HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2123 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 22 February 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.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., 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 RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
2124 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 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 EMILY LAU WAI-HING
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 HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2125 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
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
IN ATTENDANCE
MR MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
2126 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
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 NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING
MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, O.B.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
MR PETER LAI HING-LING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MRS RACHEL MARY BEDFORD CARTLAND, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE
MRS WEI CHUI KIT-YEE, LESSIE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2127 PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Air Pollution Control (Vehicle Design Standards)
(Emission) (Amendment) Regulation 1995 ...................................... 37/95
Country Parks and Special Areas (Amendment)
Regulation 1995 ............................................................................... 38/95 Pesticides (Amendment) Regulation 1995 ............................................... 39/95
Mass Transit Railway Corporation (Increase in
Authorized Capital) Order 1995 ....................................................... 40/95
Mental Health (Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern
Psychiatric Observation Unit) (Mental Hospital)
Order ................................................................................................ 41/95
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance
(Public Markets) (Cancellation of Designation)
Order 1995........................................................................................ 42/95
Declaration of Markets in the Regional Council
Area (Amendment) Declaration 1995............................................... 43/95
Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Amendment)
Regulation 1995 ............................................................................... 44/95
Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal
Traders) (Amendment) Regulation 1995 .......................................... 45/95 Dairies (Amendment) Regulation 1995.................................................... 46/95
Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Exhibitions)
(Amendment) Regulation 1995 ........................................................ 47/95
Public Health (Animals) (Boarding Establishment)
(Amendment) Regulation 1995 ........................................................ 48/95
Public Health (Animals) (Riding Establishment)
(Amendment) Regulation 1995 ........................................................ 49/95 Pounds Fees (Amendment) Regulation 1995 ........................................... 50/95
2128 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered
Species) Ordinance (Replacement of Schedule 4)
Order 1995........................................................................................ 51/95
Plant (Importation and Pest Control) (Fees)
(Amendment) Regulation 1995 ........................................................ 52/95
Insurance Companies (Authorization and Annual
Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1995............................................... 53/95
Insurance Companies (Register of Insurers)
(Prescribed Fee) (Amendment) Regulation 1995 ............................. 54/95
Occupational Retirement Schemes (Fees)
(Amendment) Rules 1995................................................................. 55/95 Business Registration (Amendment) Regulation 1995............................. 56/95
Business Registration Ordinance (Amendment of
Schedule 2) Order 1995.................................................................... 57/95
Hong Kong Airport (Traffic) (Amendment)
Regulation 1995 58/95
Sessional Papers 1994-95
No. 65 — Trustee's Report on the Administration of the Education Scholarships Fund for the year ended 31 August 1994
No. 66 — Report by the Commissioner of Correctional Services on the Administration of the Prisoners' Welfare Fund for the year ended
31 March 1993
No. 67 — Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund Annual Report for the Period 1 September 1993 to 31 August 1994
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Singleton Hostels
1. MRS PEGGY LAM asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, as the overall vacancy rate of the 17 singleton hostels provided by the Home Affairs Department for housing lodgers in "caged homes" is as high as 60%, will the Government inform this Council of the following:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2129 (a) what measures it will take to enhance the occupancy rate of the hostels;
(b) whether it will consider relaxing the eligibility criteria for admission into the hostels, such as accepting applications from street sleepers and public assistance recipients; and
(c) whether it will review the effectiveness of singleton hostels in solving the housing problem of single persons since their inception in 1991, and whether it will review the future development of the singleton hostel service?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, Honourable Members will recall that at the resumption of debate on Second Reading of the Bedspace Apartments Bill in April last year, the Chairman of the Committee mentioned the need to rehouse lodgers who might have to be displaced from those apartments requiring improvement works to be carried out to enhance their fire and building safety. In response, I gave an undertaking that efforts would be made to rehouse 1600 of the some 3 200 lodgers at that time through the adoption of a diversity of methods by the Home Affairs Department, Housing Department and the Social Welfare Department.
We envisaged that the Social Welfare Department would take care of those who are eligible for compassionate rehousing through the Housing Department Compassionate Rehousing Scheme or through admission into welfare institutions. Those needy lodgers who fall outside these categories would be eligible to apply for admission into singleton hostels provided by the Home Affairs Department.
For the above reason, one of the eligibility criteria for admission into singleton hostels provided by the Home Affairs Department is that an applicant has to be an existing lodger of a bedspace apartment.
The licensing scheme under the Bedspace Apartment Ordinance is being implemented in phases. The demand for singleton hostel accommodation will rise steadily as the scheme gets under way and will reach its peak by the end of 1996 upon full implementation so the occupancy rate is relatively low at present.
As singleton hostels are established to fulfil Government's commitment to rehouse half of the bedspace apartment lodgers, it is not considered opportune to relax the eligibility criteria at this juncture to include non-bedspace apartment lodgers, such as street sleepers and public assistance recipients. To do so will reduce our ability to rehouse needy bedspace apartment lodgers into singleton hostels at the appropriate time.
2130 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Government will keep under review the effectiveness and the development of hostels run by the Home Affairs Department in rehousing bedspace apartment lodgers.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary has pointed out in his reply that half of the 3 200 lodgers will be rehoused. If the number of displaced lodgers who require rehousing exceeds 1 600, does the Secretary have any other measures to rehouse those who are not admitted to singleton hostels?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, the undertaking we made last year was based on several assumptions. If the number of lodgers to be rehoused exceeds half of the existing number of lodgers, we hope we will have adequate means to resolve the problem. As I have mentioned earlier, the Compassionate Rehousing Scheme is mainly administered by the Housing Department. Every year, the Housing Department allocates a certain number of units for various government departments to provide the relevant services. As regards those who are not eligible for compassionate rehousing, most of them can be admitted to the singleton hostels operated by the Home Affairs Department (HAD). We have, at present, 17 singleton hostels, and more hostels of this type will be provided if necessary so that more displaced lodgers may be served. Moreover, we have a sum of money available for this purpose. We will pay close attention to the demand of the coming two years and, if necessary, additional singleton hostels will be made available at the earliest possible time.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, it has been widely reported in the press that conditions of a caged home operated by a principal tenant of a property of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (the Group) are extremely unhygienic and the caged home operator is widely criticized by members of the public. Will the Secretary inform us whether the Group and the HAD have approached the lodgers of this apartment and informed them that they may apply for admission to the singleton hostels operated by the HAD? If so, what is the result? If not, will the Group or the HAD conduct a survey to see if the lodgers in the above-mentioned caged home are in need of places in the singleton hostels run by the HAD?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, the HAD had sent staff to inspect the premises mentioned above in accordance with our licensing scheme prior to the disclosure of this specific case by the press. As I have mentioned earlier, the licensing scheme is being implemented in phases. The first phase is the sending of staff to inspect the premises in order to ascertain the number of bedspace apartments. It is found that there are at present 150 bedspace apartments in the territory. We have asked the operators to apply for temporary licences from the HAD pursuant to the provisions in the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2131
relevant Ordinance. Among these 150 apartments, 149 of them have applied for temporary licences as required under the relevant Ordinance. We have some preliminary understanding as regards the living environment of these 149 apartments, and detailed inspection of each apartment will be further conducted. Then we will begin the second phase of the scheme. In the light of the licensing conditions and the relevant provisions in the Ordinance, we will inform the operators of the improvement works that have to be carried out or the number of lodgers that has to be reduced. In fact, the second phase has already commenced.
As regards the particular example concerning the Group as raised by the Honourable Member, after the disclosure of the case by the press and the radio, the staff members of the HAD and the Group have gone to the premises to acquire an understanding of the need of the dwellers in the premises. We have asked them whether they would like to accept our arrangement for them to be rehoused elsewhere. Information at hand shows that a majority of dwellers in the above premises have expressed the hope of moving to some nearby hostels, if possible. We are therefore looking at the possibility of making arrangements for them to be rehoused in the vicinity of the premises. They have indicated that, in case we fail to provide them with places in nearby hostels, they are not willing to move to faraway places. Anyway, we will follow up the case.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, as regards the vacancy rate of the 17 hostels which is as high as 60%, the Secretary has tried to give an explanation in paragraph four of his main reply. His explanation is that the high vacancy rate has resulted from the fact that the Ordinance has not been fully implemented and that the demand will peak once the Ordinance is implemented in full. First of all, is the Secretary aware of or has the Secretary enquired into the reasons why the existing bedspace apartment dwellers refuse to move into singleton hostels? Is it simply because the Ordinance has not come into effect? Or is it because the conditions for admission to singleton hostels operated by the HAD are too rigid?
