HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3793 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 18 May 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 CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., 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 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.
3794 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 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 EMIL Y 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 ― 18 May 1994 3795
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 HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., J.P.
IN ATTENDANCE
MR MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
3796 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
MR RONALD JAMES BLAKE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR WORKS
MR JAMES SO YIU-CHO, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SZE CHO-CHEUNG, I.S.O., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
MR ANTHONY GORDON EASON, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
MR DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY
MR NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
MR KENNETH JOSEPH WOODHOUSE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3797 Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Commissioner for Administrative Complaints
Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1)
Order 1994............................................................................................... 251/94
Merchant Shipping (Fees) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994....................................................................................... 252/94
Shipping and Port Control (Hong Kong ―
China and Macau Ferry Terminals)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ............................................................... 253/94
Shipping and Port Control (Typhoon Shelters)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ............................................................... 254/94
Telecommunication (Amendment) Regulation
1994......................................................................................................... 255/94
Telecommunication (Control of Interference)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ............................................................... 256/94
Air Pollution Control (Specified Processes)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ............................................................... 257/94 Ferry Services (Amendment) Regulation 1994............................................... 258/94
Import and Export (Fees) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994...................................................................................... 259/94
Noise Control (Air Compressors) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994....................................................................................... 260/94
Noise Control (General) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994....................................................................................... 261/94
Noise Control (Hand Held Percussive Breakers)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ................................................................ 262/94
Ozone Layer Protection (Fees) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994........................................................................................ 263/94
3798 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
Road Tunnels (Government) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994 ...................................................................................... 264/94
Road Traffic (Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2)
Regulation 1994 ...................................................................................... 265/94
Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Regulation 1994................................................... 266/94
Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of
Vehicles) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation
1994......................................................................................................... 267/94
Road Traffic (Village Vehicles) (Amendment)
Regulation 1994 ...................................................................................... 268/94
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ............................................................... 269/94
Waste Disposal (Forms and Fees for Licences)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ............................................................... 270/94
Import and Export (Strategic Commodities)
Regulations (Amendment of Schedule 1)
Order 1994 .............................................................................................. 271/94
Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of
Schedule 3) Order 1994........................................................................... 272/94
Road Traffic (Amendment of Schedule 10)
Order 1994 .............................................................................................. 273/94
Cremation and Gardens of Remembrance
(Regional Council) (Amendment) Bylaw
1994......................................................................................................... 274/94
Exhumation (Fees) (Regional Council)
(Amendment) Bylaw 1994 ...................................................................... 275/94
Public Cemeteries (Regional Council)
(Amendment) Bylaw 1994 ...................................................................... 276/94 Declaration of Increase in Pensions Notice..................................................... 277/94
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3799
Employees Retraining Ordinance
(Amendment of Schedule 2) (No.
5) Notice 1994......................................................................................... 278/94 Employees Retraining Ordinance
(Amendment of Schedule 2) (No.
6) Notice 1994......................................................................................... 279/94
Widows and Orphans Pension
(Increase) Notice ..................................................................................... 280/94
Companies (Amendment) Ordinance
1994 (30 of 1994)
(Commencement) Notice 1994................................................................ 281/94
Housing (Traffic Contraventions)
(Fixed Penalty) Bylaw (L.N. 157
of 1994) (Commencement) Notice
1994......................................................................................................... 282/94
Sessional Papers 1993-94
No. 82 ― Report of Broadcasting Authority September 1992 - August 1993
No. 83 ― Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund Annual Report by the Director of Social Welfare Incorporated for the Year from
1 April, 1992 to 31 March, 1993
Address
Report of Broadcasting Authority September 1992 - August 1993
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I have much pleasure in laying the annual report of the Broadcasting Authority for the year ending 31 August 1993 before the Council today.
The year under report marked a milestone in the development of Hong Kong’s broadcasting industry. The first subscription television licence in Hong Kong was granted to Wharf Cable Limited on 1 June 1993. As of today, Wharf Cable is providing 10 channels with one more channel to be put on air next Monday. This new TV service is now available to over 600 000 households with some 55 000 households already subscribing to the service.
During the period, the Broadcasting Authority had reviewed and updated the regulatory framework for radio broadcasters to enable them to cope more effectively with the rapidly changing broadcasting environment. The Television (Amendment) Ordinance too was enacted in April 1993 both to update the legal framework for the regulation of commercial broadcasting in general and to provide a legal basis for the licensing of subscription TV in Hong Kong.
3800 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
An important aspect of the Broadcasting Authority’s functions is to regulate the services provided by commercial broadcasters through a well-established mechanism for considering complaints. During this period, the Authority’s Complaints Committee dealt with a total of 860 complaints and, arising from these, some 20 warning letters were issued to various broadcasters to remind them of the need to observe more closely the different codes of practice issued. In addition, the Broadcasting Authority imposed on the licensees, on four occasions, financial penalties ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 for breaches of the codes of practice.
To keep abreast of changing social needs and attitudes and the fast developing technology in the industry, the authority’s Working Group regularly reviews the codes of practice on programme, advertising and technical standards for both television and radio broadcasts. Major revisions to the codes included allowing greater flexibility in the showing of feature films, in repeats of children’s programmes and in advertising breaks during live telecast events, and allowing advertising for matrimonial agencies, financial services, properties and publications. In addition, supplementary standards on programme scheduling for selective viewing and late-night viewing were established, and a new set of supplementary standards on programme sponsorship was also introduced. The Broadcasting Authority has also issued codes of practice on programme and home shopping standards to regulate the programmes and home shopping material broadcast on subscription television.
During this period, the Broadcasting Authority also maintained close liaison with overseas regulatory authorities and broadcasting organizations through attendance at international conferences and discussions with overseas visitors.
Having gone through a significant and eventful year, the Authority expects to be even busier in 1994. It is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the mid-term reviews of the commercial television licences held by ATV and TVB, and will be involved in the preparation of an omnibus Broadcasting Bill and discussions on possible relaxations in the regulatory regime for satellite television.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the Broadcasting Authority, in particular the Chairman, Sir Roger LOBO, for their valuable contributions in regulating the fast developing broadcasting industry and for their advice to the Government in the formulation of broadcasting policy to cope with the rapid changes in the industry.
Thank you, Mr President.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3801 Oral Answers to Questions
Buildings on the Chek Lap Kok airport platform
1. DR SAMUEL WONG asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether all building structures erected on the airport platform at Chek Lap Kok, including the terminal buildings and supporting facilities, would need to go through the usual submission procedures as required by the Buildings Ordinance; if not, why not; and
(b) whether all building designs would be required to conform to the requirements stipulated by the Fire Services Department and the Fire Office Committee in order to achieve high safety standards?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,
(a) The usual submission procedures for checking as required by the Buildings Ordinance involve authorized persons or registered structural engineers listed for this purpose by the Buildings Authority.
Government buildings are not subject to the same procedures as those applying under the Ordinance for private buildings. In respect of Government buildings, Architectural Services Department ensures that the provisions of the Ordinance are fully applied but submission for checking is not necessary. This will be the case for some of the building structures on the Chek Lap Kok airport platform, such buildings being designed by Architectural Services Departments, and constructed under their supervision.
The terminal building and supporting facilities are being designed by consultants for the Provisional Airport Authority (PAA). In this case since design commenced in 1992 there have been regular contacts with the Buildings Ordinance Office to ensure that design development complies with the relevant section of the Buildings Ordinance. At the same time the functionality of the terminal has been developed with the close involvement of the airlines and travel industry, as well as the full involvement of those government departments responsible for security, immigration and other activities essential in an international airport.
These ongoing contacts with the Buildings Ordinance Office have replaced the usual submission procedures imposed on a private developer. The PAA is currently discussing with the Director of Buildings appropriate exemptions from the provisions of the Buildings Ordinance. The final design and construction of all
3802 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
building structures at the airport, including the terminal building, will be such as to ensure that the standards of construction imposed by the Buildings Ordinance can be satisfied.
(b) In response to the question relating to fire safety, Fire Services Department have been extensively involved in the design development of the terminal building and likewise are consulted by Architectural Services Department as necessary. The Fire Services Department has already adopted for local application the United Kingdom Fire Offices Committee rules, as well as other international standards such as the National Fire Protection Association of the United States. The design and construction of all buildings at the new airport will confirm to these high standards of fire safety.
DR SAMUEL WONG: Mr President, from the fourth paragraph of the Secretary for Works’ reply, it is clear that the new terminal building is not classified as a government building. If so, why is the usual submission procedure for compliance of the Buildings Ordinance not necessary, particularly as the Secretary for Works has already mentioned that the standards of construction imposed by the Buildings Ordinance can be satisfied in any case?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, as I said in my reply, there have been extensive and ongoing contacts between the PAA, its design consultants and the Buildings Department during the development of design until today. A dedicated team has been set up in the Buildings Department to process submissions relating to the new airport. Eventually, the Buildings Authority will have to give its consent to all the buildings to be constructed on the airport platform. The procedures with regard to submissions which apply to the private sector and those applying to government buildings or buildings which are in the community interests are subject to the Director of Buildings’ personal involvement so far as applying procedures which expedite the process are concerned, taking into full account the special purposes for which the terminal building has to be designed and constructed.
DR SAMUEL WONG: May I ask a follow-up, Mr President?
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr WONG?
DR SAMUEL WONG: The Secretary mentioned about consent to be given by government department. Can we know in what form? Is it an occupation permit or otherwise?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3803
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the final process of completion will include all of the usual consents for occupation in terms of, among others, fire safety and water supply which apply to any building.
DR PHILIP WONG: Mr President, energy efficiency has a direct bearing on the operating costs of the building. I wonder if the Government can tell us who will be monitoring the energy efficiency of the building.
PRESIDENT: Do you have the answer, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, I believe I can give an answer which will address the question. During the design process, the energy efficiency of the building has been a major consideration by the consultants. And I am advised that it will be a very energy efficient building, both in terms of the performance so far as heat coming into the building through the external cladding is concerned, and also the performance of the air conditioning systems and other systems which are required to maintain an efficient and comfortable environment for the passengers inside the building.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, as the PAA is not a government department, and it is supposed to be an independent agency, will the Secretary inform this Council whether in such a case buildings constructed by the PAA are considered as government buildings? If the answer is yes, would the same requirements apply to buildings constructed by other agencies, such as the Hospital Authority?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, all buildings which are intended for community uses, including the terminal building at the airport, can be categorized as a building intended for community uses. Hospitals and the like are indeed dealt with by the Buildings Ordinance Office under the Buildings Ordinance. I would emphasize again that the final result, as far as all buildings constructed in Hong Kong are concerned, is that they do comply fully with the standards set down in the Buildings Ordinance. But the actual procedures by which the Buildings Ordinance Office is satisfied that those standards are being achieved indeed vary. They vary in the private sector. They vary between those buildings which are handled by the Architectural Services Department. And the procedure is indeed varied in relation to the building for a community purpose which is now being handled by the PAA.
MR EDWARD HO: The Secretary has not answered my question. My question is on the definition of “government building” which is, in his main reply, the first two words in the second paragraph. I want a definition of what
3804 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
government buildings are. Are buildings constructed by independent agencies such as the PAA government buildings?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, where a building is intended for community purpose, and is being paid for substantially by government money, it must be considered a government building. Therefore the Director of Buildings, in considering the procedures which must be applied for submissions and approvals, will treat it in the same category as a government building being designed solely by the Architectural Services Department. But these matters, as I indicated in my reply, are still under discussion between the PAA and the Director of Buildings.
Electors’ education
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, I would like your indulgence in asking a question as set out in the Order Paper that was not the question originally submitted. However, I do not want to make too fine a point on this, as you will see from the answer that was to be given.
2. MR PETER WONG asked: In view of the apparent disinterest of the general public, in particular those within the age group of 18 to 21, towards the lowering of the voting age limit to 18, will the Administration inform this Council what measures will be taken to promote electors’ education so as to enhance the turnout of voters for the 1994-95 elections?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I think I should first respond to the preamble of Mr Peter WONG’s question which could have two meanings. It could mean that the public have shown little support for lowering the voting age to 18. It could also mean young people between 18 and 21 are not interested in registering as voters. I disagree with both of these assertions.
The public have shown strong and persistent support for allowing young men and women at the age of 18 to have the right to vote. This is clearly indicated by all the relevant public opinion polls conducted during the past year. The proposal was recommended by this Council’s Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections and was passed into law by an overwhelming majority of this Council in February this year.
I am also pleased to say that the response of our young people in this age group towards the current voter registration drive has been very encouraging. The Registration and Electoral Office has so far received more than 106 000 applications for registration as new voters, of which over 17 000 or about 16%
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3805
are from the newly eligible age group of 18 to 21, although this group makes up only 5% of the total eligible electorate of 3.9 million.
I however entirely agree with Mr Peter WONG that we should keep with all our efforts to promote electors’ education. In this connection, promotion of electors’ education has been carried out on an on-going basis through civic education programmes both in schools and in the community.
In schools, topics relating to elections are taught particularly in secondary schools through formal subjects such as Social Studies, Government and Public Affairs, and Economic and Public Affairs. Since 1985, the Education Department has issued comprehensive guidelines and teaching materials on civic education which cover elections and the duty of citizens. The Education Department will issue further teaching materials on the coming rounds of elections and will encourage schools to put greater emphasis on explaining to students the meaning and effect of elections.
At the community level, the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education has adopted the promotion of citizen’s rights as the theme of its activities for this year. The right to participate in representative government is a central part of this theme. The committee has launched and will continue to organize civic education programmes such as exhibitions and competitions to enhance voters’ awareness about their rights and duties.
For the 1994-95 elections, the Government will launch an extensive publicity campaign to promote voter turnout. At central level, there will be a whole range of publicity activities, such as, Announcements of Public Interest on television and radio, advertisements in the printed media, a variety of posters and pamphlets, and a hotline enquiry service and so on. The City and New Territories Administration will also organize a series of promotional activities in districts to stimulate the interest of residents and to encourage voters to come out to vote on polling day.
Finally, I should add that other than the efforts of the Government, it is also the electors’ duty to exercise their right to vote. In this respect, community groups and political parties, through their involvement in the elections, will no doubt play an important role in encouraging voters to participate in the elections.
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, the 17 000 registered in the 18 to 21 age group is less than 10% of the eligible age group. Is the Administration satisfied with this result? What will be done in the run-up to the 1995 elections to improve on those registrations and has a registration target figure for that age group been adopted?
3806 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, the eligible number of voters in this 18 to 21 age group, as Mr Peter WONG has pointed out, is about 200 000. So far we have 17 000 who have come to register.
I may at this stage mention that the various publicity efforts we have organized to direct our efforts at this age group include quite a wide range of programmes. The independent Boundary and Election Commission (BEC) have targeted activities at this group. For instance, they have sent direct appeal letters to school principals and youth organizations. They have organized promotional talks and special registration centres in schools. And they will be launching a voter registration ambassador scheme in schools and youth organizations. Under this scheme students will be appointed as ambassadors. They will help distribute forms and actively encourage their friends and relatives to register as electors.
We do not have a target as such for this age group. Indeed our target must be to enroll each and every person in that age group to be a voter and all our activities are geared towards that end.
PRESIDENT: Not answered, Mr Peter WONG, or supplementary?
MR PETER WONG: No, he did not answer my first question. Is the Administration satisfied with a less than 10% registration rate?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, we still have quite a long time to run before the voter registration campaign finishes. The deadline for voter registration is 1 July, so we still have quite a few weeks to go, and obviously so far it is only 17 000. But I am sure the figure will increase as we go along.
MR PETER WONG: Can the Secretary answer whether the Government is satisfied or not with the registration rate?
PRESIDENT: I think I will pass on.
MR ALLEN LEE: Mr President, apart from the short-term publicity methods mentioned by the Secretary, what long-term measures are being used to facilitate a high turnout rate amongst this age group in the elections?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I do not think we have different ways or different methods of facilitating different age
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3807
groups to turn out for voting. Quite obviously we want each and every voter to come out and vote, and our various activities both at the central and district levels are targeted at all our registered voters. If Mr LEE wishes to know whether there will be specially organized facilities for young people, we have not yet addressed that issue. But, as I said, our objective is to get each and every voter to come out and vote. There may be specialized publicity efforts directed at special targets in our publicity campaign for voter turnout.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am glad to hear that the Government has put in considerable efforts in the promotion of voter registration, particularly in view of the fact that most activities are launched for the first time. The campaign has been launched for only a short period, yet the result has been quite good, though some Members think otherwise. The Government is currently trying to encourage young people to come out to vote through the efforts of the Hon Mr Justice WOO who, albeit having done a lot, is not a charismatic figure amongst youngsters. Will the Government consider the idea that some Members of this Council or some political figures may be asked to play some roles on that front?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I am sure the BEC and certainly the Administration would welcome any initiative from any group, be it political groups or other community organizations, to help in the voter registration, as well as in future to encourage young people to come out and vote.
MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Education Department has recently distributed to schools a set of teaching kit, giving a profile of 10 major political groups and parties in Hong Kong. May I ask what measures the Government has adopted to ensure that the schools, in employing the teaching kit, will introduce such political parties to their students in a fair and clear manner and whether the Government has ever considered inviting members of political parties to take part in related school activities?
