HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1629
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 18 January 1995
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE SIR JOHN 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 MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1630 THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
REV THE HONOURABLE FUNG CHI-WOOD
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY HA WING-HO, M.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA
THE HONOURABLE SIMON IP SIK-ON, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM KUI-CHUN
DR THE HONOURABLE CONRAD LAM KUI-SHING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1631 THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
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 ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., J.P.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1632 IN ATTENDANCE
MR MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
MR ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, C.B.E., A.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MR CHAU TAK-HAY, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
MR JAMES SO YIU-CHO, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE
MR ANTHONY GORDON EASON, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
MR HAIDER HATIM TYEBJEE BARMA, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
MR MICHAEL DAVID CARTLAND, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1633 PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No. Legal Aid (Amendment) Regulation 1995 ........................................... 5/95 Waterworks (Amendment) Regulation 1995 ........................................ 6/95
Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions)
(Amendment) Ordinance 1994 (57 of 1994)
(Commencement) Notice 1995.................................................
10/95
Prisons (Hostel) (Amendment) Order 1995.......................................... 11/95
Sessional Papers 1994-95
No.58 — Report by the Controller, Government Flying Service on the Administration of the Government Flying Service Welfare Fund
for the year ended 31 March 1994
No.59 — Hong Kong Examinations Authority Financial Statements for the year ended 31 August 1994 with Programme of Activities 1
September 1993 to 31 August 1994
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Traffic Accidents Involving Franchised Buses
1. MR ROGER LUK asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, regarding the serious traffic accidents involving franchised buses in recent months, will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) whether such accidents have primarily been caused by human errors; and
(b) what measures are being taken by the operators to improve safety standards?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1634
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, in 1994, there were 274 accidents involving franchised buses which resulted in fatalities and serious injuries. All these accidents have been investigated, although the outcome of some recent cases are still awaited. From the information available so far, it can be said that about 100 of these accidents can be attributed to errors on the part of bus drivers, mainly turning negligently at junctions, driving too fast or following other vehicles too closely.
All four franchised bus companies recognize the importance of safety. Newly recruited drivers are required to undergo a 4 to 6 weeks training programme and pass stringent driving tests set by both the bus companies and Transport Department before they are allowed to drive a bus on the roads. Drivers are also required to take refresher training programmes and familiarization training for new routes and new bus types. Their performance is monitored by inspectors who board buses. All bus companies have restrictions on working hours. Bus companies also have safe driving bonus schemes to promote safe driving amongst their drivers.
In response to recent bus accidents, the Administration has reminded the bus companies to exercise closer supervision of the performance of their bus drivers and to remind their drivers of the importance of road safety.
MR ROGER LUK (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary pointed out in his main reply that driving too fast is one of the main causes of accidents. It is learned that in the United Kingdom, a control device is installed in urban buses to prevent the buses from exceeding the speed of 50 km per hour for safety reasons. Will the Administration consider requiring buses in Hong Kong to install the same device?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I think the Honourable Member is referring to tachographs which perhaps should be installed in buses. These instruments indeed do record the speed and other data. At present, we have no plans to require bus operators to fit tachograph data recorders in the buses. Although some of the accidents have been caused by drivers speeding, the numbers in fact have not been too great because in Hong Kong conditions really, the opportunity to drive fast is not that great. Of the 100 accidents to which I referred, only 15 have been attributed to fast driving. I understand that there is also new technology emerging whereby electronic data recorders will soon be available commercially. The bus companies are aware of this and they will be considering whether or not to install these at their own initiative, but we shall continue to monitor the position.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1635
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, it has been reported that one of the main causes of the frequent bus accidents is that quite a number of bus drivers who earn modest salaries have to work overtime frequently. Under excessive work pressure, traffic accidents easily occur. Will the Administration inform this Council whether it has verified the creditability of the above report, and what effective measures will the Administration take to monitor the overtime work of bus drivers?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the Transport Department has issued guidelines to the bus companies regarding driving hours. In short, basically every driver should have a break for at least 30 minutes after every five and a half hours of driving. Secondly, the maximum period between the commencement and completion of a day's work should not exceed 14 hours. Thirdly, a bus driver should not drive for more than 11 hours a day and fourthly, there should be an off-duty rest period of at least eight hours between successive shifts. These guidelines were established after a study undertaken in the early eighties by the Industrial Engineering Department of the University of Hong Kong. As a result of the Honourable Member's question today, in fact, we have asked the Transport Department to review these guidelines.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the first paragraph of his main reply, the Secretary mentioned that in 1994, out of the 274 accidents involving franchised buses, 100 were attributed to errors on the part of bus drivers. Does that mean the remaining 174 accidents were attributed to mechanical failure of the buses? Besides, we know that the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (KMB) has a kind of buses, namely the Victory II buses, which have already been regarded as unsuitable for running on some road surfaces or sharp turns in Hong Kong and the company has planned to totally replace that kind of buses. May I ask the Secretary when can all the Victory II buses be replaced; and whether it is possible to advance the timeframe for the replacement?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the Honourable Member's assumption is not correct. From the statistics we have got and based on the evidence from investigating bus accidents, only eight out of the 274 serious accidents to which I have referred have been due to mechanical failure of the buses. This is only about 3% and therefore the problem is not serious. At the same time, of course we have, as Members know, a certificate of fitness inspection programme under which all buses are inspected periodically. As regards the Victory II bus to which the Honourable Member has referred, there is no plan, as far as I am aware, on the part of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company to totally replace these vehicles, but obviously the company does acquire new buses and replace the older ones periodically.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1636
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would suggest the Secretary ride on cars more often. It is because although my driving speed is not too slow, I constantly find buses passing by my car at a high speed. The speeding problem of buses may be worse than what the Secretary thinks. Last week, I proposed to the Secretary that tachographs be installed in public transport with a view to monitoring the speed of vehicles. The Secretary promised at that time that the proposal would be considered, yet today he stated that there was no intention to require the installation of tachographs in public transport. May I ask the Secretary what has made him change his mind since last week?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, can I first say that of course the Honourable Henry TANG's views are based on impressions and not on facts. The figures I have quoted are based on facts. Secondly, I think I cannot be far wrong in saying that I probably travel on buses more often than Mr TANG.
Insofar as the installation of tachographs are concerned, I think what I said last week was that buses do not have these instruments yet, but I would ask the bus companies to consider the need to install such instruments. The question asked by the other Honourable Member just now was whether we would require them to do so and my answer is consistent. I said that there is no intention to legislate for this but, rather, it is up to the bus companies to consider.
Foreign Domestic Helpers Suing Employers
2. MR PEGGY LAM asked (in Cantonese): Recently there has been an increase in the number of cases involving foreign domestic helpers who sued their employers for maltreatment, thus becoming able to stay in the territory legally and take up part-time employment whilst awaiting the completion of the litigation process. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of such cases scheduled for hearing at present;
(b) of the average waiting time for such cases to be heard in court; and
(c) whether foreign domestic helpers are allowed to find jobs to make a living during the pre-hearing period?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, foreign domestic helpers who wish to sue their employers for mistreatment may lodge their complaints with the police, the Labour Department, the Labour Tribunal or the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board (MECAB). However, statistics are not kept specifically on foreign domestic helpers as a category of complaints. I am nevertheless advised by the Judiciary Administrator that the number of labour dispute cases involving foreign domestic helpers which are
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1637
now awaiting adjudication by the Labour Tribunal is in the region of 500. 19 cases involving foreign domestic helpers are awaiting hearing by MECAB.
At present, the average length of time between the lodging of a claim with the Labour Tribunal and its adjudication is around six and a half months. The waiting time for adjudication is expected to be reduced with the setting up of MECAB on 23 December last year.
Foreign domestic helpers whose contracts have been terminated prematurely may be allowed to remain on visitors' condition pending the hearing of their claims against their previous employers. As visitors, they are not allowed to take up employment during the periods of their permitted stay in Hong Kong.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): In the second paragraph of his main reply, the Secretary mentioned that the average waiting time is six and a half months and the waiting period may now be reduced. My question is: During these six and a half months, if the foreign domestic helpers are not allowed to seek employment, how can they make a living? The Secretary has still not given me an answer. Besides, what measures are being taken by the Government to prevent these domestic helpers from taking part-time jobs during the waiting period?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, of course during the period that the foreign domestic helpers are waiting for adjudication, they receive temporary accommodation through the assistance of consulates, churches, worker organizations and friends. The Family Service Centres of the Social Welfare Department can arrange accommodation in one of the two shelters for those who are in need of help. In addition, we provide counselling services and other services such as financial assistance for genuine hardship cases.
Clearly, we need to look at the need to reduce the waiting time and I am informed that the Judiciary is now offering to have early hearing of those cases on foreign domestic helpers. This is now being arranged and they can have priority in first hearings, and following the setting up of MECAB, I hope we can reduce the number of cases involving such claims of small amounts.
PRESIDENT: Not answered, Mrs LAM?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1638
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): I do not find the Secretary's answer completely satisfactory. But there is another issue I want to raise. At present, many foreign domestic helpers blackmail their employers by suing them. I have on hand many such complaints lodged by the employers and not by the employees. Is the Government aware of this situation?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I am not aware of these particular cases but perhaps may colleague, Secretary for Security, might wish to comment on this point.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, no, I am not aware of any cases where a report has been made to the police that an employer is being blackmailed. If that were the case, of course the police would investigate it. But I am not aware of any such cases.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr President, paragraphs (2) and (3) of the reply indicate a clear case of "justice delayed" and "justice denied". May I ask if the Bill of Rights would either support the immediate hearing of these persons or if they have to wait, at least the right to work and not depend on uncertain charity to support themselves during the waiting period? If the Secretary does not want to give a direct answer to this, may he have someone look into the Bill of Rights aspects of these numerous cases?
PRESIDENT: Secretary, are you able to reply?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, may I take legal advice on this point and respond in writing. (Annex I)
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it was mentioned in the first paragraph of the main reply that there are about 500 labour dispute cases involving foreign domestic helpers which are now awaiting adjudication by the Labour Tribunal. May I ask if the Government has categorized these cases? For example, among these 500 cases, what are the common charges against the employers and how much compensation has been claimed? Can the Government provide detailed information in this area?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I do not have a breakdown of these details. I will try to find out and reply in writing. (Annex II)
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1639
MS ANNA WU: Mr President, this is a follow-up to Mrs Elsie TU's question. Irrespective of the answers relating to the Bill of Rights referred to by Mrs TU, can the Government consider removing the restriction in any event against working imposed on the helpers during the pre-hearing period as this is creating severe obstacles to their securing legal redress when they are deprived of a livelihood in the meantime?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, could I defer to my colleague, Secretary for Security, again on this question of immigration control.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, we did look at this possibility some time ago but we decided that it would be quite wrong to remove the prohibition on working during this period. There is a grave danger that with a waiting time of six months or more, if we were to allow people to work during this period, it would simply give rise to more and more complaints from people wishing to remain in Hong Kong and to take advantage of that period to work. The answer, I think, must be in reducing the waiting time and, as my colleague has said, that is something that we are trying to do.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, the six-and-a-half-month waiting period for the cases to be heard by the Labour Tribunal has greatly exceeded the period stipulated in the law. However, it was mentioned that early hearings will be arranged for foreign domestic helpers. Will the Administration inform this Council why the Administration is doing that? Will that be even more unfair to others who have been waiting for a hearing for a long time?
PRESIDENT: Secretary, are you able to answer?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I am advised by the Judiciary Administrator that the Judiciary, while it is reviewing the Labour Tribunal's operation as a matter of priority, is trying to give sympathetic attention to the cases of foreign domestic helpers who are awaiting these claims to be heard and this is why they have offered to arrange an early hearing of these cases. But, as a matter of fact, in many cases the foreign domestic helpers do not take up the offer and they would prefer to taking the normal course of events which is perhaps an indication that they are happy to stay on rather than having an early hearing for reasons which I do not understand.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1640 PRESIDENT: Miss LAU, not answered?
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question at all. My question is: first of all, does the six-and-a-half-month waiting time exceed the time set by the Government itself? As a matter of fact, this issue was discussed on a number of occasions by some Committees of this Council. If the information is not available at the moment, perhaps a written reply will serve the purpose. However, I would find it very strange if the Secretary does not have the information in this area. Furthermore, whether the foreign domestic helpers accept the offer of earlier hearings or not, how can the Government explain to the public that some people have the privilege to jump the queue? The Government must give reasons to convince us. Legal matters and all sorts of other things must be fair!
PRESIDENT: Secretary, are you able to answer?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, can I supply the answer in writing after consulting the Judiciary on this point. (Annex III)
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, while it takes more than six months for a case to be heard in court, it was said in the reply that during the waiting period, the foreign domestic helpers are not allowed to seek employment because they are staying in Hong Kong as visitors. However, a period of six-odd months is a long time and, if they do not have any job and income, I wonder how they can continue to support themselves? Why does the Government categorize them as visitors instead of considering some special arrangement under which they are allowed to work? What are the reasons for not allowing them to take up employment?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I answered a very similar question just a couple of minutes ago. We do feel that there would be a very grave danger if we allowed all those who had submitted a claim to the Labour Tribunal and were waiting in Hong Kong for several months to work. If we as a matter of course allowed them all to work, we would simply be stimulating a very much larger number of complaints and we do not think that this would be a sensible thing to do. There is, in fact, assistance available to domestic helpers in these circumstances from a number of sources as my colleague mentioned a minute ago. And as I said also in answer to the previous question, I do think that the effort should be devoted to reducing the waiting time, not to allowing people to use this as a means to continue working in Hong Kong.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1641
MRS SELINA CHOW: (in Cantonese): I believe we are all aware that should the Filipino domestic helpers terminate their contracts under normal circumstances, they have to return to the Philippines in two weeks. In order to know if they have tried to stay in Hong Kong by suing their employers for mistreatment, may I ask if there was an upward trend in the number of such cases over the past three years? Moreover, has the Administration considered sending them back to the Philippines during the waiting period and bringing them back to Hong Kong when they are due to appear in court? The cost thus incurred may be even lower.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, may I defer once again to the Secretary for Security on this point.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not, I am afraid, have figures on the number of cases going to the Labour Tribunal. I am not able to say whether there has been an increase in those numbers in recent years or not.
We do allow people obviously to go back to the Philippines or to their own country if they wish and then to return to Hong Kong for the hearing. Some do that but in fact the majority opt to stay on in Hong Kong until their case is heard. I think it would be very difficult for us to require, in these circumstances, people to leave Hong Kong and then to come back here.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, given the very large number of domestic servants in Hong Kong and the fact that the numbers are actually increasing as our wealth grows, the number of cases pending before the Tribunal and the length of the waiting time, would it not be possible for the Government to set up a special tribunal for these particular cases? It is, after all, very difficult for a young woman, single woman, to find the means to look after herself for six months or so before her case comes before the Tribunal without even the assurance that at the end of it she will be successful. So I wonder whether some determined effort can be made by the Government to set up a special tribunal for these particular cases and bring down the number pending?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the general issue of waiting time for the Labour Tribunal is being looked at, as I said earlier on, by the Judiciary as a matter of great priority and the review is coming near to its final conclusion. Clearly, the setting up of MECAB since December last year is a distinct step in this direction to reduce the number of cases going to the Labour Tribunal, which deals with cases of $5,000 and below. We hope that with the setting up of this minor claims tribunal, it is possible to take care of a large number of those cases involving small sums of money. In the meantime, we should await, I think, the review of the Judiciary on the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1642
Labour Tribunal and see whether there will be some other recommendation coming out to deal with this particular issue.
PRESIDENT: Mr McGREGOR, not answered?
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, the Secretary did not indicate whether in fact he regards, or his department regards, these cases as special in their own right, in that the circumstances of the application by a domestic servant from another country is very different to the situation of a person who lives in Hong Kong. Is special consideration, Mr President, being given to the setting up of a special tribunal or how to deal with these cases on a special basis, in other words, separate from the other cases?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the total number of foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong is about 133 000 at the moment. We are talking about 500 cases waiting for a hearing. I do not think it is a very large number in relation to the total size of that population. Equally we must not neglect the welfare of local workers who deserve as do other workers in Hong Kong to have a fair hearing. I am sure that Members would agree we should give every worker equal rights in hearings. Therefore, I think that we should address the matter as a matter of equality for all workers, whether they are local or foreign, in going to the courts or tribunals to have hearings and we are taking steps in every way to speed it up.
Student Representation in Tertiary Institutions' Councils
3. MR CONRAD LAM asked (in Cantonese): It is learnt that the boards of governors of individual tertiary institutions hold different attitudes towards student participation, and that this has given some students the impression that the boards of governors of their institutions are discriminating against them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the tertiary institutions in which students are represented on the institutions' boards of governors;
(b) how the respective numbers of student and staff representatives on the these institutions' boards of governors are determined;
(c) whether the staff and student representatives on the institutions' boards of governors enjoy equal rights; if not, what are the institutions' reasons; and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1643
(d) whether there are any tertiary institutions in which students are not represented on the institutions' boards of governors; if so, which are those institutions and what are the institutions' reasons for excluding student representatives on their boards of governors?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, it is understood that the question refers to the "Councils" of the tertiary institutions as the governing executive bodies, as set out in the Chinese version of the question. Accordingly, my reply is:
(a) The Administration understands that students are represented on the Councils of five of the tertiary institutions: namely the University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the City University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Baptist University and the Hong Kong Institute of Education.