Many people are discontented with the facilities and the partitioning of these hostels. Moreover, there is a condition restricting a group of friends from residing together. Lodgers are even required to have a proper job and be able to pay rent. Are these requirements too harsh? If this situation persists, the overall vacancy rate of these hostels may well stay at this high level. Does the Secretary think that this situation is acceptable?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is of course unacceptable if the occupancy rate of the hostels remains low in the future, because in providing these hostels, we intend to achieve a specific purpose. As for the reasons behind the high vacancy rate, I think our understanding differs from the Honourable Member's. We have studied the situation and a survey has been conducted. As the Honourable James TO has said, some people may think that the requirements for hostel occupancy are too harsh and rigid. For example, four or five friends are not allowed to reside
2132 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
together, the lodgers are not allowed to play mahjong in the hostels and karaoke activities are also prohibited. We must be aware that it is necessary to lay down some requirements for these singleton hostels and we do not think that these requirements are too rigid since there are many people residing in these hostels and we have to ensure that everyone will have a quiet place to live in. This is why the lodgers are not allowed to play mahjong or carry out certain other entertainment activities in the hostels. In fact, these activities can be carried out at some other places. We are mainly responsible for providing hostel services to them. The capability to pay rent is of course an important point. I really hope that Members can appreciate the relatively low level of rent in the hostels, which is $380 a month for a bedspace. That is definitely not high and compares favourably with the level of rent at privately-run apartments, which is usually around $500 to $600 a month for a bedspace. Therefore, we do not agree that the low occupancy rate has resulted from the occupancy requirements. As I have mentioned in the main reply, the high vacancy rate is mainly due to the fact that the demand has not yet reached its peak level. I believe that more people will move into singleton hostels when the demand peaks.
Expenses for 1995 Legislative Council Election
2. MR HENRY TANG asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, the 1995 Legislative Council Election will involve several modes of election and there will be a wide difference in the number of voters among the different constituencies, especially in the case of the newly created ninth functional constituency which will have a particularly large number of voters. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council what criteria it will adopt to determine the maximum scale of election expenses for different constituencies so that fair competition can be achieved?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, election expense limits for the Legislative Council, municipal council, and district board elections set the maximum which candidates for these elections may spend on their campaigns. As the name of the term implies, the limits merely prescribe the overall ceilings. Within the limits, candidates are entirely free to spend their resources in whatever ways they deem fit. Needless to say, they are also entirely free to spend as much or as little as they like, provided that they stay within the prescribed limits.
The election expense limits for the three tiers of elections are reviewed from time to time. When carrying out such reviews over the years, we have been following the basic principle that the limits must not be so high as to deter aspiring candidates with only limited financial means, nor so low as to make it difficult for candidates to mount an effective campaign. In other words, the election expense limits are to provide, in the spirit of open and fair elections, a level playing field for all candidates.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2133
We have applied this same basic principle in a review which is currently under way on the election expense limits for the September 1995 Legislative Council elections. In addition, we have also taken into account a number of practical considerations. These include:
(i) constituency sizes;
(ii) types and scales of electioneering activities likely to be commonly carried out by candidates; and
(iii) estimated cost of the common expenditure items, bearing in mind inflation in the past four years.
On the above basis, we have arrived at certain preliminary proposals on the appropriate ceilings for the coming Legislative Council elections. These are as follows:
- First, for geographical elections, the current ceiling of $200,000 should remain. This proposal recognizes the fact that whilst constituency sizes for the 1995 Legislative Council will only be about half that of the existing ones, inflation has gone up by about 50% in the past four years or so. A margin should also be built in to allow for more sophisticated, and therefore more expensive, electioneering activities which have become more common in recent years.
- Secondly, for all existing functional constituencies execept the Urban Council, the Regional Council, and the rural constituencies, we propose a ceiling of $80,000. This proposal is principally an adjustment of the current ceiling of $50,000 to off-set inflation.
- Thirdly, for the Urban Council, Regional Council, and rural functional constituencies, we again propose status quo, that is, a ceiling of $50,000. Having regard to the small franchises of these three constituencies and past pattern on election expenses, we believe that this figure should be sufficient to meet candidates' campaigning requirements.
- Fourthly, for the nine new functional constituencies, we propose a ceiling of $180,000. This figure reflects the relatively large electorate sizes of these constituencies, averaging about 300 000, and the fact that electors are scattered in different parts of Hong Kong.
- Fifthly, for the Election Committee, we propose a ceiling of $50,000 on account of the size of its franchise.
2134 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Mr President, let me emphasize once again that the above figures are only preliminary proposals. We make no claim that we have got the figures exactly right. But, in our judgement, our preliminary proposals should form a sensible basis for discussion. We welcome comments and alternative proposals, both from this Council and from the community at large. Firm recommendations will be put to the Governor in Council for approval in early May in the light of comments received. Our aim is to complete the necessary legislative process in June so that candidates will know for certain where they stand in good time before the elections.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in point four of paragraph four of his main answer, the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs said "For the nine new functional constituencies, we propose a ceiling of $180,000. This figure reflects the relatively large electorate sizes of these constituencies, averaging about 300 000, and the fact that electors are scattered in different parts of Hong Kong." The Secretary thinks that the electorate of the nine new functional constituencies are, on the average, larger than that of the geographical constituencies and that the area of distribution of the electorate is also wider than that of the geographical constituencies. Nevertheless, the election expense limit for the nine new functional constituencies is $20,000 less than that of the geographical constituencies. Will the Secretary explain why this amount is deemed reasonable and in what way it is in line with the principle stated in paragraph three of his main answer? Besides, the candidates are prohibited from speaking freely through the electronic media. Has the Secretary even considered the possibility that the prohibition will infringe upon the freedom of speech as stipulated in the Bill of Rights?
PRESIDENT: You had better take those two questions one by one. The first question first, Secretary.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, our preliminary proposal for $180,000 for the nine new functional constituencies obviously takes into account the principle that the ceiling must not be too high as to deter people from campaigning or running a proper campaign, nor should it be too low as to enable them to mount an effective campaign and in that connection, we also take into account the constituency sizes. As I mentioned, the nine new functional constituencies are obviously much larger than the existing functional constituencies and therefore it is quite reasonable that what we propose is greater than that for the existing functional constituencies. I do not think that we should draw a direct comparison between the election expenses for the geographical constituencies and the nine new functional constituencies, albeit that constituency sizes is one factor that one has to take into account. So there is no direct relation as such and what we propose, that is, $180,000, is marginally lower than the $200,000 for the geographical constituencies, and electorate size is not the only factor. It does take into account the way that the campaign could
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2135
be mounted in the two groups, the geographical constituencies and the nine new functional constituencies.
PRESIDENT: Your second question, Mr TANG. You had a second question I believe.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, with regard to my first question, I would like to have some clarifications. The Secretary has mentioned that we should not draw a direct comparison between the electorate sizes of the geographical constituencies and the nine new functional constituencies. But the has also said that the electorate size of the nine new functional constituencies can be compared to that of the existing functional constituencies. Since both the geographical constituencies and the nine new functional constituencies are part of the Legislative Council Election and both of them have a large number of voters distributed all over the territory, why does the Secretary think that they cannot be compared to each other? Mr President, should I ask my second question now or later?
PRESIDENT: Yes, let the Secretary deal with that question first, Mr TANG.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, what I said was that constituency sizes is certainly one factor that we take into account in determining the limits for the election expenses. But then I went on to explain that there is no direct correlation between the different sizes in the different groups of the Legislative Council elections in September.
PRESIDENT: You had a second question, Mr TANG.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Government prohibits candidates from speaking freely through the electronic media. Will such prohibition infringe upon the freedom of speech as stipulated in the Bill of Rights?
