed by the principle of being open, fair and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. What is more, the Government should make it mandatory for the bus companies to make improvement to their services in order to make sure that the travelling public will be able to enjoy quality bus service and will get value for their money.
In the past, there was little transparency with regard to bus fare increase. Although we have seen some improvement over the last one or two years, the data and materials made available to Members are still quite limited. Worse still, CMB has yet to disclose such data and materials. In order to enable Members to have a better understanding of the operation of the bus companies so that a more equitable evaluation could be made, we must be allowed to gain access to the information regarding the bus operators' cost structure. For example, we would have to know how the rising cost is estimated, to what extent individual cost items have increased, the reasons for their increase and any relevant data. Meanwhile, we would also want to know whether the company has actually made genuine attempts to improve efficiency and cut costs, what
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1909
sort of efforts has been made in the way of reducing waste of resources, and whether such efforts are genuine or not. It is also very important for the bus companies to come up with background information and cost estimates with regard to service improvement and development. I do not consider such data and materials sensitive and as such there is no justification to keep them confidential.
Even without the benefit of detailed information, I would still like to put forth two strong views, which I hope the Government will seriously consider, with regard to the prima facie reasons given by the two bus companies for fare increase.
(1) KMB has used the concessionary fare scheme for the elderly as a ground for seeking a fare increase. This is tantamount to shifting its social responsibility on to other commuters. It is fair neither to the community nor to the commuters as a whole.
(2) CMB has cited its loss of 26 routes as a ground for seeking a fare increase. This is also tantamount to forcing commuters to take its blame for losing the market share in the first place. It is unfair.
These two justifications for fare increase are equally unacceptable.
Lastly, I agree that in so far as public transport is concerned the Scheme of Control is already out of date. The Government should conduct a review and consider the abolition of the much criticized Scheme of Control when the current KMB franchise expires in 1997. However, in the remaining three and a half years before 1997, I think it is enough for the Government to conduct a timely review. I believe that, with the abolition of the Scheme of Control, all public transport companies will be able to compete on an equal footing. I think that would ensure the travelling public an even better transport service.
Mr President, these are my remarks. I will later on move my amendment motion to strike out the reference to an arbitrary restriction on the level of fare increase and replace it instead by what I would consider to be more reasonable wording. I would ask the Government to fully appreciate and give due weight to the acceptability of this level of increase to the public as well as its effect on inflation.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) and China Motor Bus (CMB) apply for fare increases to the tune of 19.6% and 19.1% respectively. A fare increase of this magnitude could only be described as exorbitant and their fare increase applications outrageous.
I have spent four evenings urging passers-by to support our signature campaign in opposition to the fare increase of the two bus companies. They responded most enthusiastically; indeed the level of response was only second to
1910 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
the overwhelming response to the signature campaign in 1986 against the building of the Daya Bay nuclear plant.
Since the bus operators submit their fare increase applications, the man in the street has been asking himself a question, that is, what chance does he have for a wage increase of 19.6% or 19.1% for that matter? Why is it that fare increase demanded by the two bus companies are surprisingly twice that of the rate of inflation? Is the Government trying to fight inflation, or pursuing an inflationary policy instead? The public find the fare increases outrageous. I would add that public indignation has reached a near breaking point.
In the face of the impudent demand of the two bus companies for fare increase, in the face of the strong public resentment against the exorbitant fare increase, again we as legislators and members of various political parties are practically going through another test. Are we going to side with the masses or are we going to side with a handful of people with vested interests?
There are altogether four motions before us today, including the original motion and the amendment motions. The main difference on this issue is marked by the opposition between the United Democrats of Hong Kong and the Liberal Party. The position of the United Democrats is unequivocal indeed. We demand that the Government should contain the bus fare increase to a level below the rate of inflation; we demand that the Government should review the relevant Scheme of Control as soon as possible. The position of the Liberal Party, on the contrary, is ambivalent. It only wants the Government to gauge and give due weight to the acceptability of the level of increase to the public and its effect on inflation. It only wants the Government to conduct a timely review of the Scheme of Control. Stripped of its disguise, the position of the Liberal Party is that the fare increase may be set at a level above inflation and there is no hurry in terms of reviewing the Scheme of Control.
What does the Liberal Party mean by the public's acceptability? Does it mean that man in the street has to be reduced to abject poverty, with nothing to subsist upon, before it can be said that the fare increase is more than the public can bear? Can the fare increase be said to be acceptable to the public if it adds to the burden of the man in the street to the extent that his quality of life is undermined, and he has to make do with less, with scarcely enough to eat and wear?