(b) The numbers of student and staff representatives on the institutions' Councils are specified in the respective ordinances or statutes of the institutions concerned.
(c) The Administration understands that both staff and student representatives of the Councils of the institutions enjoy equal rights. However, different institutions have defined different areas of business where participation in discussion by individual members is excluded. These concern mainly matters affecting the appointment, promotion and other personnel matters relating to the staff of the institutions as individuals as well as matters affecting the admission and academic assessment of students as individuals.
(d) The Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Lingnan College, the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts do not have student representatives on their Councils. The Administration understands that these institutions consider the existing channels for students to express their views to be both adequate and reasonable. There are extensive student representation on many of the institutions' various Boards and Committees such as the Senate or Academic Board, Student Affairs Committee, Student Consultative Committee, and so on, on which matters affecting students in different aspects are discussed on a regular basis.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1644
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to the reply of the Secretary, at present some universities in Hong Kong still refuse student representation on their Councils and only allow student representatives to participate in the boards and committees which are of a lower level and with less power. This is, obviously, discrimination against the students. At present, there are five tertiary institutions where students are represented on the Councils. From the experience of these five institutions, what are the pros and cons of having student representated on their Council?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I do not think I should associate myself with a remark that such institutions without student representation on the Councils are discriminatory. I think it would be unfair to make such a remark without knowing the exact history, background and procedures involving students in those institutions concerned. Therefore the Government will not take a view on this matter until we have had further advice from the institutions.
As regards the experience of the five institutions which have students on their Councils, I will of course have to find out from them their experience in relation to the benefits and advantages of involving students. But I understand that of the other five institutions, there are many channels for student participation at various levels and the Government has not so far received any complaint or request from students that such representation is inadequate and that the Government would need to amend the ordinance to such effect.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): My question is, from the experience of these five tertiary institutions, that is their experience of having student representation on their Councils, what are the merits and demerits of student participation? If seems that the Secretary has not answered my question at all.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I think I have said that this is a matter for the universities concerned to give their assessments. Of course I cannot judge on the experience of those institutions with student participation. I have to find out from them.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, we can all understand that different institutions have different historical backgrounds. Nevertheless, does the Government realize that nowadays, young people aged 18 are already capable of participating in social affairs and the Government also encourages them to the do so? If the Government does recognize this spirit, will it get in touch with the tertiary institutions concerned to make them open up their administration to allow student representatives to participate in the administration and management of the institutions instead of confining student
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1645
participation to working groups only? Will the Government make any attempts in this respect?
PRESIDENT: Are you talking about schools or tertiary institutions, Dr YEUNG Sum? DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): I am specifically referring to universities.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, of course I think it would be certainly useful if I am advised of Members' views on this matter and I would be happy to reflect such views to the institutions concerned. Clearly, I have understood the situation that there are many channels within the existing institutions for student involvement at various levels, such as the Senate, student affairs, libraries, student counselling, admission and so on. So far I am advised that such institutions and these channels have proved to be adequate and effective. So I think that we should at least draw from that experience that the present situation is not that unsatisfactory. But clearly we must, of course, be prepared to review the situation and I will be happy to reflect any suggestions which Members may have and put them to the universities concerned for consideration.
MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary has just mentioned that there are at present several tertiary institutions that have no student representation on their Councils, the main reason being that the existing channels for expressing opinions are already reasonable and adequate. Apart from communication, students' participation in the Councils can also strengthen democratization of and student involvement in the administration of the institutions. The Government has been encouraging secondary schools to have old students and students' parents on School Boards in order to achieve democratization. Does the Government consider student representation on the Councils can promote democratization of the administration of the institutions and can encourage student participation? If there is such a positive implication, will the Government put in more effort to encourage tertiary institutions to allow student representation on their Councils, in the same way it encourages secondary schools to accept other service users on School Boards?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, without of course pre-empting the autonomy of the institutions concerned in this matter, clearly the Government would be happy to see further student involvement in affairs of the institutions concerned through various channels. I am sure that this is a matter which the Government would wish to discuss with the institutions further following Members' suggestions on this very important matter.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1646
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, there are at present five tertiary institutions that have student representation on their Councils. It is obviously the hope of the Hong Kong Government and society that students can get involved in the highest decision-making body of the institutions. However, there are still several tertiary institutions that have no student representation on their Councils, so there appears to have a policy inconsistency. I hope the Government can lay down a timetable for reviewing and encouraging student representation on the Councils concerned. I do not agree with the reply that other boards and committees can serve the purpose. In fact, institutions having student representation on their Councils do have such channels as well. Therefore, I hope that all tertiary institutions can have a uniform policy, that is, allowing student representation on their Councils as soon as possible. I would like to know whether the Government has any specific plans and actions in this respect?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I do not think it would be wise to lay down any timetable for consultation with the universities concerned on this very important matter involving their own autonomy, their own student affairs and in fact their own policies. I think the Government would be right in, first of all, reflecting such views to the institutions concerned, and secondly, waiting for their further advice. Then we should discuss with these institutions how they feel about the situation. I am sure that the institutions would be happy to talk to Members of this Council as well on this very important matter and try to get some further improvements in this process.
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, from the reply of the Secretary, we learn that some tertiary institutions have student representation on their Councils while others do not. Regarding the question whether student participation in the affairs of the institutions has a positive meaning, does the Government have any specific idea at present? If so, will the Government request those institutions which still have no student representation on their Councils to conduct comprehensive consultation and then follow this line of thought?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I think I have already said enough about the government stand on this matter, that is, we will be happy first of all to reflect the suggestions to the institutions concerned, and secondly, to start this useful dialogue with institutions and the community and this Council on how to make further improvements in this direction.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to paragraph (d) of the Secretary's main reply, the Administration understands that those institutions which have no student representation on their Councils consider the existing
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1647
channels for students to express their views to be both adequate and reasonable. Just now, the Secretary said that the Government came to this understanding from what it got from the institutions. I would like to ask the Secretary whether the students have been consulted and if the students have expressed the same view, that is, the channels for students to express their views are adequate and reasonable? Secondly, is participation in the business of the institutions' Councils confined to the expression of views only? A council is actually a decision-making body. In this connection, is it necessary for students to participate in decision-making? I hope the Government will state its position in clear and unequivocal terms instead of just saying that it will reflect our suggestions, like it is acting as a "post box." Is the Secretary assuming such a role? If so, please let us know.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, if I were to tell a school to have students on their governing council or board of directors, I am sure there will be strong reactions from the sponsoring body and the school directors, to the effect that the Government is interfering with the affairs of the school. Put that into a university, how would they react to this directive if I were to do it without careful consideration, without careful consultation and without careful discussions? I am sure Members will appreciate that this is a matter of great importance to the universities on their autonomy, a matter of great importance to the operations and the philosophy of the universities and their role in the community. The Government should not be so rash as to rush into a decision without careful consultation.
MR JAMES TO: Mr President.
PRESIDENT: We will have to move on.
MR JAMES TO: Mr President, I would like to clarify because I was quoted as trying to ask the Government to interfere with the universities. But I asked for the Government's stand only.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the Government's stand is that the Government would not wish to intervene in the internal affairs of the institutions without careful consultation in the first place.
Teacher Suicides
4. MR SIMON IP asked: It has been reported that at least four cases of teacher suicide have occurred since the beginning of November last year. In this connection, will the Administration inform this Council whether it has
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1648
conducted any investigations into teacher suicides to ascertain if there are any common factors in such suicides, if so, what the findings are?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, police investigations into the four recent suicide cases involving teachers are still continuing. Nevertheless, the Education Department has conducted its own enquiries with the school authorities concerned to try to find out whether the deaths of these teachers were related to their work in schools. On the basis of the information thus revealed to the Department, it appears that in at least three of the four cases, there is no such indication.
In the fourth case concerning a teacher at a government school which has attracted some press coverage including suggestions that the deceased had been unfairly treated at work and over promotion, the Department has interviewed the principal and some of the teachers of the school. It has also carefully reviewed the records on the deceased's work and performance. The Department has concluded that there is no ground to support these suggestions.
However, we shall have to await the police's investigation reports before the causes of these suicides may be further identified.
MR SIMON IP: Thank you, Mr President. The Secretary's answer says that three out of the four suicides were not related to their work in schools; I emphasize the words "in schools". However, were any of these suicides related to work outside schools which many teachers have to do in order to supplement their low income as teachers?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, as far as I can understand from the reports of the investigations by the Department which include those teachers' work involving their school duties, I am not aware of any other duties which they have not reported to the school authorities. Clearly, I have yet to find out what those problems are, if there are any such problems involved.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is a rather high frequency for four teachers to commit suicide within a period of only three months. Some recently conducted surveys and telephone hotlines on teacher suicide cases show that there are three main sources of pressure in schools, namely, personnel problem, teaching problem and the handling of mischievous students. Will the Government inform this Council whether measures will be taken to target these three major sources of pressure and relieve the teachers of their mental pressure so as to prevent teacher suicide at a more fundamental level?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1649
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I am not so sure as to associate myself with the conclusions as such, reached by Mr CHEUNG, on the four cases in question out of 55 000 teachers in Hong Kong, and relating their pressure of work to these particular incidents. I think clearly we should be careful in focusing our minds on these particular cases, and pending the result of investigations, we should then draw conclusions from those investigations. At this stage, I think it would be unwise and premature to draw such conclusions from the four cases.
MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to add one more point in respect of the issue of pressure on teachers. We heard from not a few teachers that the many changes in the education policy by the Government in recent years had dramatically increased the workload and pressure on them. Does the Government have any plan to assess how much pressure the various existing new policies will have on the teachers and whether the new policies have the teachers' acceptance? In addition, will the Government strengthen communication with front-line teachers in future?
PRESIDENT: I think we are drifting a bit from the question.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I think we are really, clearly trying to draw conclusions and further solutions before we even have the results of the investigations. Clearly, I would not dispute the need to communicate better with teachers and to understand their work and problems. I am sure this is something we should always do. And clearly, all policy improvements, all policy changes are aimed at improving the quality of education and I am sure teachers would welcome rather than not welcome them as such. But having said that, I appreciate that any new policy or initiative of course does pose an extra burden on teachers and I am very much aware of this. This is why, if new policies are proposed, we always try to look at the resource implications and to assess the demand on teachers and ensure they are sufficiently supported to carry out these new policies. This is a matter, of course, I have always in mind before new policies are designed and implemented.
Levy Rate of Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund
5. MR JAMES TIEN asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, a resolution was passed by this Council on 21 July 1993 to increase the rate of levy for the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund by 15 times, raising it from 0.02% to 0.3%. At the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower held on 8 December 1994, officials of the Education and Manpower Branch disclosed that the Government would further raise the levy rate to 0.45%. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1650
(a) whether, in considering the further increase of the levy rate to 0.45%, it has taken into account the impact of the new levy rate on the construction industry as well as sought the views of the construction sector;
(b) how long the levy rate of 0.45% is expected to remain unchanged; and
(c) whether it will consider injecting funds into the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund to stabilize the levy rate in the long term, so as to avoid hampering the development of the construction industry?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower was briefed on 8 December 1994 on the need to raise the rate of levy for the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund from 0.3% to 0.45%. The position of the levy was further discussed at the meeting on 3 January 1995. An increase in the rate of the levy is necessary to ensure that it will be able to meet its long-term commitments. The possible need for this second phase of increase was already made known to this Council when the rate of levy was last increased from 0.02% to 0.3% in July 1993.
If the rate of levy remains unchanged, it is estimated that the Fund will run into a deficit in 1996 and 1997. The Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board will not then be able to meet the payments due to all eligible beneficiaries.
As regards the three specific questions, first, the impact of the proposed increase in the rate of the levy on the construction industry is not expected to be significant. Assuming that the proposed rate of levy comes into effect from 1 April 1995, our preliminary assessment is that the operating costs of the construction industry will be increased by 0.006% in 1995, by 0.041% in 1997 and 0.071% in 1999. The construction sector has been consulted on this proposed increase through the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board on which the Hong Kong Construction Association is also represented.
Second, the proposed levy rate of 0.45%, if implemented, will be kept under regular review, having regard to the actual income and expenditure of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund. However, barring any unforeseen downturn in the construction industry, it is estimated that a levy rate of 0.45% will ensure that the Fund maintains a healthy balance well into the year 2000. The situation will need to be reassessed if further improvements are made to benefits payable to pneumoconiotics under the scheme.
Finally, the Pneumoconiosis compensation Scheme is a collective liability scheme established for the specific purpose of providing compensation to post-1981 pneumoconiotics through the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund. The Fund is to be financed by a levy on the building and construction industry and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1651
the quarry industry where the bulk of pneumoconiosis cases are detected. For this reason, there is no question for the Government to inject funds into the Fund for the sake of stabilizing the levy rate. Nevertheless, as I have stated in the earlier part of my answer, we will keep the levy rate regularly under review to ensure that the Fund can continue to honour its financial commitments without difficulty. In this connection, both the financial position of the Fund and the impact on the construction industry will be closely monitored, so that they can be taken into account when there is a need to revise the rate of levy further.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): It was mentioned in the third paragraph of the Secretary's main reply that the operating costs of the construction industry will increase by 0.006%. I would not have worried so much if the figure was really so small. But in fact this is not the case. Let us look at the following example. A building site of a hundred thousand odd square feet will have a construction cost of $0.1 billion calculated at $600 per square foot. If the levy rate of 0.45% as recently proposed by the Government is applied, the levy on $0.1 billion will be $450,000. In the past, the levy rate was 0.02% and the levy would only be $20,000. We can thus see a drastic increase of the levy. Insofar as the impact of this $450,000 on the builders is concerned, a 5% to 6% profit out of the construction cost of $0.1 billion will translate into $5 million to $6 million, and the levy of $450,000 will represent 9% of the %5 million profit. Perhaps the Secretary could explain why the increase was assessed to be at 0.006%? Mr President, I would also like to raise another question. In the fifth paragraph, the Government said the compensation scheme is a collective liability scheme. Under the circumstances, I hope the Government will take up the collective liability jointly with the business sector, instead of .....
PRESIDENT: Mr TIEN, I think perhaps we should give the Secretary time to answer that first question and then you move to your second?
MR JAMES TIEN: Yes, Mr President.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, clearly, I need to look at the details of the calculations on Mr TIEN's question on paragraph 3, that is, on the calculations of the cost to the industry. I would do so and supply it in writing. (Annex IV)
PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr TIEN, the second part of your question.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): In the fifth paragraph of the Secretary's main answer, the Government said the compensation scheme is a collective liability scheme. I agree with this point. But I hope the so-called collective liability is
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1652
not a liability only of the business sector and the construction industry. Will the Government also share part of the liability? The construction industry has to pay a lot of charges and has to pay tax after making a profit. It is the business sector's hope that the Government can inject funds into the scheme for compensating the unfortunate workers. I propose that the Government inject $0.1 billion; will the Government consider my proposal? An amount of $0.1 billion is not large and will earn an annual return of 10%. The $10 million generated will be sufficient to make up for the present shortfall and enable the pneumoconiotics to receive more compensation.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, paragraph 5 of my answer made it very clear that the collective liability refers to the liability of the building and construction and quarry industries concerned, where most of the pneumoconiosis cases are detected. This is what is meant by collective liability, that is, those industries concerned should pay the levy to cover these cases of hardship. The Government should not therefore be responsible for injecting funds into this particular case, nor should it take up the liability. It is entirely a matter for the industries concerned to shoulder this responsibility and ensure that the workers who have suffered because of the cases arising from the industries concerned should be fairly compensated.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Thank you, Mr President. In paragraph 3 of his answer, the Secretary has said to us that the Hong Kong Construction Association was consulted through its representation on the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board. From the enquiries that I have made, I think there might be a misunderstanding because the representative on the Board was told about the government thinking but was also requested not to discuss the matter with the industry. I wonder whether the Secretary could check up on this and if that be the case, could the Secretary then take the necessary soundings from the Hong Kong Construction Association and give them a detailed explanation as to why such a hefty increase in contemplated?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, certainly, I will be happy to ensure that the industry is fully consulted. I am sure that this particular case was discussed at the Fund Board and perhaps the industry might wish to have a fuller discussion on this matter. I am happy to make sure that this is to take place.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, during the early period after the Fund was set up, the levy rate was lowered several time and the levy has in fact been shifted to the real estate developers and the owners. Will the Government consider making adjustments in accordance with the actual needs instead of raising the rate of levy in stages with a view to improving the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1653
financial position of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund to provide better protection for the pneumoconiotics?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I certainly agree that we should ensure that the Fund is stabilized and that there is sufficient money in 18 months to cover all the cases outstanding or cases to come. This is only a healthy way of managing the Fund. But if the 0.45% increase were approved, I think it would be quite comfortable for us to take care of the requirements of the Fund for a number of years.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, just now the Secretary has repeatedly said that the collective liability does not involve the Government. However, I wish to point out that firstly, many projects are indeed Government projects; and secondly, the Government had appropriated $50 million to compensate the penumoconistics before 1981. Under the circumstances, I would like to ask, firstly, whether the Government should assume the liability; and secondly, is it essential to give the pneumoconiotics compensation to mitigate their sufferings as they will not recover from the illness? If the Government is not willing to inject funds, will it provide loans to the Fund instead?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, of course I cannot speak for the Government on the use of loans or other means of helping. Clearly, if there is a convincing case for the Government to help on a special basis, I am sure the Government as a whole will consider it very carefully.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the fourth paragraph of the main answer, the Secretary mentioned that the levy rate of 0.45% can be maintained well into the year 2000. When doing the calculation, has the Government considered that the number of new pneumoconiotics will be drastically reduced some time after industrial safety measures have been strengthened and eventually no one will require pneumoconiosis compensation? Will the Government inform this Council what specific plans it has in mind to reduce the incidence of pneumoconiosis in the building, the construction and the quarry industries in the coming two years?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, clearly, there are two particular areas we need to look at in parallel. I agree that if the rate of pneumoconiosis incidence is reduced following further improvements to the operations of this particular trade, we should be able to see a reduction in requirements on cases and therefore the Fund, which is now to be increased by 0.45%, might be in fact even sufficient to cover future years' requirements. In parallel, of course, the Government is doing all it can to ensure that the source
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1654
of the problem, that is, pneumoconiosis, is further reduced. We are taking various steps to do this, for example, we will of course be discouraging hand-dug caissons in this particular area and ensuring that workers' benefits can be further improved by reducing the incidence of pneumoconiosis.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Michael HO.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question. Firstly, I asked whether the Government has taken this factor into account when it estimated that the levy rate of 0.45% would be maintained well into the year 2000; and secondly, what specific plans the Government has in mind for the coming two years in respect of the three industries I mentioned?