PRESIDENT: Do you have an answer for this, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I do not have an answer to that question. I would find that out from the Education Department and give a reply to the Honourable Member in writing. (Annex I)
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the slogan for the current voter registration drive is “Make yourself heard”. However, when Members of this Council try to make the public’s opinions heard (for example,
3808 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
voicing their objection to the rates increase), the Government criticized such move as the starting up of “shears” to “fleece” the Government. Will the Government inform this Council whether it would accept that the public would be disillusioned with these self contradictory statements and would render the “Make yourself heard” pledge as an empty promise, thereby discouraging the 18 to 21-year-olds to register as voters?
PRESIDENT: Are you prepared to offer an opinion on this, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I have no intention of commenting on that.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Has the Government conducted any in-depth study into the causes for the low voter registration rate in Hong Kong, in particular the turnout rate, which makes a mockery of the public education campaign in this area?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I do not agree with the assertion that our voter registration rate is low. Indeed of the potential 3.9 million eligible voters, we have 1.9 million on our register and we certainly intend to net quite a lot more in the coming voter registration drive. The registration rate is already 50% and we certainly look forward to having more coming forward in the coming registration campaign.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs said that he welcomed members of political parties and Members of this Council to help promote voter registration. Yet at district level, the Housing Society, a wholly public funded institution, prohibits Councillors (including elected Members) from conducting home visits in its housing estates. Under the circumstances, how can Members of this Council extend a helping hand in the Government’s voter registration drive?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, quite obviously whether the owners of a building allow people to call on the residents of the building would be the owners’ prerogative. But I certainly will look into the issue raised by Mr CHAN as regards the Housing Society’s willingness to allow people to register voters.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, given the fact that it has been launching a household voter registration campaign in the recent weeks, will the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3809
Government consider making arrangements for students over 18 years of age to register as voters at their schools as the voting age has now been lowered to 18?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, as I mentioned in my supplementary response to a Member’s question, there are specific voter registration activities targeted at school children in the age group of 18 to 21. I mentioned about the special voter registration counters in some schools. Mr President, that arrangement is in place in a few schools by way of promotional activities.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, I do not think the Administration has furnished a full reply to Mrs Peggy LAM’s question. In previous District Board elections, the Administration sent District Office staff to various buildings in their respective districts to do voter registration. In view of the large number of potential voters at schools, why does the Administration not send its staff to schools to organize registration activities? I would also like to receive a definite reply to this question, that is, since it has pledged that it would assist political parties in their own voter registration efforts, will the Administration call on school authorities to allow political parties to help eligible students register as voters at their schools?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I did say that the BEC has organized registration activities in schools. But obviously for resource consideration and for practical consideration it is not possible to go to each and every school. We are talking about 200 000 eligible voters (some of them may not necessarily be school children), spread throughout Hong Kong. So for sheer practical considerations and resource considerations, it is not possible to go to each and every school to set up a registration counter. But we do have, as I mentioned, the voter registration ambassador scheme making use of students in schools themselves to encourage their classmates and relatives to register and to vote. It is an effective way of using students and eligible young people themselves to organize voter registration activities. As regards allowing members of political parties to go to schools to encourage voter registration, quite obviously this is something for the school authorities to decide, but we will certainly pass this message and urge school principals to consider and to co-operate.
Minimum wage for local workers
3. DR CONRAD LAM asked (in Cantonese): As the median monthly wage of local workers in the lower income group is lower than the minimum wage set by the Government for foreign domestic helpers, will the Government inform this Council:
3810 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
(a) whether consideration will be given to setting a minimum wage for local workers; if not, what are the reasons; and
(b) what specific measures the Government has in hand to improve the quality of living of local workers so that they can share the fruit of Hong Kong’s economic success?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is incorrect to say that the median wages of local workers are lower than the minimum wage set for foreign domestic helpers. According to statistics provided by the Census and Statistics Department, the findings of the Fourth Quarter 1993 General Household Survey indicated that there were 168 000 employees whose monthly employment earnings were less than $3,500. However, this survey covered all employed persons, including family workers, underemployed workers who worked less than 35 hours a week, and some 129 000 foreign domestic helpers. The actual number of local workers earning less than $3,500 a month is quite small.
Against this background, my answers to the questions are as follows:
(a) One of the fundamental reasons for Hong Kong’s economic success is our free and fair market system which is the best guarantee of economic efficiency and prosperity for all. In line with the principle of our free market economy, wage levels in Hong Kong have always been determined by local market forces. The Government has not sought, and will not seek to intervene in the wage market. We firmly believe that the forces of demand and supply in our labour market is a much more efficient guide in setting wage levels than any means of arbitrary determination by the Government. Setting a minimum wage for local workers would introduce a highly undesirable element of rigidity into our market system and would work against the interests not only of our economy but also our workers.
I should point out that the setting of a minimum wage for foreign domestic helpers is a special measure to safeguard the interests of local workers so that their wages would not be depressed by workers from outside Hong Kong, while at the same time ensuring that foreign domestic helpers are not exploited. This practice does not lend argument to the setting of a minimum wage for local workers.
(b) In the past years, our household incomes have risen in real terms in all income groups, including the lower income group. Between 1981 and 1991, the median household income has increased by 58% in real terms. This is a good indication that the income and quality of life of our local workforce have improved significantly.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3811
Other than real income growth, Hong Kong workers share such benefits as nine years of free education, heavily subsidized housing and health care, good recreation and cultural facilities, and comprehensive social security benefits.
More specifically, labour legislations are constantly reviewed to bring about better protection and benefits for employees. For example, employees now have more leisure due to the improvements in annual leave provisions and the vigorous enforcement of the hours of work legislation. There have been regular improvements to employees benefits as in the case of the increased level of employees compensation, the revised pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, and the proposed legislation on compensation for occupational deafness. There is also the Employees Retraining Scheme which helps displaced workers to better adjust to changes in the economy. In addition, the Employees’ Compensation Assistance Scheme and the Protection Of Wages On Insolvency Fund ensure that employees can secure the awards due to them as prescribed under the law. All these measures are aimed at bringing better benefits and protection to our workforce and improving their quality of life.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, in paragraph 2(a) of the reply, the Secretary for Education and Manpower said, “(The Government) firmly believes that the forces of demand and supply in our labour market is a much more efficient guide in setting wage levels than any means of arbitrary determination by Government.” However, the Government’s policy on importation of labour from mainland China has directly intervened in the demand and supply of the labour market. Is this contradictory to what the Government said in the reply that it “has not intervened in the wage market”?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, the answer is negative. As I said in the second sub-paragraph of paragraph (a) of the reply, the spirit of setting a minimum wage for foreign domestic helpers is to safeguard the interests of local workers so that their wages will not be depressed by workers from outside Hong Kong. Therefore, this spirit must be upheld and it is not contradictory to any other policy. I have said earlier that this special measure is to avoid setting workers’ wages on a large scale which will violate our free market economy. We must bear in mind that there are no more than some 100 000 workers from outside Hong Kong, representing less than 1% of the total workforce, whereas the labour market of Hong Kong has 2.8 million workers. Therefore, there is insufficient ground to change the existing principle on wages.
3812 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the third sub-paragraph of paragraph (b) of the main reply, the Secretary said that “labour legislation are constantly reviewed”, but obviously, the protection mentioned is for some special circumstances, such as injury at work, pneumoconiosis, deafness, dismissal and so on. Nobody wants to claim such compensation. Whether the employees are protected and their basic quality of life safeguarded depends very much on the actual amount of their disposable income. Given that at present, the manufacturing industry tends to move northwards into China and every year, more than 100 000 workers are displaced and the current wages are on the low side. For example, the wage of a worker who works in an American style fast food shop in Tuen Mun is $10 per hour. If he works eight hours a day and six days a week, he can earn only $2,080 per month. I would like to ask the Secretary: Is this serious exploitation? If more and more workers receive such low wages, what measures will the Government take to improve the situation; or will the Government simply allow the situation to spread?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, any free labour market, under certain circumstances, needs time to adjust in order to strike a balance. We must take the whole situation into account and not just focus on individual cases. Regarding the whole situation, the principle of free market is that the Government will not intervene in the setting of workers’ wages. If special circumstances which call for protection arise, like in the case of foreign domestic helpers, we will take special measures. However, these are very special measures and not general ones.
As far as individual trade is concerned, we of course realize that individual trade invariably suffers under certain circumstances in the course of economic restructuring, and this is a fact. However, the Government also notices that in the past few years, we may take the census statistics from 1986 to 1991 as an example, the median household income has increased by 93%, and by 26% in real terms. This is a good indication that the household income of the entire population of Hong Kong, including our labour force, has increased in real terms. In cases where workers of certain trades suffer from wage loss, we will of course give them assistance. The work of the Employees Retraining Board is to help this particular group of workers change their jobs and provide them with a chance to undergo retraining so that they may have a better job opportunity. In view of the current shortage of labour, it can be said that wages are definitely very favourable and there will not be any deliberate depression. In fact, if we do so, we will surely deal a blow to our economy and I am sure nobody wants this to happen.
PRESIDENT: Not answered? Mr LAU, we have two more questions.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3813
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary does not tell us what measures will be taken to improve the situation if it continues to spread or deteriorates.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think hypothetical questions do not warrant hypothetical answers. Everything depends on the situation.
PRESIDENT: It is for me to rule if it is hypothetical. Are you saying the Government has not thought ahead?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, if Mr LAU can be a little more specific, I shall be happy to try to see whether an answer can be provided.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary said in the first paragraph of the main reply that there are 168 000 employees earning less than $3,500 a month. Is this a small number; is this a very mild situation or is this an alarm already? Will the Government take any measures to improve the situation? This surely is not a hypothetical question.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, of the 168 000 employees I referred to in the main reply, over 70% are workers from outside Hong Kong. We can say that there are only very few local workers whose monthly income is less than $3,500. Actually, the number of workers earning very low wages is, I believe, only about 10 000 or so and this does not mean there is any problem in our situation as a whole.
I have just mentioned that it is necessary to help this particular group of workers who are more vulnerable. I believe the most important thing is to help them undergo retraining so that they can meet the demand of the market and keep abreast of the market needs, which will further sharpen their competitive edges. I think this is the best safeguard for them.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Secretary tell us whether the Government has any figures to show that there is a downward trend in our workers’ wages? No matter whether there are any such figures, is the growth in our workers’ wages faster or slower than our neighbouring countries such as Taiwan and Singapore?
3814 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, I do not have these figures at the moment but we do have the general impression that wages of our workers are on the increase. As for the comparison with our neighbours, I have to check on the relevant information before furnishing Mr Henry TANG with a written reply. (Annex II)
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the past decade the unemployment rate of Hong Kong has been under 3%. One of the reasons why many foreign countries are setting minimum wages is that they have high unemployment rate which ranges from 6% to 10%. When considering this issue, has the Government considered the fact that in foreign countries where minimum wages are set, a large number of less competent workers have been unable to get a job simply because the companies or employers do not think it worthwhile to employ them even at the minimum wages?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think what Mr TIEN said proves precisely that our policy is reasonable and meets the needs of Hong Kong. In other countries, for example, in the United Kingdom, minimum wages had been set before 1985 but was waived since then. The purpose of relaxing this restriction is to increase job opportunities and promote economic development. This proves that it is the correct policy and that we are in the right direction. If we follow the examples of other countries by adopting the minimum wage policy and imposing a rigid regulation on the market, I am sure our economic development will be hampered, and Hong Kong will no longer enjoy the economic prosperity it had in the past.
Sexual harassment in the Civil Service
4. MRS SELINA CHOW asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether any complaints of sexual harassment by colleagues or supervisors have been received from female civil servants in the past three years; and
(b) of the ways that the Government, as a responsible employer, has taken to deal with these complaints?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, let me say at the outset that we take all staff complaints very seriously. There were 18 cases of sexual harassment complaints (including anonymous ones) received from staff against their colleagues or supervisors in the past three years. All complaints were by females against males. Of these, five cases were found substantiated.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3815
Three officers were charged in court for indecent assault and two were subsequently convicted. All five were also disciplined.
Sexual harassment complaints, and other internal complaints, are dealt with in accordance with departmental complaint procedures drawn up with reference to guidelines issued by my Branch. These procedures are widely promulgated among staff. They set out the steps in making complaints and ensure that the procedures are fair, simple, direct and speedy. Senior officers at directorate level are normally designated as the Staff Complaint Officers in departments. In addition, departments are encouraged to designate more staff complaints officers at differing levels to facilitate and deal with staff complaints. The aim is to facilitate complaints to be made and to enable objective investigations with prompt follow-up actions, including disciplinary proceedings on concerned staff if complaints are substantiated.
We have recently reviewed these procedures, in the context of our Human Resources Management reforms and believe they generally work well. But we recognize that sexual harassment complaints are of a very special and sensitive category and separate guidelines on how to deal with such complaints may be useful. We are pursuing this.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, of the 18 cases of sexual harassment complaints, how many are anonymous and given indecent assault is a criminal offence, at what stage are the police called in?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, I do not have the details as to the stage at which the police are called in and I will give detailed replies in writing. (Annex III)
MR SIMON IP: Mr President, sexual harassment is not a term defined by law. What does the Government regard as sexual harassment and how does it distinguish sexual harassment from persistent and over zealous flirtation?
PRESIDENT: Are you able to offer an opinion there, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, sexual harassment includes a range of unsolicited behaviour whether intentionally or not which creates feeling of unease, humiliation, intimidation or discomfort, causes offence, exclusion, withdrawal or threats or appears to threaten job security. Examples are sexual teasing, sexual assault, derogatory behaviour, verbal or physical threats or abuse, offensive manner of communication and so on.
3816 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr President, of the 18 cases of sexual harassment complaints, only five cases were found to be substantiated. Bearing in mind that most of these complaints involve one woman’s word against another man, can the Secretary inform this Council whether that is the reason why the substantial majority of the cases were found to be unsubstantiated? And following on from that, can the Secretary also explain what factors must be proven before a case will be found to be substantiated?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, as the cases are dealt with by departments, in the time available between the notification of the question and today, I have not been able to go into the detail of these 18 cases. It is therefore very difficult for me to give detailed answers to those questions.
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Can I have an answer in writing please?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: I will be pleased to oblige. (Annex IV)
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, sexual harassment is indeed a global problem. Even the senior officials of some countries have been complained of sexual harassment. Will the Administration inform this Council of the rank of the highest ranking officer(s) involved in this kind of complaint in Hong Kong; is it a Policy Secretary, head of department or other ordinary rank?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, I am glad to say that none of the complaints are directed at any Policy Secretaries or heads of departments. (Laughter)
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, as the Secretary can offer such a detailed reply to Mr Simon IP’s question on what sexual harassment is, can the Administration inform this Council whether it intends to make sexual harassment a criminal offence?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, sexual harassment is a problem not specifically confined to the Civil Service. As can be found in my main reply, within a Civil Service of 180 000 staff we had only 18 cases in three years. So it would not be for me, based on the experience we have had in the Civil Service, to give an opinion as to whether or not sexual harassment should be made a criminal offence. But as far as the Civil Service is concerned, we take a very serious view of it and that is why we have defined sexual harassment
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3817
as unbecoming behaviour which we should pursue, should such a complaint be brought to our attention.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, in the last paragraph of the Secretary’s reply, he said that there had been a recent review of complaint procedures and he believed them to be generally satisfactory. But he then went on to say that they recognized that sexual harassment complaints are of a special and sensitive category. I would like to ask the Secretary whether that realization came during the review or whether it came after this question has been asked? And I would also like to ask when he intends to have these very special guidelines promulgated?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, the existing procedures for dealing with staff complaints are looked at by the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service, which commented that the existing complaint procedures are quite effective and have largely met the objectives set out by us in that they should be simple, effective and well publicized. And as I have said in my main reply, we have also reviewed the complaint procedures in the context of our current review of Human Resource Management and I think in that context we recognize that perhaps sexual harassment, which has become the flavour of the month, deserves a more detailed examination to see whether further guidelines should be issued. And as I said, we are pursuing this.
Display of buntings
5. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, regarding the rejection of an application made by an organization to affix buntings on lamp-posts in Central and Wan Chai during an international event to be held at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre in late May 1994, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the reasons for the rejection;
(b) of the reasons for not advising the applicant of the specific grounds of refusal, hence barring it from making corresponding adjustments to secure approval; and
(c) whether the application has been treated equally with other applications lodged with the department concerned since the opening of the centre?
3818 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, first of all, may I say that it is a great relief to me that I am only here this afternoon dealing with bunting rejection and that my colleague has had to deal with sexual harassment.
(a) Under the existing guidelines, District Lands Officers only approve non commercial advertising involving the display of banners and posters related to specific events. The main criterion for approval is whether the event to be publicized is non-commercial and of interest to the general public. Factors such as obstruction to the public and traffic safety are also taken into account.
A commercial organization applied in early January 1994 to mount 30 banners on lamp-posts at various locations in the Central and Wan Chai Districts from 24 to 29 May 1994. The application was rejected primarily because the applicant was a commercial organization rather than a non-profit making body.