PRESIDENT: I think you are asking for an opinion there, Mr TANG, and I do not think it derives directly from the question and answer.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, we are now aware of the Government's preliminary proposal. I hope we can discuss it later in the Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs. As regards the election expenses for geographical election, it is quite acceptable for the Government to
2136 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
maintain the limit at $200,000 because the sizes of geographical constituencies have become smaller following introduction of the "single seat, single vote" system. However, I think the limit of $180,000 for the nine new functional constituencies is being set without careful thought. We all know that the electorate of these constituencies are scattered all over the territory. They may be even more widely distributed than the electorate of the geographical constituencies. Maybe the ceiling of $180,000 is just provisional and subject to further discussion. However, the distribution of the electorate of the nine new functional constituencies are indeed very wide. Will the Government conduct a thorough study in this regard?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, as I said in my answer, we would certainly welcome views and comments from Members and also from the community at large as to whether our proposed limits are appropriate. So we are certainly quite prepared to discuss further with the Members, be it at the panel or on other occasions, and we certainly would be prepared to take into account views expressed on the subject.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, in my opinion, it is not the winning of a certain candidate or a certain political party but the high voting rate that makes a successful election. As for the nine new functional constituencies, if the election expense ceiling is $180,000 with 300 000 electors, then the expenses limit per elector will be $0.6. Will the Government consider the election unsuccessful if the voting rate is very low? Has the Government ever made any estimation of the voting rate of the nine new functional constituencies on the basis of the $180,000 election expense limit? Will it be close to the current voting rate of 30% to 40%?
PRESIDENT: Secretary, are you able to answer?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: I will try, Mr President. I think the main criteria in determining whether an election is successful or not is obviously the judgement as to whether elections have been mounted and organized in a fair and open manner. I think that really is a yardstick. If the general opinion is that the election has been run and conducted in a fair and open manner, I think that will spell success for the elections. I think turn-out rate is obviously something that we would like to have as high as possible and indeed, if we can have everybody who is eligible to vote coming out to vote, that obviously would be the ideal. But it is no more than an indication of the degree of interest and the degree of participation, and I would hate to speculate at this stage as to what the turn-out rate would be in any election, be it for the functional constituency group or any other group. I do not think it would be possible, nor useful, to speculate.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2137
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, we all know that the ceiling for election expenses for the 1991 geographical elections was $200,000. Has the Government actually carried out a review on this amount to see whether it is enough or not? Or is it that the ceiling is maintained just because the Government does not bother to change it since nothing has happened in that election? Besides, has the Government ever checked how much the political parties have actually spent on election campaigns? For example, many political parties have started to plan electioneering activities for their candidates. The expenses involved are great. In what way will the Government check the election expenses of the political parties in detail so that independent candidates will be on a fairer ground in this regard?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, our basic consideration, as I set out in the answer, is a general principle that the ceiling, which is no more than an indicative figure, must not be so high as to discourage any candidate, be it from a political party or an independent candidate, to mount a proper campaign. On the other hand, it cannot be so low, albeit suitable for all, as to make it impossible for any candidate to reach out to his target electorate. So one has to strike a balance. It is no more than a judgement on the basis of past pattern of expenditure from the experience we gathered in past elections. But as I mentioned in the answer, we are quite prepared to discuss further and to listen to views expressed by Councillors, political parties or independent Members on this subject.
MR ALFRED TSO (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to news reports two days ago, the Government has issued 700 000 letters to employers requesting them to provide information about their employees. However, less than 10% have given a reply after the deadline. How many people will finally be registered as electors for the nine new functional constituencies as estimated by the Government? Will there be only very few registered voters in the end and in these circumstances, will the ceiling of $180,000 be too high?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, on the registration of the voters for the nine new functional constituencies, I think it is still early days yet. The sending out of letters to employers is a first step in our campaign for registration. Obviously, we have to follow through the first step of sending out letters to employers, and I must say that our focus at the moment is on the arrangements for the 5 March elections. But I can assure Members that as soon as the 5 March elections are out of the way, you will find that we would be stepping up our work in the registration and preparation for the Legislative Council elections. We certainly do not want to confuse the public as to the two elections, but it is early days yet and I would not at this stage draw any conclusion from the initial returns from the various employers. We will certainly be following up and we are certain that we would be able to reach out to our target voters for the nine new functional constituencies.
As for the level of election expenses that we propose for the nine new functional constituencies, we obviously have taken into account the potential size of the electorate in each of the nine new functional constituencies. There obviously is a range, and our proposed level of $180,000 takes into account this possible range of potential electors, and
2138 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
we think that what we propose should probably be able to cater for the various sizes of the nine new functional constituencies.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr TSO, not answered?
MR ALFRED TSO (in Cantonese): Mr President, although the Secretary thinks that it is still to early to estimate the ultimate number of registered voters, the returns from employers constitute a very important part of the process of determining the electorate size of the nine new functional constituencies. Will the Secretary inform this Council the estimated number of voters for the nine new functional constituencies on the basis of the current situation? We can decide on whether the proposed ceiling of $180,000 is reasonable only if we have the figure. Will the Secretary clearly state the Government's estimation?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, I certainly agree with Mr TSO that it is extremely important for employers to respond to our appeal for information on their employees and on this point, I certainly would like to have the help and support of Members on this very important move. But, as I said, it is still early days, it is the first step and we are still following up the response from employers. Mr TSO may wish to know that right at this moment, the Registration and Electoral Office is sending out reminders to those employers who have not responded. So I think it is early days and obviously we will have to see the final results before we come to any conclusion. But electorate sizes is certainly one factor that we would need to take into account in determining the level of election expenses.
Report on Hong Kong's Civil and Political Rights
3. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: The United Nations Human Rights Committee announced in April 1991 that the fourth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was due on 18 August 1994, but the British Government has now postponed the submission until mid-1995. In this connection, will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) whether it is aware of the reasons for such a delay; and
(b) whether a separate report on Hong Kong will be produced, as suggested by several members of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2139 SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President,
(a) The United Kingdom Government, as a State Party to the various treaties that apply to Hong Kong, is responsible for submitting periodic reports to the United Nations (UN) treaty monitoring bodies. The Hong Kong Government contributes to the preparation of the relevant reports by preparing and submitting to the United Kingdom Government draft reports in respect of Hong Kong.
The British Government faced an unusual situation last year in that four written human rights reports to the UN were due in the same year. These are reports under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This situation was exceptional.
The process for the United Kingdom Government to compile each report is complicated and time-consuming, involving several home departments, as well as 11 dependent territories, and three Crown dependencies. Some delay in meeting the deadlines has become inevitable. The United Kingdom Government has therefore decided to postpone the submission of the sections of the ICCPR report in respect of its dependent territories and Crown dependencies to this year.
(b) There will be a separate section on Hong Kong in the Fourth Periodic Report as there was in the Third Report. The British Government intends to submit the report under ICCPR in respect of Hong Kong this summer, and will express the hope that the Human Rights Committee will examine it at its 55th Session in the autumn. The timing of the examination is up to the Committee.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, I would like the Secretary to tell us whether there is at present already a draft Hong Kong report? If it is available, whether this Council would be able to look at that report? And indeed I wish to remind the Secretary that the process of the UN is to make sure that the participating signatory countries indeed consult their respective countries before the submission. So I think in the case of Hong Kong, the Government should be consulting Hong Kong before submission of this report.
Secondly, I just wish to ask for a clarification that in April 1991, when the UN Human Rights Committee gave their report, it is minuted that they wanted a special report on Hong Kong even though the United Kingdom may not be able to produce the other dependent territories' report on time. I wonder why the United Kingdom Government has decided to delay the ICCPR and not
2140 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
the other ones, because I believe the UN particularly highlighted Hong Kong's case and they wanted it to be on time. I do not know if the Secretary is aware, whether in any of the other UN reports, back in 1991, the UN has specifically requested any particular report besides Hong Kong?
PRESIDENT: Have you got both questions, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I will try my best. We were formally requested to make our submission by the United Kingdom Government early in the year, precisely the middle of January this year. But despite the late formal instruction, we have started the process of drafting the Hong Kong report. Members will recall that the Constitutional Development Panel of the Legislative Council has been discussing with the Administration this particular matter, and we have promised the Panel that we will be consulting with the Panel the draft outline of the report that we are going to submit to the United Kingdom. Members will recall that at the last meeting of the relevant Panel, we talked about the timetable for the submission of the draft outline and it is our intention, now that a firm date has been given, to finalize the outline within a matter of weeks so as to enable the Administration to get on in earnest with the preparation of the report. As I have said, it is our intention to submit our draft report to the United Kingdom in late May or early June, so as to enable a report to be submitted to the UN and a hearing to be arranged for the Hong Kong report in the 55th Session later in the year.