PRESIDENT: I think the first part of your question falls within the ambit of the question and answer. The second rather goes beyond. But Secretary, are you able to answer?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I think what I have said on the requirements in the coming few years and on this new rate of increase reflects the present position. Obviously, if the present position is to be further improved then I am sure, as I said just now, the Fund will be even better in providing for other uses and be more comfortable.
On the second point, of course I need to consult the industry and look at what further measures are in hand to improve the welfare of workers in relation to this particular disease.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the fifth paragraph of his answer, the Secretary said that the Government will not consider the injection of funds again. But Mr LAU Chin-shek just mentioned that the Government did make an injection of $50 million. Will the Secretary clarify whether that was an "once-and-for-all" injection or that the Government will consider injecting funds again on a need basis?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, if I recall correctly, any government funding clearly must be on a one-off basis as a special case, and I am sure this probably applied to the last particular case. What I have said in paragraph 5 is, as a matter of principle, the Government should not provide for the recurrent requirements of the Fund. The recurrent expenses must be met by the Fund itself through the levy; this is the basic policy underlying the Fund itself. But as I said also, the Government will of course be
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1655
sympathetic, I hope, to any particular difficulties which the Fund might have and consider any such request on a one-off basis.
Public Liability Insurance Policy
MR FRED LI asked (in Cantonese): There are at present quite a number of travel agents who have not taken out "public liability" insurance policies for their package tours. This often gives rise to problem in determining the responsibility for compensation in the event of an accident. Tourists on such tours are also not given adequate protection. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) what immediate contingency measures and short-term solution does the Government have to tackle the problem in view of the approaching peak tourist season during the Lunar New Year; and
(b) whether the Government will, in the long term, consider introducing legislation requiring travel agents to take out "public liability" insurance policies for their package tours; if not, what are the reasons?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, with regard to the Honourable Member's question, we have discussed with the Travel Industry Council and the Consumer Council possible ways to improve protection for outbound travellers, in particular the need for insurance coverage for both outbound travellers and travel agents.
The Travel Industry Council has accepted in principle that travel agents should take out public liability insurance to protect their clients, and has appointed a committee to consider possible options. The committee aims to submit its recommendations to the Travel Industry Council next month — that is February.
As an interim measure, the Travel Industry Council has asked its members to encourage their clients to take out travel insurance themselves and to provide them with detailed information on the travel insurance services available. It has also advised travel agents to disclose details of the insurance coverage included in the travel services provided to their clients. In addition, the Consumer Council and the Travel Industry Council have strengthened their publicity efforts to promote the awareness of travellers of the benefits of being covered by an insurance policy when travelling outside Hong Kong.
Regarding part(b) of the Honourable Member's question, as I have just said, the issue of public liability insurance is being examined by the Travel Industry Council. In the light of the recommendations of the Travel Industry Council and the advice of the Advisory Committee on Travel Agents, the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1656
Government will consider whether it is necessary to introduce legislation requiring travel agents to take out public liability insurance for their package tours.
MF FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, as far as I know, it is a general practice for the social service agencies which often organize outdoor activities to take out public liability insurance policies. I find it very strange that the Government has all along not required travel agents to take out similar insurance policies. The Secretary has mentioned in his reply that the recommendation of the Travel Industry Council and the Advisory Committee on Travel Agents will be considered. I wish to ask: if the Government has any position on the question of requiring travel agents to take out public liability insurance policies?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): It sounds strange to me that the Honourable Fred LI has found it strange, for Hong Kong has never been a place practising socialism or communism. Therefore, no plans are made for the public to see them through from the cradle to the grave. Nor will all the moves be compulsorily set out for them to follow.
I am aware that the people of Hong Kong have been talking all day long that the various freedoms we now enjoy should be maintained before and after 1997. I think one of the most important freedom is the freedom of choice. At present, the Government has not taken any position nor reached any final decision or conclusion. But I personally think that there are both advantages and disadvantages if travel agents are compelled to take out travellers' insurance policies on behalf of their customers. I believe the advantages must have been apparent and it would not be necessary for me to explain to Mr LI. If Mr LI does not know what the advantages are, he would not have asked the question in the first place. The disadvantage is, however, that the public will have no choice. Besides, there will simply appear a shifting of costs. Travel agents operate for profits and not for charitable purposes, we cannot compel them to take out insurance policies on behalf of their customers without shifting the costs to the customers. As a result, the prices of package tours will definitely go up. For some travellers who may have already taken out their own insurance, they will think that it is not only unnecessary but also unfair. Hence, I think we have to consider the matter in detail before reaching a conclusion.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all, I am not a socialist. I would only like to clarify one point. I believe the Secretary has misunderstood my question. What I talked about is public liability insurance policy which is like the third party's insurance for a motor vehicle, not the travellers' insurance policies specially designed for individual outbound travellers. Does the Government has any position in this particular area?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1657
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): I am sorry if I have misunderstood what Mr LI said. According to the information given by the Travel Industry Council, 70% of the major travel agents take out public liability or occupational liability insurance for their package tours. Our position remains that we will only come to a decision after considering the views of those in the trade, that is, the Travel Industry Council and the Advisory Committee on Travel Agents.
MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, could the Secretary advise us whether the Government is also discussing with the two Councils the question of insurance coverage for local tours which are which are enjoyed by visitors from overseas, and if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the short and simple answer to Mr BARROW is that within the distribution of duties within the Government, I happen to be responsible only for outbound travellers. The question of the safety of inward tourists is, for me, happily, a question for the Secretary for Economic Services (Laughter). So I cannot answer his question and I will happily refer it to my colleague, the Secretary for Economic Service, for a written reply. (Annex V)
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, can the Government give this Council an explanation or introduction of the public liability insurance? For example, in case of an accident, will the indemnity of the public liability insurance policy be paid to the members of the package tours or to the travel agents? How is the indemnity calculated and to what extent are members of package tours insured?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): According to the information I have, both the tourists and the travel agents will be insured under this kind of policy. In other words, if a member of a package tour suffers any physical injury or property losses, he will be compensated. Moreover, the travel agent will be insured against damages done to any third parties caused by any member of its package tour in the course of the tour. As regards the question on indemnity, I do not quite understand Mr TAM's question. I wonder if he can repeat his question?
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): My question is how the indemnity is calculated. For example, if a member of a package tour suffers a physical injury, how much indemnity will he receive?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1658
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): I do not have the relevant information now. However, it can reasonably be presumed that the amount will differ from case to case and will depend on the circumstances at the time, the liability and so on. If I can obtain more information, I will be happy to give Mr TAM a written reply. (Annex VI)
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, besides consulting the Tourist Industry Council and the Consumer Council, will the Government seek the opinions of the insurance industry as well? In addition, will the Government consult the measures that have been successfully implemented by overseas countries to give travel agents and tourists the biggest, fullest and most cost-effective protection?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): We will certainly consult the insurance industry on this question. Besides, we are now collecting information on how overseas countries have dealt with this problem for reference.
MR ERIC LI: Mr President, will the Government consider asking each outbound traveller to sign a specific disclaimer every time they opt for not taking out compulsory insurance, to ensure, firstly, that they have considered the matter of insurance very seriously, and secondly, that they still maintain a choice?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, depending on the recommendations of the Travel Industry Council and also the advice of the Advisory Committee on Travel Agents when we proceed to consult them, we would be prepared to consider any workable solutions.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Target Oriented Curriculum Programme
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG asked (in Chinese): The Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC) programme will be introduced by the Government in Primary One classes in 70 primary schools with effect from September this year, and full implementation of the programme will take place in September 1996. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how the mechanism to be set up by the relevant authority to undertake periodic reviews of the TOC programme will operate, and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1659
(b) what measures will be adopted by the Government to assess the effectiveness of the TOC programme?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President,
(a) The Director of Education intends to establish soon a committee to monitor the phased introduction of the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC) starting in the school year 1995-96. The membership of the committee is being finalized, and is likely to include educationalists, school principals and teachers as well as parents. The committee will meet regularly to monitor the progress of the implementation plan, identify problems arising from implementation and recommend solutions. It will also evaluate the effectiveness of TOC during implementation and advise the Director on future development.
(b) The effectiveness of TOC can be measured among the three target groups below using the following criteria:
(a) For pupils
* cognitive development — whether there is better development in pupils' thinking and communication skills;
* learning behaviour — whether there is more active, pleasurable and effective participation in learning activities;
* attitude — whether pupils' attitude towards school work is more positive, confident and independent;
* achievements — whether pupils' achievements at the end of primary or secondary education are higher in terms of their ability
to apply what they have learned in school to their daily life.
(b) For schools and teachers
* whether more effective teaching is being adopted through better planned and more stimulating approach, tailored to meet the
pupils' abilities and needs.
(c) For parents
* whether parents are better informed about their children's progress, strengths and weaknesses in specific areas of
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1660 learning and measures to deal with the weaknesses identified.
The means of measurement can include questionnaires, observations and assessments of performance in the three core subjects of Chinese, English and Mathematics. A decision on the specific techniquest to be employed will be made after taking advice from the monitoring committee.
Remuneration of Part-Time Court Interpreters
8. MR MOSES CHENG asked (in Chinese): The remuneration of part-time court interpreters is of a relatively low level which makes it difficult to attract suitable people to take up the job. In a recent trial of an assault case, the progress of the trial has been impeded because of difficulties in finding a part-time court interpreter who speaks the Wenzhou dialect. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of times that part-time court interpreters were employed by the Judiciary in the past year;
(b) of the amount of money allocated to the Judiciary for employing part-time court interpreters this year, and whether the allocation is sufficient;
(c) of the current method of calculating the remuneration of part-time court interpreters; and whether such method of calculation differs from the method of calculating the remuneration of part-time interpreters employed by tribunals established by the Government such as the Insider Dealing Tribunal; if so, why there is such a difference; and
(d) whether the Government will review the remuneration system of part-time court interpreters shortly so as to attract suitable people to take up the job, thus ensuring that the normal operation of the court is not affected?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, the Judiciary engages part-time interpreters in cases where interpretation service cannot be provided by the full-time Court Interpreters. These are mostly cases involving foreign languages (other than English and Cantonese) or involving dialects not commonly spoken in Hong Kong. When interpretation is required for a foreign language or a dialect which is rarely spoken in Hong Kong, particularly when a trial is complex and involves technical subjects, the Judiciary has occasionally encountered difficulties in finding suitable interpreters. This is usually due to the scarcity of persons fluent in both English and the foreign language or dialect concerned. Many of these freelance interpreters have their own regular work
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1661
and cannot spare the time to do the court interpretation at the specified time. The level of remuneration is not usually the problem, but where it appears to be a significant inhibiting factor in a particular case, the Judiciary Administrator may exercise her discretion to authorize a higher rate.
In the particular case referred to in the question, interpretation of the Wenzhou dialect was required. There were three freelance interpreters on the Judiciary's register at the time. However, one of them was away from Hong Kong at the time of the trial, and another declined to do the court interpretation for this case because he knew some of the people involved in it. The remaining interpreter was engaged by the Judiciary, but was objected to by the defence on the first day of the trial. The case, therefore, had to be adjourned. Another interpreter was subsequently engaged through a private sector agency.
The specific information requested in parts (a) to (d) of the question is as follows:
(a) In the last financial year, the total number of times that part-time interpreters were engaged by the Judiciary was 9 402, involving a total of 24 700 man hours of work.
(b) The amount of money allocated to the Judiciary for employing part-time interpreters in the current financial year is $4.63 million. This is likely to be inadequate because of an unexpected increase in demand for foreign language interpreters. To quote an example, there was a recent 398-day trial which required interpretation for a significant number of Vietnamese speaking witnesses.
(c) The current rate of remuneration of part-time court interpreters engaged by the Judiciary is the same as that applicable to other non-government interpreters engaged by government departments. The Judiciary's rate is determined by reference to the market rate, although the two rates are not strictly comparable, as the market rate also cover elements like overheads, profit margin, and so on, which are not applicable in the case of the Judiciary's rate. The method of calculating the remuneration of part-time interpreters employed by tribunals under the Administration follows that adopted by the Judiciary. Special rates may be paid in some particular cases heard by these tribunals, having regard to their complexity and technical nature.
(d) The rate of remuneration of part-time interpreters is reviewed every two years. A review is currently being conducted. The Judiciary is also reviewing the feasibility of engaging staff on a contract basis for the provision of foreign language interpretation which has become increasingly common in the courts, such as Tagalog interpretation.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1662 Organizational Structure of Clearing House
9. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) it is aware of the organizational structure of the clearing house operating under the Hong Kong Stock Exchange; if so, what the organizational structure is; and
(b) it will consider allowing investors to open accounts directly with the clearing house; if so, whether there will be any government department responsible for handling complaints lodged by investors who have suffered losses; if not, what the reasons are?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) The Government is aware of the organizational structure of the Hong Kong Securities Clearing Company Limited (Clearing Company). It is a non-profit distributing company, incorporated for the purpose of establishing and operating a centralized securities clearing and settlement system for Hong Kong. The primary function of the Clearing Company is to provide services for the clearing and settlement of transactions in securities admitted into the Central Clearing and Settlement System (CCASS) and effected on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the Stock Exchange).
The Clearing Company is a company limited by guarantee of HK$50 million and has six members: the Stock Exchange, Bank of China, Hang Seng Bank Limited, Standard Chartered Bank, The Bank of East Asia Limited and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. The Stock Exchange provides 50% of the guarantee and each of the member banks provides 10%.
It is governed by a Board of Directors comprising 10 Stock Exchange appointees, an appointee from each of the five member banks, five directors appointed by the Financial Secretary to represent the public interest, and the Chief Executives of the Stock Exchange and the Clearing Company.
(b) The Clearing Company was designed to provide "wholesale" automated clearing and settlement services to financial intermediaries, such as stockbrokers and banks. Investors are not able to participate in CCASS directly. They must use financial intermediaries, such as stockbrokers and custodians, to access Clearing Company services.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1663
The question of allowing investors to open accounts directly with CCASS is one which would continue to be reviewed by the Clearing Company and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). The matter requires considerable thought and analysis. The following issues, among others, would need to be addressed.
One of the main roles of the Clearing Company is to act as settlement counterparty to all stockbrokers. This role controls the systemic risks of broker defaults. If investors were to participate in CCASS, they would add risk and cost to CCASS operations. Investor access to CCASS would require consideration of what risk management measures would apply to investors and how much they would be required to pay to participate in CCASS. This raises the question of whether investors would be willing to pay the necessary costs.
The Securities (Clearing Houses) Ordinance would need to be reviewed to determine whether legislative amendments would be necessary if the Clearing Company were to change its role from being a wholesale clearing house to also become a retail clearing house.
Another question is whether the Clearing Company is the appropriate entity to provide investors with access to CCASS. This question requires analysis of the appropriate roles of not only the Clearing Company, but also the Stock Exchange and listed companies and their registrars who under the Companies Ordinance are responsible for recording and transferring ownership interests of the company shareholders.
Investors' participation in CCASS would not be a panacea. Even if investors were to have direct access to CCASS, they would still remain at risk during the settlement process if a broker or custodian has defaulted or become incapacitated.