The Liberal Party talks about the effect on inflation. The word "effect" is neutral in sense. It could refer to the effect of runway inflation or, on the contrary, that of inflation curbing measures. And an effect on inflation may just very well be moderately or extremely inflationary. I do not quite understand what the Liberal Party means by "effect". If it is the intention of the Liberal Party to combat inflation, the Liberal Party would not have amended the original motion of the United Democrats in the first place.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1911
At a meeting of the Finance Committee last week the Government asked for an increase of public assistance at a rate commensurate with the rate of inflation. A Liberal Party legislator queried whether this would be inflationary. The implication of course was that anything which was inflationary was bad. I followed up with his question and asked: If inflation could be softened when people were left to starve to death, would the Government resort to a policy which would produce such effect to combat inflation? The Financial Secretary provided a subtle answer. He said that it was an economic question, not a moral one, where inflationary impact was brought about as a result of the adjustment of the level of public assistance. I understood him to mean that it was immoral not to adjust the level of public assistance purely for fear of creating an inflationary impact.
I can see from the query of the Liberal Party legislator that the Liberal Party is extremely wary of inflationary impact. After all, he is upset about the adjustment of the level of public assistance though with an aim to offset inflation. However, I cannot understand why the Liberal Party is now opposed to the United Democrats' demand that the bus fare increase be kept at a level below the rate of inflation, which is manifestly a measure to counter inflation. The position of the Liberal party smacks of double standards, does it not? It is biased in favour of the vested interests at the expense of the poor and the helpless. That is the position and approach of the Liberal Party.
The Hong Kong Government has learnt from the ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi who was an advocate of the political philosophy of "governing by doing nothing" and invented an economic strategy of "achieving prosperity without doing anything". That strategy is epitomized by the Scheme of Control, which is actually a scheme of guaranteed profits. Since prosperity can be achieved without doing anything, those operate under the Scheme of Control do not have to bother about management. They may just as well lie down and do not have to care about making any improvement to their operation. They may just as well make a mess of things. They are always assured of a clean profit at 16% of one's net assets value, never mind the drain on resources. I wonder whether this state of affairs is in line with the laws of free competition in a capitalist market economy.
The Scheme of Control has been the subject of intense public criticism over the past 10-odd years. However, the Government has turned a deaf ear to such criticism and done nothing to rectify the situation. We have now reached a point when a review of the Scheme of Control can no longer be put off. The Liberal Party has said that timely review should be conducted .....
The buzzer sounded a continuous beep.
PRESIDENT: Please discontinue, Mr SZETO Wah.
1912 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the community has been quite unanimous in voicing its opposition to the fare increase applications of the two bus companies. However, we can see that the China Motor Bus (CMB) has been the more honest of the two bus companies in conceding that it is only willing to offer concessionary fares to the elderly during certain times of the day and on certain bus routes only. It quite honestly says that it can commit not too much towards this end. However, the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) has made a point of being apparently far more generous in offering concessionary fares to elderly citizens on all of its routes. Scarcely has a year gone by then the company has actually used the concessionary fare scheme, which it says has led to rising operating costs, as a ground for demanding a fare increase. It is unacceptable for KMB to take this stance of asking the community to foot the bill for a treat for which it takes the entire credit.
Fare increases are sometimes quite unavoidable because wages have to be adjusted and the operation has to turn in a profit for the company. Even though the three railways, wholly owned by the Government, have fare adjustments every year. An entirely privately owned company should therefore be no exception. It is unfortunate that both KMB and CMB have come up with totally uncovincing arguments in their applications this year for fare increase of well over 19%. This rate of increase is really alarming.
Recently, the Government has invited senior citizens to apply for senior citizen cards. In appealing to corporations and individuals to join in the concessionary scheme for the elderly, the Secretary for Health and Welfare has stressed that sponsors should not expect to receive any reward or preferential treatment from the Government which will only act as a champion of the good cause.
I would like to urge the Government to be consistent in applying that policy. In examining KMB's fare increase justifications, the Government should take account of the fare concession being a rebate to the elderly. It should not be used as an excuse for making bigger profits.
Meanwhile, both KMB and CMB have mentioned that the fare increases approved last year were not satisfactory enough. KMB wanted 13.8% but was given 11.2%. CMB wanted 16% but was given 13%. In this regard, they argue that they should be given a bigger increase to compensate for the poor deal they struck last year.