I think, in respect of the special request made by the Human Rights Committee when it considered the Hong Kong report back in 1991, of course Hong Kong is not a state party to the Covenant, the United Kingdom Government is. And the United Kingdom Government, as I have said in my main reply, has decided, having regard to all the circumstances, to call for a report on the ICCPR in respect of all its dependent territories and Crown dependencies this year. This is something I assume that the United Kingdom Government has decided having regard to all the circumstances and believes that that is the best course of action available to them.
In respect of the other submissions, as I mentioned in my main reply, last year there were four reports due for submission to the UN and in respect of Hong Kong, the position is this: We have already submitted our report in respect of our commitment under the Convention against Torture; we have already submitted our report in respect of our obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and I understand that the United Kingdom Government will be submitting these two reports to the UN very shortly. Of course, in respect of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a report in respect of Hong Kong was considered late last year.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2141 PRESIDENT: Miss LOH, not answered?
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, I am afraid maybe I confused the Secretary in the last part. Perhaps I can phrase the question again. What I meant was the UN Human Rights Committee, I believe, made a specific point to the United Kingdom Government that the Hong Kong report should be on time because of the transfer of sovereignty and all the problems that Hong Kong is facing in terms of the transition. So really since there is a specific request from the UN, I wonder why the United Kingdom decided to delay this particular report, particularly when the UN Human Rights Committee said that they were willing to take just the Hong Kong report on its own?
PRESIDENT: Are you able to answer, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, it is not for me to speculate as to why the United Kingdom Government has taken the decision that it has. But I think I want to take this opportunity to remind Members that we are now drafting a report and as I have said, this report will be ready in a few months' time and it is our hope, our desire, to have this report considered by the Human Rights Committee later this year. And so there is, I think, no substance in any suggestion that we are trying to avoid submitting a report to the United Kingdom in the first place and for the UN Human Rights Committee to consider before the transfer of sovereignty. There is every opportunity for a report in respect of Hong Kong's obligations under the ICCPR to be considered this year.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, perhaps I can help the Secretary to consider how to answer the question concerning the delay by asking in this way. The fourth periodic report under discussion now should have been submitted in August 1994 but the submission has been postponed to mid-1995. The Secretary has explained that this is because the United Kingdom Government has to submit many reports. The Honourable Miss Christine LOH has just mentioned that the United Kingdom can just submit a separate report on Hong Kong. I do not mean that Hong Kong should submit its own report, but a separate report on Hong Kong is to be submitted by the United Kingdom. According to my understanding, this was the intention of the Human Rights Committee back in April 1991. Will the Secretary inform this Council whether the United Kingdom Government or the Hong Kong Government intends to submit the fifth report under the ICCPR before the transfer of sovereignty in July 1997? Does the submission of the fifth report have anything to do with the postponement of the submission of the fourth report?
2142 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I do not think I have misunderstood the question from the Honourable Christine LOH. I think the situation is this. Despite the fact that we are only reporting on Hong Kong this year, if the Human Rights Committee expresses a desire to ask for a special report on Hong Kong before 1997, I think it is a matter for the Committee, and if a request along those lines is made to the United Kingdom Government, I am sure we will consider such a request in the light of the circumstances prevailing.
PRESIDENT: Mr TO, not answered?
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Has the United Kingdom Government or the Hong Kong Government any decision at this very moment on the submission of a fifth report prior to the transfer of sovereignty in 1997 even if the United Kingdom Government is not requested to do so by the Human Rights Committee? Will the submission of such a report be considered? What are the criteria for consideration?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I cannot possibly answer on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. As far as I am concerned, I stand by what I have said. If we receive a request from the UN Committee, we will certainly give consideration to such a request.
Official Definition of 'the Poor' and 'Poverty Line'
4. MR FRED LI asked (in Cantonese): Two private survey reports indicate that about one sixth of the population in the territory are living below the "poverty line". As there is no official definition for either "poverty" or "poverty line", will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it classifies those eligible for comprehensive social security assistance payment as "the poor";
(b) of the criteria adopted by the Government in formulating social service policies for the lower-income group; and
(c) whether the Government will conduct surveys for the purpose of formulating an official definition for "poverty line"?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, there appears to be a general consensus amongst experts that "poverty" as such defies definition — whether in absolute or relative terms or by any other more subjective method. To seek to define it or a "poverty line" for Hong Kong would serve no useful purpose. We would, as has been the experience elsewhere, no doubt fail
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2143
to reach a consensus since any definition would involve the exercise of subjective value judgements.
My response, therefore, to the last part of this question is "no" — the Government will not attempt to formulate an official definition of the "poverty line".
What is important, however, is how we go about identifying those in our society who are in need, those who are so disadvantaged that government support should be provided to them.
For those who lack the means permanently or temporarily to provide for themselves, we have a comprehensive safety net. The Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme is an important part of that net. The CSSA is means tested and the level of payment comprises standard rates supplemented by specific grants to meet the individual needs of our clients concerned. Since we have no agreed definition of poverty or who is poor, the Government does not "classify" those eligible for CSSA as poor.
In formulating our social service policies, the criteria adopted for assisting those who have low incomes necessarily vary from sector to sector depending on the public service concerned. Most of our social welfare services are made available to all and are not targetted exclusively at a lower income group, although those with lower incomes are accorded priority for some services such as child care centres, home help services and care and attention homes for the elderly. If a person cannot afford the fees charged for a service, there are provisions for them to be waived or for support to be given through CSSA payments or other charitable funds. In the case of child care services, for example, there is a Fee Assistance Scheme.
In the case of medical services, these are provided on the principle that no person should be denied treatment through lack of means. Again waiver systems operate for those who cannot afford to pay. CSSA recipients are granted full exemption from fees.
In the case of public housing, income criteria for assessing eligibility are calculated by reference to the cost of renting housing in the private sector and the non-housing expenditure required to maintain a reasonable standard of living for households of different sizes. In view of the costs of housing in Hong Kong, it is not surprising to see that income eligibility criteria in this field are very different from those applicable to social security assistance. For those in need, the main principle of our housing policy is that no one should be made homeless. Use of transit centres and temporary housing areas ensure that this policy objective is met.
In the case of education, nobody is deprived of a place in the education system due to a lack of means. In addition to the nine years of free and compulsory education, Fee Remission Schemes ensure that students from low-
2144 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
income families can also take part in kindergarten education and senior secondary schooling including the Sixth Forms. At tertiary levels, needy students are eligible for a range of loans and grants. The households benefitting from these schemes range from the low-income to lower-middle-income families. The income eligibility criteria for these forms of support are, again, understandably different from those for social security assistance.