The handling of complaints lodged by investors concerning market matters rests primarily with the Stock Exchange and the SFC. An investor who has suffered pecuniary loss as a result of any act done in the course of, or in connection with, the stockbroking business of a stockbroker in relation to any money or securities entrusted to the stockbroker or his employees may claim compensation from the Compensation Fund pursuant to section 109 of the Securities Ordinance. The Compensation Fund is set up by legislation, funded in part by transaction levy and administered by the Stock Exchange and the SFC.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1664 Employment of Construction Workers for Airport Project
10. MR HENRY TANG asked: Regarding the employment of construction workers for the Chek Lap Kok Airport project, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the number of local construction workers who have been interviewed for employment by the project contractors since the commencement of the construction works; among these workers, how many have been employed and in what main positions they are employed; how many have been rejected and for what reasons; and
(b) the respective numbers of illegal workers who have been arrested and contractors who have been charged since the commencement of the construction works?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, up to 31 December 1994, a total of 11 962 construction workers have been employed on the Chek Lap Kok Airport project and other Airport Core Programme (ACP) projects. Of this total, 8 751 or 73.2 % are local workers. It has been a long-standing tradition of the local construction industry that workers are employed directly by contractors and subcontractors on a contract by contract basis. The employment of construction workers for ACP works follows the same pattern. For this reason, very few local construction workers use the Local Employment Service (LES) of the Labour Department as a channel to seek employment. The total number of construction workers who are registered with the LES at any one time is about 200.
We therefore do not have any statistics on the number of local workers who were interviewed by the ACP project contractors and the number of such workers who were not offered employment. However, in accordance with the arrangement under the existing special labour importation scheme for ACP projects, employers who wish to import labour are required to register their vacancies with the LES of the Labour Department for a minimum period of four weeks in order that local workers are given first priority to apply for them. The Labour Department will also send such information to the construction workers' union, inviting their members to make use of the Department's employment service or to make direct referrals to the contractors concerned. These measures have been in place since October 1992.
Up to now, a total of 539 referrals of local construction workers have been made to contractors for selection interview through the LES. In addition, the Construction Industry Employees General Union and the Shipbuilding, Machinery and Steel Industries Employees General Union have made 103 direct referrals to the contractors. As a result, a total of 105 of such referrals have resulted in employment. 480 have been rejected by the contractors for various reasons, including inappropriate working experience and poor performance
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1665 during the interviews, 28 have declined offers and 29 are still waiting for the results.
Local construction workers for ACP projects have been employed mainly in positions such as carpenters, concreters, crew, electricians, bar-benders, welders, skilled and unskilled labourers.
So far, no illegal workers have been arrested at the Chek Lap Kok Airport project site. No ACP contractors have so far been charged for employing illegal immigrants.
Recruitment of Local Workers for Airport Project
11. MR PANG CHUN-HOI asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council whether it will consider setting up a special division in the Labour Department responsible for co-ordinating the recruitment of local workers for the New Airport Project and stepping up publicity for such work, so as to ensure that local workers are accorded priority in employment?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, at present, the Tsuen Wan Office of the Local Employment Service of the Labour Department is co-ordinating efforts in the recruitment of local workers for the New Airport and related projects. Additional resources have been earmarked in 1995-96 for the establishment of a special placement team comprising one Labour Officer, two Assistant Labour Officers and two Clerical Officers in the Labour Department to strengthen co-ordination of the work in the recruitment of local workers for the Airport Core Programme projects and to step up publicity on such work.
Sale of Counterfeit Goods in Tourist Areas
12. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the Government is aware that there are many hawkers selling counterfeit goods of famous brand names in tourist areas such as Tsim Sha Tsui; and
(b) what actions the Government will take to eradicate these illegal activities in the tourist areas so that Hong Kong's reputation as the "shoppers' paradise" will not be damaged?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1666
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the Government is aware of the problem, but the operational experience of the Customs and Excise Department indicates that only a small proportion of hawkers in tourist areas are engaged in selling counterfeit goods.
To combat this problem, the Customs and Excise Department conducts frequent raids on hawker blacksports, gathers intelligence from trademark owners and liaises closely with other government departments, such as the police and the Urban Services Department, in operations against hawking of counterfeit goods. In 1994, there were 356 counterfeiting cases involving hawkers, resulting in seizure of 40 906 items valued at $2.37 million.
In addition to street-level operations, the Department also conducts raids against places where counterfeit goods are stored. In 1994, 62 storage places were detected, resulting in 68 arrests and the seizure of 616 178 items valued at $24.15 million.
Apart from enforcement action, publicity has also been stepped up to emphasize that counterfeiting is an offence and that the availability of counterfeit goods in Hong Kong damages Hong Kong's international reputation.
Continuous Night Shift Scheme of Hospital Authority
13. MR MICHAEL HO asked (in Chinese): Regarding the Continuous Night Shift Scheme implemented by the Hospital Authority in mid-1994 to minimize the wastage of nurses, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of hospitals in the territory which have applied to join this scheme and the respective numbers of nurses who have been given approval to join this scheme in each of the participating hospitals;
(b) what are the criteria adopted by the Hospital Authority to appraise the applications filed by the hospitals;
(c) whether there are any hospitals whose applications to join the scheme have been turned down, if so, what the reasons are;
(d) of the total resources allocated by the Hospital Authority to this scheme together with a breakdown of the resources allocated to each participating hospital; and
(e) when this scheme will be reviewed; and how the Government will monitor and assess its effectiveness?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1667
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, as at 12 January 1995, 117 nurses in 16 public hospitals have joined the Continuous Night Shift Scheme. A detailed breakdown is attached.
Since the key objective of this Scheme is to reduce the frequency of night shift for nurses to an average of once per week, the applications filed by individual hospitals are evaluated by the Hospital Authority Head Office based on their operational requirements and the expected outcome. So far, only one application was rejected.
The Hospital Authority has provided sufficient resources for individual hospitals to carry out the service targets contained in their business plans. Hospitals implementing the Scheme are operating within their annual budget but additional resources could be allocated to them if necessary. A review of the effectiveness of the Scheme is expected to be completed by February 1995.
Breakdown of Hospitals Implementing the
Continuous Night Shift Scheme as at 12 January 1995
Hospital Number of staff
Prince of Wales Hospital 14
United Christian Hospital 4
Tsan Yuk Hospital 10
Caritas Medical Centre 2
Tuen Mun Hospital 10
Tung Wah Hospital 1
Queen Mary Hospital 17
St. John Hospital 1
Kwong Wah Hospital 9
Princess Margaret Hospital 2
Yan Chai Hospital 11
Grantham Hospital 15
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1668 Hospital Number of staff
Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital
10
Nam Long Hospital 2
Queen Elizabeth Hospital 9
-----
117
Safe Operation of New Airport Runways
14. MR SAMUEL WONG (in Chinese): It is learnt that the reclaimed land on which the Kansai International Airport in Osaka, Japan is sited has been continuously subsiding since the airport came into operation. This has led to worries from many people in the territory that the same problem would happen in the Chek Lap Kok New Airport. Although officials from the New Airport Projects Co-ordination Office have stated that the soil of the two sites and the reclamation methods employed are different, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it will consider requiring the Provisional Airport Authority (PAA) and the contractors for the project to take out insurance for the runways during the construction period and after they are brought into use, so that adequate compensation can be claimed to cover the repair cost of the runways and associated facilities in case of a subsidence; and
(b) whether, in considering the safety and operation of the runways, the PAA will, apart from adopting the design provided by the project consultants or contractors, invite a third party such as an insurance company to conduct an independent assessment of the safe operation of the runways; if not, what the reasons are?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,
(a) As mentioned in our reply to a Member's question raised on 10 November 1993, the unique experience at the new Kansai Airport in Japan is not applicable to Chek Lap Kok. There is no evidence so far of the reclamation site having problems with soil settlement. Based on studies of other major reclamation works and observations on a test embankment constructed at Chek Lap Kok in 1982, the Provisional Airport Authority (PAA) adopted a technique which involved the removal of upper layers of soft marine mud. With this
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1669
removed, it is estimated that the average settlement of reclamation areas will be between 40 cm and 50 cm over a long period. Prediction of settlement, in particular the rate at which it occurs, is always difficult because of variations in geological conditions. Instrumentation has therefore been installed to monitor settlement as reclamation progresses and results so far confirm that the settlement is performing within our expectations. Provision has already been made to accelerate settlement by mechanical means or surcharge, which are normal practices in Hong Kong.
The responsibility for settlement performance lies with the platform designers, while designers for follow-on works such as runways, drainage and so on must ensure that their designs take into account anticipated settlements. The Government is satisfied that the PAA have, through their consultants or contractors, sufficient insurance in place to cover the design and construction of the New Airport. Details on the construction insurance as advised by the PAA is as follows:
(i) The Government requires the PAA to effect and maintain through their consultants or contractors, Professional Indemnity insurance in respect of design of the airport project which, subject to availability, is to continue in effect for a period up to 10 years after completion of the project;
(ii) Greiner Maunsell, the Master Plan Consultants, who were responsible for preparation of the design of the Airport Platform, have Professional Indemnity insurance in place under their Agreement with the PAA dated 14 July 1990; and
(iii) Mitchell, McFarlane Brentall and Partners International Limited and WS Atkins and Partners, Overseas, the designers of the airport runways and pavements, also have Professional Indemnity insurance up to the maximum available in the international insurance market of £10 million which is to be maintained (to the extent that it continues to be available) for a period of 12 years after completion of the works.
(b) The New Airport will require an Aerodrome Licence from the Director of Civil Aviation prior to opening for normal commercial operations. This will include the need to confirm the runway is safe for full operation. The Government and the PAA are currently considering the procedures that will be involved to complete the Aerodrome Licence process.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1670 Psychogeriatric Services
15. DR LAM KUI-CHUN asked (in Chinese): It is reported that 30% of the elderly people in the territory, totalling over 160,000, suffer from mental illness of varying degrees. However, there are only 20 psychogeriatric practitioners and five outreaching teams for psychogeriatric services in the territory. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the measures to be taken to enhance the provision of services for the elderly suffering from mental illness, and
(b) whether additional resources will be provided for the development of different types of psychogeriatric rehabilitation services, such as extending the scope of services of the outreaching teams beyond providing services in the care and attention homes?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, most of the mental illnesses suffered by elderly people in Hong Kong are mild in nature and can be appropriately treated by primary care physicians.
For the elderly with more severe mental illness which require specialist psychiatric care, a comprehensive spectrum of services are available in the public sector including acute care, extended care, ambulatory care and community care. These services are staffed by well-qualified psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists, social workers and other health care workers in the medical as well as social welfare services.
The Hospital Authority has developed psychogeriatric services as a sub-specialty development of psychiatry. The intention of establishing these teams is to offer expert care to special cases, and especially to develop outreach community care programmes. This will augment the quality of care by ensuring continuity of care through close collaboration with other carers and by providing appropriate early detection and intervention of patients with special mental illness. For the most cost-effective use of resources, these teams are currently concentrating on the larger elderly homes where they can see more patients per visit, and train up the staff to better care for a larger number of patients.
The Working Group on Care for the Elderly has recommended that four additional psychogeriatric teams be set up to cater for projected demand. To this end, funds have already been secured for the Hospital Authority to set up a new psychogeriatric team in 1995-96 to serve the eastern part of Hong Kong. Funds for the remaining three teams will be sought.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1671 Traffic Accidents on Tolo Highway
16. REV FUNG CHI-WOOD asked (in Chinese): On the Tolo Highway on 4 December last year, a truck smashed into the rear of a highway maintenance vehicle which had a big arrow signal light on display. The truck pushed the vehicle forward for more than 100 metres before it stopped, and the truck driver sustained serious injuries and died. In connection with this, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the details of the accident and the location at which the highway maintenance vehicle was parked;
(b) whether the operation of highway maintenance vehicles as well as road sweepers is a common cause giving rise to traffic accidents; and
(c) whether the Government has issued any guidelines on the safe operation of such vehicles; and whether consideration will be given to introducing further safety measures?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) This traffic accident occurred at about 3.30 pm on 4 December 1994. A Highways Department contractor was collecting traffic signs and cones from the fast lane of the Tolo Highway Northbound near the Ma Liu Shui interchange with the Tate's Cairn Highway, following completion of road maintenance works at that location. Part of the lane was closed to traffic at that time. To draw motorists' attention to this, advance warning signs were placed at both sides of the northbound carriageway at 600 m, 400 m, 200 m and 100 m before the beginning of the closed part of the lane. In addition, vehicle equipped with a yellow flashing arrow sign was positioned at the start of the closed section, to direct traffic into the adjacent lane.
Despite these warning signs, a light goods vehicle crashed into the rear of the sign vehicle and pushed it forward about 36 m before it came to a halt. The accident resulted in a fatal injury to the driver of the light goods vehicle, slight injury to the driver of the sign vehicle and serious damage to both vehicles.
(b) The operation of highways maintenance vehicles, including road sweepers, is not a common cause of traffic accidents.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1672
(c) The Code of Practice for the Lighting, Signing and Guarding of Road Works contains clear guidelines for the safety of road works and for the operation of road maintenance vehicles. The code includes special requirements for work on expressways. This document is currently being reviewed by the Highways Department, the Transport Department and the police with a view to improving road safety requirements. The measures being considered include the mounting of strobe lights on maintenance vehicles 4.5 m above road level to make them more visible to drivers at a greater distance.
Widening Pavement North of Cenotaph Square
17. MR JIMMY McGREGOR asked: Will the Government inform this Council whether it will take steps to widen the pavement running along the north wall of the Cenotaph square (on the southern side of Connaught Road Central) to allow safer movement of pedestrians?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the section of footpath in Connaught Road Central north of the Cenotaph is about one metre wide. While this may seem quite narrow, the footpath is not heavily used. Widening the footpath would require setting back the existing wall and reducing the size of the Cenotaph square turfed area.
We will study this proposal further in consultation with concerned departments, taking account of the need to ensure pedestrian safety. I will write to the Honourable Member on the outcome in due course. (Annex VI)
Licence on External Circuits for Intra-Corporate Telecommunications
18. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): It is stated in the Policy Commitments of the 1994 Policy Address that the Government will issue licences to allow companies and organizations to provide their own "external circuits for intra-corporate telecommunications" in the early part of this year. In connection with this, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) what is the progress so far in the issue of such licences and what are the terms for granting such a licence; and
(b) what companies and organizations are eligible to apply for such a licence?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1673 SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) The drafting of the new "self-provision" licence is substantially completed. We have circulated the draft licence to the telecommunications industry for consultation and are considering, together with the Law Draftsman, the comments received for incorporation into the proposed licence.
As regards the terms of the licence, the licence will permit the licensee to set up an external private circuit, such as by satellite, for its own communications use. The licensee will not be allowed to offer any external public telecommunications service and the self-provided circuit will not be allowed to be connected to any public telecommunications network in Hong Kong unless for the specific purpose of connecting up the various locations of the licensee's business in Hong Kong as approved by the Telecommunications Authority.
(b) Any legal person such as a company or an organization is eligible to apply for a licence. A licence will be granted if the Telecommunications Authority is satisfied that the licence conditions could reasonably be complied with.
Monitoring of Office Market
19. DR DAVID LI asked: The "Review of the Office Market" prepared by the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch does not recommend any administrative measures to stabilize office prices/rents in the short term. However, in the Government's June 1994 announcement, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands mentioned that, having implemented measures intended to cool residential prices, the commercial property market is now subject to the attention of the property task force. The Government has not stated categorically that their November 1994 announcement has superseded their June 1994 announcement and investors are left to wonder as to whether or not there would be government intervention in the commercial property market. Moreover, Hong Kong office rentals are the highest compared with its major competitors in the Asia-Pacific region, making Hong Kong the most expensive business centre in the region. Although the supply will increase significantly after 1996, there is no indication that the rentals will drop significantly as the demand remains strong. Will the Government inform this Council, besides increased supply, what other short-term and medium-term measures will be implemented to monitor the commercial property market on one hand, and ease the pressure of rental increase on the other?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1674
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, in July 1994, a working group was established under the Task Force on Land Supply and Property Prices to review the commercial property market. The objectives of the review were to establish whether there was a problem and, if so, to recommend measures to ameliorate the situation. The Report on the Review of the Office Market, published in November 1994, concluded that there was no case for government intervention in the office market, but there was a need to monitor the situation.
Since then, we have been monitoring the office market closely. A Report entitled "Updated Property Market Statistics for the Domestic and Office Sectors" is compiled monthly by the Rating and Valuation Department. In order to make the Report more comprehensive, we have recently included a rental index for selected office developments, a report on supply and a forecast of supply of office premises.
The statistics suggests that office rentals have softened since the last quarter of 1994. This is attributed to increased supply and a slight fall in demand. Some 500 000 sq m of office space were completed in 1994, which is 21% more than in 1993. The forecast supply for 1995 and 1996 totals about 950 000 sq m and substantial additional supply is expected to come on stream later. While the supply of Grade A accommodation in core Central will remain tight during the next two years or so, there will be a healthy supply in other districts. This, coupled with the supply coming from composite industrial/office buildings, should be sufficient to meet demand in the years to come.
Despite rising rents, the number of overseas companies operating in Hong Kong has continued to increase since 1991. This reflects our underlying competitiveness and the fact that rent is only one of several key operating costs. With businesses continuing to find Hong Kong an attractive place to operate and given the healthy supply forecast, we still see no need for government intervention now or in the foreseeable future. Close monitoring of the situation will continue however.