(b) The applicant was advised of the grounds of refusal on 15 February 1994.
(c) A previous application for a similar event but made by an organization with a different name was approved in May 1992 and I understand that a fresh application for this year’s event has now been submitted by a non-profit making body which is one of the organizers. This application is being considered by the District Lands Officer, Hong Kong West. All applications are treated in accordance with the established guidelines.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr President, I am grateful that the Secretary is in a position to reverse misguided rejections for bunting whereas his colleague is not in a position to encourage reversed sexual harassment.
Can the Secretary give an undertaking to review the guidelines for approving or rejecting bunting where the organizers clearly have the official support of organizations like the Hong Kong Tourist Association or Hong Kong Trade Development Council so that these approvals can be given where it is clearly in the public interest and also good for attracting large numbers of tourists to come to Hong Kong for events, such as the International Travel Exposition which has been held for many years?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I think it can be said that the relevant guidelines are constantly under review. However, I think I should point out that in the particular district that I am referring to there have been something like 600 applications so far this year. There is a heavy burden of applications to be dealt with and I think it is
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3819
fair that we should have reasonably clear guidelines to deal with them. I think the guidelines which have been applied so far stipulate non-commercial applicants, and they have worked reasonably successfully. As far as I am aware, this is the only case in which there has been what you might refer to as an appeal. I am perfectly happy to consider such appeals but I think the guidelines are working well. I think those who apply understand them and I think those who administer the guidelines are also able to deal with the bulk of applications. Should applications be supported by such organizations as the Trade Development Council or the Hong Kong Tourist Association, I am sure that the District Lands Officers will take account of this.
Written Answers to Questions
Cancer in Hong Kong
6. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): Given that cancer is a very common illness in Hong Kong and that medical treatment for such patients is quite costly, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) in respect of each of the past three years,
(i) of the number of deaths caused by this illness, categorized by sex and age;
(ii) of the number of bed-days, as compared with the total number of bed-days available, occupied by these patients and the average number of bed-days occupied by each patient;
(iii) of the expenses incurred by the Government in taking preventive measures against this illness;
(iv) of the expenses incurred by the Government in providing medical treatment for these patients and the average cost for each patient; and
(b) of the estimated number of beds and manpower required for these patients in the coming five years;
(c) whether any study has been conducted to examine the causes of this illness and to formulate measures to lower the number of patients; if so, what the findings are and when the measures will be implemented; if not, whether such study will be conducted in the future; and
(d) whether any policy and target have been formulated for the control of this illness, if so, what they are?
3820 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the statistical information on the number of deaths arising from cancer is summarized in the appendix. Data on the number of bed days occupied by individual patient groups is normally not kept.
In the context of disease prevention including cancer, the Department of Health conducts a wide range of specific measures such as providing health education materials and expert advice to schools and voluntary agencies, hepatitis B vaccination, papanicolaou smear screening, dietary advice for heart disease and counselling for smokers to quit. The expenditure incurred for disease prevention in general was $370.8 million in 1991-92, $431.4 million in 1992-93 and $496.9 million in 1993-94.
Since cancer patients receive an integrated spectrum of medical services including general and specialist out-patient services, acute care, extended care and hospice care, it would not be feasible to break down the expenditure by each service. But from the experience of, say, the Institute of Radiology and Oncology at Queen Elizabeth Hospital alone, some 12 800 cancer patients have been treated in the last three years. In view of the increasing demand, the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club has granted a donation of $350 million to redevelop the institute with modern facilities and equipment by 1996. At the same time, the Hospital Authority has formulated plans to open an additional 6 000 beds in the next five years, requiring an additional 3 500 healthcare staff for all patient groups.
The Government is committed to improving the general health status of the community. To this end, the Hospital Authority has identified cancer as one of the priority health areas with an aim to reduce the overall mortality arising from cancer and to provide a more holistic type of care.
Appendix
Number of Death Cases for Cancer Patients
1991 1992 1993
Age group M F Total M F Total M F Total
0 224123112 1-4 5 5 10 8 5 13 5 6 11 5-9 8 9 17 4 5 9 2 5 7 10-14 10 8 18 4 8 12 9 2 11 15-44 501 326 827 456 309 765 475 329 804 45-64 2 037 891 2 928 2 030 876 2 906 2 034 915 2 949 65+ 2 832 2 194 5 026 3 065 2 247 5 312 3 267 2 259 5 526 Unknown 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 Total 5 397 3 435 8 832 5 569 3 452 9 021 5 793 3 518 9 311
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3821 Reinsurance industry
7. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): People in the reinsurance industry have stated that previous mistaken commercial strategies and a spate of natural disasters in various parts of the world in recent years have put pressure on the global reinsurance industry to review its premium strategy and insurance coverage, which may eventually lead to a rise in reinsurance premium and diminished scope of insurance coverage in order to reduce the risks borne by the industry. In the light of this, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the extent to which the local insurance industry is dependent on reinsurance business; and
(b) whether it has assessed the likely impact of the review by the reinsurance industry on the local insurance industry; if so, what the findings of the assessment are?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) Under the Insurance Companies Ordinance, an insurer is required to have adequate reinsurance arrangements in force. The main purpose is to spread risks and contain an insurer’s risk exposure to a level compatible with his financial resources. In monitoring the adequacy of an insurer’s reinsurance arrangements, the Insurance Authority has regard to, among other things, whether the type of reinsurance treaty, the retention level and treaty limit are appropriate in relation to the nature of business and the financial position of the insurer. As an indication of the extent to which the local insurance industry makes use of reinsurance, some 36% (or $5,114 million) of the gross premia arising from Hong Kong general insurance business for 1992 was paid to reinsurers in the form of reinsurance premia.
(b) As a result of adverse underwriting results of reinsurance business in recent years, the international reinsurance market has undergone certain changes. There has been a shrinkage of reinsurance capacity as capital has been withdrawn from the market. Reinsurers remaining in the market have tightened their underwriting policies and controls by, for instance, raising premium levels, reducing the scope of cover and being more selective in risk acceptance.
Given the shrinking reinsurance capacity, it has become more difficult for a direct insurer to secure adequate reinsurance arrangements. The cost of reinsurance is higher and the terms less competitive. A direct insurer may therefore be forced to strengthen his capital base to enable him to retain a higher proportion of risks.
3822 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
The most significant impact on the local insurance industry is the decision by the Hong Kong Reinsurers Forum, following a review of market conditions, not to provide unlimited liability reinsurance cover for motor (third-party) liability insurance and employees’ compensation insurance with effect from 1 January 1995.
In view of the above developments, the Insurance Authority has been closely monitoring the adequacy of insurers’ reinsurance arrangements to see whether the proportion of risks retained is supported by a suitable capital base. This will enable the Authority to take timely measures to address any concerns identified.
The decision of the forum not to provide unlimited reinsurance cover for motor (third-party) liability insurance and employees’ compensation insurance from 1 January 1995 will seriously affect the financial stability of direct insurers. Direct insurers may not have the necessary financial resources to withstand catastrophic losses, the extent of which can be unlimited. The Accident Insurance Association of Hong Kong (representing direct insurers) are deliberating with the forum how to address this problem. A Working Group has also been set up by the forum and the association to examine options. Its recommendations are expected by mid June. Options under consideration include capping the common law liabilities of an employer, car owner or driver under the relevant legislation and specifying a minimum level of liability (instead of unlimited liability) which he would be required to insure against.
The unwillingness of reinsurers to provide unlimited liability reinsurance cover for certain types of insurance policy is not unique to Hong Kong. The Authority will have regard to practice in other jurisdictions in considering the best way forward.
Interpretation involving languages other than Chinese and English in Court
8. MR MOSES CHENG asked (in Chinese): As the number of new immigrants from different parts of China and the number of Filipino, Thai and Vietnamese nationals working in Hong Kong are on the increase in recent years, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the cases tried at various levels of courts in 1993, how many required interpreters for languages other than Chinese and English and what is the ratio of such cases to the total number of cases requiring interpretation;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3823
(b) whether there are sufficient court interpreters to cope with the increasing volume of interpretation work involving languages other than Chinese and English; and
(c) of the requirements specified by the Judiciary in the appointment of part-time interpreters for languages other than Chinese and English?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President,
(a) Of the 710 345 cases dealt with at various levels of courts and tribunals in 1993, 6 165 cases (0.86%) involved languages other than Chinese and English. A breakdown of these cases into various languages is not readily available.
(b) At present, 547 freelance interpreters have been registered for employment by the Judiciary to deal with cases involving languages other than Chinese and English. This pool of interpreters is sufficient to cope with the needs of the courts, but the Judiciary is continuing to enlarge the pool by recruiting more qualified interpreters.
(c) Before a freelance interpreter is accepted for registration for employment by the Judiciary, he/she will be interviewed and will undergo an examination to ensure that he/she is proficient in both English and the other language with which he/she claims to be conversant.
Nuisances caused by addicts receiving methadone treatment
9. MR PANG CHUN-HOI asked (in Chinese): In view of the complaints frequently lodged by residents in the vicinity of methadone clinics about nuisances caused by drug addicts, will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) how the effectiveness of the methadone treatment programmes is assessed;
(b) the number of patients on methadone who achieved detoxification successfully in each of the past three years; and
(c) whether effective measures will be taken to reduce security and environmental nuisances caused to residents in the vicinity of methadone clinics?
3824 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) The effectiveness of the methadone treatment programme can be assessed from several points of view: the benefit to the health of patients, the reduction in drug associated crime, and the gain to society as a whole.
Narcotic addiction is a chronic relapsing medical condition and the value of the methadone treatment programme is that it enables patients to adopt a normal and economically productive lifestyle and protects them from the health hazards and criminal activity associated with illicit drug use. Quick cash crimes to buy heroin are reduced whenever methadone is taken. This benefits the ordinary citizen, who can have less fear for his life and property, and keeps money out of the hands of drug traffickers. A reduction in the injecting of heroin due to the substitution of oral methadone means less sharing of needles. This slows the spread of blood borne diseases, including AIDS, which can be passed from drug users to the general population. Less injecting also means fewer syringes discarded in public places and a better environment for everyone.
The effectiveness of the methadone treatment programme is difficult to measure quantitatively. The indicators which we use to assess effectiveness are the extent to which the treatment programme is utilized; the attendance rate of patients registered with the programme; and the actual number of attendances.
(b) In order to achieve the benefits described above, it is not necessary for patients to be detoxified. Because drug addiction is a chronically relapsing medical condition, the vast majority of methadone patients opt for a maintenance, rather than a detoxification programme; this is a more realistic objective for them given the nature of heroin dependency. In each of the past three years, two patients were detoxified under the methadone treatment programme.
(c) A three-pronged approach has been adopted to deal with security and environmental nuisances caused to residents in the vicinity of methadone clinics:
(i) stepped up vigorous law enforcement action against illegal activities in the vicinity of the clinics;
(ii) education of the methadone patients to dispose of used syringes properly, and of street addicts to come in for methadone treatment; and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3825
(iii) environmental improvements, such as frequent cleansing to remove discarded syringes, better lighting in the area and strengthened building management.
Suspected robbery and shoot-out case involving police officers
10. MISS EMILY LAU asked: On 28 March several police officers were involved in a suspected robbery and shoot-out in a Yau Ma Tei private club in which one suspect was shot dead and another wounded. In view of public reports alleging that the officers concerned were playing mahjong in the club at the time of the suspected robbery when they should have been on duty, will the Administration inform this Council how the officers concerned came to be in the club at the time of the incident, and if it is found that they were playing mahjong when they should have been at work, what action will be taken against them?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the shooting incident at the private club in Yau Ma Tei on 28 March 1994 was classified as a robbery and a police open fire case. The criminal aspects of the case are under investigation and proceedings in respect of the shooting and robbery have begun. The presence of the officers concerned at the private club at the time is the subject of a separate investigation. Until all aspects of this incident have been resolved, any further comment could be prejudicial.
Duties of CEMA and SFS
11. MISS EMILY LAU asked: When the Administration created the post of Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (CEMA) and retitled the Secretary for Monetary Affairs as Secretary for Financial Services (SFS) in March 1993, concern was expressed that the SFS post was superfluous as there might not be sufficient work to justify the creation of an additional policy secretary portfolio. Will the Administration explain to this Council how the SFS has shared out the workload with the CEMA in the past year in order to assure Members that there was enough work for two high ranking officials and there was no overlapping in areas of responsibility and no duplication of efforts?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, when the creation of the post of Chief Executive, Hong Kong Monetary Authority (CE/HKMA) was considered by the Establishment Subcommittee of the Finance Committee in February 1993, one Member questioned the need for two D8 posts in this area. It was explained that “in establishing the Monetary Authority, two executive arms which had been nominally a part of Monetary Affairs Branch would be combined and operate under a new set-up: the Monetary Authority. They had
3826 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
always operated as separate entities. The difference in the branch’s role was more nominal than real.”
The establishment of the HKMA was primarily based on the need for more flexibility in acquiring and retaining manpower and other resources than had previously been possible under a more conventional government organization subject to financial and civil service regulations. Such flexibility was considered of particular importance in the area of staffing where continuity and professionalism in monetary management, reserves management and other related fields were important. This would enable the further enhancement of the system of monetary management to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing conditions in the monetary and financial markets.
The HKMA was established principally by merging two out of the three self-contained executive offices operating under the umbrella of the then Monetary Affairs Branch: the Office of the Exchange Fund (OEF) and the Office of the Commissioner of Banking (OCB). While the OEF and OCB had been nominally part of MAB, they, and for that matter the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, had always operated as separate entities with specific operational responsibilities. Thus, the separation of these operational arms from the branch did not to any substantial extent change the areas in which the branch held policy responsibility, or reduce the workload of the retitled Financial Services Branch (FSB) in a practical sense.
The HKMA is a separate agency with executive responsibilities in the areas of banking supervision and Exchange Fund management. CE/HKMA is not a Policy Secretary but he does take the lead in the formulation and implementation of monetary policy and is directly responsible to the Financial Secretary. He also has specific statutory responsibility, as Monetary Authority, to promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system under the Banking Ordinance.
FSB continues to be the policy branch responsible for financial services. SFS has a broad policy overview across the whole range of financial services, including banking, company matters, insurance, retirement schemes and securities. An overview of these key areas is important since they are inevitably closely interrelated. Apart from the HKMA, the other bodies to which FSB relates are the Securities and Futures Commission, Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (still technically a part of FSB), Official Receiver’s Office, Companies Registry and the Census and Statistics Department.
In practice, SFS maintains a close liaison with HKMA and other such bodies for the purpose of monitoring major policy issues and legislative proposals which fall to be considered by the Executive Council and Legislative Council. He also answers questions in the Legislative Council on financial service subjects.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3827
In addition, SFS has also assumed responsibility in the area of the Government’s economic analysis, reporting and advice, after taking over the Economic Analysis Division from the Economic Services Branch in 1993.
There is, therefore, no question of SFS “sharing out the workload” with CE/HKMA. The nature of their work and their respective areas of responsibility are different, even though the subject matter is in some respect closely related. It is probably this close relationship that has given rise to some misconception of overlapping and duplication. Members may also be assured that there is enough work for both officials.
Management polices for commercial properties and car parks of HOS and PSPS estates
12. MRS SELINA CHOW asked: Will the Government explain to this Council the differences in the management policies for commercial properties and car parks between Home Ownership Scheme and Private Sector Participation Scheme estates and will it take action to remedy the inequity which results from such differences?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) and Private Sector Participation Scheme (PSPS) developments are managed differently: the former by the Housing Authority and the latter by the individual private developers or managers. This accounts for the differences in management arrangements for commercial properties and car parks between the two types of developments. Indeed, because they are individual developments, there are also differences in management arrangements between different PSPS estates.
The only problem which appears to have arisen from the management arrangements for HOS and PSPS developments is that car parks in some PSPS estates have been sold in lots by the developers to single purchases and have later been resold or let for profit. In order to curtail this practice, the Conditions of Sale of new PSPS sites were revised in 1993 to restrict ownership of car parks in future projects to flat owners and to prevent any flat owner from owning more than one parking space.
Japanese language courses in subvented tertiary institutions
13. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Will the Government inform this Council whether there are plans to improve the quality of the staff teaching Japanese language courses in subvented tertiary institutions and to strengthen such courses?
3828 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, at present, two of the UPGC-funded institutions, viz. the Chinese University of Hong Kong and University of Hong Kong, have Japanese Departments which offer Japanese language courses. In addition, the Department of Business and Management and Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics of the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong also offer Japanese language courses. Maintaining the teaching standard and the quality of their courses is a primary responsibility of the tertiary institutions themselves. The Administration understands that the institutions regularly review all courses and make appropriate changes in the light of changing circumstances and community needs.
Funds granted to district boards
14. MR LEE WING-TAT asked (in Chinese): Concerning the funds granted to the district boards, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the measures taken to ensure that the funds are spent on those items for which they are approved;
(b) how possible cases of unauthorized use or misappropriation of funds are dealt with; and
(c) whether there is any mechanism in place to assess whether the funds are used effectively in accordance with actual needs?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, the use and disbursement of district board (DB) funds under Head 53 Subhead 215 for the implementation of community involvement and minor environmental improvement projects are governed by CNTA funding guidelines and accounting circular. Proposed projects are decided for implementation by the district board, subject to the project scope being within the ambit of Subhead 215. The district board will also decide on the scale and relative priority of projects.