In answer to the second part of the question, I would therefore conclude that rather than formulating policies for a lower income group, we generally formulate our social service policies to address the social needs we see and then, having provided services to address those needs, we ensure that everyone, regardless of income, is given access to them, with priority given to those most in need.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am very disappointed because the Administration has been turning a blind eye to the plight of a group of poor people. According to figures relating to the second quarter of 1993 provided by the Government, 91 600 people were earning less than $3,000 a month. These people are not eligible for the CSSA payment because they have got a job. Yet, they earned less than $3,000 a month. The figures also showed that there were 180 000 people earning $3,000 to $4,000 a month. These low-income earners were also not eligible for the CSSA payment. If they were not living in public housing units, they would have to lead a really difficult life. Will the Administration consider helping those people who fall outside the safety net of the CSSA Scheme but are always confronted with unemployment or underemployment? Why does the Administration not start looking into this problem?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the question relates to those who fall outside the safety net of the CSSA Scheme. For those who require specific assistance, our social policies ensure that the resources are geared to providing assistance to those most in need. For those referred to by the Honourable Mr Fred LI, we have a range of services on retraining schemes and employment assistance, to ensure that people on low income are able to acquire skills which will enable them to acquire jobs earning higher incomes. For those who require housing assistance, the Housing Authority and the Housing Department have schemes to ensure that those who require housing are given adequate assistance, whether in temporary housing units or in permanent housing.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, in the Government's calculation of the CSSA, I presume they have taken into account how much it actually costs a person or a family of a particular size to live in Hong Kong. So I wonder whether that information is indeed available as guidelines for them in granting CSSA, and if that information is available, whether this Council can have those
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2145
criteria? And if that information is not available because the Government has not done it, then why not?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: We have eligibility criteria for granting CSSA to our clients. There are various levels of grants to the individuals, as well as to families, depending on the size, income and needs of the family — whether they have special needs or general basic needs. These vary from family to family. Therefore the whole policy of the CSSA Scheme is to direct resources to those in need and the grants are based on that premise.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: I am sorry, Mr President, maybe again I have confused the Secretary. I know the Government releases information about whether any particular person complies with the criteria, for example, how much they earn and so on. But what I am really asking is, as regards the amount that the Government gives out under each of these categories, what are those amounts based on? For any particular amount, what measurements and what criteria do you base them on? Is that available and can that information be publicly released? So, I am really asking, for any amount that you will give out, how did you come to that amount itself as being sufficient to take care of a person who falls under that criteria? I hope I am clear enough, Mr President.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I think from time to time, we have been briefing the Welfare Services Panel on the whole system of payments and calculations under the CSSA Scheme. I think what the Honourable Member refers to is the basis for the calculation of these amounts, and this is one of the things that will receive priority treatment in the CSSA review that we are undertaking at the moment. I think from time to time we have released information on the basis for these calculations. The standard rates are based on the needs of a person or a family for food, clothing, fuel and other household expenses. The special rates relate to rent, children's school fees, uniforms, meals, transport to schools, other incidental expenses, special diets — particularly for those who are recovering from illnesses, telephone for those who need it, and in many cases special grants to people who require wheelchairs or other items of expenditure which are not generally available to other clients who do not need them. So there are basically two sets of rates, one on standard rate which is food, clothing, fuel and others, and special rates based on what each person or family specifically requires.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): The Secretary for Health and Welfare has just mentioned the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services. As the Chairman of the Panel, I would like to follow up the question raised by Honourable Miss Christine LOH. What we want is very simple. The basic CSSA payment for a single elderly will be increased to $1,810 as from 1 April. Will the Administration provide us with some typical examples to illustrate how an
2146 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
elderly can cope with three meals a day with the $1,810 CSSA payment, how a typical family with two elderly people will make use of the grant, and how a typical family with three members or a typical single parent family will make use of that grant in a month? By allocating these funds, the Administration thinks that the safety net of the CSSA can satisfy the basic needs of people's daily lives. I hope the Administration can provide the relevant information.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, at the moment, the CSSA grants are given to individuals and families without any restrictions on how they spend the money. What the Honourable Member has suggested is information relating to how people spend their money. This is one of the very important pieces of information that we intend to get from the Household Expenditure Survey which will give us information on how households spend their income, and this information will include households receiving CSSA payments and those outside the CSSA net.
PRESIDENT: Not answered, Mr LI?
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, what I want to know is not the way people spend their money. I just want to know whether the Administration has any proof that the money given to the clients under the CSSA Scheme is sufficient to satisfy the basic needs of everyday lives, that is to say, adequate for the clients to live in Hong Kong.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, this is precisely one of the things that we hope to do in this review. We wish to find out how well our CSSA payments are meeting the needs of our clients.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, would the Secretary tell us that actually, she has no idea right now whether those amounts are suitable and appropriate for the recipients?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the CSSA Scheme is reviewed from time to time and it is our duty to make sure that it is kept up to date with changing social needs. That is not to say that the amounts are not adequate at the moment.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2147 Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme
5. REV FUNG CHI-WOOD asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, in its submission to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council requesting an injection of $6.8 billion into the Sewage Services Trading Fund, the Government has given assurance that Stage I of the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme (SSDS) will be compatible with the Scheme's Stage II projects of any design. However, the preliminary report on the SSDS submitted to the Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs by the three independent experts commissioned by the Government indicates that the proposed Stage II oceanic outfall plan for the SSDS, which has all along been advocated by the Government, is not feasible. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) Why the Government has recommended the SSDS to this Council and the public before the Government has examined fully the feasibility of the primary treatment and oceanic outfall plan proposed by the consultants commissioned by the Government;
(b) whether the query by the three experts on the proposed primary treatment and oceanic outfall is an indication that there are problems with the consultants' recommendations; why the Government has accepted the consultants' recommendations without first examining their feasibility; and why the Government has not reviewed the consultants' recommendations earlier and has delayed it until recently to commission other experts to conduct the review;
(c) which part of the Stage I projects will be incompatible with the nine options for Stage II; what remedial measures will the Government take; and
(d) why the Government has assured the Finance Committee that the Stage I projects will be compatible with the Stage II projects of any design; and whether the Government has given incorrect information to this Council?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) The Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme (SSDS) is a 10-year capital programme for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage in Hong Kong. As we have frequently made clear, this Scheme is an essential, even critical, component of our proposals to abate very serious water pollution and to protect public health. The present form of the SSDS is the result of a two-year intensive study, completed in 1989, of over 1 000 possible disposal arrangements. An independent group of consultants confirmed, in 1993, that the
2148 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Scheme would be cost-effective and environmentally robust. Members of this Council have been kept informed of the progress of the Scheme and the related engineering studies on a regular basis.
The Finance Committee on 4 February 1994 was asked to approve the injection of $6.8 billion to the Sewage Services Trading Fund to finance Stage I of the SSDS. We usually refer to Stage I as the High Priority Programme (HPP) as it will curtail up to 70% of harbour pollution when completed in 1997. We have assured Members that Stage I of the SSDS will form the fundamental building block for any system of higher level treatment that may be required. This still holds good. We have also made clear to Members our intention to review the oceanic outfall proposal — or Stage II of the SSDS — together with other alternatives, including secondary treatment processes, in parallel with the construction of the Stage I projects; and in doing so to take account of new technologies in sewage treatment and disposal that may have emerged since the first SSDS study in 1989.
We have also undertaken to report to the Environmental Affairs (EA) Panel of this Council the findings and recommendations of the Review of Stage II options within a few weeks of the formulation of its initial findings. This has already been done. The consultants' preliminary draft report became available to us in December 1994 and members of the EA Panel were briefed on the shortlisted options for Stage II by the consultants and the International Panel of (three) Experts on 18 January 1995. This review, may I point out, has not said that the original outfall proposal is not feasible, but that a shorter outfall could be considered if a higher level of treatment was provided for. The consultants recommended nine options for consideration as alternatives to the original Stage II outfall option and the Government is now examining these in detail. Neither the Government nor the experts have taken a final view on the options identified in the review or how this might affect the oceanic outfall proposal. Upon completion of the report, it is our intention that the public should be consulted on the Stage II options.
While a final decision on the later stages of the SSDS can be taken after the public consultation, something must be done now to deal with our water pollution problem. Water quality in the harbour is poor and deteriorating. As a project of the type and scale of the full SSDS is best taken forward in stages in any case, the Government is getting on with Stage I of the SSDS, the High Priority Programme, which offers a speedy and cost-effective first step remedy to our problem, as quickly as possible. Our first task therefore is to complete the High Priority Programme by 1997 to curtail harbour pollution by 70%. Our immediate aim is to prevent further deterioration in the water quality of the harbour and to protect
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2149
public health. As I have already said, the Stage I works will not pre-empt any workable Stage II option.
(b) As I have explained before, the present form of the SSDS is the result of a two-year intensive study of over 1 000 possible disposal arrangements, the feasibility and effectiveness of which was confirmed by an independent group of consultants in 1993. To be confirmed as part of the long-term solution, the original Stage II option must be environmentally viable and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies to examine this aspect have been started. We made it clear, from the beginning, that it would not be possible to proceed with the Stage II option without the satisfactory completion of a thorough EIA. This needs to be done with the co-operation and assistance of the Chinese authorities; and, eventually, their formal agreement would be required for any oceanic outfall option. There has never been any doubt about this requirement.
However, in the light of more recent developments in sewage treatment technology, the latest review began in mid-1994 to determine whether more environmentally acceptable and cost-effective alternatives to the original outfall proposal could be identified. The independent examination conducted by the International Panel of Experts has basically endorsed the collection system and centralized treatment at Stonecutters and suggested some adjustments to the treatment level by proposing chemically enhanced primary treatment. Such adjustments are only to be expected during the implementation of long-term technical and engineering projects on such a vast scale. This is why the Administration accepts the need to review Stages II to IV of the SSDS and to consult the public, the Advisory Council on the Environment, the EA Panel of this Council and the Chinese side in the process. I must emphasize, however, once again that the present Stage I works will not pre-empt any Stage II options and are basic and essential components of any system involving higher levels of treatment that may be introduced.