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
FILM CENSORSHIP (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
OCCUPATIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1675 EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
FILM CENSORSHIP (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Film Censorship Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Film Censorship (Amendment) Bill 1995.
The object of the Bill is to give effect to the policy changes arising from the public opinion survey conducted by the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA) in 1994, as well as to make minor amendments to the Film Censorship Ordinance to improve its operation.
In order to gauge the prevailing standards of morality and propriety of the public so that the film censorship standards and film classification system adopted by TELA can keep pace with changes in social attitudes, TELA conducts a public opinion survey once every two years. The latest such survey was completed in early 1994.
Let me briefly outline the main findings of the 1994 survey. First of all, there is strong support for TELA to continue its role as the film censorship authority. We are also heartened to learn that the film censorship standards adopted by TELA resemble closely those held by the majority of respondents. In response to the public's wish for clearer standards governing the depiction of triads, imitable criminal behaviour and perverted sexual behaviour in films, additional film censorship guidelines covering these matters have been formulated and will be gazetted on 27 January.
The results of the survey as a whole demonstrate general public support for the existing three-tier classification system and standards, and I wish to emphasize here that we have no intention of changing this three-tier system. All our new measures will be incorporated within this three-tier framework.
However, there are two important issues arising from the survey which need to be addressed by legislative amendments. Firstly, there is a clear and strong support for imposing more stringent control on the public display of Category III film posters in view of the public nuisance they caused. More than 70% of the respondents wished to see posters for Category III films being subject to censorship, as opposed to the present arrangement whereby film posters are regulated under the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1676
Ordinance through a voluntary submission system. Secondly, the findings indicated that the existing Category II classification embraced a very broad range of films. A refinement of this classification into two sub-categories would help provide more information to the public, in particular parents, to choose films for their children or for themselves.
Mr President, I would now like to highlight the important clauses of the Bill.
To implement the refinement to the existing Category II classification, clause 6 of the Bill enables film censors to classify Category II films as either "Not suitable for children below 12 and parental guidance is recommended" or "Not suitable for persons below 18". Same as the existing Category II, these two sub-categories are advisory in nature. The purpose is simply to provide more information in the form of age advice to movie-goers. I should add that in terms of the standards to be applied, we are not changing the goal posts.
In the light of the overwhelming public support for tightening control on the public display and publication of posters of Category III films, clause 15 of the Bill makes it a compulsory requirement that advertising materials of Category III films must be submitted to TELA for approval prior to public display or distribution. The reason for the control to apply to all advertising materials of Category III films is to ensure that the use of excessively offensive material for film promotion will not be permitted, whether in the form of film posters, newspaper advertisement, stills, billboards or handbills. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for one year.
To cater for the situation where publicity for a film needs to start prior to obtaining a classification, clause 15 introduces an arrangement whereby advertising materials of all films intended for exhibition can be submitted to TELA for examination on a voluntary basis.
We are also proposing other minor changes to the Film Censorship Ordinance. These changes include the following:
(a) To cater for the common situation whereby alterations and additions such as subtitles and soundtracks are made to an approved film when it is published as videotapes or laserdiscs, TELA is empowered under clause 9 to examine videotapes and laserdiscs which contain alterations to the version approved and to give an appropriate classification;
(b) In line with the expansion in the scope of the Film Censorship Ordinance, clauses 17, 18 and 19 expand the terms of reference of the Board of Review so that the Board can in future review TELA's decisions not only in respect of films, but also their advertising materials and packaging; and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1677
(c) The number of non-official members of the Board of Review will be increased from six to eight to allow for greater community participation.
Mr President, the aim of our film censorship policy is to maintain a balance between the need to protect public morals on the one hand, whilst safeguarding freedom of expression and artistic creation as well as the rights of the individual to information on the other. I believe that our proposal to require advertising materials for Category III films to be approved before publication is a necessary measure to achieve this fine balance. I hope that this, together with other proposals in the Bill, will gain the support of Members.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
OCCUPATIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Occupational Retirement Schemes Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, this Bill seeks to amend the principal Ordinance so as to enable the Registrar of Occupational Retirement Schemes to regulate and monitor private retirement schemes more effectively. The proposals would allow greater flexibility in the investment of scheme assets without compromising the safeguards. This is in line with our overall objective of ensuring that private occupational retirement schemes are properly managed and funded, thus providing greater certainty that retirement benefits will be paid to scheme members when they fall due.
The Bill's primary proposal seeks to resolve practical difficulties encountered by trustee administrators of pooled schemes in complying with the statutory requirement to separate the assets of each participating scheme in a pooling agreement. Pooled schemes account for the majority of all private occupational retirement schemes. In practice, pool administrators combine not only the administrative duties but also the assets of each participating scheme. Strict separation of assets between each of the participating schemes is costly to administer, inhibits diversification of investment and results in lower returns for scheme members. Inevitably, this in turn discourages the small-scale employers from establishing a scheme within a pool. To overcome these problems, pooling of assets will be permitted. There will be two safeguards. Firstly, the assets of each scheme will have to be kept separate from those of the employer and remain under trust. Secondly, the annual accounts of each scheme maintained by the trustee administrator of a pooling agreement will be required to conform to a common accounting year, and be audited by the same auditor.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1678
The Bill's second purpose is to seek to relax statutory investment restrictions upon scheme assets but without compromising safeguards against fraud or mismanagement. The statutory investment restrictions have been criticized by scheme administrators as being too severe. They have a point. Investment in mutual funds is prohibited, as is investment in shares not listed on the Unified Exchange or any stock market not recognized by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), for instance, in shares on emerging stock market such as Taiwan, Indonesia and Spain. We consider these criticisms and concerns justified and propose to relax the restriction by allowing scheme administrators to invest up to 100% of a scheme's assets in mutual funds, and up to 15% of the assets in the listed shares of companies on stock exchanges not recognized by the SFC but legally established and regulated as stock exchanges in accordance with the laws of the jurisdictions in which they are established. Investment in private companies will, however, continue to be prohibited.
The Bill also proposes to make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Ordinance to facilitate administration of schemes by the Registrar. These amendments briefly include —
- the imposing of a requirement to obtain the approval of the Registrar before any changes are made to the registered particulars of a scheme which may materially alter the grounds upon which the scheme has been registered;
- the imposing of penalties for breaches of such requirements;
- the empowering of the Registrar to amend the Occupational Retirement Scheme Register, and to prescribe the payment of fees for changes in scheme particulars; to cancel registration of a scheme upon its termination or winding up; and to make rules relating to approval and notification procedures for changes.
Mr President, with these remarks, I commend the Occupational Retirement Schemes (Amendment) Bill 1995 to this Council.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Employment Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1995.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1679
This Bill seeks to improve the amount of severance payment and long service payment for long-serving workers, and to rectify some ambiguities in the provisions of maternity leave and sickness allowance under the Employment Ordinance.
At present, an employee's entitlement to severance payment and long service payment is calculated at the rate of two-thirds of a month's wages for each year of service, subject to a maximum limit of 12 months' wages or $180,000, whichever is the less. This arrangement has the effect of limiting the reckonable service of an employee to 18 years.
To enable long-serving employees to earn severance payment and long service payment beyond 18 years, we now propose to remove the ceiling of 12 months' aggregate wages. The years of reckonable service for the calculation of severance payment and long service payment will be increased from the current limit of 18 years to 25 years, plus 50 % of any remaining service immediately upon enactment of this Bill. This limit will be increased by two years on 1 October 1995, and every subsequent year until it reaches 43 years on 1 October 2003. There will be no ceiling as from 1 October 2004, which means that all years of service will be reckoned. The absolute payment ceiling will also be increased from the current limit of $180,000 to $210,000 when the amendment takes effect. This ceiling will be increased by $20,000 on 1 October 1995, and on 1 October of every subsequent year until it reaches $390,000 on 1 October 2003. This comprehensive and forward-looking package of improvements will provide substantial improvements to severance payment and long service payment immediately for our hardworking labour force, and in the long term, further enhancement of the benefits, as it will raise both the absolute payment ceiling and the reckonable length of service on a gradual basis and within a definite timetable.
Let me now turn to the provisions on maternity protection. At present, a female employee who has been employed by the same employer under a continuous contract for a period of not less than 26 weeks shall be entitled to maternity leave. However, the law is silent on how to count the 26 weeks when the pregnant employee is about to take maternity leave. We propose to remove this ambiguity by specifying in the law that the 26-week period should be counted backward from the expected date of commencement of maternity leave. To improve protection to pregnant employees, we also propose to make late payment of maternity leave pay an offence liable to a maximum fine of $10,000.
Under the existing provisions of the Employment Ordinance, an employer is not liable to pay sickness allowance to an employee unless the employee meets the specific requirements in the Ordinance. Among other things, the day of sickness has to be specified in an appropriate medical certificate issued by a medical practitioner. However, as the law now stands, a medical certificate issued by a registered dentist is not regarded as an appropriate medical certificate. An employee having encountered a dental injury or received a dental surgical operation requiring a few days' sick leave is at present unable to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1680
receive any sickness allowance. To rectify this anomaly, we now propose to include the medical certificate issued by a registered dentist as a valid document for the purpose of claiming sickness allowance.
Mr President, the proposals in the Bill are the result of very careful deliberations by the Labour Advisory Board (LAB). They contain further improvements to provisions in the earlier version of the Bill which was withdrawn before the Third Reading on 14 December 1994. Those earlier proposals had been recommended by the LAB and represented the delicate balance achieved through serious negotiations by the employers' and employees' representatives serving on the Board. We therefore felt it was essential to take the matter back to the LAB for further discussion. I should like to reassure this Council that the sole purpose was to enable us to consult the LAB again on the important issue of severance payment and long service payment. This new package of improvements put together by the LAB at two special meetings last month takes fully into account the interests of both the employers and employees and the views of this Council's Members and the community. I am pleased to note there has been general support for this new package.
I should like to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks to the members of the LAB for their understanding, co-operation and patience in the formulation of the package of proposals in this Bill. The progressive improvement to long service payment and severance payment with a definite timetable is a major step forward in improving employees' welfare.
I should also like to thank Members of the Legislative Council Manpower Panel for their support for the proposals in the Bill and I share their wish for a speedy passage through the Council today.
Mr President, I move under Standing Order 42(3A) that the Second Reading debate on this Bill shall not be adjourned and the debate be proceeded with now.
I am moving this motion to enable the above Bill to be passed in one single sitting today, so that all the improvements we have proposed for the provisions of severance payment and long service payment, as well as the clarifications of the provisions for maternity leave and medical certificates under this Bill, can take effect as soon as possible. The LAB, the Manpower Panel of this Council and the representatives of the political parties whom I met in the last couple of weeks all expressed an earnest wish, which I fully share, for the speedy enactment of this Bill.
I therefore propose that the three readings of the Bill should be taken in one sitting today to enable all eligible workers to benefit from these proposals without any further delay. I commend this Bill to Members for passage in one sitting.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1681 Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR PANG CHUN-HOI (in Cantonese): Mr President, today is actually the third time the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1995 is tabled for this Council's consideration.
As far as I remember, the Bill was negatived by this Council during the Third Reading in July last year. In last December the Bill managed to pass through the Committee stage but was subsequently withdrawn by the Government, resulting in the resignation in protest by the infuriated Mr LAU Chin-shek. I personally have deep sympathy with Mr LAU and am extremely displeased with the way the Government dealt with the matter. Renewed discussion on the issue was later conducted by the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and the amount of severance payment as well as that of long service payment were subsequently set at a level higher than what were provided for by the previous Bill. A schedule was also attached which clearly set out that the qualifying years of service and the compensation would be uplifted by phases with a view to eventually abolishing the ceiling for qualifying years of service and the amount of compensation. The new Bill is still far from ideal. For instance, the ceiling for reckonable wages is still maintained at $15,000; and the discretion for dismissing or laying off workers is still totally initiated by employers. Nevertheless, the representatives of both parties in the LAB have obviously done their best to finally reach this consensus, which is not at all an easy task.
Mr President, over the past few decades, representatives of both parties in the LAB, particularly representatives of the employees, have to be elected into this consultative organ by registered trade unions all over the territory by means of voting. Both my colleagues, Mr SZETO Wah and Mr TAM Yiu-chung, have formerly been elected as representatives of the employees to serve on the LAB. During the period from the 60s to 80s, I myself too have served on the LAB for 20 consecutive years and I deeply appreciate that, in the absence of a collective negotiating system in Hong Kong, the LAB can play a specific role and specifically discharge its function and effect. Therefore, I fully respect and accept the Bill as amended by the LAB.
Here, it is worth-mentioning that last year, that is, in the month just passed, after the Government has withdrawn the Bill, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Mr Michael HO who had each submitted a private Bill have, after taking the whole situation into account, automatically withdrawn the Bill for the sake of safeguarding the interests of low-income workers and those who have been
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1682
serving the same employer for a long period of time. For this reason, it is appropriate that the amended Bill should be able to pass through the First, Second and Third Reading in one go in this Council today.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
PRESIDENT: I would just remind Members that this is a procedural motion to take all three stages of the Bill today. The substantive debate on the Bill will arise later. So for Members who have indicated their wish to speak, do they wish to speak on the procedural motion only, leaving the debate on the Bill to follow later? Does any Member wish to speak on the procedural motion that we do not adjourn the debate?
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I support the motion. But I feel that this motion is being moved as a result of the fact that the Government "lose-exit, win-take" action last time. I hope this will never happen again. In fact, I think it will be more significant if Members are allowed to discuss a Bill at different stages. Nevertheless, as the Lunar New Year is approaching and as this is the time when many people may be dismissed, I will take this as a special case and accept that the three stages be taken within the same day.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Thank you, Mr President. I would just like to clarify the point made by Mr FUNG on the Government's stance in withdrawing the Bill on 14 December last year. I would like to clarify once again for the record that the Government is acting in accordance with the Standing Orders of this Council, and there is no question of its not taking it properly in accordance with established procedures. I am sure this is an important point which the Council should understand, and the public should understand. This is a matter entirely within the Standing Orders of this Council that the Government withdrew the Bill for the reasons that I just mentioned in the debate. Thank you.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, if you are to choose between plain rice and rice with barbecued pork, what would be your choice? Which one would you choose for the wage earners? If someone abstains from voting for the "rice with barbecued pork" and if he is not a vegetarian advocate, do you think that he is fighting for the interests of the wage earners?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1683
The "plain rice" package was put forward by the Government on 14 December last year while the amended "rice with barbecued pork" package was proposed by Mr LAU Chin-shek. Although the "rice with barbecued pork" amendment was carried at Committee stage, the Government went so far as to make a "lose-exit win-take" gesture. Not only did the Government snatch away the "rice with barbecued pork", but it also withdraw the "plain rice" package it originally put forward. In the face of such a fact, who should be condemned?
Some people do not condemn the Government, instead, they condemn Mr LAU Chin-shek, blaming him for depriving the wage earners of their "plain rice". Thus, how far do these people represent the interest of the wage earners? They are but from the "whatever" clique which "opposes whatever the Democratic Party supports and supports whatever the Democratic Party opposes".
To protest against the Government's trampling on the spirit of council politics, Mr LAU Chin-shek has resorted to resigning. As "one rock (shek) excites a thousand (chin) waves", how many waves will be excited by a thousand rocks (chin shek)? A thousand of a thousand is one million, Mr LAU's resignation has agitated an indignant tide of justice with a million waves. In the face of this indignant tide, the Government could not but hurriedly do some damage control which results in the new package of "rice with barbecued pork and chicken" proposed today. Apart from plain rice and barbecued pork, chicken is also added which makes the new package even better than the "rice with barbecued pork" package. This benefit for the wage earners comes as a result of Mr LAU's resignation in protest. In this regard, all wage earners in the territory should thank Mr LAU and regret over his resignation.
Will any Member still abstain from voting or vote against today's "rice with barbecued pork and chicken" package? We will just wait and see.
There is still room for urgent improvement in today's "rice with barbecued pork and chicken" package. For instance, a wage earner will not be able to receive any long service payment if he resigns of his own accord; the ceiling on the total amount of long service payment will take 10 years to be abolished; the ceiling on monthly wages is only $15,000 and so on. The wage earners have not dreamed of having "shark's fin to go with rice". What they want are only a plate of vegetable and a bowl of soup in addition to rice with barbecued pork and chicken. The Democratic Party will continue to join force with the wage earners all over the territory in the fight for the vegetable and soup.
After the adjournment of today's meeting, Mr LAU Chin-shek will leave this Council. I firmly believe that his departure is only temporary. In October this year, he will definitely return to this Council. His close ally Mr LEE Cheuk-yan will participate in the by-election to fill his vacancy. I would like to call upon the territory's wage earners and the voters of Kowloon Central to support Mr LEE so that he can take over from Mr LAU Chin shek during Mr LAU's short absence from this Council and can speak loudly in this Council for the workers.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1684 Salute to the Honourable LAU Chin-shek!