Stringent control is exercised on the use and disbursement of DB funds to ensure that the funds are expended within the ambit of vote and the expenditure guidelines. The accounting procedures for the disbursement of DB funds are modelled on government accounting, stores, general regulations and other regulations.
Controls involving checks and counter-checks are exercised by district office staff from project inception to project completion to minimize chances of abuse or misappropriation of funds. Disbursement of the fund is made on the production of duly certified supporting receipts, and only after relevant checks have been made by district office staff to ensure that the claims are within the original ambit approved by the district board and that the expenditure is in order. Detailed checks are contained in the CNTA funding guidelines stating
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3829
the permissible items of expenditure, and where appropriate the expenditure limits. Where discrepancies from the original approval are identified, the district board will be asked to endorse the discrepancies and to satisfy itself that the expenditure is in order before payments are made. The district office provides a vetting role to ensure funding and accounting procedures are fully observed.
DB funds are spent on specific projects approved by the district board based on the needs of the district. District office staff have and will continue to monitor closely the use of DB funds to ensure that the money is used effectively for the purposes for which they are intended. Assessments are made during project implementation and on project completion to ascertain whether the stated objectives of the project have been met. The Director of Audit will audit the accounts from time to time. In addition, the ICAC has conducted assignments into the funding and accounting procedures for projects carried out with DB funds.
Electronic data interchange
15. MR SIMON IP asked: With regard to the introduction of electronic data interchange (EDI) technology in the Community Electronic Trading Service, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the up-to-date position of the development and the level of the Government’s involvement in this service;
(b) the Government’s plans for promoting the use of this technology in other industries; and
(c) the Government’s plans for using EDI in its own transactions with the public, such as tendering, subventions, and other activities?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the answers to the Honourable Member’s questions are as follows:
(a) Planning for the implementation of the Community Electronic Trading Service (CETS), a project designed to promote the use of EDI services in international trade, has reached an advanced stage. The initial focus of the CETS is on trade transactions involving the Government, such as the provision of EDI services for applications for Restrained Textiles Export Licence (RTEL) and lodgement of Trade Declarations (TD). The Government and Tradelink Electronic Document Services Limited (Tradelink), the private company which has entered into an agreement with the Government to provide EDI services for the submission of various government documents, are aiming to commence joint testing by January 1995.
3830 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
Pending the successful completion of this test, EDI services for RTELs and TDs will be launched by Tradelink towards the end of 1995. EDI services for other government transactions, for example, textile quota enquiries, applications for Certificates of Origin, and applications for Dutiable Commodities Permits and so on, will be introduced at a later stage.
The Government is involved in the development of CETS as an investor, promoter and user. As an investor, the Government has been a shareholder of Tradelink since 1992 and has taken up 30% of the shares (representing an investment of $31.7 million). Under the Government’s agreement with Tradelink, the Government’s equity holding in Tradelink would go up to 48% if the remaining unalloted shares amounting to 18% are not taken up by private sector investors. As a major shareholder the Government is represented on Tradelink’s board of directors. As a promoter of EDI services, the Government has agreed to allow Tradelink to provide services to the Government for the electronic processing, collection and delivery of various government documents relating to the import and export of goods, on an exclusive basis for a period of seven years effective from the commencement of EDI services. As mentioned above, the government documents to be included in Tradelink’s exclusive services include applications for RTELs, amendment to and cancellations of RTELs, lodgement of TDs, textile quota enquiries, applications for Certificates of Origin, and applications for Dutiable Commodities Permits and so on. As a major user of Tradelink’s services, the Government has established a Joint Implementation Team, comprising representatives from Tradelink, Trade and Industry Branch, Customs and Excise Department, Trade Department, Census and Statistics Department and Information Technology Services Department, to co-ordinate all operational and technical interfaces between the CETS and the relevant government systems.
(b) The Government has no plans to promote the use of EDI services in specific industries. But the CETS now being jointly implemented by the Government and Tradelink is designed to provide EDI services to up to 120 000 Hong Kong trading companies (compared with an estimated 200 companies in the retail, banking and transportation sectors which are currently using EDI). As such, it is one of the most ambitious EDI projects ever launched. The availability of such a large pool of EDI users should create an attractive market on the basis of which the private sector would be able to launch more EDI services to meet the needs of specific industries.
(c) The Government has no plans at present to introduce EDI services for the handling of government transactions other than those in the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3831
international trade area mentioned above. Our Efficiency Unit is, however, considering setting up a small project team to identify opportunities for using new technologies, including EDI, to further improve the provision of government services to the community.
Woodside site above Kornhill
16. DR SAMUEL WONG asked: Regarding the proposed re-zoning of the Woodside site above Kornhill for public housing development, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it is aware of any objection to this proposal by the residents living in the vicinity;
(b) whether consideration has been given to putting this valuable piece of land for sale for private development in keeping with the environment of the location; and
(c) whether the Government has explored the possibility of exchanging this piece of land with developers who hold other land which may be more suitable for public housing?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) The Government has earmarked a 2.55 hectare site at Woodside for a Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) project for a design population of 4 500. Most of this site is already zoned “Residential (Group B)” (R(B)) and a small part of it (0.37 hectare) is currently zoned “Government/Institution/Community” (GIC) on the draft Quarry Bay Outline Zoning Plan (OZP). A submission is to be made to the Town Planning Board shortly which will seek its approval to amend the draft OZP to re-zone the “GIC” part of the site also for “R(B)” development. If approved, the amendment to the draft OZP will be published in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Ordinance. The Eastern District Board has been consulted on the re-zoning proposal and the Government is not aware of any objection to it having been voiced so far. Publication of the revised draft OZP would provide the opportunity for any such objections to be lodged.
(b) The proposed HOS development at the Woodside site will be compatible with the neighbouring Kornhill residential development. The site is already earmarked for HOS development and is not intended for disposal by public auction.
3832 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
(c) It is not normal policy to invite individual developers to accept HOS sites in exchange for other sites held by them. The Government has not explored the possibility of doing so in this case therefore.
Listing requirements for new companies
17. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): In view of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited’s plan to tighten the listing requirements for new companies, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether there is any plan to assist smaller companies so that their listing applications will not be rejected because of the new requirements, so as to avoid hindering the development of small and medium-sized companies;
(b) whether consideration will be given to setting up a second stock exchange for the listing of small and medium-sized companies and the trading of their shares; and
(c) whether the Government’s non-intervention policy in this connection will result in small and medium-sized companies being discriminated against?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) The proposals of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK) to tighten the listing requirements for newly listed companies were released for public consultation and have not yet been finalized. Public comments on the proposals will be taken fully into account by the Listing Committee and the Council of the SEHK, both of which are composed of market practitioners. It should also be noted that any proposed changes to the Listing Rules will require the prior approval of the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), again consisting of non-executive directors as well as the executives of the SFC, before those changes can come into effect.
Under the proposal, the SEHK would have a discretion to relax the qualifications for listing in the case of deserving smaller companies, for instance, when such companies’ operating profits have exceeded $60 million in the past three years before applying for new listing. This would help to avoid hindering the development of good, wellmanaged small to medium-sized companies.
Subject to the result of the consultation, some changes may be introduced to the listing rules. It is inevitable that under the new rules, some companies might not be qualified for listing. There is,
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3833
however, very little the Stock Exchange can do to help companies which cannot satisfy the listing rules from going public.
(b) The SEHK had previously considered the possibility of setting up a second board with less stringent listing requirements and had consulted the market in 1990. At that time, it was considered inappropriate to pursue that proposal primarily because the costs associated in obtaining a listing in Hong Kong would be prohibitively high for those smaller companies. Similar arrangements in overseas markets had also proved unsuccessful. Furthermore, experience has shown that small company stocks are more prone to market manipulation. The idea was, therefore, not further pursued. In the light of this earlier study, it is most unlikely that a second stock exchange with a different standard of regulation would serve the interests of the investing public or enhance the status of Hong Kong as an international financial centre.
(c) A line must be drawn between companies which are suitable for listing and those which are not. This is clearly defined in the Stock Exchange’s listing rules. The Administration fully supports the Stock Exchange’s action to consult the market on important issues from time to time in order to keep pace with market development and balance a whole range of different interests. We can trust the Stock Exchange with the approval of the SFC to take a decision in the general interest of the market. There is no question of the Government discriminating against any particular company or type of companies as long as they are operating legally in Hong Kong.
Failure of taxi passengers to testify in court
18. MR LEE WING-TAT asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of cases in the last three years, where taxi passengers who were the complainants and key witnesses in criminal cases against taxi drivers had failed to attend court to testify after having been summoned or notified to do so;
(b) how many of the hearings of such cases had been adjourned because the taxi passengers concerned had failed to attend court to testify as scheduled and what were the reasons for their absence; and
(c) what measures will the Government take to reduce the incidence of such absence so that taxi drivers who have to be away from work to attend court will not suffer financial losses as a result?
3834 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the police have not kept statistics on the number of cases in which taxi passengers were required to testify in court as witnesses nor on those cases which had to be adjourned, rescheduled or suspended due to the absence of witnesses and the reasons for this. Complaints against taxi malpractices, the majority of which relate to overcharging or refusal of hire, can only be actioned if members of the public are prepared to give statements to the police and, if required, testify as witnesses in court. This has not been a particular problem as evidenced by the number of successful convictions. The conviction rates for the past three years are annexed.
A complainant will receive a formal summons under section 21 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) if he is required to testify in court. Failure to comply with the summons may result in a fine not exceeding $5,000.
It is for the magistrate to decide whether a taxi driver should be compensated for financial loss. Under section 69 of the Magistrates Ordinance, if the magistrate is satisfied that the proceedings ought not to have been instituted or pursued against the defendant, he may order the award of costs, not exceeding $5,000.
Annex
Conviction Rate on Taxi Malpractices (1991 to 1993)
Year
No. of taxi offence cases proceeded by summons
Conviction rate of summons cases
1991 164 86.0% 1992 212 62.5% 1993 300 78.2%
Note: These figures do not include prosecution cases where taxi passengers have not been required to appear in court as witnesses.
Fire safety of daytime child-care centres
19. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the total number of daytime child-care centres; the number of such centres which have not been provided with automatic sprinkler systems and the reasons for this; and what other measures are in place to improve the fire safety of these centres?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3835
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, there are 340 registered daytime child care centres.
Ninety-three child care centres are provided with automatic sprinkler systems. 247 are exempt from any requirement to install automatic sprinkler systems, because:
(a) 117 centres were registered before 1987, when automatic sprinkler systems were not a requirement under the then Code of Practice for Minimum Fire Service Installations and Equipment;
(b) 45 centres are smaller than 230 m2 in floor area and, under the revised 1987 Code of Practice currently in force, are not required to provide automatic sprinkler systems; and
(c) 85 centres with a floor area of greater than 230 m2 are also exempt under the current Code of Practice as the occupants have direct access to open ground or a place of safety or refuge to await rescue.
All child care centres are required to provide portable fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs. In addition, centres registered after 1987 that have a floor area exceeding 230 m2 must also install automatic smoke detection systems.
Motions
RATING ORDINANCE
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the following motion:
“That -
(a) with effect from 1 April 1994 the percentage prescribed for the purposes of section 18(1) of the Rating Ordinance is in respect of every tenement -
(i) in the Urban Council area -
(A) general rates 2.7%;
(B) Urban Council rates 2.8%;
3836 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 (ii) in the Regional Council area -
(A) general rates 1.1%;
(B) Regional Council rates 4.4%;
(b) the prescribed percentage for the purposes of section 19(1)(b) of the Rating Ordinance in relation to each of the years beginning on 1 April 1994 and ending on 31 March 1995 and beginning on 1 April 1994 and ending on 31 March 1996 is 20%; and
(c) with effect from 1 April 1994 the amount prescribed for the purpose of section 36(1)(1) of the Rating Ordinance is $2,600.”
He said: Mr President, I move the first motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This and the following two motions seek to implement revenue proposals in the 1994 Budget.
The motion before Members has three purposes. First, it seeks to limit the increase in rates in each of the financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96 to 20%. As a result of the regular, triennial general revaluation, the rateable values of all properties have on average increased by 33%, reflecting the increase in their rental values from 1 July 1990 to 1 July 1993. This percentage happens to be in line with inflation over the past three years, and well below the rise in property prices.
As I mentioned in my Budget speech and my concluding speech at the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 1994, the objective of the general revaluation is to ensure that the rates burden falls equitably among ratepayers in proportion to the value of their properties. While the rateable values have changed as a result of the revaluation exercise, the overall rates percentage charge remains at 5.5% as in 1993-94.
The proposed 20% cap on rates increase for two years is intended to reduce the immediate impact of the general revaluation on ratepayers. The effect of this measure is that the maximum amount which individual ratepayers will be asked to pay will be no more than 20% above what was paid in 1993-94. Similarly, the maximum payment in 1995-96 will be no more than 20% above the amount payable in 1994-95.
As a result of this rates relief measure, the increase in rates in 1994-95 would be substantially less than cumulative inflation since the last general revaluation and the full impact of any increase in rates payment arising from the latest revaluation exercise will be spread over the next three years. In dollar terms, this translates into an increase of $53 a month for a small flat in 1994-95.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3837
We estimate that about 80% of properties would benefit from the proposed rates relief cap. Public housing tenants, the largest single group of tenants in Hong Kong, will not be directly affected by the rates increase as their rents will continue to be set on the basis of affordability.
Since the implementation of our proposed rates measures under the Public Revenue Protection (Rating) Order 1994, the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation has received fewer objections to new rateable values than following previous revaluation exercises. This, I believe, is a fair indication that the public at large has accepted the new package on rates.
Some Members in this Council have clearly taken a different view. Indeed they have gone to some lengths to bring about a more generous concession on rates. I would like to make two points in response.
First, we should not view the proposed rates relief measure in isolation from the other Budget proposals as it is but one of a very broad range of concessions in the total package. The whole budget package has been put together after very careful deliberation and consultation with Members, and has taken full account of our financial well-being over the forecast period.
Secondly, the amendments to the present motion which some non-official Members had considered making go to the very fabric of Hong Kong’s constitutional arrangements. Given our political framework, it is vital that the Administration should continue to have the authority to control the presentation of expenditure proposals to this Council and that we know what income to expect from lawfully-established revenues arising within Hong Kong over the coming financial years. The amendments which some Members had proposed earlier, if successfully moved, would seriously undermine the principles on which the stability of our political system depends.
The motion before Members also seeks to revise the split of the total rates revenue between general revenue and the two municipal councils in order to ensure that the two councils will get no more and no less than what they will require to carry out their planned programmes of activities in the next three years. We have taken full account of the effect of the proposed rates relief cap in working out the revised percentages for General Rates and Municipal Council Rates for the three years ahead.
Finally, the motion raises the minimum rateable value below which small properties are exempt from assessment from $2,000 to $2,600.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
3838 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
PRESIDENT: Dr HUANG Chen-ya and Mr James TIEN have given notice to move amendments to this motion. I have directed that their amendments be printed in the Order Paper but that they may not be moved without the Governor’s authorization under Standing Order 23. In the absence of the Governor’s authorization, these amendments cannot be moved.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Financial Secretary mentioned in his Budget speech on 2 March that the Government expected a fiscal surplus of $7.7 billion this year. The Liberal Party reckons that the Budget this year is very good. On the basis that the Government itself also puts forward the notion of “returning wealth to the people”, the Liberal Party proposes that in the present financial year the 20% cap on rates increase be revised to 0.1%. The standpoint of the Liberal Party is to freeze rates increase for a year. If the surplus next year is as plentiful as this year, we will propose another freezing on rates increase; if the fiscal surplus is less, we will support a government move to increase rates, Based on that major premise, we will keep on liaising with the Government. We also carried out some consultation work previously. Many citizens signed their names to support the Liberal Party and the other two parties in the fight to freeze rates increase. The Government just said that the citizens had little concern about rates, and regarded the monthly increase of $53 as acceptable or basically not a problem. That is an incorrect statement.
In the course of discussion we found, as you, Mr President, already pointed out, that under Standing Order 23 we were barred from moving an amendment. Subsequently, we wrote to the Governor, requesting him to approve the moving of an amendment by us and to meet the three dominant political parties of this Council. To our disappointment, the Governor, after receiving our letter on 11 May, replied on 16 May that we were not allowed to move the amendment. As regards our request to meet him, not a single word was mentioned. We think that he is acting contrary to his stand throughout of having an open and fair government. As regards the criticism levelled by Mr Donald TSANG against Members for fighting for “free lunch”, the Liberal Party thinks that it is at variance with facts. Over the years, Councillors from the Liberal Party who represent the industrial and commercial sectors seldom put forward the concept of “free lunch”. If the Government considers that whenever a political party proposes any amendment which will affect the revenue of the Treasury, it is then supporting “free lunch”, this will be a very big misunderstanding.