(c) No part of Stage I of the SSDS will be incompatible with possible Stage II options. As I have already said, the International Panel of Experts have made some suggestions as regards the treatment of sewage flows on Stonecutters Island and these are being examined as a matter of priority. They will not affect or delay the High Priority Programme. A commercial proposal to incorporate secondary treatment on the Stonecutters site was examined by the review consultants, but was found not to be feasible for reasons of operational complexity and cost.
2150 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
(d) We assured the Finance Committee in February 1994 that Stage I of the SSDS formed the fundamental building block for any higher level of treatment that might be required. This was correct then and it is correct now. Current Stage I works will be fully compatible with the possible options for Stage II. Indeed, the preference of the International Panel of Experts for connecting Hong Kong Island flows to the Stage I treatment works at Stonecutters only reinforces the need to get on with the High Priority Programme urgently.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, secondary treatment remains a desirable option for many, including various environmental protection organizations. However, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands has just mentioned in his main reply that secondary treatment has been found unfeasible by the Review experts due to operational complexity and high cost. Will the Secretary inform us whether secondary treatment as one of the options for consideration will be included in future consultations or whether it will be ruled out since it has become impossible to have this option because Phase I project has commenced?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the international experts were of the view that primary treatment would not be acceptable and that chemically enhanced primary treatment should be chosen to achieve the dissolved oxygen objectives. In the design of Stage I, we have already taken into consideration the use of chemically enhanced primary treatment at Stonecutters as an interim arrangement before effective control of pollution at source is achieved. Chemically enhanced primary treatment requires fewer sedimentation tanks than conventional primary treatment and we will be taking account of this in the further work on Stage I.
The options that will be considered and will be put to the public for public consultation are those options which have emerged from the Stage II review and they will be compared, of course, with the original Stage II option, the oceanic outfall. If, during the process of consultation, further feasible, workable options were to be suggested or referred to by other experts, then clearly we would consider them.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Rev FUNG, not answered?
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, I do not think the answer is clear enough. I understand that it is the hope of many people to have secondary treatment as an option for consideration in future consultations. However, it seems the Administration has initially ruled this out. I hope the difficulties involved in secondary treatment will be included in the relevant
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2151
consultation papers for members of the public to consider so that they can decide whether it is entirely impossible, or simply a matter of cost. After all, members of the public may choose to have a relatively costly treatment, if it could better protect our environment.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I think for Stage II, as I said, we are able, we have the time and we are willing to consider all feasible options.
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration has made a mistake or misjudgment in accepting the recommendations in full put forward by the consultants and in adopting the centralized treatment and the oceanic outfall plan. Will the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands inform this Council how the Administration can avoid committing the same mistake in future major environmental projects, including Phase II of the Sewage Disposal Scheme?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I do not accept the premise of the question. The centralized treatment has by no means been ruled out. In fact, it has been endorsed by our International Panel of Experts as the correct way to go. And as far as the oceanic outfall is concerned, it remains one of the options against which other options will be compared. So, I think the use of the word "mistake" is probably misplaced here.
And, of course, as I think the Honourable Member is aware, for major projects — public works projects and other projects — full Environmental Impact Assessments are required and that will continue to be the practice.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr MAN, not answered?
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, after having been informed of the report of the panel of experts, Members of this Council think that it is questionable the Administration is to have accepted the recommendations in full put forward by the consultants. Will the Administration inform us how it can avoid accepting recommendations in such a manner in the future when further decisions are due to be made?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Well, Mr President, I think with projects of this size and complexity, we have to achieve a number of different things. The first is, we have to keep our eye clearly on the need to achieve some results. We can go on discussing options, consultants'
2152 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
reports, new technology, different ideas from different directions almost indefinitely. After all, we have been doing this, in respect of the SSDS, since 1989 and now it is 1995. So we must keep clearly in our minds the need to actually do something at some stage rather than to continue to debate and discuss and revise and update indefinitely. I think that is the first point.
The second point against that of course, or counter to that, is that we must keep our minds open, we must be prepared to review, we must be prepared to revise, and we must be prepared to consider new technologies. In a timeframe of this sort of scheme, clearly technology moves on and it is important, as we demonstrated last year, that we be prepared to review. And we have conducted a very thorough review of Stage II and we have been advised that there are several options to be compared with the oceanic outfall option and we will be considering those and we will be consulting, as I have said, widely on those. And if other ideas emerge in the course of that consultation, we will consider them. So, on the one hand we must seek to achieve progress, on the other hand we must seek to be flexible and take aboard new ideas, and we will try to balance the requirements for both aims.
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, first, I would like to state my objection to the multi barrelled question such as this one.
I find the comment in the second paragraph of the Secretary's reply in paragraph (b), that "the International Panel of Experts has basically endorsed the collection system and centralized treatment", when the terms of reference of the consultants forbade them to question Stage I. Can the Secretary truthfully confirm that the experts' opinion is or will be based on a thorough scientific study? And further, can the Secretary confirm that the works presently out on tender have been altered to allow for Stages III and IV, that is, for the sewage inflows from Hong Kong North, which the experts have suggested be brought forward?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, on the first question, of course the fact that the International Panel of Experts have suggested that the flows from Hong Kong Island should be taken to Stonecutters rather than to the other possible sites which we have considered up to now, seems to indicate that they have some tendency to support the centralized arrangements on Stonecutters.
As regards the question of connecting the Hong Kong Island flows to Stonecutters, these of course have never been part of Stage I and should there need to be some adjustments in respect of connecting the flows from Hong Kong Island to Stonecutters, if we decide to do that, then clearly they would be part of Stages III and IV of the project and would be accommodated that way. And I should add that I do not think anything that is happening on Stonecutters in the course of Stage I will preclude that.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2153
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, my comment was that to alter Stage I now to allow for inflow from Hong Kong North would be a relatively easy and cheap option, whereas to adjust that later would probably cost us a great deal of money. And my question is: Have the plans out on tender been adjusted to take into account this eventuality?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Well, Mr President, I think before we have actually reached a decision on the Stage II review, that it would be premature to conclude that we will actually connect the Hong Kong Island flows to Stonecutters. It is certainly an attractive proposition, but we have not reached a decision on that yet.
Drug Trafficking in Yuen Long
6. DR TANG SIU-TONG asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is learned that drug traffickers are very active at Kam Tin in the Yuen Long district. Will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) drug traffickers in the district have become active as a result of insufficient police manpower;
(b) there is any plan to prevent drug trafficking in the district;
(c) any other drug trafficking black spots are known to exist in the district; and
(d) there is any evidence to show that triads are involved in drug trafficking in the district?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the answers to the Honourable Member's questions are as follows:
(a) Drug trafficking activities in the Yuen Long District bear no direct relationship to police manpower in the district. The present manning scale of the Yuen Long Police District is considered to be adequate; police manning scales are of course kept under review from time to time. It should be noted that police enforcement action against drug traffickers is not confined to Yuen Long District police manpower; action is also taken by Police Regional and Police Headquarters units.
(b) The police have taken, and will continue to take enforcement action, which has resulted in more arrests and improvements to the situation on the ground. In addition, assistance has been sought from the public, through the District Fight Crime Committee and
2154 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
community organizations in supplying information to the police. But enforcement action alone does not provide a long-term solution to the drugs problem, which is not of course peculiar to the Yuen Long District. Treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts, and preventive education and publicity are necessary to help reduce the demand for drugs. Thus, the Governor will chair a Summit Meeting on Drugs on 6 March to encourage community participation, and to draw on ideas from a wide sector of the community.
(c) Although street-level drug traffickers may concentrate in particular areas at particular times, they are highly mobile and they do change their locations and methods of operation quickly. Thus, while black spots can occasionally be identified, police enforcement action tends to make them short-lived.
(d) It is believed that many street level traffickers have some sort of triad affiliations. However, there is little evidence to indicate that drug trafficking is directly related to triad activities.