Theoretically, the government decision should be based on the rationality of the rate of increase applied for. This is not a case similar to that of civil servants seeking compensation for pay rise shortfalls. If the bus companies think they are entitled to making up for what rates of increase they think unsatisfactory year after year, they might as well decide the rate themselves, dispensing with the government approval.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1913
With regard to KMB's argument that maintenance costs have risen dramatically, while it is admittedly true that an operator will doubtless try to pass as much cost as possbile on to the consumer, it is not exactly fair that it should use no money out of its own pockets, expecting that the commuters will somehow provide the capital required. What is more, the commuter is in a particularly vulnerable position because the bus company is a franchised company. He has no choice but to comply. Who would lend a helping hand other than the Government?
It is unfortunate that the Government has continued to adhere to the Scheme of Control. Under this scheme, KMB can easily ask for a fare increase on even the weakest excuse to make sure that it gets a return of 16% on its average net fixed assets value.
Even if we can prove that the arguments of KMB for fare increase are quite indefensible this year, it can surely come up with better arguments next year, arguments which they can more easily defend. Actually, KMB may as well ignore public opinion altogether. If the company should increase its fares on the ground of permitted profit, there is nothing we can do about it either.
I would like to urge the Government to conduct a review of KMB's Scheme of Control immediately. The Government should positively address social changes and the wish of the community, rather than wasting our time in repeating time and again that the notion of permitted profit is already out of date.
As a matter of fact, the other bus company, that is, CMB, had already relinquished using its net fixed assets value for calculation of return when its franchise was renewed last year. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the fare increase of CMB because, as Chairman of the Wanchai District Board, I am particularly concerned about the transport services on Hong Kong Island.
I am sure colleagues are aware that CMB lost 26 of its routes to Citybus because it had failed to provide a satisfactory service. However, CMB's using the loss of these 26 routes, hence the reduced overall patronage, as an argument justifying its fare increase is indicative of the company's reluctance to adopt a more progressive approach to its operation. Indeed, we also understand that some of these 26 routes are loss-making routes which CMB consider not to be worth continued operation.
According to information provided by the Government, CMB patronage has dropped by 2.6%. However, if it can learn from its mistake and improve the quality of its service, then it should not find it difficult to attract more patronage. Now that CMB has resorted to the passive solution of increasing fare, it would only cause even stronger resentment. I would urge CMB to explain to the Wanchai District Board the justifications for its fare increase.
1914 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
Admittedly, it has been said that the bus fare increase of 20% comes down to no more than a dollar or so and it is therefore unlikely to have a great impact on people's livelihood. However, if all the public utility companies should increase their tariffs by 20%, then the resulting burden to the general public would not be a matter of a dollar. Both the Society for Community Organizations and the Association for the Rights of the Elderly have petitioned Members of this Council against spiralling prices. They have estimated that 13 utilities will put up their charges one after another. How are the low income groups and retired persons going to cope with them?
As the Secretary for Economic Services has said just now, since there is not enough transparency to the operation of a considerable number of public corporations, there is no way the public can tell whether their tariff increases are justified or not.
I am very glad that the Government has at long last shown its willingness to address this issue. However, only the Government has access to relatively more information necessary to assess the fare increase applications of the bus companies. Not even Legislative Council Members can have access to the information. Therefore I would like to urge the Government to assume the responsibility of rigorously examining the operations of the two bus companies and the quality and safety of their services, and taking into account the impact of their fare increase on people's livelihood, before granting approval to their fare increase applications.
With these remarks, Mr President, I will later on vote in favour of Mrs Miriam LAU's amendment.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am sure colleagues are aware that clothing, food, housing, transport and electricity are conducive to people's livelihood. Indeed, I would say transport and electricity have the most direct bearing on people. It is generally estimated that the rate of increase in transport expenses is between 8% and 10% each year. However, none of us can avoid using transport on a daily basis. I recall that riots broke out in Hong Kong in 1967 because of a fare increase of five cents by the Star Ferry. Now that we have party politics in the Legislative Council, it is only inevitable that the political parties will want to use this opportunity to propagate their causes. However, I would like Members to take a dispassionate look at the facts, for the maintenance of social stability is of utmost importance.
Mr President, I would first of all like to voice my objection to the fare increases of 19.6% and 19.1% sought by the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) and the China Motor Bus (CMB) respectively. However, we should look at the facts while we are in opposition to the fare increases. It is absolutely necessary for the Chairman and the General Manager of KMB, which is a listed company, to work for the interests of its shareholders. In this regard, given the government-acquiesced permitted rate of return not more than 16%, why should KMB's
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1915
Chairman and General Manager not seek to the best of their ability to achieve precisely that? Otherwise, how are they going to explain to KMB's largest shareholder, that is, Sun Hung Kai Properties Limited? Who will say no to a larger profit? I think we should all bear that in mind.