The Liberal Party also has some queries about the interpretation of Royal Instruction XXIV. The Instruction prescribes that the Legislative Council shall not make any amendment to the effect that the future government revenue will be less than the present revenue. If our present amendment will cause a lower level of revenue this year than last year, we are of course barred from moving it. However, if our proposed amendment will result in the revenue of next year and the year after next being no less than this year’s, why is it still barred?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3839
Since both the Royal Instructions and the Standing Order have provided to this effect, we are at our wits’ end.
Eventually, the Governor, in his reply to us, stated that one of the major reasons for not approving our moving the amendment was that he, as Chief Executive and the Governor of Hong Kong, could not allow the Councillors to amend the motion proposed by the Government. Such being the case, the Royal Instruction XXIV is basically nonsense and superfluous, as we do not understand in what circumstances can we move an amendment. Under that Instruction, whatever amendment proposal made by us will be overruled by the Administration led by the Governor. Then to what situation is that Instruction applicable?
We deeply regret this incident. In the motion debate today, the Liberal Party can only consider casting either negative or abstention votes. Nevertheless, I have to explain here why we cannot cast negative votes. If we do, the citizens of the territory as well as occupiers of industrial and commercial premises will have to face a rates increase of 34% instead of 20%. I indeed find it necessary to clarify this point.
Mr President, with these remarks, the Liberal Party will abstain from voting.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, of late, in the wake of the Secretary for the Treasury’s speech about a “lamb”, the people of Hong Kong have been busy looking for this lamb. Who then is this lamb? Is it the Hong Kong Government? Is it the Secretary himself? Is it the members of the business community who were listening to his speech? Is it the Legislative Council? Or is it members of the public? I need say no more. I think that commentators on the matter have already drawn their conclusions. But I want to note here that, whoever the lamb may be, the fact is that the fleecer of the lamb is the colonial government which is the embodiment of dictatorial power. On the question of rates, Members including those from the United Democrats of Hong Kong and the Meeting Point, as well as others, have noted that runaway property prices in recent years have led to a sharp 33% increase in rates payment for the average citizen. This is a direct addition to citizens’ rates payment burden. The Government now predicts that Hong Kong’s economy will continue to flourish and that the Government’s financial position will remain quite robust. This being so, we think that the Government can afford to allow a larger rates concession. We think that it is not enough for the Government just to cap this year’s rates increase at 20%. This is why we have made a suggestion about moving an amendment to the Government’s motion. But what have our three parties heard from the Government in response to our suggestion? In the course of discussion with us, the Government has hinted that, because the suggested amendment would result in a loss of revenue, it would make up for the loss by increasing other taxes, such as the profits tax. This is a threat.
3840 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
Mr Donald TSANG, Secretary for the Treasury, told the press in April that, if Members insisted on moving the amendment, the Government would consider not tabling the rates motion at the Legislative Council; members of the public would then bear the full burden of the 34% rates increase based on the percentage increase in rateable values.
Mr President, the Secretary’s words were akin to a threat and blackmail. He put the interests of members of the public on the bargaining table. Mr President, who is the real fleecer of the lamb?
Subsequently, the Government decided to table the rates motion at this Council after all. Our three parties then met the Legislative Council President by appointment to find out if a motion to amend the Government’s motion would be barred under the Standing Orders or under the Royal Instructions. The President, relying on his interpretation of the text, concluded that we could move an amendment subject to the Governor’s approval. So, last Wednesday, we wrote to the Governor requesting a face-to-face talk on the issue. But we learnt the Governor’s response from the press the day before yesterday. The Governor would not give our three parties a chance to explain why we wanted to move the amendment. He invoked his power under the Royal Instructions and categorically rejected our three parties’ suggestion about moving the amendment.
Mr President, let me ask again. Who is the fleecer of the lamb? On whether the rates burden on members of the public should be lightened, the Government has used the following arguments:
First, the Government is of the opinion that, because rates are a broadly based and predictable source of revenue, our suggested motion will weaken the revenue base and greatly hinder the Government’s collection of revenues. But the fact is that, according to a government analysis, if rates are not increased this year, the revenue from this source, as a percentage of total revenue, will merely decline from 4% to about 3%. Actually, this ratio was maintained at between 3% and 4% from 1990 to 1991. Nor has it changed significantly in the more recent years. Generally speaking, the ratio has not been significantly affected by the marginal changes in rates percentage charges. No matter how it changed, the revenue from rates has been insignificant compared with the revenue from annual land auctions.
The Government says that a decrease in revenue from rates will mire it in a financial crisis. It is in fact concocting its own crisis. We will not buy its argument.
Second, the Government is of the opinion that rates payment does not constitute a significant burden on members of the public. It stresses again and again that the rates increase in the new fiscal year will add only $53 to the monthly expenses of an average household. This is its ground for thinking that any impact on members of the public will not be significant. In his response to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3841
Members’ letter, the Governor writes that the Rating and Valuation Department has not received many recent complaints from members of the public who find the reassessed rateable rental values excessive. We think that a further rates concession should not become a numbers game. We believe that the question to be answered is whether such a concession is due and whether it will be reasonable.
In each of the past few weeks, many members of the public responded to a signature campaign of the district branches of the United Democrats of Hong Kong. Many, upon receipt of their new rates payment notices, contacted us and wanted us to fight for a further concession. I believe that Members have in recent days heard on the radio many complaints from the public about the size of the rates increase. Is the Government willing to listen to these bleats of the lambs?
The Government is against Members’ moving an amendment and the Governor refuses to let this Council discuss the question of rates. In the final analysis, the Government’s intention is to show that it is a strong government. It has decided not to let this Council move an amendment on an important issue, for fear that this Council’s doing so will hurt its face and undermine its governing power. Let us look at the rest of the world. Wherever a government is elected by the people, its spending and taxation powers are held by the legislature. In the United Kingdom, where taxes can be raised only at the Government’s initiative, the House of Commons has the power to cut back on any proposed tax increase. Let us now look back at Hong Kong. We are in a far worse position. No matter how well developed it may be economically, Hong Kong is politically a colony at best. It was so yesterday. It is so today. Nor, I am afraid, will it change much tomorrow. This Council has limited power of review over financial matters, not to mention the fact that our Governor and high-ranking officials do not derive their power from the people. They derive their power from so-called constitutional instruments based on decisions made by the colonial government over 150 years ago. These constitutional instruments not only limit the development of democracy in Hong Kong, but also deny the citizens and the Legislative Council the powers that are enjoyed by the citizens and legislatures of other democratic countries. The Legislative Council is hampered and cannot oppose the Government’s unreasonable decision on rates.
The people of Hong Kong must see that the power over the public purse strings is an important power. This Council must be able to supervise the Government’s spending programmes so as to ensure that taxpayers’ money will not be wasted but will be spent on public services needed by the citizenry. Moreover, this Council must have the power of review over revenue measures so as to ensure that the Government will not impose excessive levies of sundry kinds on the citizenry. This Council should have the power of review over spending programmes and revenue measures and should exercise this power in accordance with the wishes of the citizenry. Such power of the Legislative
3842 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
Council is all the more important because our so-called “executive-led” government is really an “executive-dictated” despotic government.
Mr President, in the 18th century, Mr William PITT, who was Britain’s Minister of the Army and later Prime Minister, said something in the House of Commons about a stamp duty to be collected from North America, then still a British colony. He said, “We can exercise all the power that we have, but we have no power to take money from their purses without their approval.” Of course, Hong Kong, as a British colony, has long stopped paying tribute to the United Kingdom. But the people of Hong Kong have so far never had power over the public purse strings. Therefore, this Council must from now on strive to win more purse-string power from China and the United Kingdom. In this way, the Legislative Council will be able to protect the citizens’ interests fully.
Mr President, I so submit. All 13 of us from the United Democrats will abstain from voting on this motion.
MR JIMMY MCGREGOR: Mr President, I want to say that I believe that the concerted opposition by political parties represented in this Council to the rates increase is political in nature and most irresponsible when considered in the context of the taxation system in Hong Kong. Every Councillor knows that the Hong Kong taxation system is one of the best and most efficient in the world. The levels of taxation are consistently low and the operation of the system is devoid of sudden changes of policy direction and of sudden sharp increases in specific taxes.
The Hong Kong tax system has been for decades the principal attraction for very large numbers of foreign investors, traders, industrialists and service industry specialists. The stability and continuity of the Hong Kong tax system is a central plank in our highly successful economic and social systems.
Within this system, rates are a stable, easily calculated and understood element, difficult to avoid, broadly progressive in effect, broadly based and operating within an efficient system of calculation and application. Rates are a tax on consumption rather than a tax on endeavour.
I am sure that many will agree with me that it is dangerous to attempt to interfere with a long established system of taxation where the rules of application of increases have been followed by the Government. It is also the case that the Government has taken the necessary action to ensure that no ratepayer will be charged increases that substantially exceed the inflation rate.
Nevertheless, many Councillors have taken an extremely negative view towards the rates proposal. I believe that there is undoubtedly a political element in this general offensive against rates increase. It seems to me that political parties see great advantage in attempting to prevent what many would regard as unexceptional increases in order to curry favour with voters. This is
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3843
an item of great interest to everyone in Hong Kong. We would all like to pay less in rates. At the same time we would all like to have better and more efficient services. We complain bitterly that the Government does not do nearly enough in caring for our urban environment. We urge the Government to spend more on the environment, law and order, water and sewage services and so on. When the Government seeks to obtain the money to do so, we act in concert to prevent it.
Some of us will vote to support the rates increase. A large number will not and in doing so will perhaps prepare the way for further future attacks on the Hong Kong tax system not because proposals are unreasonable or radical in nature but because the negative view has a positive political effect with voters. I am sorry to see this development. The Hong Kong Democratic Foundation agrees with this view and I think many businessmen who are not perhaps in this Council will also agree.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr President, as a member of the Urban Council I need to declare an interest. I would like your ruling as to whether or not I should vote.
MR PRESIDENT: You do not have a direct pecuniary interest in this motion, Mrs TU. So you are entitled to speak and to vote if you wish.
MRS ELSIE TU: Thank you, I will not speak.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, the Liberal Party sought, unsuccessfully, to effectively freeze rates at their pre-April 1994 levels. We did so because of buoyant revenues. We did so because we believed then, and indeed we still do, that the Government should take the opportunity of leaving money where it would do most good, namely, in the pockets of ratepayers.
Indeed the Financial Secretary, in opening his Budget for 1994-95, referred to four expectations. The third of those expectations that he outlined is directly relevant to the issue on rates and I will quote the Financial Secretary, and he said this:
“Thirdly, in a year of buoyant revenues, the Government should take this opportunity to leave money where it can do most good, in the pockets of the taxpayers.”
Surely, Mr President, ratepayers are also taxpayers. The sad part about this entire episode is that the Administration knows that we cannot vote against the cap proposed. I say sad because if we vote down the resolution, ratepayers will wind up paying more.
3844 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
In these circumstances I believe that it is right for Members of this Council to abstain from voting. I believe also that it would be quite an incredible day for us here if the resolution were only passed by the three Official Members and perhaps a fourth or a fifth.
Mr President, I think we should try and send a clear message to ratepayers of the solidarity, if possible, of the non-official Members of this Council. The Liberal Party members will abstain on this motion.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, amongst the 12 animals representing the 12 Earthly Branches by which the lunar years are designated, I was born in the Year of the Ram. Hence, I think I am most qualified to comment on the article The Silence of the Lamb published by Mr Donald TSANG Yam-kuen, Secretary for the Treasury, last Friday. I cannot remain silent any more. Despite the fact that Mr TSANG has said, “my fellow lambs” in the last part of his speech, I do not regard him as my fellow. In fact, he is a tiger in lamb’s clothing.
In these couple of months, the Government has, through the media, through the Governor, through interview with Mr TSANG and through Members of the Executive Council, repeatedly criticized the three political parties for advocating rates relief, I have to ask these questions: who are the silent ones? Who are the ones with so much power? The joint advocacy for reduction in the percentage of rates increase by the three parties (the Meeting Point, the United Democrats of Hong Kong and the Liberal Party) is based on reason and thorough research. We are aware that the Government’s finance is in a healthy state. We do not understand how advocacy for rates relief would in any way cause damage to the executive-led Government and affect the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. There are criticisms that we are doing it for votes. Mr James TIEN has already said that not many people would believe that the Liberal Party cherishes the idea of “free lunch”. On this occasion, the three parties have not fallen victim to the Government’s divisive tactics but have united throughout to exert pressure on the Government. Unfortunately, we have reached a dead end today. Basically we can move no further, not even one step forward. Who are the real lambs on this occasion? This incident makes us recognize that our power is restrained under Article 2 of Chapter 24 of the Royal Instructions which is also the basis of Standing Order 23 of the Legislative Council. I do not intend to challenge the decision made by the President of this Council. However, the Government has repeatedly said that if any Member moves an amendment motion on the Rating Ordinance, the Government will then withdraw the motion altogether and Legislative Council Members will then have to be responsible for the consequence of full increase of rates brought to bear on the public. Words like these have time and again come from the lips of Mr TSANG, a high-ranking government official. Who really are the lambs?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3845
As all the executive powers are in the hands of the Government, it has the power to decide whether to move the motion in this Council or not. We cannot even move any amendment. Who actually has more power? Legislative Council Members, whether directly or indirectly elected, have the mandate from the public. Government officials, though not elected by the public, can however command abundant resources and forceful weapons. In this incident, Legislative Council Members are very disappointed and we cannot remain silent any more.
We, Members from the Meeting Point and the United Democrats of Hong Kong, will, after we have abstained, leave this Chamber in order to express our strongest discontent and to protest against the Government for not listening to the public on this matter and turning a blind eye to the petition signed by tens of thousands of people. We also express our strong indignation that the Governor refused to meet Members of the three parties to discuss the issue.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, initially I did not intend to speak on the issue of the substantial increase in rates because it has already been discussed in the Budget debate and there is no point in discussing it here again. However, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong has received a telephone call this morning from a member of the public asking me to reflect the true picture of the public’s views to this Council. The caller has remarked that the Governor’s statement made a few days ago that the public does not object to the proposed rates increase seems to suggest that the public agrees to the proposal. In fact, the public very much resents the proposal.
The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong has gathered views from the public over a period of time and found that the public very much resents the idea of a spectacular rise in rates and does not see eye to eye with the Administration. Besides expressing the public’s discontent, I would also reiterate that the problem of rates is closely related to property prices, land prices and, in particular, rental values which are the basis on which rates are assessed. High land prices, rising property prices and soaring rental values have been pushing the rates up over a long period of time. Despite occasional adjustments of the rates percentage charge made by the Administration, the public can hardly afford to pay the rates. I have recently related to the Financial Secretary that we hope the Administration will review the rates system so as to avoid disputes on rates increase similar to those which have occurred in recent years and to develop a system which is acceptable to all. Under the present system of rates assessment, the Administration has to deploy considerable manpower. Even with plenty of specialized staff, assessment of rates often takes half a year as rates have to be reassessed every three years. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the assessment can also appeal. The whole process, which consists of a number of procedures, takes up a lot of staff and time. Can the Administration take this opportunity to examine the system with a view to lessening the public’s burden and alleviating grievances in future rates increase? I again urge the Administration to review the rates system.
3846 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
I will abstain on the motion but I will not leave this Chamber. Leaving the Chamber as an expression of protest is rather common and it occurs also when Members have other matters to attend to or when they simply want a break themselves. However, I will abstain. I certainly will not vote against the motion because that will increase the public’s burden. The advantage of an abstention is that it can reflect the public’s rejection of and resentment against the proposed massive increase in rates.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, today is a tragic day because the Government will once again invoke its suppressive colonial laws to suppress the representative base of the Legislative Council where Members possessed with a popular mandate sit. The Financial Secretary said in his speech that the amendments which some Members had proposed earlier, if successfully moved, would undermine the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, as well as the principles on which the stability of our political system depended. I would like to tell the Financial Secretary that if the power to levy taxes is not granted by the Legislative Council but by the executive branch of government ― a colonial government with no popular mandate ― then this executive branch’s ability to override the Legislative Council, where public opinion is representated, derives from the British armed invasion, followed by possession, of Hong Kong over 100 years ago. If there is any impact on the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, the responsibility will certainly rest with the present Government because it does not seek to solve problems through a legal system, a parliamentary system rather, but tries to force through a revenue measure and in the process hopes to provoke people to open rebellion. In other words, it is tantamount to saying, “If you people can start a revolution by taking to the street and overthrowing the colonial government, then go ahead and do it!” This will only push the people into a blind alley and this will only undermine the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
I would also like to remind Governor PATTEN not to practise verbal democracy. He is indeed not elected by the people of Hong Kong. If there comes a day when Mr PATTEN becomes the British Prime Minister after his return to the United Kingdom, then he can do whatever he likes on the taxation front if he is so authorized by the British people, because he can rely on the support of his party commanding a majority in the Parliament. It is a system based on popular election and on public opinion. But now we are in Hong Kong. I hope Mr PATTEN will not talk tough. It will be to no avail just to appear tough. In fact, it is only tyranny if power does not come from the people. I heard from Mr Jimmy McGREGOR that Members’ opposition to rates increase is only a kind of political posturing. This comment is to me very repugnant. There are political factors in all issues ranging from tax levies, tax increases or tax concessions to amendment proposals raised by the Government or even debates on whatever subject. In a pluralistic society, it is only normal to have a diversity of views and the levying of taxes just happens to be a particularly sensitive subject. If someone says that it is political to oppose any
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3847 revenue measure, then I wonder if we should say yes to all proposals by the Government.