DR TANG SIU-TONG asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, I very much regret that the Administration's reply in respect of problems in a specific district has been so irrelevant and pointless. I wish to follow up two points. Firstly, the Secretary has mentioned in paragraph (a) of his main reply that "drug trafficking activities in the Yuen Long District bear no direct relationship to police manpower in the district." According to documents submitted by the police to the District Board, officers from the Police Tactical Unit were usually deployed to Pat Heung, in Kam Tin District, for seven to 12 days each month. However, since November last year, the number of such officers has been reduced because they were deployed to another District to control the crowd there. Does this reflect a shortage of police manpower? Secondly, in paragraph (c) of the Secretary's main reply, it is said that drug trafficking black spots are highly mobile; but according to documents submitted by the police to the District Board, ......
PRESIDENT: I think, Dr TANG, you had better take them one by one please. Secretary, the first question.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do repeat, and I have the assurance of the Police Force, that the manning scale for the Yuen Long Police District is considered adequate. I have to, perhaps, take the opportunity to explain that enforcement action against drug trafficking activities on the streets is not necessarily performed just by district police officers. The police operational system, as far as combatting drug problems is concerned, operates at three levels. At the district level they are primarily headed by Special Duty
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2155
Squads, although of course, other police officers in the district, in particular for example, Crime or Intelligence units, could very often help in the actions. But beyond that level, police action squads also exist at the Regional Headquarters level and indeed at the central level in the Narcotics Bureau. In other words, where the action that is planned for a particular time and place justified, the manpower that can be mobilized does not simply depend on the police manning and staff in that particular district concerned. That, in our view, is the best use of scarce, trained professional police manpower resources.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in paragraph (c) of his main reply, the Secretary has mentioned that drug trafficking black spots are highly mobile. According to documents submitted by the police to the District Board, there were three divisions in the Yuen Long Police District in 1994. As a result of anti-drugs enforcement action taken by the police in one of these divisions, drug traffickers have gone to another division to do their business. Does this show that: firstly, there is a shortage of police manpower; secondly, there is a lack of co-ordination in police enforcement action against drug traffickers; and thirdly, the police have left drug traffickers a way out so that they may go to another place to continue their operation?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the nature of drug trafficking offences is, as I have already said, a very mobile form of criminal activity. They are highly mobile. They use not only cars; they use pagers; they use mobile-phones; and whenever police action is taken against drug trafficking activities at the street level at a particular point, very often they will cease activities or reduce their activities at that point. But that does not mean, however, that they have ceased operations altogether. It is, in all honesty, a bit of a cat-and mouse game.
I have to say that the best way in which we could tackle the enforcement problem is of course, on the part of the police, to ensure that these drug traffickers are caught and are put to the courts for sentencing. And as far as the community is concerned, we certainly would like to call upon members of the community to inform the police of any suspicion or evidence they find of drug traffickers in their districts.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Commander of the Yuen Long Police District has held a press conference earlier to summarize the situation in Yuen Long District regarding crimes in the past year, that is, 1994. The figures he announced showed that drug addiction was the most serious problem. The number of students addicted to drugs multiplied as compared to 1993. It is obvious that the problem of students addicted to drugs is worsening. We also learn from information provided by the police that drug addicts are attracted to Yuen Long because drugs are cheaper there and the dilution rate of drugs are low. As a result, the problem of drug addiction by students has
2156 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
worsened. Will the Secretary for Security inform this Council whether the Administration has set any objectives or taken any measures to tackle the problem of student drug addiction so as to prevent the situation from deteriorating? Furthermore, the Secretary has pointed out in paragraph (b) of his main reply that "enforcement alone does not provide a long-term solution to the drugs problem". I do agree to this point. I believe that in order to eradicate the problem, we must stop drugs from entering Hong Kong. Will the Secretary for Security inform us what efforts have been made in the past in stopping drugs from entering Hong Kong? Where do drugs usually come from? What progress has been made regarding liaison with China with a view to intercepting drugs from being smuggled into Hong Kong?
PRESIDENT: You have really got two distinct questions there. Could you answer the first one first, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I take it the first one is about drug abuse and not about the question of enforcement.
PRESIDENT: Do you wish the first question to be put again, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I will try and answer it as far as I can remember. There are several points raised. But in general, Mr President, I do agree that the question of drug abuse by young people is serious, not only, as it were, in Yuen Long itself but also territory wide. I think we have mentioned various statistics before on this question, but let me just illustrate. In the five years between 1989 and 1993, for example, the number of young people under the age of 21 who were reported drug abusers has increased at a rate of 147%. That, of course, is a matter of great worry for us.
In terms of the solution, the longer, broader-term solution to the drug addiction problem, I have, of course, outlined in brief terms the overall strategy or overall policy of how to deal with this question in answer to a separate question from the Honourable Timothy HA. But in specific terms, in terms of the things that we particularly do in the area of preventive education vis-a-vis schoolchildren, let me, for example, illustrate a number of things that we are currently doing.
For example, at the school level, drug education talks in schools, in Primary VI and secondary schools, and seminars for parents are held. Materials such as drug education teaching kits for secondary schools and a parent's guide are issued. Drug education is integrated into the formal and informal school curriculum. These are some of the things that we are currently doing.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2157
But as, I repeat, the question of drug addiction generally, and of course drug addiction for young people, is a matter that is causing us concern, we are holding a Summit Meeting on Drugs in early March, to try and tap the ideas from a wider section of the community so as to help us solve the problem.
PRESIDENT: Would you put your second question again, Mr WONG?
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, my second question relates to the remark "enforcement alone does not provide a long-term solution to the drugs problem" in paragraph (b) of the Secretary's main reply. I also think that stopping drugs from entering Hong Kong is the way to eradicate the problem. Can the Secretary for Security tell us the places where drugs usually come from? Are adequate actions being taken to stop drugs from coming in? What progress has been made regarding liaison with China with a view to intercepting drugs from being smuggled into Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, of course one of the key aspects of enforcement action is also to try and interdict the supply of drugs into Hong Kong. Most of the drugs that are causing concern in Hong Kong are, of course, heroin drugs which mostly come from the so-called Golden Triangle.
As to the routes, of course, drugs do not necessarily have to go directly from source to market; they may go all over the world and back to Hong Kong as well. Obviously, the route as it were through China, is one of the routes used and of course we have close liaison with the Chinese security forces, particularly through the border liaison channel, which will help us in the interdiction of drug smuggling into Hong Kong.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Downgrading the Post of Hong Kong Commissioner, London
7. MISS EMILY LAU asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) there is any plan to downgrade the post of Hong Kong Commissioner, London (D8 on the Directorate Pay Scale) by several ranks when the incumbent retires next year; if so, to what level it will be downgraded and what is the justification for doing so; and
2158 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
(b) the post of Hong Kong Commissioner for Economic and Trade Affairs, United States will similarly be regraded downward upon the retirement of the present incumbent; if not, what the reasons are?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the Government is progressively restructuring the London Office with a view to turning it into an economic and trade office by 1997. We see no justification for retaining the post of Hong Kong Commissioner, London, at the current D8 rank on the completion of the re-structuring in late 1996 or early 1997, at which time the London Office will have relinquished those of its traditional functions which are not directly related to trade and economic matters. The future rank of the post is under review and, while no decision has yet been taken, it will certainly be lower than D8.
The considerations which are relevant to the case of the London Office are clearly not applicable in respect of the United States. No change in the role of our economic and trade offices in the United States is envisaged and we do not have any plans to re-grade the post of Hong Kong Commissioner for Economic and Trade Affairs in the United States.