In this regard, what I am trying to say is, if there is a mistake made somewhere along the line, it must in the first place be a mistake inherent in the franchise policy of the Government. The interest rate for savings around the world is now as low as 2.3%. Meanwhile, the 16% assured rate of return is not the bus company's own making; it is a gift from the Government.
Secondly, while it is doubtless true that KMB has made as much as $1.7 billion from its land sales, we have to bear in mind that whether the land was part of KMB's assets or a grant by the Government. If KMB should be envied for making a profit of $1.7 billion, how much more enviable is the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation which has made over tens of billions of dollars? Bearing in mind that many real estate companies have made billions of dollars, I think KMB shareholders should have demanded at their general meetings that the board should switch to real estate altogether. Had it been the case, the present situation would have been very different indeed. In so far as the Government is concerned, it should refrain from granting land to KMB upon discovering that once the company has been given land of its own it can then sell it off or put it to other use for an exorbitant profit. KMB should use land of its own. In making land grants, the Government should attach certain conditions regarding their use. The recipient of the land grant should, as has been suggested just now, make certain undertakings just as some other transport operators have done.
Thirdly, the arguments forwarded for fare increase by KMB are not justified at all. It should have said in its application that it was only acting in the interests of shareholders in taking full advantage of the maximum 16% return permitted by the Government. Meanwhile KMB should also refuse to sponsor the concessionary fare scheme for the elderly proposed by the Government on the grounds that this would affect its revenue. By refusing to sponsor the scheme, the hypocrisy of the Government in introducing the scheme can be laid bare for everyone to see. It is not reasonable for KMB to make commuters bear the cost of the government conditions which it has accepted itself. KMB should have indicated at the outset that it was not going to sponsor the preferential scheme because it would affect its revenue. Now that the company has sought to increase its fares after joining in the scheme, indeed using cost as an excuse now while making no mention of it in the first place, I would consider that both the General Manager and the entire management should have some explaining to do.
Mr President, the case of CMB, which had the permitted rate of return arrangement abolished last year, is completely different from that of KMB. It has no alternative but to accept the challenge of the open market and to accept that it be assessed on its own merits. If CMB refuses to review its operation
1916 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994
even now, it is likely to face even stronger competition from other modes of transport. It is likely, as some Members put it just now, that CMB will be eliminated in the competition altogether. If that should happen, we can only regret it as members of the community and users of social resources. It is clear that Hong Kong abides by the principle of free competition. While many businesses close down after operating for one or two years, some of them will shift to other fields of operation after a wrong start. Competition is fair in our society.
Mr President, in considering the proposed fare increases of 19.6% and 19.1% by KMB and CMB respectively, I think that the most important thing is to review the government policy. In line with what has been done to CMB, KMB should also be stripped of its right to permitted rate of return. Even if the permitted rate of return arrangement is to be retained, it should be pitched at 10% or under in view of the current circumstances. I think that the Transport Advisory Committee has the absolute responsibility for examining the franchise agreement and the arrangement for permitted rate of return. Under the present circumstances, all we can do is to tell KMB that it has to take into account the wishes expressed by the public and to co-operate reasonably by making a second assessment. With regard to measuring the fare increase against inflation, I would personally consider that to be absolutely unreasonable. Inflation is caused by many other factors. For example, it is likely that the rate of wage increase has already exceeded the so-called average inflation rate of 8.5%. Seen in this light, it is well nigh impossible to demand that a certain company or corporation should accept the restriction at the expense of its vested interest. If, however, it is written into the franchise agreement and the company accepts the restriction as part of the agreement terms, then it is of course another issue. In this regard, Mr President, we agree in principle that the two bus companies should accept the views expressed by the general public and conduct a new assessment in that light. However, the Government is also largely responsible to the extent that it grants the franchise and masterminded the whole concept of permitted rate of return. Meanwhile, I hope that the public will await the development of this issue patiently.
Thank you, Mr President.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, as an elected Member representing New Territories North and a Tai Po resident, I understand very well that residents in new towns, especially those who have to go to work or attend school in urban areas, are heavily dependent on public transport services. Insufficient public transport services and whopping annual fare increases will add to their cost of living. Worse still, if the services are not satisfactory, they will find the services a raw deal and become more annoyed.