Under the existing system, the basis for the division of power is clearly suppressive. We, Members, must, through a concerted effort, lobby the United Kingdom for amendment of this part of the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions which gives the Administration the power in question. Such amendment will further enhance the democratization of Hong Kong in the latter part of the transition period. If the current system is retained and Hong Kong continues to be led by a government possessed with no mandate from the people, our society will be polarized and the relationship between the Government and the Legislative Council will be directly undermined. Maybe, after today, the basis of co-operation between the two will exist no more.
With these remarks, I will abstain from voting and I express my regrets over the Government’s action.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the tax system of Hong Kong is basically renowned for its efficiency and its low tax rate. The Honourable Jimmy McGREGOR observed a moment ago that our tax system was a central plank in our successful economic system and that rates were a stable element which was progressive in effect and therefore was difficult to avoid. I agree absolutely with these two points. The levels of taxation in Hong Kong are low and rates are a stable element in our tax system which is difficult to avoid. Having made these two points, we have got to look at the reasons behind the current rates increase proposed by the Government.
Awash with cash and with an ample surplus to the tune of over $7 billion to boot, the Government seeks to reduce the rate of profits tax payable by the business sector by 1% just because the Government says that the revenue is “sufficient”. For those who can afford to take air journeys, the Government not only does not increase the Air Passenger Departure Tax but seeks to cut it down from $150 to $50, also because the Government says that the revenue is “sufficient”. On the one hand, the Government is awash with cash to the extent that it can afford to collect less tax from those who make profits and those who go on air trips. However, on the other hand, all those who have a roof over their heads, regardless of whether they are rich or worse-off, have to bear a rates increase. This is illogical. The major issue that we have to discuss today is not the nature of rates, nor the nature of the tax system of Hong Kong. We should rather focus upon whether the Government, with a huge fiscal surplus on its hands, should levy more rates on every dweller, with neither exception nor exemption? If our Government is penniless but yet has to commit itself to a lot of social services, I believe the public will not oppose a tax increase under such circumstances. However, this is not the case before us. Even if the Government has an enormous surplus, it will not use that money because the rate of growth of public expenditure basically cannot exceed the economic growth rate of 5%.
3848 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
Therefore, the Government is bound to furnish an explanation for the rates increase under the favourable condition of having a sizable surplus.
The Secretary for the Treasury has recently made a speech entitled The Silence of the Lamb, describing how the Hong Kong Government is miserably being fleeced. Who in fact is the lamb that he is referring to? Facing the general public, the Policy Secretaries should have no reason to worry or to vent their grievances so frequently because the political system or the constitutional structure of Hong Kong is basically safeguarding the interests of Policy Secretaries. Under our Standing Orders, no Member shall move any motion which has a bearing on the Government’s revenue or which will increase the Government’s public expenditure. This provision has in fact safeguarded the Secretaries in that the Budget is in fact within their control. What we express here in this Chamber has no actual impact on them. Although some remarks may be particularly critical and the words may offend their ears, political power is firmly in their grip. These provisions are spelt out in clear terms in the Standing Orders. In the present case, we three political parties sought to reflect public opinion but the Governor flatly gave his refusal invoking the power conferred upon him by the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions. The public can therefore see clearly who is in fact controlling Hong Kong. Who is holding the shears fleecing the lambs? Obviously, it is the Government ― the Policy Secretaries and the Governor! I would also like to clearly point out that none of them need shoulder any political responsibilities. The Secretary for the Treasury said that the Councillors did not need to shoulder political responsibilities. This is plainly wrong. For any commitment made by the Councillors, the public would count them one by one after four years when they stand for election again. The Councillors do have political risks. They do have political responsibilities. It is the government officials who are basically free from political risks. So long as the Governor does not transfer them from one post to another, they can still hold their positions firmly no matter whether they commit any wrong or not. Even if the Governor himself makes mistakes, he bears no risk. Therefore, under this kind of political system, there is nothing easier than being a government official. How come they still keep on grumbling?
I have one more point to raise. The Governor has set an extremely bad precedent by not giving his authorization for Members to put forward an amendment motion. As our future Chief Executive is not returned by a one-man, one-vote election system, that is, he is not elected democratically, he will repeatedly use such power which is based on this precedent. As this power has been used before, it would be in order if our future revenue related motions were vetoed the second or even the third time. This is really a regrettable case.
With these remarks, Mr President, I will abstain.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3849
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have quite a variety of observations on the financial arrangement by the Administration. I think to some extent a social effect is created by paying tax, raising tax or reducing tax. This social effect is of help to people of different levels of income. For example, progressive taxation imposes a higher tax levy on people of higher income. However, if the taxation is of a uniform type, then the way of levying tax will be the same for the poor as for the rich. These two modes of taxation produce dissimilar effects in terms of distribution of social wealth.
I think there are improper adjustments in regard to the revenue proposals of this year, and these adjustments are also what I disagree with. These include profits tax which the Administration is proposing to reduce by 1%. Actually, I fail to see any special circumstances justifying a reduced profits tax to be imposed on the industrial and commercial sector. Reduction of air passenger departure tax is another item that I disagree with, but I will elaborate on it under another agenda item. Usually only people of higher income can afford to take frequent air trips and buy expensive air tickets. But we are seeing a proposed $100 reduction in the air passenger departure tax from $150 to $50 It is obvious that this is a tax concession granted by the Administration to people of higher income.
Now let us turn to rates. Actually, everybody lives in housing accommodation which is property, and rates will be raised with respect to all property. Although the Administration has said that the rates cap of 20% will apply across the board, yet alternatively, I think we can adopt a kind of progressive scale for rates. Whilst I do not subscribe to using a progressive scale that is too complex, I think we can make a simple classification. For instance, there is basically no need to grant any relief to commercial premises as commercial premises are for commercial purposes. It is the cardinal principle of business that “whatever one gets, one pays for it”. That is to say, whatever profits that have been made were already covered in the markup price of the merchandise. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to grant any rates relief to commercial premises.
The only matter we have to look into is whether there is the need to grant domestic premises varying degrees of rates relief. To my way of thinking, there is no need to grant rates relief to luxury premises, that is, higher-value property. Since the owner of such property can afford to buy it for a few million or even over 10 million dollars, a rates levy of 34% is relatively low, and is “small beer” to them. However, rates of a few hundred dollars a year are rather high for people of low income, especially elderly people who are owners of one flat and who sustain their livelihood with rental income. Concerning rates relief for domestic premises, as it is defined by banks that property valued over $5 million is classified as luxury property, I am using the same definition. And I propose that property over $5 million in value should not be granted any relief, but those less than $5 million in value may be granted relief in that the rates may only be raised by as much as 10%.
3850 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
I had published such a proposal before, but I knew that I would not have sufficient votes to support it, which was why I had never put the proposal to the Administration. Yet I hope that the Administration will take this into consideration when it works out a rates policy in the future to see if the rates policy ought to incorporate a differentiating or progressive scale of levy.
With these remarks, I will abstain from voting.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, what has aroused the biggest controversy concerning this year’s Budget is the issue of rates. In the Budget debate on 23 March, we pointed out that what the Budget said about “returning wealth to the people” was not true because this year’s tax reduction could not benefit all and most grassroots people had to suffer from the increase of rates. Members of this Council have requested the Administration to freeze the rates for one year, or reduce the rates percentage charge or cap the increase at a lower level. Our request is in fact a faithful reflection of what the majority of the public wants. However, the Governor has said that the public does not consider the increase of rates unreasonable and the increase is not a matter of concern to the public. This is entirely his personal opinion and is indeed a distortion of the public’s views. I definitely cannot accept this kind of sophistry.
Last week, the Secretary for the Treasury, Mr Donald TSANG, put forward a lamb theory .....
PRESIDENT: Dr TANG, I do not think that is part of the motion. But it is out of order to refer to the Governor or any public figure as telling a lie. I hope you will rephrase that part of your remarks.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Very well, I withdraw what I have said about the Governor. Let me now continue my speech.
Last week, the Secretary for the Treasury, Mr Donald TSANG, put forward a lamb theory, delivering a scathing criticism that Members’ opposition to the increase of taxes and other charges was nothing but the politicians’ means of appeasing their voters. He also said that the Administration was like a lamb to be slaughtered. What the Secretary said is in essence self-contradicting and his objective is to maintain the executive-led political structure. The alleged damage to the Administration’s credibility is in fact a pretext of the executive dictator. Mr TSANG has compared this Council to a butcher and the Administration to a lamb to be slaughtered. This is obviously a reversal of black and white. The lamb to be slaughtered is not the Administration but the 6 million Hong Kong people. The fleecer with a shearing machine in his left hand and a butcher’s knife in his right is not this Council but the executive-led government. The way to good government is to understand the feelings of the people. However, the Governor has taken the distorted public views as the true
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3851
sentiments of the people. In so doing, he is destroying the Administration’s credibility himself.
Members’ request for a revision of rates has not undermined the robust financial position of the Administration. Faced with the fact that this Council is subject to the Royal Instructions as to the limits of the Council’s power to review colonical taxation and with the fact that the Council is thus being relegated into a rubber stamp and hand-raising machine, Members really can do nothing other than to admit their helplessness. This incident can clearly reflect that under the strong government led by Governor Chris PATTEN, some Members rallied round the Administration as its shield or fall guy during the Sino-British dispute over the political system; yet when it comes to matters relating to the people’s livelihood, the role of this Council is but a rubber stamp.
Mr President, given the Royal Instructions and the Governor’s refusal to approve the moving of an amendment, the decision to increase rates is virtually irreversible, and the passage of the motion is only awaiting the ritual of rubber-stamping it. Any in-depth debate and strong opposition will only be useless wailing with absolutely no effect on the outcome. However, I have learned something today. As an independent Member not belonging to any political party, I am by no means inferior to any large political party in this Council. I cannot help saying that I am not at all alone. Just take a look at the Liberal Party which claims to be the largest political party in this Council. What can it do to amend this motion on rates? Even with the support of the future largest political party, that is, the Democratic Party, with whom the Governor makes eyes, the result is still the same. This means that independent Members and Members from political parties are in fact the same because their pleas are equally to no avail. Under the current British government system, what else can the Legislative Council be besides a rubber stamp? I think it is time those Members who considered this Council to be an organ of power and supreme institution work up from their dream.
Today, in order to express my resentment against this motion and the Administration’s distortion of the views of the public, I will vote against this motion. I will also challenge the political parties in this Council by asking them if they have the guts to stand out and vote against this motion since they also disagree with it. Finally, I hope that the Administration will accept the views of this Council and move another motion.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to say a few words. I have said these words before. I said them at the close of the 1991 elections. I said, “When you hold a combination of two magic swords, you are invincible.” Today, somebody is holding a combination of not just two magic swords, but three, four, five or even six of them. The Government can hardly parry the thrusts. The Secretary for the Treasury Mr Donald TSANG says that, if this goes on much longer, the Government will withdraw its motion. Should
3852 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
that happen, we would not even have a “cap” on rates. Therefore, if the political parties go on playing their games, the whole thing may blow.
I do not want to talk about political or constitutional matters. I just want to express my long-held views on rates. I said in 1992 that rates were the fairest tax, since they were collected according to the ratepayer’s ability to pay. A better-off family lives in a better home, which of course has a higher rateable value. So it pays more in rates. A worse-off family lives in a cheaper home and therefore pays less in rates. So rates are a fair tax. Other taxes are not necessarily fair. Examples are duties on tobacco and alcohol. If you drink, then you pay the same amount of tax whether you are rich or poor. The tax allowance for salary earners will be sharply higher in the new financial year. (This is a good thing.) Far fewer working people will be caught in the tax net. So it is all the more necessary to promote a revenue system which is fair to all. I said so in 1992. I said so again in 1993. I am saying so yet again now.
I have great sympathy for the “silent lamb” mentioned by Secretary TSANG. I do not know who that lamb is. Mr Fred LI was born in the Year of the Ram. He probably does not know that I, too, was born in the Year of the Ram. I am now 50. Mr LI is perhaps 26; he looks that age. The political parties say that the Government is playing a game. They themselves are playing a game in an even bigger way. The Government is probably becoming impatient. The Government used to be a tiger; it is now probably a lamb in a tiger’s clothing. (Mr Fred LI said so a moment ago.) The major political parties are holding shears in their hands. They want to fleece the Government. (Nor will they spare me.) That they should try to fleece me is no big deal. It will expose my true face.
I will say once more. I hope Members will hear and understand. Rates are a fair tax. They are collected from the ratepayers according to their ability to pay. It we say that the Government is rich, we can ask it to cut other taxes. But we must leave rates alone. The rates percentage charge now varies from year to year. It varies between 4.5% and 7%. Why? The reason is that rateable values are not linked to the annual Budget. Under the Rating Ordinance, the Rating and Valuation Department assesses the rateable values of all units of property. But it does not do so every year. It does so every three years. This being the case, after property prices have gone up in the meantime, it is not right to continue collecting rates at 5.5% of the rateable values assessed three years ago. So, after each rateable value reassessment, the Government begins by lowering the rates percentage charge. It then raises the percentage again in the following years, doing so little by little each year until a specific value is reached. This is why the rates percentage charge sometimes rises and sometimes falls.
In 1992, I made a proposal about rates. I do not intend to repeat this proposal, because the Financial Secretary has already said in his latest Budget speech that the Government intends to study the issue. However, I suggest that the Government should each year make a projection. I mean that, pending the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3853
next reassessment by the Rating and Valuation Department, the Government should project the amount of rates to be collected each year and then collect rates according to this projection. If this is done, the rates percentage charge will not have to change each year but may remain fixed at 5%, 5.5%, 6% or whatever. Then, everybody will know what the rates percentage charge is. Nor will the percentage charge sometimes rise and sometimes fall. Rates will rise as property prices go up. I understand that property prices can go up rapidly, faster than inflation. But that is another matter. We should use other methods to hold property prices down. We must not mix apples with oranges.
I quite agree with Mr TAM Yiu-chung, who says that the entire method of collecting rates should be reviewed. Still, the rates percentage charge should not be linked to inflation. I think that there should be a gap between the two. Property prices go up and down. They will decline, for instance, when the supply of property is ample. When property prices have fallen, will you still insist that the rates percentage charge should go up with inflation? Certainly not. So I think that the two concepts should be kept separate.
I have made a lot of suggestions concerning the rates collection system. That, I think, is what we should be thinking about. Whether the Government’s financial position is robust or whether taxes should be cut is a separate matter. I think that, even when taxes have to be cut, rates should not. This is because, as I have said earlier, rates are a very fair tax payable by everybody. In the coming year, the tax allowance for salary earners will rise sharply. The Government’s revenues from salary tax will decline sharply. In these circumstances, the Government must maintain a sound tax net.
Mr President, the second point that I want to talk about is the constitutional question, that is, the question of procedure. The constitutional question is a question of the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches or, in other words, a question of relationship between the two. We know that in the United Kingdom (the example mentioned by Dr HUANG Chen-ya just now), Members of Parliament can amend, with a view to increasing tax or otherwise, revenue measures proposed by the Government. In the United Kingdom, there must be an affirmative resolution for each expenditure item so as to have an approved “vote of funding”. The approved “votes” are then consolidated into an Appropriation Bill. Similarly, for every proposal to increase or reduce tax, there must be an affirmative ways and means resolution. The approved “funding votes” under the adopted resolutions are then consolidated into an Appropriation Bill. The Bill is then tabled at Parliament. No Appropriation Bill may be tabled at Parliament except in accordance with such a procedure. But only the Government can introduce a resolution. Members of Parliament cannot.
I am most grateful to Mr James TO. When he criticizes the Hong Kong Government, he also mentions the differences between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. In the United Kingdom, the party in power always has the majority in Parliament. It therefore can do whatever it wants. But this is not
3854 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
possible in Hong Kong under the existing system. Nor will there be a different system under the Basic Law after 1997. Therefore, other countries’ systems should not be introduced to, and applied rigidly in, Hong Kong. I have studied the purse string powers of over 100 legislatures in the world. I will now cite a few cases for Members’ reference.
France is like this. The National Assembly can cut the revenue from a certain source but must compensate by collecting more revenue from another source. The National Assembly has the power to lower the government’s revenues but must at the same time cut certain spending programmes. Deputies to the National Assembly can lower the government’s revenues only if they can stand the pain of cutting spending programmes. Can we ourselves stand this kind of pain? We must not make a mountain out of a molehill simply because the Governor refuses to let Members move an amendment to a government motion. I think that Members are not behaving like magnanimous leaders or like political parties with class. If we think that there is a constitutional question, then we must come to the point and say how things should be improved. If we want the Legislative Council to have full power over the public purse strings, then this Council will not be exercising supervision or monitoring. It will be exercising control and dictatorship instead. That I will certainly oppose. Such a system will evolve into a super-government in which executive and legislative powers are not separate. The achievements of western countries are due not so much to their democratic elections as to their keeping executive and legislative powers separate. Without the separation of powers, one group of people will monopolize power and that will be very dangerous.