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, fighting for better conditions of service for workers is worth supporting. But, the amendment to the Bill moved by Mr LAU Chin-shek on 14 December last year was just like suddenly "laying mines" in this Council which subsequently detonated in "explosive media coverage", almost blowing off the legs of the Government. Its fallout also tainted the Democratic Party and some Members of this Council. The Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and Members who were not directly involved in this matter were caught in a dilemma. Mr LAU himself had to pay the heftiest price for his political commitment by "removing his own name" from the establishment.
Hong Kong is a community led by a free economy. I believe what the public likes most is a harmonious relationship between employers and employees. When the economic conditions are favourable, both sides are benefited; but when adverse conditions reign, the two sides should work together to tide over the difficulty. Employers and employees should fairly and gradually share this "large pie of fortune". I do not believe the economy of Hong Kong is a menu from which people may choose their dishes freely. I believe anyone who cares about the interests of Hong Kong is well aware that he has to "cut his coat according to his cloth". However, with uncertain economic and political prospects, rising rents, increasing wages, tight liquidity, speedily diminishing marginal profits for businesses, the spectacular folding up in the recent two months of two Chinese newspapers, lay-off being contemplated by many organizations, little incentive for investment, and the "large pie of fortune" continuously reducing in size, the proposal of substantial improvement to the interests of workers at this juncture therefore will not only put the Government, this Council or the LAB in an awkward position, but will also make the burden of medium and small businesses heavier, making it hard for their operation to continue. This also fundamentally affects the harmonious relationship between employers and employees and will do more harm than good to the overall long-term development of Hong Kong.
The improvement on the conditions of service for workers as proposed by Mr LAU Chin-shek is, in principle, worth supporting. But the timing and the circumstances of the proposal are not in line with the actual economic situation, and he has even adopted an inappropriate means of "trying to force the amendment through". Even though the proposal may finally manage to realize the objective of unilaterally improving labour conditions, it is by no means the best outcome for the overall economy of Hong Kong. In fact, a lot of people would have to pay for what he fought for.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1685
Although my political views, the stance and the manner with which I dealt with this issue are obviously different from those of Mr LAU, I will say that he has displayed the highest degree of political ethics and moral integrity, qualities that are both rare and highly laudable and worthy of public admiration. I know my vote cannot affect the carrying of the motion today. Therefore, despite the fact that I think the Government's original package is better than the present one, in order to pay respect to Mr LAU for his responsible behaviour and hopefully to affirm that what he has done is worthwhile, I will vote for the Bill and make my first step towards better cooperation in the future.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Bill before the Council is undoubtedly more progressive than the one put forward by the Government last year. In particular, the Government finally agrees to deal with the current unreasonable limit of $180,000 as the ceiling on severance payment and long service payment, and to further improve the ceiling on the reckonable years of service. However, according to the timetable currently set for improving the ceilings on payments and reckonable years of service, it will take ten years for the ceiling on reckonable years of service to be fully abolished and the maximum payment increased to $390,000. The progress is so slow that it can only be termed as "snail-paced". How disappointing it is!
As a matter of fact, an amendment for immediate abolition of all ceilings on the amount of severance payment and long service payment and reckonable years of service was passed by this Council in July last year. Although the amendment was defeated during the Third Reading by only one vote, 25 colleagues did vote for the amendment. By tabling this "snail-paced" improvement package, the Administration is essentially ignoring the wish of nearly half of the Members of this Council!
In fact, the limitations imposed by the severance payment and long service payment legislation on the amount of compensation are not confined to the ceilings on the amount and reckonable years of service only. The existing legislation provides that, in calculating monthly wages, earnings more than $15,000 will be treated as $15,000 only. This ceiling on "monthly wages" also partly contributes to the unfairness of the existing legislation. The ceiling of $15,000 on monthly wages came into effect in 1990. In the past, the Government used to adjust the ceiling every three to four years, with the adjustment pegged to the rate of wage increases over the same period. But it is really puzzling that nearly five years have lapsed and yet there is no sign that the ceiling on monthly wages will be raised, regardless of the fact that wages have increased by nearly 50% in Hong Kong over the past four odd years.
For this reason, I urge the Administration to submit proposals to amend the legislation as soon as possible, with the ceiling on monthly wages raised from $15,000 to somewhere between $21,000 and $23,000.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1686
A fundamental problem with the long service payment is that the security it actually to provides falls short of what its name suggests!
Theoretically speaking, the only condition for receiving long service payment is having "long service" which can be defined as, say, 10 years or 5 years. However, as things now stand, unless you have reached the age of 65 when you resign of your own accord, you will not be entitled to receive any long service payment at all. This shows how restricted the security enjoyed by employees is under the legislation. From time to time, not a few employers will, for the sake of evading the long service payment, use various means to force their employees to "resign voluntarily". Therefore, unless the legislation is rectified, the long service payment will remain mere trick of something inferior to what its name suggests.
I demand that the Administration should address this issue by amending the conditions for obtaining the long service payment so that having long service will be the only criterion for such payment.
The forcible withdrawal of the Employment (Amendment) Bill by the Government last time has met with fierce opposition from this Council as well as the public at large. This time the Government has taken the initiative to table a new Bill within a short period of time. Whether the Government was forced to do so or not, the question is, has it learnt its lesson? Regretably, up to the present moment, the remarks made by the Governor and the Chief Secretary and the speech delivered by the Secretary for Education and Manpower in this Council today as well as the attitude of the Secretary at this Council's recent Manpower Panel meeting all show that they are still insisting that the Government did nothing wrong in withdrawing the Bill. This reflects what a so-called open government really is in their minds.
Being lawful does not necessarily mean being reasonable. The Chief Secretary and the Secretary for Education and Manpower have repeatedly said that the withdrawal of the Bill does not contravene the Standing Order. However, if the Administration keeps on ignoring the decisions reached by the majority of this Council in the future and keeps dealing with the Council by what they call a legitimate means, what is the difference between this and the Governor refusing to sign a Bill passed by this Council after the Third Reading?
I do not know how many lessons the Chief Secretary and the Secretary for Education and Manpower have to learn before they come to realize that they should cease to cherish the past colonial bureaucratic authoritarianism.
It is not easy for a government's to build up its good name. Having authority is not tantamount to having a good reputation. If to maintain its authority a government has to resort to suppressing the democratic mechanism and threatening or intimidating Members of the legislature, you will know how feeble it is!
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1687
Mr President, to enable wage earners to get better protection now that the Lunar New Year is near, I will support the passage of the Bill today. Nevertheless, I have to reiterate that many unreasonable provisions still exist in the amended legislation that need improvement. For this reason, I will still seek amendment to this piece of legislation, including the "snail-paced" timetable carried today.
The present amendments to the Employment Ordinance demonstrate precisely that we cannot rely on those in power to bestow wage earners rights and interests. We must continue our struggle to fight for them. To improve the protection for workers' interests, we still need wage earners all over Hong Kong to stand up and fight. We cannot sit down and wait in vain.
Mr President, my resignation will take effect tomorrow. As Members are aware, my resignation is the result of the Government's "lose-exit, win-take" act in handling the Employment Ordinance last time. I am not going to repeat that incident here. As elected Members, we cannot avoid playing the so-called power game with the Administration. However, we must realize that a so-called executive-led government has ample resources for playing the game, whereas the capital we have for the power game is terribly limited.
PRESIDENT: Mr LAU, I really have extended a lot of flexibility to you. But I must remind you that speeches have to be relevant to the subject matter. The subject matter is the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1995. Please exercise some restraint yourself.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President. The last point I would like to raise is that I will, as in the past, do my best to safeguard the interests of the grass roots without fear of influence, without ambiguity, retreat or compromise, in order to build a democratic Hong Kong. May I wish my colleagues, present today or not, good health in the Year of the Pig. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all the colleagues of the Legislative Council Secretariat for the assistance they rendered in conducting the business of the Council. Thank you, Mr President.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Employment (Amendment) Bill has encountered one problem after another since last July when it was first tabled in the Legislative Council. In particular, Mr LAU Chin-shek resigned during the period in objection to the Government's withdrawal of the Bill, after his amendments had been passed in the legislative Council, on the basis that those amendments upset the consensus reached by the Labour Advisory Board (LAB). I think the whole course of the event was really regrettable because it has done nobody any good.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1688
Firstly, we lost a Member of the Legislative Council who had all along been working hard for the interests of workers. The incident has also destroyed the mutual trust between the executive and the legislative organs. The iron-handed policy of the Government makes the public feel that the Government has in the past .....
PRESIDENT: Mr TANG, I have just reminded Mr LAU of the need to be relevant. Please be relevant.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): There is direct relevance and I shall continue. The incident was regrettable and it would, to a greater or lesser extent, affect the good employer-employee relationship which was the very factor contributing to Hong Kong's success in the past. Certainly, the incident also sparked off internal conflicts within the labour unions which had been brewing for a long time. I hope that as the Bill goes through its third reading smoothly today, all these would become something of the past.
Mr President, I regret that the repeated adjournments of the Employment (Amendment) Bill might have resulted in losses on the part of the workers. I am very pleased that the LAB, after holding meetings actively before the Chinese New Year to discuss this Bill, has come up with the present improved package and reached a consensus expeditiously. I am very pleased to see that both sides of the LAB have reached a consensus that upholds their tradition of good employer-employee relations.
According to the present consensus package of the LAB, the ceiling of severance and long service payments will be increased from $180,000 at present to $210,000 and the ceiling of reckonable length of service will be increased from 18 years to 25 years. Besides, the absolute payment ceiling and the ceiling of reckonable length of service will also have an annual increase of two years and $20,000 respectively. I think the proposed amendments do show some improvements. In fact, when calculated on this basis, the ceiling of reckonable length of service will be automatically removed after 10 years, that is, after the year 2005.
Friends from the labour sector might still think that this package does not tally with workers' interests and in particular, it might not be fair enough to workers who have long years of seniority. However, Mr President, let me say that the healthy development of Hong Kong can only be possible by gradually improving the welfare of workers. Too radical progress may not match with the interests of society as a whole. In fact, the economy of Hong Kong is not as prosperous as what we might have thought. We may not be aware that there are many potent worries. The growth of many small and medium-sized companies in Hong Kong has continued to shrink and they have been facing financial difficulties. Many of these companies even have to worry about whether they have enough cash to pay their employees' salaries every month. Frankly
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1689
speaking, the recent macro-economic control in China has caused some capital in Hong Kong to be switched to China. Hence, employers have their troubles, too.
When we legislate, we should take a macroscopic view and orient our legislations to the interests of society as a whole. The interests of workers are certainly important, but we should not be ruthless to small companies. In fact, allowing grace and gradual improvements will be beneficial to both sides in the long run. Otherwise, if employers have to close down their business, employees will be unemployed. There is really no need to make both side suffer!
Mr President, I hope my colleagues can reach mutual understanding and support this amendment. I would also like to extend my thanks to two of my colleagues, Mr Michael HO and Mr TAM Yiu-chung, for not moving their Private Members' Bills, so that this Bill can go through three readings and be passed today, thereby enabling workers to be benefited without delay.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I must say in the first place that I do not advocate vegetarianism as I do not like vegetarian dishes. Besides, I like barbecued pork, chicken and suckling pig. I also want everybody to share the food and have the food as soon as possible. Moreover, I differ from the others in that I would like to eat, after I have had barbecued pork, chicken, followed by suckling pig. It seems to me impractical for one to insists on waiting for suckling pig with rice when one is hungry. Actually, it was Mr SZETO Wah who had taught me this. Why did I use the word "taught"? Perhaps you may not know the story behind this. I assure you, Mr President, the story is not too long.
We all know that Mr SZETO Wah is a senior veteran in labour movement. We all respect him and I respect him, too. I recall that when I first joined the Legislative Council in 1985, the discussion on long service payment had just begun in the Labour Advisory Board (LAB). Mr SZETO Wah and I were both members of the LAB at that time, and we were representatives of the employees. When the issue of long service payment was brought up for discussion, the employers' representatives in the LAB showed their defiance. They were not prepared for it and so they were unable to commit themselves when the Administration suddenly proposed this Bill. Therefore, they were unwilling to make concession in quite a number of areas when this Bill was discussed.
However, under the leadership of Mr SZETO Wah, the representatives of both employees and employers in the LAB held a number of discussions outside the meetings of the LAB. Of course, if it were to be judged against today's standard, it might have been criticized as a deal under the table, or an operation
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1690
conducted secretly behind closed doors. But we did manage to arrive at some solutions through discussions.
These solutions did not work out satisfactorily when the Bill was being implemented, and they were widely criticized. One of the major criticisms was that "working people" under 40 years of age were entitled to only half the sum of long service payment. We felt very uneasy when we accepted this. However, Mr SZETO Wah taught us that it would not do the "working people" any good if we delayed this any longer, and that we might as well "accept this for the time being", and introduce improvement step by step later on.
Incidentally, a labour organization which was on very good terms with Mr LAU Chin-shek asked me, on one occasion, to support them in proposing their amendment. Of course, we were not inside this Chamber at that time, and the amendment they were proposing was especially concerned with discrimination against young workers. I was caught in a dilemma at that time. I found that the amendment was right, and as they were collecting signatures, I signed to support them. Subsequently, before the bill was submitted to the Legislative Council, Mr SZETO Wah criticized me for that, as we had already reached a so-called "consensus" at the LAB, and as we had agreed to the employers' views and both sides had compromised, it was not right for us to support other amendment proposals with countrary views. I accepted what he had criticized about me and I found his criticisms right. It is because if we easily break promises made, how can other people discuss with us next time? Moreover, if we pass the Bill as quickly as possible, we can still make the second, the third and the fourth amendments; therefore, I accepted his views. When the Bill on long service payment was submitted to this Council, I remained firm in my position and I accepted the views of Mr SZETO Wah. Eventually, the bill on long service payment was passed and it has become what it is today, although it is quite different from what it was initially.
The reason I tell you this story is that I often adopt this method when fighting for the interests of workers. I can summarize it in two sentences: We fight for the greatest possible improvement regarding labour legislation; and we also fight for the soonest realization of the improvements. It is because if we cannot fight for the soonest realization, it is merely empty talks for the workers. Every minute, there are workers who are dismissed or laid off or who resign of their own accord. After any subsequent legislation takes effect, these workers will not have retrospective rights to get back what should have belonged to them, and this I think is unfair to them. Besides, we all know that amendments of legislations can be done very quickly, for example, we can finish the three readings in a day today. As long as the Government agrees and Members of the Legislative Council support it, we can actually complete the amendment very quickly. There is also no limitation to the number of amendments, and amendments can be made one after another.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1691
After recounting this past incident, let me look at what is happening today. I find that on the surface, the Government takes this issue seriously and has promptly submitted the amendment to this Council for it to go through three readings in one day. However, looking back, we find that improvements on the Employment Ordinance as a whole have actually been effected "at a snail pace". This has a lot to do with the fact that the Government has all along been treating labour policies with indifference. For example, this Bill which seeks to amend the methods of calculation of severance and long service payments under the Employment Ordinance was actually read for the first time in December 1993. It was subsequently dealt with on 6 July and 14 December and, needless to say, you all know how long it has been delayed, and workers have continuously been affected during that time. Whilst there are some improvements made to the Bill submitted to the Legislative Council today, I am still not satisfied. I think there are still a lot of areas that need further amendments even after passing this Bill. For example, the ceiling of $15,000 for monthly wages was originally set in 1991. If we take inflation in these few years into account, it should no doubt be lifted to $21,000, as only by doing so 'can we cater to the needs of people who have higher salaries, and increase the amount used for calculating compensation for work-related injuries.
As to the methods of calculation of severance and long service payments under the current Employment Ordinance, the method of calculation of severance payment has been adopted for almost 20 years because the Ordinance was passed in 1974. However, the two barriers of 12 months' aggregate wages and $180,000 ceiling still remain despite the passage of 20 years, which seems too long a time to me. During that period, both the trade unions and I have repeatedly suggested that the Government should make amendments, and even if the Bill is passed by this Council today, it will take another 10 years before the ceilings for reckonable years of service and wages to be completely removed. We find this far too slow, and this has also been pointed out by another Member just now. In view of this, how can it be considered satisfactory?
I recall that in a recent meeting of the Education and Manpower Panel, Mr Michael LEUNG, Secretary for Education and Manpower, stressed that the Government had made a lot of efforts in making amendments to the Employment Ordinance. I trust that my colleagues in this Council would not question this. But what I want to point out is that the main reason why the Government had been at pains of dealing with the employees and employers, the Legislative Council and the LAB over the past few weeks is that, I would like to reiterate, the Government has all along failed to work out a comprehensive set of labour policies. Should the Government have a comprehensive set of labour policies, what we now witness today would never have happened, I think the reality is that the Government seems to be playing the role of "messenger" between the employees and employers. Whenever the labour sector presses the Government to improve the wages of workers or to amend the labour legislations, the Government would turn to persuade the employers, hoping that they would make concessions. My impression is that the Government does not have an objective. To put it simply, the objective should be that "plain rice"
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1692
should be replaced by "barbecued pork with rice", then by "chicken with rice", and then by "suckling pig with rice". The Government should have a clear objective and it must find this reasonable, rather than asking employers whether it will feasible to give workers "barbecued pork with rice" when they ask for this after having "plain rice" for a long time. And if employers say they cannot give workers barbecued pork but only vegetables, the Government would then ask workers to agree to have vegetables. The Government has been adopting this method all along, but we find this unacceptable, and it is especially so these days. Compared with the improvements made by the Government on its policies concerning the people's livelihood, I think labour policies have clearly been overlooked. I would like to talk about what should be included in labour policies. I think the Government should pay attention to the following aspects:
(1) Retirement protection: retirement protection schemes including compulsory provident fund, central provident fund and old age pension should be implemented as soon as possible.