Not all the residents in new towns are living in vicinity to railway stations. For those who are not, their only alternative is to take a public bus to go to work or attend school. They may have to change to other modes of
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 1917
transport as well. For this reason, many of them have to spend over $30 per day on transport. Although bus service is of prime importance to them, regrettably, the bus service provided by the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) is hardly satisfactory. Here I would illustrate the point by citing the recent survey conducted by the liaison office of the United Democrats of Hong Kong's New Territories North branch. Among the 1 000-odd Tai Po residents being interviewed, over 60% of them feel dissatisfied with KMB's bus frequency, its failure to follow the bus timetable and the high bus fares. Meanwhile I am afraid that KMB will not be able to cope with the transport needs of the growing population in the new towns. When things come to that stage, KMB may raise bus fares substantially and the public in turn will request the increase of other transport services such as the green minibus and the coach services operated by housing estates. In that case, KMB would virtually undermine its competitiveness on its own accord and it would only have itself to blame. I am loath to see that KMB will, just like the case of the China Motor Bus (CMB), ask for fare increases with the excuse of a drop of passengers.
If the franchised bus companies always try to maintain their own profit margin by asking for fare increases but do not concern themselves with the improvement in their services and competitiveness, it will merely lead to a vicious circle and eventually the bus companies will be shunned by the travelling public. To forestall such a scenario, KMB should refrain from maintaining a 16% profit return by increasing the fares year after year. It should take practical steps to improve its operation efficiency and service quality and, on that solid basis, to rebuild its client base. Failing that the annual high fare increase will certainly drive the passengers away, who would shun bus services and resort to other modes of transport including the MTR, trains, light buses and so forth. As for the deterioration of bus services resulting from road congestion, the company should discuss with the Government about ways to tackle traffic congestion or the possibility of employing measures such as increasing certain bus lanes, altering bus routes, avoiding the busiest roads and so forth. The United Democrats heartily support the Government for its introduction of more substantial measures to encourage the public to take a bus and travel on train. This may also discourage more people from taking private cars or taxis, which are not economical modes of transport. However, if the Government allows bus fares to go up drastically each year, I am sure that more will prefer driving their own cars or taking a taxi instead of a bus. To ease traffic congestion, we urge the Government to vigorously monitor the fare increases as proposed by the two bus companies.
As regards setting the increase at a level below the inflation rate, I think this is a very reasonable request with the support of the general public. Even the Liberal Party requested in its signature campaign and stated on their erected banners that the increase of bus fares should not be at a level above the inflation rate. We, the United Democrats, make this request after careful consideration of a number of factors which include the profits made by the two bus companies ......
1918 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 19 January 1994 PRESIDENT: Yes, Mrs Miriam LAU?
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr President, can I ask for clarification?
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Rev FUNG has just referred to the banners of the Liberal Party demanding that fare increase of KMB should be kept at a level below the inflation rate. I would like to know exactly which banner Rev FUNG is referring to, where it was displayed, the exact wording, as well as the wording on other banners. Does he know these details?
PRESIDENT: It is up to you, Rev FUNG Chi-wood.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, Mr LEE Wing-tat will deal with Mrs LAU's question later. The UDHK made this demand after having taken into account a number of factors, including the level of return and the accumulated rate of increase of the two bus companies, whether the increase is fair to the public and the standard of services provided. Inflation is merely one of our considerations.
I hope that KMB would set aside a sum from the $1.7 billion proceeds from land sale as recurrent expenditure so as to reduce the rate of fare increase. Mr President, taking into consideration such factors as the interests of bus passengers in the territory and the way forward for bus services, I would support Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion and Dr HUANG Chen-ya's amendment.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the applications by Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) and China Motor Bus (CMB) for an average fare increase of close to 20% with effect from April 1994 took me by surprise.
The grounds given for the proposed fare increase are the same old arguments such as increased operation costs, development of new routes, large-scale maintenance works, improvement of service and so forth. Indeed, KMB has also made a point of justifying its fare increase by its intention to make up for the loss which it has incurred as a result of offering concessionary fares for the elderly. I would consider most of the arguments provided by the two bus companies unacceptable.
First of all, in so far as KMB is concerned, while it is quite justifiable for the bus operator to apply for fare increase on the ground of rising costs, it is quite difficult to understand why the company has seen fit to ask for a fare increase which is twice the level of inflation. KMB has asserted that a major contributing factor to its rising costs is increased staff remuneration. However, it would seem from the information available that KMB staff's wages have only