Mr President, I do not intend to deliver a long pedagogic speech today. Nor do I want to take anybody to task. I do not know Members’ motives and I do not want to speculate on them. However, I do think that we are dealing with a very solemn issue. We should all think carefully. I agree very much with the comments made a moment ago by Mr Jimmy McGREGOR. It is a pity that he has joined a political party called “The Democratic Foundation”. I hope that he will leave that party and become an independent.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have listened very patiently to the speeches by Members. I am also grateful to Mr Andrew WONG for his having taken us back to the theme of “tax” which is the subject of this debate. What other Members said seems to have something to do with the power of the executive and legislative institutions and to have focused on the way these two institutions vie with each other for power. The debate today sounds more like one on the division of power.
My understanding is that in many democratic countries the budget is subject to parliamentary scrutiny as one whole integral package. Even when the opposition wants to oppose the Budget, the usual course is for them to take to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3855
vote against the entire Budget or to threaten to block its passage. Only then will they have the edge to negotiate with the ruling party. Never will the opposition single out one or two tax items for patching up or, as Mr Jimmy McGREGOR has put it, for “scoring points”.
We already debated the Budget some time ago. It looked as if many colleagues had accepted or indicated that they would accept the Budget as a whole. However, when it comes to formally endorsing a certain tax item now, they begin to seize on the vulnerable points, and some of the remarks even smack of elevation of the issue to unrealistic and dizzying heights. Whilst the public-spiritedness of Members from the political parties in serving the community is commendable, I cannot help but feel that on this occasion the way political parties make use of the peculiarities or characteristics of Hong Kong’s political system to challenge the authority of the Administration is self-contradictory. The Administration, on the other hand, also makes use of the characteristics of the political system to put up a defence. However, it is obvious that, on this occasion, after crossing swords both sides have come away with injuries.
Members of the public have great expectations of both the Administration and the political parties. In any event, I will absolutely be loath to see today’s debate degenerating into an emotion-venting exercise and war of words after which nobody will ever care how to redress the poor working relationship that we have this year in order to make next year’s Budget more reasonable and thus more acceptable to the public.
MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I originally was not preparing to speak, but I feel that I must say a few words now. I agree with Mr Eric LI’s views very much, and I also support most of the views of Mr Jimmy MCGREGOR and Mr Andrew WONG. I do not agree with certain part of Mr WONG’s speech because I do not understand it.
I feel that we should examine the Budget as a whole instead of singling one or two tax items out from the others. If the Budget is cut into bits and pieces, it will become an amorphous mass of proposals, and it is difficult to predict what the implications will be.
Secondly, we have already been offered a drastic reduction in salaries tax. Since such a large number of people will be extricated from the taxation net, if we make further reductions in rates, then obviously the major part of the tax burden will fall on the middle class people. Will such a society be a very fair one?
Thirdly, my personal opinion on rates is that no parties or individual Members have expressed very strong views on the issue beforehand. Although there are complaints from the public (I believe there are complaints from the public whenever there is an increase in any kind of tax), they are not so grave.
3856 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
However, I have no wish to see today’s debate becoming a political one and to see the whole incident being represented as certain Members’ attempt to win more votes for themselves. In fact, this is not a proper way to talk. To a certain extent, this will of course pose a little problem for certain members of the lower class of our society, especially some old women or those who rely on rental income. However, whenever taxes are revised, it is always impossible to take into consideration the way each and every member of the public will be affected.
On the other hand, the Governor’s refusal to grant authorization, though not unacceptable, smacks a little bit of unfairness. I am not saying that the Governor does not have the right to do so. However, if we say in the Legislative Council we have to develop a parliamentary system of government for Hong Kong on the one hand, but refuse to accept the views of the majority of Members on the other, we can hardly convince people. My personal view is to see how events will unfold if this motion is voted down and to let Hong Kong people decide for themselves who will be responsible for whatever consequences that may ensue. If they do not like what is going on, they will voice their opinions. If we keep saying our opinions are correct and refuse to let Hong Kong people develop Hong Kong for fear they will pay a heavy price, then there must be some problems with Hong Kong.
Mr President, I support the Administration’s motion.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, just now Mr Vincent CHENG said that he neither supported nor understood part of Mr Andrew WONG’s speech. I think he probably was unable to understand 99% of Mr Andrew WONG’s speech. Before the commencement of this sitting, Mr LEE Wing-tat and I .....
MR ANDREW WONG: Mr President, point of order.
PRESIDENT: Mr WONG, point of order?
MR ANDREW WONG: I do not think Mr CHAN can say that people do not know certain part of my speech, or 90% of my speech.
PRESIDENT: Sorry, that is not a point of order.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, before the commencement of this sitting, Mr LEE Wing-tat and I met Mr Donald TSANG in the Ante-Chamber and we talked about the story of the lamb. Mr LEE Wing-tat and I
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3857
are, in fact, the real lambs because both of us were born in the Year of the Ram. The Legislative Council is becoming more and more like a zoo with a growing variety of animals. Now we even have a government which is on the verge of changing from a tiger into a lamb.
As several Members observed just now, the real victims bearing the brunt of the impact of the rates revaluation this time are the general public and particularly the middle class. Although the Government has raised the personal allowances for salaries tax drastically, the middle class will receive little benefit. After the new percentage charge for rates has been put into effect, rates are taking up a larger share of their income. To the general public and the lower class, the increase in rates will definitely add to their burden.
Two days ago, the Governor said that not too many people opposed the rates increase this time. I think his remarks were very questionable. That night a considerable number of citizens called my office saying that they were extremely dissatisfied with the Governor’s remarks and they thought he had distorted the facts. We do not know which policy branch official or officials conveyed to the Governor the message that not too many people opposed the rates increase. Neither do we know what their yardstick is. Today the three major political parties in the Legislative Council jointly oppose the rates increase. If the body of public opinion represented by these three parties is not large enough, I do not know which other organization or institution in Hong Kong can command so much popular support.
The Governor said that not too many people opposed the rates increase. I think he does not understand the real situation. When he visited various districts in the past, he could only see the best aspects of the districts because many officials had made full effort to arrange for everything beforehand, which was in a way like laying a red carpet for him. He merely had casual chats with the public and what he did in the districts was nothing more than tasting a cup of Chinese herbal tea or an apple. Can he really see the plight of our people? I do hope very much that he will visit districts such as Tsuen Wan and Kwai Chung in the future. Prior to the visit he should not let the district office concerned make arrangements for him but ask political parties or local bodies to arrange for him some interviews with the public so that he can listen to and understand their heartfelt sentiments. He should not listen to public opinion in a selective manner or he may get some wrong messages and make a wrong decision.
I think the rates increase has basically reflected some changes in the mode of the Government’s financial operation. The Government is seeking to pull certain strings to tamper with the tax system and the tax net through changing the rates percentage charge before any comprehensive review of the tax system is carried out. To my way of thinking, it is very obvious that the Financial Secretary aims at making rates a major source of revenue by increasing rates time and again. At the outset, the Government collected rates for funding the police force. Later rates become the major income source of the two municipal councils and now it becomes a main portion of revenue of the central
3858 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
Government of Hong Kong. The Government has in fact jumped the gun by taking such a measure before reviewing the tax system comprehensively.
I would like to raise another point. Mr PATTEN said the rates payment only constituted around 2% to 2.5% of the average family income and that the impact should not be too great. I think the impact of rates payment on senior government officials, especially Policy Secretaries and Mr PATTEN, is nil because few of them are required to pay rates. If they say the impact is not great, I do hope that 2.5% will be chipped off from the salaries of Mr PATTEN and other senior civil servants when Members examine and endorse the Budget next year, particularly with respect to the part concerning civil servants’ pay. It is because these senior officials who have not been required to pay rates have no idea how great the impact of 2.5% of income is on people’s livelihood. If we make senior government officials, Mr PATTEN in particular, lose 2.5% of their income, they will feel the plight of paying such high rates. I strongly support the remarks made by Members from the United Democrats of Hong Kong, especially their comments on how the Government has ignored the views of the public and the Legislative Council. On the one hand, the Government keeps advocating democracy, but on the other hand, it just turns a deaf ear to the request of these three parties which represent public opinion. I think what the Government said does not agree with what it did. In respect of such political style and political sleight of hand adopted by Mr PATTEN, I would register my strong protest and regret.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, it appears that we have overlooked a basic thing during our discussion, that is, what should be the Legislative Council’s function within an executive-led framework? The Legislative Council has the function of exercising check and balance. When the Government is wrong, inconsistent, unreasonable or illogical, the Legislative Council should, first of all, tell the Government and then stop it from behaving that way. For if the Government is bent on having its own way, that will not be in the interests of the public.
I have just listened to a lot of theories to the effect that the Budget proposals form a total package, the measures cannot be considered in isolation from others and should be dealt with in a professional and systematic way. It is a pity that the Honourable Jimmy MCGREGOR is not here in the Chamber. I just want to remind him that some years ago he intended to move a motion in this Council, urging the Government to withdraw its proposal of doubling the tobacco tax. Eventually, he did not move the motion because the then Financial Secretary, Sir Piers JACOBS, took the initiative to withdraw the tax increase proposal at the very last minute. Obviously, that incident contrasts sharply with the Honourable Jimmy MCGREGOR’s speech today. In other words, it is right and fitting for the Government to propose amendments but not for the Legislative Council because it will be a trespass upon the Government if it is the Legislative Council which proposes the amendment. The Government does not suffer a loss of face if the Government withdraws its own proposal of raising
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3859
tax. I feel that the public must appraise this incident with their eyes wide open. The above example is sufficient proof that the arguments advanced by a number of colleagues just now are unjustifiable. I hope that they will go over the records and take a look at the historical facts to see whether the Government is consistently implementing a taxation system which is in the interests of the public.
Some years ago, there were no directly elected Members in this Council but the then indirectly elected Members joined hands in opposing a drastic increase in tobacco tax. The Honourable Jimmy McGREGOR was the first to take the initiative of moving a motion, urging the Government to withdraw its proposal of raising tax. The Legislative Council has a very important function, that is, to exercise check and balance wherever necessary.
The Liberal Party insists that the revenue of the Government be used to pay for its expenditure. As the Government does not need to increase its revenue now, it should lot seek to burden the public with heavier tax. The Government cannot insist on having its own way just by saying that it has a set of hard and fast rules to follow. In fact, the only reason for its action lies in the purported infringement of its power. The Government simply cannot accept the Legislative Council putting requests to it on behalf of the public. The way in which the Government, the Financial Secretary, the Secretary for the Treasury and the Governor handle this case is both regrettable and disappointing. I feel that they show no respect for this Council at all. This again is a cause for regret.
PRESIDENT: Mr WONG?
MR ANDREW WONG: Yes, point of elucidation, Mr President, according to Standing Order 29.
PRESIDENT: You want Mrs CHOW to elucidate. Well, she has already resumed her seat. Do you wish to elucidate anything that you have said, Mrs CHOW?
MRS SELINA CHOW: Yes, I will be happy to.
PRESIDENT: Mr WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, just now she did not mention my name but only Mr McGREGOR’s, so I thought it was not appropriate to interrupt her for elucidation then. In the 1991 debate on
3860 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
Tobacco Tax, Mr McGREGOR did not withdraw his motion, nor did the then Financial Secretary Sir Piers JOCOBS withdraw his tax increase motion. Two questions were being put in that meeting, one was a 200% increase in taxation, another one was a 100% increase. The Financial Secretary eventually agreed to replace the first one with the second. This was what happened on that day, I hope Mrs CHOW could prove that my memory is correct and hers not.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, as far as technical expertise is concerned, Mr Andrew WONG is more professional than any one of us here. Yet I believe that neither the procedure nor the motion is important; the most important point is Government’s decision to amend the taxation section of that year’s Budget. That is all I want to emphasize.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am not sure whether I have misheard some remarks. If I have, I would like colleagues to tell me and I stand to be corrected.
Just now I heard Dr TANG Siu-tong say he would vote against the motion. That really startled me! He said he would challenge all major political parties to do so, but I feel that the challenge, instead of being directed at political parties, is directed at his own common sense. I wonder if he is aware of the implication of voting against the motion. According to my understanding, if this motion is negatived, that will mean that Members want rates to be increased further. If he votes against the motion, Dr TANG must have thought that the level of increase proposed by the Government is too low, and he must have wanted it to be set at a higher level. In this connection, I hope that he would not vote against the motion. He is not in this Chamber at the moment. If he is, I shall be more than willing to make three deep bows to him in the hope that he would not vote against the motion.
MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, I agree with Mr Andrew WONG’s conclusion, even if I could not follow all his points, and I also agree with Mr Eric LI and Mr Vincent CHENG.
Mr Albert CHAN has just claimed that there are community views on this issue going beyond the major political groups. Although Mr CHAN may accuse me of being out of touch, I see little or no evidence of the concern which he alleges. For example, I gather the public has not gathered in great numbers downstairs to express their views.
Finally, I would like to express my congratulations to Mr Donald TSANG on his excellent speech last Friday. It was exactly the right message and I hope he has the full support of all his colleagues in the Government.
Mr President, I support the motion.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3861 PRESIDENT: Mr James TO, you have already spoken of course.
MR JAMES TO: Yes.
PRESIDENT: Are you seeking to speak twice?
MR JAMES TO: Yes.
PRESIDENT: You cannot do that unless you satisfy me that you have reasons within Standing Orders to speak a second time.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, my reason to speak a second time is to respond to Mr Andrew WONG’s views about the differences among constitutional structures.
PRESIDENT: It is only if you have been misunderstood and you wish to clarify your position on the misunderstanding you can speak again but not otherwise, Mr TO.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have just spoken on the division of power and on the constitutional structure. I now speak to clarify my views on these two issues. My main concern lies in the kind of power the Government be vested with, both under the existing institution and relative to the power of the Legislative Council. If Mr Andrew WONG has his own ideas on constitutional structure or on taxation, in particular, the rates, I would certainly lend my ears to him. Why? It is because he is an elected member properly authorized by the public. If, in the future, he is appointed as Secretary for the Treasury or Financial Secretary by a Chief Executive who is returned under the cabinet system or elected under the “one-man-one-vote” system to replace Mr Donald TSANG, I would be more than happy to support him.
PRESIDENT: Please stop. You are going way beyond trying to clarify any misunderstandings.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, if I may take this chance just to respond to some of the points.
Some very strong rhetoric has been used this afternoon ― words like “blackmail”, although that was only used once I believe, “public suffering”, “a
3862 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
tragic day” and “suppressing of the Legislative Council”. I think anyone in the public gallery who is not familiar with Hong Kong politics might think that we were discussing the withdrawal of medical services, the closing down of schools, the withdrawal of human rights or a declaration of war. The language is totally disproportionate to the subject, in my view, whether in relation to Mr TSANG’s speech or the issue at hand.
The issue at hand, it is worth recalling, is a revaluation of the rates which brings them up to date and does not exceed the cost of living, on average. That is what we are discussing. To have the notion that we are engaged in suppressing the Legislative Council, that democracy is at stake and all the rest of it, frankly, is so far from reality that I find it quite difficult to listen to.
Let us just look at the speech for a moment. There are certain eternal verities which Secretaries for the Treasury and Financial Secretaries have been enunciating, to my memory, ever since John COWPERTHWAITE was Financial Secretary. Those are what Mr TSANG was enunciating again, with rather more punch than perhaps you are used to from a civil servant. If you want us to revert to a bland Civil Service style, then that is probably what you will get, but the substance of what he was saying was absolutely unobjectionable and I stand totally behind it.
We are talking about things like the need for discipline on expenditure; what goes along with low taxation is keeping taxes up to date, keeping fees and charges up to date and so on. These are not the stuff of a constitutional crisis, suffering and suppression. So please let us keep a sense of proportion.
On the rates and on the fact that we are willing now and then to use such powers as we have, that is the system. I mean Members cannot have it both ways, there are rules. There are rules which circumvent our powers and there are rules which circumvent the Legislative Council’s powers. They can be called checks and balances or whatever, they are basically checks and balances.
It is, of course, a gross exaggeration to talk as if Members cannot amend motions, amend Bills and so on. Of course they can. There is only a narrow range of changes which require approval of the Governor and they are very familiar to you, that is, proposing expenditure or reducing revenue.
The tobacco tax issue was mentioned. Tobacco tax was an increase in taxation. It is quite different to the rates issue.
How else, I ask you, would the Government or this system work, if we simply abdicated all the checks and balances which exist? If we did not actually use our powers now and then to stop Members proposing expenditure or reducing revenue, how would it work? I do not think it would have a chance at all of working.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3863
We have been dealing with a routine revaluation of rates. A revaluation which, I must remind Members, I announced to you in the consultations and in public at least a year ago. This is not something which has been sprung on you or on the public. It has been known for at least a year. I must say, I did not receive any strong or numerous, adverse reactions to that advance notice. I gave the advance notice; I listened carefully to suggestions; I implemented many of the suggestions in the budget but a strong adverse reaction to the rates revaluation was not among that reaction which I got.