(2) Safeguarding the employment of local workers: importation of foreign workers should be stopped and positive efforts should be made to help the affected workers find alternative employment.
(3) Safeguarding workers from being unreasonably dismissed by employers: legislation to protect workers against unfair dismissal should be promptly enacted.
(4) Attaching importance to the status of trade unions: the right of trade unions to conduct collective bargain should be affirmed.
In fact, the above four points do not embrace the entire policy. I have merely stated the most important ones which the labour sector has long been fighting for or concerned about but which have not been heeded by the Government. I hope that the Government can take this opportunity to pay serious attention to these matters again, so as to really safeguard and improve the wages and interests of the workers.
Mr President, when today is done, as what Mr SZETO Wah has just said, Mr LAU Chin-shek will say goodbye to the Legislative Council for the time being. But to those who have elected him, they certainly hope that their representative can serve in this Council until his tenure comes to an end. I also think that it is totally unnecessary for this to happen today. It could have been avoided.
I would also like to take this opportunity to call upon the Government once again to really take the views of the workers and their trade unions seriously when amending or formulating labour legislation in the future. If the Government attaches importance to the LAB's status, it should not have regarded the LAB as important when it needs its service and disregards it when it is not needed. The Government will only get the LAB involved when it is in
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1693
trouble, and this is entirely inappropriate. My view is that the Government should draw lessons from this incident. The most important point is to ensure that the decisions or consensus reached by the LAB will be given due attention in the Legislative Council.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have to affirm two points in the Bill tabled in this Council today at long last: The Employment (Amendment) Bill regarding severance payment can be passed before the Chinese New Year and more workers will be benefited. Generally speaking, many companies which are going to wind up will choose to distribute "big envelopes" on New Year's Eve. This is a Chinese tradition of carrying something through to the end even in the event of winding up a business. Another point is that the latest amendment Bill has at last been introduced after broad consultation which reflects that everybody is willing to give up some of his own demands for the time being so that workers can get better protection within the shortest period of time. This is the rational side of a democratic political system.
Nevertheless, I must point out specifically that there are still certain drawbacks in the amendment Bill. The ceiling of payment and reckonable years of service can only be entirely removed in 10 years' time. Since the enactment of the legislation on severance payment in 1974, there has always been a ceiling of payment. A dismissed worker can only get a maximum compensation which is equivalent to 12 months' salary. This is a compromise on the part of the Government as a result of the employers' resistance. This compromise is most unfair to workers who have served for many years. Let's imagine, when a loyal worker who has worked for the same employer for 30 years is dismissed, he can only get a severance payment which is equivalent to his salaries in 18 reckonable years of service. This is both unfair and unreasonable.
In view of this, the amendment proposed by Mr LAU Chin-shek in July 1994 to remove the payment ceiling is very reasonable. The amendment Bill was passed with support from the majority of legislators at its second reading. Unfortunately, when the Bill was read the third time, the Liberal Party "summoned" its members to vote in the Chamber and the Bill was not passed because there was one more vote in opposition. To solicit support from more members, Mr LAU Chin-shek made some concessions when he introduced the second amendment in December and he proposed an amended payment ceiling of $230,000. However, Mr LEUNG Man-kin, Secretary for Education and Manpower, rudely withdrew the Bill before its third reading, even though the Bill had already passed the second reading. This has aroused public out-cry and criticism, and workers dismissed during this period were unable to get better protection under the law.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1694
Hence, there was a rumour among the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions that Mr LAU Chin-shek had complicated the issue and impaired the workers' benefits. Actually, people in the labour sector should not blame each other because those who have really complicated the issue are Mr LEUNG Man-kin and the Government, and the Government should be solely accountable for this autocratic incident.
After the incident, however, the Governor, the Chief Secretary and Mr LEUNG Man-kin all stressed that the Government had acted in accordance with legal principles and that the power was given by the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council as what Mr LEUNG Man-kin has just said. I would like to respond to his statements. What Mr LEUNG has said are really disappointing and infuriating. It shows that the Government has neither taken the lesson seriously, nor learnt how to head the office of civil servants in a democratic political system. It has not yet forsaken the tradition of autocratic colonists at all.
Before there were elected Members in the Legislative Council and before there was such a large number of members of community calling for democracy, the Legislative Council was merely a body controlled by elite bureaucrats. To describe it in a modern term, it was absolutely executive-led. I believe terms like "public accountability" and "monitoring the Government" are not yet found in their dictionaries. The Secretaries were used to having their bills passed in the Legislative Council without any challenges.
The speech made by the Secretary for Education and Manpower on 14 December during the second reading of the amendment Bill on severance payments suddenly reminded me that an arrant bureaucrat was right in front of me, indicating that the Government did not like Members to amend its bills. Otherwise, the Government would have stopped the game. Surely the withdrawal of the Bill is empowered by the Standing Orders, as what Mr LEUNG has just said. But can the Government just refer to the rules when exercising its powers, without taking heed of public sentiment? Is it that "the state officials are free to burn down houses, while the common people are even forbidden to kindle their lamps"?
The Secretaries should understand that when election was introduced to the Legislative Council, appeals of the public and supervision of the Government by the public were brought to the Legislative Council together with the elected members. The traditional elite bureaucrats cannot evade public opinion and they cannot ignore Members' inquiries and criticisms. Moreover, they should not adopt the autocratic attitude of "lose-exit win take" just because their proposed bills are amended.
Judging from the speech made by Mrs Anson CHAN, the Chief Secretary, in the Legislative Council during the policy debate last year, Members have begun to have a strong feeling that the Government is not positively and actively facing up to the impact of the progress of democratization. On the contrary, it
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1695
is trying to override the Legislative Council in order to prove that the Hong Kong Government is still a strong government. Obviously, the withdrawal of the amendment Bill of severance payment is a gesture to show the Government's authority.
What is more infuriating is that the strength of the Government is shown at the expense of the minimal benefits of the workers who are in a less advantageous position. The Government would rather make no improvements to the legislation on severance payment, and let the workers continue to endure the unreasonable provision of the law which is really detestable and shameful.
Mr President, I am going to talk about the effects of this incident on the Labour Advisory Board (LAB). Undeniably, the fact that Mr LAU Chin-shek could twice solicit the support of the majority of Members in the Legislative Council for his amendments shows that the proposals concerning workers' benefits can be further improved in the Legislative Council even after they have gone through the conventional channels of consultation by employers and employees. From the standpoint of fighting for the workers' benefits, any means which can effectively fight for more benefits for the workers will be recognized and accepted, and it is not that "the same old book will always be followed", as what Mr TAM Yiu-chung said. This might be the case in the past, but the Legislative Council and the public opinions today are different from those in the past. This must be affirmed by an advanced society.
To our surprise, the Secretary for Education and Manpower still used the pretext of respecting the decision of the LAB. He was in fact "talking nonsense with eyes wide open", intending to get the LAB "visibly involved". In fact, even the employees' representatives in the LAB do not appreciate this.
PRESIDENT: Mr CHEUNG, you know the Standing Orders and you know I do not tolerate describing Members of this Council as telling lies. Please withdraw those statements.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I respect your ruling because you are respected by all Members. But Mr LEUNG Man-kin has just explained that he had withdrawn the Bill in accordance with the decision of the LAB. If any grounds given by government officials are like the laws which Members cannot comment on, then only the Government's voice will be heard tomorrow. Mr President, you have always allowed Members to comment on official statements here. I certainly respect your ruling, Mr President, but please understand that this is my response to Mr LEUNG Man-kin's statement.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1696
PRESIDENT: Mr CHEUNG, you cannot describe statements made by Members of this Council or public officers as lies. That would be contrary to parliamentary language. You can make your point in a way that does not contravene Standing Orders or parliamentary practice, Mr CHEUNG. But please do not use those words.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, there may be an error in simultaneous interpretation. What I said is "talking nonsense", and "talking nonsense" does not mean telling lies. It only means saying something wrong. This is a common Chinese saying. I did not mean to say that Mr LEUNG Man-kin had told lies. Thank you, Mr President.
Does the Government really respect the status of the LAB? I believe, people have heard the name of the LAB for the first time because of this incident. The LAB is an advisory body at departmental level. When the Labour Department wishes to amend a general labour legislation, it will usually discuss the proposed bill with the LAB and conduct the so-called employer-employee consultation.
However, the LAB is actually controlled by the Government. It is entirely up to the Labour Department to decide what should be and what should not be discussed, and how to deal with the outcome of the discussions. The LAB is the only elected advisory body. However, its composition does not tally much with its functions. Many policies affecting workers' interests are implemented after directly adopted by the Executive Council, without consulting the LAB. If the Government really respects the status of the LAB, why is the LAB not upgraded to an advisory body pegged to the Policy Branch? Why was the LAB not consulted before amending the Trade Description Regulation in 1991, which would jeopardize the employment of thousands of textile workers, and before rejecting the Central Provident Fund in 1993, which would involve 2.9 million would-be participants?
The most recent example was the announcement, made by the Education and Manpower Branch in the same month as the incident regarding severance payment occurred, that approval had been granted for the importation of a maximum of 27 000 workers for the airport scheme. This policy may affect the employment and livelihood of 220 000 local construction workers. Has the LAB been consulted in advance? Even the Legislative Council was given just a short briefing, not to mention the LAB. The Government should seriously review the relations among the elected legislature, the advisory bodies and the executive organ of the Government. The Government should not befriend one group and strike a blow at another in order to get the benefit. Only by making a success of such relations can we ensure the continued development of democratic politics.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1697
The Bill to be passed today still has much room for future improvement, including lifting the upper limit of wages so that employees earning more than $15,000 a month can enjoy the protection of full severance payment. In addition, there remains some provisions in respect of payment ceiling and the maximum reckonable years of service which are unfair to workers who have served for a long time. In addition, under the law governing long service payments, young workers can only get partial compensation and employees who are unreasonably dismissed cannot receive reasonable compensations.
Hence, we should not be too excited at the passing of some improved provisions today, thinking that, since we have eaten "barbecue pork and chicken with rice", we can now stop fighting. The road along which we fight for workers' interests is long and arduous. There are still a large number of flawed and unreasonable provisions in the labour legislations awaiting our concern and it is for us to propose improvements which match with workers' interests.
Mr President, thank you for your leniency. With these remarks, I support the motion.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the purpose of establishing severance payment and long service payment is to protect workers who have devoted most of the time during their life to work, so that they can get reasonable compensation when the organizations they had worked for close down or when they are unfairly dismissed. In this respect, severance payment and long service payment should not be regarded as an extra favour bestowed on the workers, but rather a reward for the employees who deserve it. In a fair society, class exploitation should no longer be tolerated. Workers who serve their employers loyally and diligently for a long period of time are hard to come by, so the employers should be sympathetic towards their employees and give them reasonable reward.
I support the new package put forward by the Labour Advisory Board very reluctantly. It is mainly because I hope this package will be approved as soon as possible to ensure that employees get their reward at an early date, especially when Lunar New Year is coming and this is also a prime time for employers to lay off their employees. Therefore, the sooner the Bill is passed, the better will the elderly employees be protected. Otherwise, when they are dismissed, they will not be able to get the reward and protection they are entitled to.
Information shows that the new package can benefit over 95% of the employees. This is really gratifying. To the low-waged blue-collar workers, fighting for the highest payment ceiling is not the crux of the problem. Most of these low-waged blue-collar workers have worked in the same establishment for a very long period of time. I think fighting for a reasonable method of calculating the length of reckonable service will be more beneficial to them. The new package suggests that the ceilings for the reckonable years of service
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1698
and the long service payment should be progressively removed in 10 years' time. In my opinion, the time limit of 10 years is far too long and conservative. The legislation governing long service payment and severance payment was enacted in 1974. Amendment was introduced in 1994 after 20 years of implementation. In 1995, it is again decided that the ceiling for the reckonable years of service can only be removed in 10 years' time. It takes a total of 30 years. Indeed, the Government should expedite the process of removing the ceiling for the reckonable years of service to remedy the Government's procrastinating attitude towards this matter and make up for the loss incurred to workers over the past 20 years.
In calculating the severance payment and long service payment, a monthly wage of $15,000 is taken as the upper limit. Even if the salary of an employee is more than $15,000, the basis taken for calculation will still be $15,000. In fact, on what basis does the Government come up with a ceiling of $15,000? The high-waged employees are unfairly treated in this respect. Does it mean that high-waged employees will not be subject to the risk of sudden dismissal? I am of the view that the calculation of the severance payment and long service payment should not be restricted by how much the employees earn. I certainly understand that this may increase the burden of employers. But firms and organizations which employ high-waged employees should have definite level of achievements and operational basis and they are absolutely capable of bearing such costs. Moreover, medium and small sized enterprises only employ very few high-waged employees. Therefore, my proposal will not bring about too much burden to the employers of these enterprises in terms of costs.
Although the new package offers improvements both on the ceiling of reckonable years of service and the payment ceiling, a more important question is how many workers will actually be benefited? This will depend on whether the terms of the long service payment are harsh or not.
Under the Employment Ordinance, employees may apply for severance payment in case of lay-off, for instance, they are on duty on less than half of the number of working days in four consecutive weeks, or, when they are provided with work on less than two third of the number of working days in 26 consecutive weeks. Is this provision harsh? Why is it that workers themselves cannot take the initiative to ask for severance? This deserves further study by the Government.
As to long service payment, an employee may only apply for it if he is unreasonably dismissed having been proved to be unfit for the work concerned upon completing five years' service; or if he is aged 65 or above with 10 years' service. Are these restrictions too strict? Young employees nowadays like to change their working environment. Only a few of them are willing to stay with the same employers for five years or even more. In view of this, I think, when the Government defines the word "long" within the context of "long service payment", it should keep abreast of time and define it in such a way as to cater for different time and situation. Setting five or 10 as the years of service should
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1699
be reviewed and revised on a regular basis in order to keep in pace as well as cope with the changes in the labour pattern of Hong Kong.
In the course of amending the Bill, I remember I have once talked to Mr TAM Yiu chung, Mr LAU Chin-shek and their supporters at the City Forum. I think, in respect of this issue, the problem lies not with the labour sector but with the Administration. We hope that the two labour leaders and their supporters will not criticize one another. I remember that at that City Forum, Mr LAU Chin-shek and Mr TAM Yiu-chung both agreed that there should be co-operation between workers. As Mr LAU had just said, I think that the labour sector have to work together before workers can rise to their feet. I hope the passage of the Bill today will bring the clash among members the labour sector to an end. Members of the labour sector, please join hands and co-operate!
Mr LAU is leaving and I respect his decision, although I have dissuaded him from doing this for many times. It is most regrettable that he is leaving this Council. I look forward to seeing his return to this Council and him joining us in the fight for the rights and interests of workers. I hope Mr LAU will take good care of himself and continue his efforts in fighting for the rights and interests of workers.
With these remarks, and with much reluctance, I support the Bill.
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, following the withdrawal of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1994 by the Administration on 14 December 1994, the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) was further consulted on 23 and 31 December on revised proposals by the Administration to improve the level of severance payment and long service payment.
The major concessions agreed by the employers' representatives on the LAB over the previous Employment (Amendment) Bill includes the following:
firstly, to advance the effective date for higher payments to 1 October 1995 instead of 1 January 1996 as previously proposed;
secondly, to increase the reckonably year of service from the current limit of 18 years to 25, plus 50% of the remaining years of service. This limit will increase at a rate of two years per year until it reaches 43 years in October 2003. There will be no ceiling as from 1 October 2004; and
thirdly, to raise the absolute payment ceiling from the current $180,000 to $210,000 upon enactment. This limit will increase at a rate of $20,000 per year until it reaches $390,000 in October 2003.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1700
Mr President, with a view to soliciting Members' views on the proposed amendment as agreed by the LAB, I have invited, as Convenor of the Manpower Panel of this Council, all Honourable Members to attend a Manpower Panel's meeting on 3 January 1995 with the Administration. A total of 13 Members attended the meeting. After discussion, Members shared the following broad consensus:
(a) there was support in principle for the proposed improvements to severance payment and long service payment as agreed by the Labour Advisory Board on 31 December 1994;
(b) the various proposals should be enacted as quickly as practicable in order that eligible employees can benefit from the improved provisions without delay; and
(c) it is hoped that the First, Second and Third Readings of the proposed amendment Bill can be moved and passed at the Legislative Council sitting today to take effect.
Mr President, I have already expressed my views on this Bill and the debate on 14 December 1994 and have few new points to add. The Liberal Party and the business sector are glad that the debate on the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1995 can finally come to an end today. We believe that progressive, steady improvements in labour and employee benefits with the support — and I emphasize the word "support" — of the employers and the business community, is vital for Hong Kong's future stability as well as prosperity.
I also share the views, as expressed by the Honourable Henry TANG and the Honourable Eric LI, regarding the financial problems the employers and small employers faces today.
With these remarks, the Liberal Party and the business sector support the passage of this Bill.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Democratic Party (DP) admits that there are areas of improvement in the Bill presented today when it is compared with the Bills presented in July and December last year. Again, if we again try to use "barbecue pork with rice" and "plain rice" to describe these Bills, the Bill presented last December is "plain rice" while the Bill presented today can barely be called "barbecue pork with rice". However, from the perspective of my occupation, "barbecue pork with rice" is not ideal because it cannot achieve a balanced diet. The DP thinks that the current level of labour protection still leaves much to be desired. This Bill has raised the absolute payment ceiling to $210,000 only which is lower than the amount originally proposed by the DP and the amount of $230,000 proposed by the Honourable LAU Chin-shek last year in his amendment motion which was successfully
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1701
passed. However, this Bill has also set down a timetable for the gradual increase of the absolute payment ceiling and also the uplifting of the limit of reckonable years of service in stages. We hope the Bill can be passed before the Lunar New year so that those workers who are sacked during this period can receive the new compensation payment.
The DP thinks that after the passing of the Bill today, we still need to continue fighting for several things. First of all, the monthly wage ceiling applicable to the calculation of payment is $15,000. It is unfair to those who earn more than $15,000 per month and the ceiling should be revised as soon as possible. I very much hope that I can hold discussions with the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) on this issue as soon as possible after the Lunar New Year holidays and that they will arrive at a satisfactory resolution very soon. Secondly, it takes 10 years to increase the absolute payment ceiling to $390,000. It is indeed too long. We hope that we can have the opportunity to discuss with the Government on this matter in future. The time required to uplift the limit of reckonable years of service is also too long. Therefore, it will be one of the items which we have to discuss with the Government after the Lunar New Year holidays.
As regards the Bill presented today, some people have said that it is already a great improvement. It is in fact an illusion. We have such an illusion because improvement in legislations relating to labour protection came too slowly under the previously undemocratic Legislative Council. It is just like having a piece of rock to say that a tortoise is walking too fast. Last year when Mr Michael LEUNG, the Secretary for Education and Manpower, withdrew the Bill, he said he wanted to respect the consensus reached by the LAB. We deemed it totally unacceptable that the opinions of a government advisory body should override the intent of all the Members of this Council. We agree that the Legislative Council should listen to different voices. Of course, we should consider the opinions of the LAB. But it does not mean that we cannot amend the scheme proposed by the Government. We would like to remind the Government that the Legislative Council has the responsibility and the authority to amend and enact legislations. I hope the Government will understand that while they respect the LAB, they should respect this Council as well. Is the Government really thinking highly of the LAB? In what way has the LAB been consulted on the several occasions when the Government decided to expand the scheme of importing labour?
When the Government withdrew the bill in December last year, Mr LAU Chin-shek resigned in indignation. Now, a new scheme finally comes up. Of course, all relevant parties have devoted considerable effort in discussion before arriving at the scheme and it is better than the previous ones. But I hope my colleagues will realize that Mr LAU Chin-shek was in fact acting in accordance with the Standing Orders of this Council when he proposed the amendments in December last year. Mr Eric LI said that the amendments were intrinsically "laying mines". He told us to "cut our coat according to our cloth". From what he has said, it seems that Hong Kong is in a very poor economic condition. By
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1702
so saying, does he mean that Hong Kong cannot afford such a scheme? I cannot agree with him. He described Mr LAU Chin-shek's amendment as an attempt "to force through". In a democratic council, we discuss matters, we propose amendments, and we solicit each and every supporting vote in order to have the amendments passed. What is wrong with that? I believe this is exactly the point for Mr LAU Chin-shek, who has over the years been participating in labour campaigns, to take part in politics. It is also the point for the workers to take part in politics. The DP has not the least intention of wiping out the employers. It is absolutely not the case.
We very much hope that despite Mr LAU Chin-shek has left this Council, we can maintain even closer contact with friends from the commercial and industrial sectors. I know that Mr LAU Chin-shek and Mr Henry TANG of the Liberal Party have very good communication over various labour issues. We hope we can continue such communication. We also hope that we can have more chances to communicate with institutions in their capacity as employers and their representatives. Because of the resignation of Mr LAU Chin-shek, the DP will of course lose one valuable seat in this Council and we are deeply sorry about this. But this incident has brought about further improvements to the welfare of the labour and has also safeguarded this Council from being trampled on. The DP is willing to pay such a price. In this incident, we feel that if Mr LAU Chin-shek had not fought for his amendments, it would be difficult to tell when this bowl of "barbecue pork with rice" would be available.
Mr President, these are my remarks. The DP supports this Bill.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would abstain from voting on the Bill presented today, the reason being that the Government "bullies the meek and weak, and fears the firm and strong". If the Honourable LAU Chin-shek or other people did not fight against the Government, would the Government come up with such an amendment so quickly? I doubt it. As a responsible Government, it should have overall assessment of the issue and a general plan in mind and should not bow to the firm and strong. Otherwise, people of Hong Kong will all stand firm and strong, can the Government then accede to all their requests? This is what an unreasonable government without a proper system would do. Of course, a politicans' government could act in such a way, because if you could not get the votes, you would not be re-elected. However, we have to understand that at present, the Government of Hong Kong is still a framework staffed by an establishment of civil servants. The Government should strive to strike a balance when it deals with its multitude of affairs and do not have to bow to any kind of pressure.
The success of Hong Kong nowadays is attributed to a number of factors. At present, what business in Hong Kong makes the most money? Are the business with large workforce making money? Are the employers exploiting the working class? We all know that it is absolutely not the case. It was the foreign capitalists back in the fifties who exploited the workers. They made
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1703
money in Hong Kong and they left Hong Kong. Nowadays, the capitalists of Hong Kong have gone to China to exploit Chinese workers. The workers of Hong Kong are not being exploited.
Government statistics may show something has gone down — "oh, by over 10%!" Business and restaurant owners can, however, tell us that, in fact, only 10% or so of restaurants and other service industry undertakings are making a profit. 35% are just breaking even while 50% are losing money. You may find it puzzling that people continue to run business that lose money. Well, this is a free society. Some businesses fold up and some get started; as you quit, somebody would take up your place. Therefore, as an employee, one should be aware of the reality and understand who is exploiting whom. The present state of affairs requires that we help each other for mutual benefits. We set out goals and should know which direction to turn to in pursuing them. We cannot ask our boss to continue to operate his failing business simply because we are poor. The boss may ask us to take a perspective in his shoes instead of making endless demands when he is about to go out of business. Therefore, we must understand the actual circumstances and be aware that Hong Kong can only rely on an economic restructuring in the entire society. During this period of restructuring, the retraining programmes run by the Government are very important in ensuring that employees can earn what they deserve. However, we should definitely not label employers as unscrupulous. In fact, a lot of employers are now on the verge of closing down their business. Many choose to carry on because some of their employees have been working for them for one or two decades. If they wind up their business, their longtime employees would not be able to switch to another field and would then become jobless. For this reason, many businessmen are thus struggling to stay in business. This is the reality. A representative of the Labour Constituency should know the actual situation.
My own case is not worth mentioning since I do not have many employees. The representatives of the industrial and commercial sectors, the Honourable Henry TANG and the Honourable James TIEN, remarked that we had an agreement. In fact, they failed to speak out the grievances of many business owners on their behalf. I must rise to tell my honourable colleagues the reality. Why has the economy of Canada and Australia, where resources are so rich, fallen into such a difficult state? Many people ask for my advice and my answer is: firstly, the tax rate is too high there, ranging from 30% to over 40%. Why do investors put in so much money only to share their profits with the government? Secondly, the trade unions there are too powerful, and the workers may go on strike whenever they like. A similar trend is in fact developing in Hong Kong. However, the working class of Hong Kong is both reasonable and sensible and the law does not give the workers so much power. This explains why Hong Kong can weather adversities and survive. Therefore, we should learn from the experience and the facts of foreign countries, so that Hong Kong can grow from strength to strength in all aspects. Of course, the Government with over 180 000 civil servants remains to be the biggest
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1704
employer in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is also in an influential position with several ten thousand employees.
In any case, I personally do not want the matter to be politicized. There should be no one saying "Oh! You are such a great hero who has been fighting for so many benefits for the workers. Come, be the boss, run the entire Hong Kong Government!". If you are competent enough, the public will of course vote for you. Using these matters only to win votes is really a tragedy for Hong Kong. It is not necessarily desirable for Hong Kong to follow the example of foreign countries. As politicians, we should rely on our own ability and reasonably say what we should say. We should never use our influence or hard work in grabbing more votes. It is also unreasonable to try to paint ourselves as heroes. I hope Mr LAU Chin-shek can take my point. In fact, we have two representatives from the Labour Constituency here in this Council, namely, Mr PANG Chun-hoi and Mr TAM Yiu-chung. Please make no mistake, Mr LAU Chin-shek was elected in the Kowloon Central Constituency, and is not a representative of the labour sector. In tendering his resignation, Mr LAU has his own political consideration. While we respect his decision, we should not be blind to other matters solely because he has his purpose. I very much hope that Mr LAU could, when fighting for the interests of the working class, also take into account the predicaments of the business sector, as well as the capitalists, or in fact, the predicaments of both the employers and the employees. Enhanced communications between the two sides could let our different sectors complement each other. Better co-ordination between the employers and the labour force can upgrade the living conditions and environment in Hong Kong. No one would oppose this approach.
Conceptually speaking, I personally give my unreserved support to the proposal of raising the limit to $210,000. I remember that Mr LAU suggested the ceiling be raised to $230,000 when he lobbied for my support the other day. I responded with the figure $210,000. Now that the present proposal turns out to be $210,000, I have been proven correct. I promised Mr LAU on that day that I would abstain from voting but later I would want to support the Government as a result of the Government's lobbying efforts. Why did I support the Government? It is because I really hope that our government will have credibility and is capable of doing things well. I must reiterate that the government belongs to the people and it would be most desirable if we could work happily together and rectify faults wherever possible. Is it necessary to be so "philistine"?
Mr President, I rise to speak in the hope that the issue will not be over-politicized and we will not be too confrontational. With the scarcity of resources, Hong Kong hinges its success on our mutual tolerance and on the co-operation between the employers and employees. I am resentful at the way this government policy "bullies the meek and weak and fears the firm and strong". On this ground, I would abstain today.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1705
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Thank you, Mr President. I am very grateful to Members for those who made constructive comments on the way forward. I shall not, of course, comment on those suggestions which have not been helpful or constructive or forward-looking. The Government looks forward to further improvements, obviously, in this area using the very important mechanism of the LAB which has certainly served a very useful purpose as endorsed by Members of this Council in this debate.
At least, there is one common feature in this debate and, that is, that Members fully appreciate the importance of both employers' and employees' interests in labour matters. I have heard comments from both sides on this matter. Some have gone to the extreme, but on balance I think the conclusions have been sensible and balanced, and that all supported the recommendations made by the LAB in this very important matter. In other words, we should go by our previous experience and aim to achieve further improvements by progressive steps and not to confront or to upset without taking the balanced outlook, as we have now done on this occasion.
So I am very glad that common sense has at last prevailed in this debate, and that Members have come to the same conclusion as the Government has, that the LAB's latest recommendations have balanced the interests of both employers and employees in Hong Kong. They have served Hong Kong well for the last 30 years, and I am sure this will go on for the next 40 to 50 years.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on Second Reading of the Bill put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): 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.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1706
The Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr Martin LEE, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr PANG Chun-hoi, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Andrew WONG, 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 Jimmy McGREGOR, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Peter WONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Moses CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Rev FUNG Chi-wood, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Timothy HA, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Dr Conrad LAM, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr MAN Sai-cheong, Mr Henry TANG, Mr TIK Chi-yuen, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Miss Christine LOH, Mr Roger LUK, Ms Anna WU, Mr James TIEN and Mr Alfred TSO voted for the motion.
Mr CHIM Pui-chung abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 51 votes in favour of the motion and no vote against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1994
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 12 October 1994 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, the Buildings (Amendment) (No.2) Bill 1994 deals with three matters. First, it seeks to limit the use of hand-dug caissons to an absolute minimum by requiring the Building Authority to refuse to approve building plans where the building works involve the construction of hand-dug caissons, unless the caisson is less than 3 m deep or for the site concerned, the use of a hand-dug caisson is the only practical construction method and there is no other safe engineering alternatives. Second, the Bill seeks to amend section 40(6) of the Buildings Ordinance to make it compatible with the Bill of Rights. Third, it seeks to require ground investigation works to be conducted in certain sewage tunnel protection area to have the approval of the Building Authority.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1707
A Bills Committee, of which I am the Chairman, was set up to study the Bill. As the other two matters do not involve any controversial issues, the Bills Committee has focused its attention on the provisions relating to hand-dug caissons. The Bills Committee has held three meetings with the Administration and has met representatives of a number of labour organizations which have set up a concern group on the hazards of hand-dug caissons. The group advocates a total ban on all hand-dug caissons because of the serious health hazard to workers and the availability of engineering alternatives to eliminate the need for manual excavation. The representatives also expressed concern about how the special circumstances would be determined and approved by the Authority if exemptions were allowed.
In view of the concern of the labour organizations, the Bills Committee has asked the Administration to consider, in consultation with the Construction Association, the practicability of imposing a total ban, and to provide scientific data to support its belief that hand-dug caissons less than 3 m deep are less hazardous to workers.
In response, the Administration has pointed out that the dust concentration of a hand-dug caisson under construction at a level of less than 3 m is relatively low because shallow caissons are more open to the effects of cross draughts from open air. Also, for such caissons, the chance of having to drill rocks is lower and soil excavation generates much less dust than rock drilling. In addition, statistics of accidents involving hand-dug caissons show that all the 21 fatal accidents since 1982 occurred in caissons more than 10 m deep.
As for the number involved, the Administration has advised that only a very small number of hand-dug caissons less than 3 m deep has been approved in 1994 and the total number is unlikely to exceed 10 out of a total of 7 700 approved hand-dug caissons. To ban caissons which are less than 3 m deep would run the risk of interfering with other types of manual excavations not intended for control. One way to improve control is to specify a minimum width for such hand-dug caissons. In view of the small number of hand-dug caissons less than 3 m deep and the less hazardous working conditions involved, Members agree that they can be allowed subject to a minimum width or diameter of 1.5 m to be specified in the Bill to ensure better ventilation and safety condition. The Administration has agreed to amend the proposed section 16(1A)(a) to include such a specification.
As regards the scrutiny of special circumstances for exemption, the Administration has assured Members that a decision will only be made after scrutiny by professional officers at at least three levels. It has also explained that the proposed provision is to cater for the very exceptional circumstances and the unique geotechnical situation of Hong Kong. Although engineering alternatives may be available, the use of machinery in some cases, for example, on a steep slope, may be more dangerous. The Construction Association which has been consulted by the Administration supports the present provisions which
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 18 January 1995 1708
allow some flexibility. The Bills Committee agrees that a little flexibility is desirable but strict control must be exercised by the Administration.
Since a grace period of 12 months will be given for the building industry to prepare for the ban, Members agree that the legislation should be enacted as soon as possible to reduce hand-dug caisson work to an absolute minimum at an early date.
The Bills Committee is pleased that the Administration has accepted Members' proposal and views. Amendment to the Bill will be moved by the Administration later at the Committee stage.
Mr President, with these remarks, I commend the Building (Amendment) (No.2) Bill 1994 to Honourable Members.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, the so-called "caisson" is an inhumane working process which poses serious threat to the safety and health of workers. I suppose I need not repeat all that here. The problem is, as the Government has acknowledged, that there is so far no effective measure that can completely prevent the workers from inhaling dust particles while working in the shaft, thus making the workers susceptible to pneumoconiosis. Why does the Government still not impose a total ban on the so-called "caissons"?
On the one hand, the Bill proposed by the Government this time aims at banning the so-called caissons, but on the other hand, it allows this kind of construction to continue where the caissons are less than 3m in depth and their inner diameter exceeds 1.5m. In addition, the Building Authority is authorized to approve under special circumstances the use of caissons if, for the site concerned, using such so-called caissons is the only practical construction method or there is no other safe alternatives. The Government is actually making a "double-deal" and the exemption obviously runs against the objective of the legislation in safeguarding the safety and health of workers.
The Government emphasized to the Bills Committee that the safety problem of caissons of less than 3m deep is not serious. However, a fact that the Government has all along refused to recognize is that, although the incidence of fatal accidents in shallower caissons is relatively low, people working in these caissons still cannot refrain from inhaling dust particles all the time and are still susceptible to pneumoconiosis which may result in incurable permanent injuries. In addition, the noises generated in caissons are extremely hazardous to workers' hearing. In view of all these, one just cannot help wondering whether it is reasonable to the allow caissons of less than 3m deep. As regards the approval of caissons under special circumstances, it is but an excuse employed by the Government for not introducting comprehensive improvement to workers' safety.