I would ask that .....
MR JAMES TO: Mr President, point of elucidation.
PRESIDENT: Do you wish to give ground, Financial Secretary?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: No, I do not. I would ask that we do not get into a frame of mind where we are not willing to approve anything which might be slightly unpopular, even when it is part of a package which is clearly popular.
MR JAMES TO: Mr President, point of elucidation. May I ask the Financial Secretary whether he wishes to elucidate one point?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: I do not.
PRESIDENT: He does not wish to elucidate at all, Mr TO.
Question on the motion put.
Voice vote taken.
MR JAMES TIEN: I claim a division.
PRESIDENT: Council will proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please proceed to vote?
PRESIDENT: Are there any queries? If not, the result will now be displayed.
3864 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
The Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Martin BARROW, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Timothy HA, Mr Simon IP, Mr Eric LI, Miss Christine LOH, Mr Roger LUK and Ms Anna WU voted for the motion.
Mr PANG Chun-hoi and Dr TANG Siu-tong voted against the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr LAU Wah-sum, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Peter WONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Moses CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Rev FUNG Chi-wood, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Dr LAM Kui-chun, Dr Conrad LAM, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr MAN Sai-cheong, Mr Steven POON, Mr Henry TANG, Mr TIK Chi-yuen, Mr James TO, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin and Mr James TIEN abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 15 votes in favour of the motion and two votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
AIR PASSENGER DEPARTURE TAX ORDINANCE
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the following motion:
“That with effect from 1 April 1994 the Air Passenger Departure Tax Ordinance be amended in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule by repealing “$150” and substituting “$50”.”
He said: Mr President, I move the second motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The purpose of this motion is to reduce the air passenger departure tax from $150 to $50. Since we last increased this tax to $150 per adult passenger in 1991, the tourism industry has made repeated representations to me about the possible adverse effect which the relatively high level of our departure tax would have on tourism and the wider economy. Their argument is a persuasive one.
The proposed tax reduction might also help to reduce the congestion in the transit area of Kai Tak Airport, as more transit passengers would be encouraged to leave Kai Tak temporarily either for sightseeing or shopping. Extra spending by these passengers during their short stay in town would boost
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3865
our retail trade and the tourism industry. Local residents who travel by air will, of course, also benefit from the concession.
We estimate that the proposed reduction in the air passenger departure tax will cost $960 million in 1994-95 and $4.1 billion up to 1997-98.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think the amendment as moved by the Administration is based on insufficient grounds.
Relief of congestion in the transit area should not be sought by reducing the air passenger departure tax. Instead, the problem should be addressed by enlarging and widening the transit area. The tax reduction, which means $100 less, cannot guarantee that transit passengers will readily leave the transit area of Kai Tak Airport for sightseeing in Hong Kong. This is not a guarantee.
Furthermore, is the reduction of $100 attractive enough? This is still uncertain. For this reason, I think it is a mere excuse, which I find unacceptable, to address the congestion problem in the transit area by a reduction of $100.
In addition, as regards the point that Hong Kong people can save some money, I believe local people who can afford to travel abroad most probably do so for the purpose of sightseeing. If it is sightseeing, the amount of $100 is insignificant. If it is a business the company concerned. Under trip, the sum of $100 will even be paid by the present circumstances, I cannot see why we should save $100 to aid financially or subsidize those people who go on business trips or go sightseeing while the congestion problem in the transit area may remain unsolved. For this reason, I will not support this amendment but will oppose it.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am going to express the various views held by the United Democrats of Hong Kong in respect of the rates issue we have dealt with just now, the air passenger departure tax we are discussing and the profits tax issue to be dealt with later on. I have one point to make. The Secretary for the Treasury said that the political parties sought to give out free lunches by fighting for rates concessions. He is actually pinning labels on us. As a matter of fact, we are merely adopting a different budgetary strategy and attaching different weight to revenue and expenditure. I earnestly hope that the Government will not assign labels to people any more. It should respect other people’s standpoints and hold discussions on the basis of such different standpoints.
3866 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
It was certainly too high to set the air passenger departure tax at $150 years ago. We, therefore, consider it reasonable to lower the tax. However, we consider it inappropriate to have the air passenger departure tax reduced from $150 to $50. The Government stands fast to its position and resists the rates concession request made by the public because, so alleges the Government, it would undermine the stability of our revenue base. But it seems that the Government does not mind getting $960 million less by reducing the air passenger departure tax. Should the air passenger departure tax be reduced to $100, the Government would be able to provide $480 million in rates concession and benefit the public in general. Moreover, a $100 tax will not cause any dissatisfaction among the passengers. If we did not apply the $480 million towards supplementing the rates revenue, the money might alternatively be used in improving the tourist facilities and manpower so as to attract more tourists to Hong Kong. It would be of good use to us. Apart from the conventional attractions such as shopping and sightseeing, we may develop cultural and technological facilities as well as audio-visual entertainment to cater for visitors with diversified interests. As a matter of fact, the Hong Kong Government has all along overlooked the potential in this area. If the Government provides more support and injects more capital, it will certainly bring more benefits to the tourist industry than giving every tourist $50 extra to spend. We, therefore, consider it too low to have the tax reduced to $50. In doing so, our revenue will suffer unnecessary losses, the resources available to the Government will be reduced and the tourist industry will not be able to obtain extra resources. Furthermore, it sets the Government on a collision course with public opinion on the issue of rates.
In view of this, the United Democrats and the Meeting Point find themselves unable to support the Government’s wrong proposal. We are going to abstain from voting.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, since I had originally thought that this simple motion would be endorsed without a hitch in this Council, I did not intend to speak. Yet, just now I heard that the Member from the Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL) would vote against the motion and the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK) would abstain from voting. Even if I were not a member of any political party, I, as a representative of the Tourism Functional Constituency, would find it very regrettable.
To oppose the motion means that they object to lowering the air passenger departure tax and insist on maintaining the tax at $150. As for those who will abstain from voting, Dr Huang Chen-ya indicated in his speech just now their actual intention. They opined that the tax could be reduced to $100 or, alternatively, the tax of $50, in force for several months already, could be raised to $100. I cannot support this proposal.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3867
As both the ADPL and the UDHK take such an attitude, it seems that we have to rely on the Liberal Party and Members not representing any political party to support, endorse and listen to the opinion of the tourism industry voiced over the years. My request for lowering the air passenger departure tax had been clearly made in two Budget debates. This is not the voice of mine alone, nor is it the voice of the Liberal Party alone but the voice of the whole tourism industry! Mr WU Tan, Chairman of the Joint Council of the Travel Industry of Hong Kong, wrote to me saying that the tourism industry had been fighting for the reduction of the air passenger departure tax for many years because the tax, which is among the highest in the world, had extremely undesirable implications for Hong Kong. He further pointed out clearly that the number of transit passengers in Hong Kong each year had amounted to 3.8 million and that it should be very beneficial to Hong Kong if these people were attracted to tour around the urban areas. Frankly speaking, just one night’s stay in Hong Kong will enable the Government to collect a hotel accommodation tax of no less than $50 per tourist. If they shop here, a large number of trades in Hong Kong, including the retailers, can reap the profits.
Such a reduction in the air passenger departure tax actually has been reported extensively all over the world. When I attended a conference at Dubai in the Middle East in late March, I found that given frontage headline coverage in the local newspapers was the news that Hong Kong had slashed its air passenger departure tax in order to promote its tourism industry. Next week the International Travel Expo HK 94 will be held in Wan Chai, Hong Kong. Several thousand foreign travel agencies, quasi-official and official bodies will send groups of representatives to Hong Kong to study our tourism industry. It will indeed be a grand occasion for the tourism industry, which is Hong Kong’s second major earner of foreign exchange. If it is reported in tomorrow’s newspapers that Hong Kong has done a U turn and reversed its decision to reduce the tax, I believe this will be a serious setback to the reputation of the tourism industry in Hong Kong. I am not merely representing the tourism industry but also the Liberal Party. I hope the large number of Members representing no political party in this Council will support the motion moved by the Administration which seeks to reduce the air passenger departure tax from $150 to $50.
MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, I am disappointed that Members have expressed some concern about this proposal. Mr FUNG has said that the Government has not demonstrated the expected benefits. Of course nobody can guarantee the benefit of any change in taxation. What I think I can with great confidence guarantee is that if we would nurture the tourism industry properly over the next few years it will continue to be an enormous contributor to the economy of Hong Kong. Visitors spent over $60 billion here last year. That figure could double by early into the next century and will continue, I believe, to be if not the largest source of foreign exchange for Hong Kong, certainly the second one. I support the motion.
3868 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 Question on the motion put.
Voice vote taken.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: I claim a division.
PRESIDENT: Council will proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: Will Members please proceed to vote?
PRESIDENT: Are there any queries? If not, the result will now be displayed.
The Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr PANG Chun-hoi, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr Martin BARROW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr LAU Wah-sum, Mr Jimmy MCGREGOR, Mr Peter WONG, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Moses CHENG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Timothy HA, Dr LAM Kui-chun, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Steven POON, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr Roger LUK, Ms Anna WU and Mr James TIEN voted for the motion.
Mrs Elsie TU and Mr Frederick FUNG voted against the motion.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Rev FUNG Chi-wood, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Dr Conrad LAM, Mr LAU Chin shek, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr MAN Sai-cheong, Mr TIK Chi-yuen, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum and Mr WONG Wai-yin abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 30 votes in favour of the motion and two votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
BETTING DUTY ORDINANCE
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the following motion:
“That with effect from 1 April 1994 the Betting Duty Ordinance be amended -
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3869 (a) in section 3(3)(a), by repealing “83%” and substituting “82.5%”; (b) in section 4C(3), by repealing “5%” and substituting “15%”;
(c) in section 6(1A), by repealing “30%” and substituting “20%”.”
He said: Mr President, I move the third motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The motion seeks to increase the share of the lottery proceeds to be allocated to the Lotteries Fund from 5% to 15% and to correspondingly reduce the lottery duty from 30% to 20%. Members will recall that during last year’s debate on the Governor’s policy address, I undertook to review my position on the proposal made by the Welfare Panel of this Council to reduce the Government’s share of lottery proceeds in favour of the Lotteries Fund.
Following the completion of the review, I proposed in my Budget speech to triple the share of lottery proceeds to be allocated to the Lotteries Fund. With this additional source of funding which amounts to about $1.8 billion over the next four years, the Lotteries Fund will be in a much better position to meet the key targets set out in the White Paper on Social Welfare and the Green Paper on Rehabilitation. It will also be equipped to fulfil the commitments made in the Governor’s policy address last year to build seven nursing homes by 1997 and to provide more care-and-attention places.
The motion before Members also seeks to amend section 3(3)(a) of the Betting Duty Ordinance. The purpose is to reduce the percentage of total proceeds from standard bets to be allocated as prizes from 83% to 82.5%. In 1992, the rate of betting duty on standard bets was increased from 10.5% to 11.5%. The Government has agreed with the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club that this 1% increase would be shared equally between punters and the club. Accordingly, the percentage of betting proceeds from standard bets for allocation as prizes should be reduced by 0.5%.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I warmly welcome the motion moved by the Government and it is something which many of my colleagues in this Council have been striving for for years. We have urged the Government to increase the share of the lottery proceeds to be allocated to the Lotteries Fund. However, there is one point I would like the Government to clarify as soon as practicable. While it is our hope that the financial resources allocated to the Lotteries Fund will be channelled into the improvement of our social welfare services, it comes to our knowledge that most of the resources will actually go to building nursing homes (that is, care-and-attention homes for the
3870 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
elderly) to fulfil the commitments made in this year’s policy address. As a matter of fact, the type of service and the construction of such nursing homes have never been raised with any consultative committees. Many of us do not know, or only have some rough idea about, their operations. Although I support the construction of these nursing homes, I would like the Government to provide further information on the operations of these nursing homes to the relevant consultative committees and interested parties as soon as possible.
DR LAM KUI-CHUN: Mr President, when the Lotteries Fund was last debated in this Council I stated that the purpose of a fund was reflected in its expenditure. At that time only 3.5% of the lottery proceeds was allotted to welfare for which purpose the fund was first established. In contrast, 30% of the proceeds or some two-thirds of the non-prize money was siphoned off by the Government. That arrangement was more of a revenue generating measure for the Government than a method to amass a welfare fund.
Mr President, the Liberal Party is in favour of a better deal than the present arrangement for those in Hong Kong who have the misfortune of needing a safety net of social welfare. At the same time, our party wishes to ensure that welfare in Hong Kong avoids the colossal burden of welfare that brings many a foreign state into incapacitating national debts. We believe the logical way to satisfy both requirements for Hong Kong is to utilize the large amounts of voluntary money to augment the funds used for social welfare. So firmly do we believe this that we have written it into our party manifesto. Accordingly, on our party’s behalf, I made this request to the Government when the lotteries fund was debated in this Council last year.
This third motion moved today by the Financial Secretary, namely, to increase the percentage of lottery proceeds allotted to welfare by 10% is a step in the right direction.
Mr President, the Liberal Party supports the motion.
DR YUENG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, I speak in support of the motion moved by the Government seeking to increase the share of the Lotteries Fund to be allocated to social welfare from 5% to 15%. We have severely criticized the Government just now on the issue of rates. But I wish to praise the Government on this matter provided that it will not spend the increased funds entirely on construction projects but will channel some into the improvement of services because there are many new services which the Government have overlooked in its appropriation of the funds available. Where these grey areas are concerned, it is hoped that the Government would be flexible in its handling of the allocation of the Lotteries Fund and allow it to be used in the improvement of certain newly introduced services or services that have been overlooked by the Government.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994 3871 PRESIDFNT: Financial Secretary, do you wish to reply?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, I would just like to confirm that I have noted the points which have just been made, including the request for consultation about the nursing home’s proposal, and we will follow these up.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ORDINANCE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following motion:
“That the draft Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text) (Contracts for Employment Outside Hong Kong Ordinance) Order, proposed to be made by the Governor in Council, be approved.”
He said: Mr President, by way of relief from the heavy financial and constitutional issues that have taxed Members this afternoon, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The authentic Chinese text of the Contracts for Employment Outside Hong Kong Ordinance has been carefully examined by the Bilingual Laws Advisory Committee and the Legislative Council Subcommittee on the Authentic Chinese Texts and has their support. In accordance with subsection (4) of section 4B of the Official Languages Ordinance, a draft authentication order in respect of this text has been prepared and is being put before the Council for approval this afternoon prior to being submitted to the Governor in Council for authentication. Mr President, I now move that the draft Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text) (Contracts for Employment Outside Hong Kong Ordinance) Order, proposed to be made by the Governor in Council, be approved.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
HOUSING ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS moved the following motion:
“That the Housing (Traffic) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bylaw 1994, made by the Housing Authority on 14 April 1994, be approved.”
He said: Mr President, I at last move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This motion seeks to amend the Housing (Traffic) Bylaw to
3872 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 May 1994
revise the impounding, removal and storage charges for illegal parking on restricted roads in public housing estates.
The present impounding, removal and storage charges for illegal parking on restricted roads in public housing estates are $200, $280 and $70 respectively and have been in effect since 1 February 1990. It has been the Housing Authority’s practice to align the fixed penalty for illegal parking on restricted roads in public housing estates with that applying on public roads. On 23 February 1994, the Legislative Council approved an increase in fixed penalty for illegal parking on public roads from $200 to $320 under the Traffic Contraventions (Fixed Penalty) Ordinance (Cap. 237) with effect from 1 June 1994. In this connection, the authority approved an amendment to the Housing (Traffic) Bylaw on 25 March 1994 to increase illegal parking charges on restricted roads in public housing estates by around 60%.
The revised charges will take effect on 1 June 1994 when the Housing Department’s Fixed Penalty Ticket System under the Housing (Traffic Contraventions) (Fixed Penalty) Bylaw will be put in place.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I rise to support the motion. In fact, we have been receiving incessant complaints for a lengthy period of time from residents of public housing estates concerning illegal parking for a lengthy period of time. Many vehicles illegally parked are found to have obstructed pedestrian traffic. There have been occasions when the obstruction leads to traffic accidents involving pedestrians. Moreover, access to the housing estates by ambulances or fire engines may be blocked at night-time.
The problem is stemmed from the serious shortage of parking spaces in public housing estates as a result of the Housing Department’s planning, particularly in view of the substantial increase in the number of vehicles in Hong Kong and the rapid growth of freight transport between Hong Kong and China. One must bear in mind that many residents of the public housing estates in the New Territories are drivers of goods vehicles by profession. It seems that the authority concerned has not been facing up to the seriousness of the problem squarely, thus leading to a situation whereby illegal parking in every public housing estate has been beyond toleration. It is not until the situation comes to this stage that the Administration takes action to amend the penalties. I hope that we can strike a balance between the safety of the public and the reasonable treatment of the relevant car owners or drivers. The latter are really unable to find adequate parking spaces in public housing estates. If it is possible, I am sure, they would not park their vehicles illegally. Of course, there are some unscrupulous drivers who would turn to illegal parking to save charges for car parking. However, there are many professional drivers who are