Statutory Registration of Veterinary Surgeons
8. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Regarding the Agriculture and Fisheries Department's proposals for the enactment of the Veterinary Surgeon Registration Bill and the setting up of a Veterinary Committee, will the Government inform this Council of the progress to date and whether any long term targets and programmes have been formulated?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, the demand for veterinary services has increased considerably in recent years. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of veterinary surgeons practising locally and in reports of unqualified persons providing veterinary services. In the interests both of the profession and animal welfare, consideration is therefore being given to the statutory registration of veterinary surgeons who wish to practise in Hong Kong and to related matters including qualifications, standards of practice, conduct and discipline. Our aim is to have a bill ready for introduction into this Council during the 1995-96 Legislative Session.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2159 Consumption of Pork and Livestock Farming in Hong Kong
9. MR PETER WONG asked: Will the Administration inform this Council of the following figures for the past three years:
(a) the total quantity of pork consumed in the territory;
(b) the total quantity of pork produced locally;
(c) the amount of animal waste produced in the territory as evidenced by the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)/Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) loading; and
(d) the amount of compensation paid to farmers to discontinue livestock farming?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the figures required are as follows:
(a) Total consumption of pork in the territory:
1992 1993 1994
(i) Live pigs:
heads 2 972 287 2 765 768 2 751 416
dressed weight
(tonnes)
(ii) Frozen/Chilled pork (tonnes)
159 200 148 440 165 580 46 555 38 481 36 118
(b) Total amount of pork produced locally:
1992 1993 1994
Live pigs:
heads 182 000 169 060 185 560
dressed weight (tonnes)
9 750 9 070 11 170
2160 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 1992 1993 1994
(c) The pollution loadings
from livestock waste in
our water courses (tonnes
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand)
(d) Amount of compensation
paid to farmers to
discontinue livestock
farming as a result of the
Livestock Waste Control
Scheme ($million)
Controlled Ingredients in Chinese Medicine
18 000 14 000 11 000
1992 1993 1994 202 103 125
10. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Regarding the sale of Chinese medicine containing controlled ingredients, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the types of controlled ingredients found by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department during the searches of traditional medicine shops conducted in 1994; and
(b) the criteria on which such searches are based?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, the types of controlled ingredients found by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department during searches of traditional medicine shops in 1994 were those originating from animals subject to licensing control under the Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance. Some parts and derivatives of endangered species of animals used in traditional medicine, including rhinoceros horn and hide, elephant hide, bear gall bladders and bile, musk pods and grains, sea turtle shells and articles claimed to be tiger parts or crocodile meat were found, in addition to medicines claiming to contain ingredients from rhinoceroses or tigers.
Searches of traditional medicine shops are conducted when the Department has reason to believe that endangered species scheduled under the Ordinance may be found on the premises. Such searches must be authorized by a magistrate.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2161 Hostel Places in Hong Kong Institute of Education's New Campus
11. MR TIMOTHY HA asked (in Chinese): Regarding the Hong Kong Institute of Education's new campus which will be built in Tai Po, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the respective numbers of student hostel places planned for various courses; whether they will be adequate to meet the demand in the next five years; if not, what the reasons are; and
(b) the ratio between hostel places and the overall number of enrolments; how does this ratio compare with those adopted by institutions under the University Grants Committee?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President,
(a) A total of 1 500 student hostel places are planned for the full-time students on pre-service courses at the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) whereas none are planned for the students on in-service courses. The Government does not specify how these hostel places should be allocated amongst the students.
In planning for the provision of student hostels at the HKIEd, the Government's policy is that government contribution will be limited to 75% of the capital cost to enable up to 50% of the full-time students to be provided with hostels. This is in line with the policy on the provision of publicly-funded hostels for students in the tertiary sector as a whole, as institutions funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC) are at present required to cover at least 25% of the total cost of a hostel project. Nevertheless, because of historical and locational reasons, the levels of provision of student hostels in the UGC-funded institutions vary.
Having regard to its unique academic mission in teacher education, the Institute considers there is a need to enable students to participate more fully in student activities and hence develop their social and organizational abilities and to provide easy access to the Institute's facilities for students to carry out their practical work. In view of the location of the campus, the Institute intends to seek private donations to provide maximum student accommodation in order to better fulfill the unique objectives of teacher education.
2162 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
(b) The planned 1 500 student hostel places represent 37.5% of the projected full-time student population of the HKIEd when it moves into its new campus in September 1997. As mentioned in (a), the levels of provision of publicly-funded student hostels for the UGC-funded institutions vary, largely because of historical and locational reasons, and are as follows:
- up to 25% of the full-time student population for the University of Hong Kong
- up to 50% of the full-time student population for the Chinese University of Hong Kong
- up to 30% of the full-time student population for the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
- up to 50% of the full-time student population for the Lingnan College
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the City University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Baptist University are not provided with publicly-funded student hostels.
The UGC's review of the space and accommodation requirements of the UGC-funded institutions will be available by late 1995/early 1996 and the Government will consider whether the existing policy on the provision of student hostels at tertiary institutions needs to be adjusted.
Safety Handrail in Public Light Buses
12. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): Recently, there have been complaints by the public that in some sixteen-seat public light buses, no handrail is installed for the passenger seat immediately behind the driver's seat, and this can easily cause danger to children and elderly passengers occupying this seat. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) it will look into the design of seats of public light buses with particular regard to passengers' safety; and
(b) it will consider requiring public light bus operators to install a handrail behind the driver's seat?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2163
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, it has always been the Government's concern that the seating and other arrangements inside public light buses (PLBs) should be designed to enhance the safety of passengers. For example, one of the requirements is that all 16-seat light buses must be fitted with a handrail between the door and the single passenger seat immediately behind the door.
The installation of a handrail behind the driver's seat is not a prescribed requirement at present. In practice, however, many red and green minibuses already have these fitted and, indeed, this has been a standard feature in all new minibuses registered over the past four years.
The Transport Department, in consultation with the PLB operators, will consider making the provision of such handrails a mandatory requirement.
Employees Retraining Scheme Participants
13. MR FREDERICK FUNG asked (in Chinese): With regard to the Employees Retraining Scheme, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the annual breakdown of the number of participants in each of the courses under the scheme since its implementation;
(b) of the number of retrainees who have been able to find course-related jobs upon completion of their retraining programmes, and the annual breakdown of retrained workers in each course who have been able to find course related jobs within six months after retraining; and
(c) whether the Government will consider formulating policies requiring employers to give priority to employing retrained workers before taking on imported labour to fill job vacancies; if so, whether there is a timetable for the formulation of such policies; if not, what are the reasons for not considering the resolution of the employment problems of local workers first?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President,
(a) The statistics on the number of participants in each of the courses provided by the Employees Retraining Board from 1992-93 to 1994-95 are at Annex.
2164 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
(b) We do not have statistics on retrainees who have been able to find course related jobs after completion of their retraining programmes. However, according to the results of an independent study commissioned by the Employees Retraining Board on the success rate of retrainees in finding jobs, 70.6% of the active job-seekers who completed the full-time Job Search Skills Course have been able to find employment while the corresponding success rate of those who completed other vocational skill courses is 59.7%. The full report is being finalized and will be published when it is completed.
(c) It is already an integral part of our policy on importation of labour that employers are required to give priority to recruiting local workers, including retrained workers to fill any job vacancies first before they are allowed to apply for imported workers to fill such places. It is in accordance with this policy that under both the General Importation of Labour Scheme and the special labour importation scheme for Airport Core Programme projects, we require employers who wish to import labour to first register their vacancies with the Local Employment Service (LES) of the Labour Department, and then furnish evidence of such efforts to the Immigration Department when applying for quota allocation.
To assist retrainees to re-join the local workforce, the LES of the Labour Department has been providing special counselling and job placement services to retrainees in all of its nine local employment centres. In the past two years, a total of eight "job bazaars" to promote the employment opportunities for retrainees have been organized. Profiles of retrainees have also been sent regularly to employers on request.
To achieve a better integration of the Employees Retraining Scheme and the LES, we will soon be launching a Pilot Employment Matching Programme to assist unemployed local workers over 30 years of age to rejoin the workforce. This involves the establishment of a Special Register at the LES to provide active placement service for job-seekers over 30 years of age on the basis of actual job vacancies registered by employers, either through direct job referrals, or referrals after arranging for job-seekers to attend job related retraining courses organized by the Employees Retraining Board.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2165 Annex
Number of participants in
retraining courses offered by
Employees Retraining Board 1992-93 - 1994-95
No. of retrainees enrolled
1994-95
(1st to 3rd quarter
that is up to 31
December 1994)
I General Retraining
Programme
a) Courses on Job
1992-93
(4th quarter only)
1993-94 (1st to 4th quarter)
Search Skills - 6 907 9 906
b) Job-Specific Skills
Courses 535 3 650 2 237
c) General Skills
Course 10 2 808 16 361
d) Skills Upgarding
Course - 266 331
II Programmes for the
Elderly - 132 1 887
III Programmes for
Disabled and
Accident Victims - 55 764 ----- --------- --------
Total 545 13 818 31 486
Profits Tax on Property Businesses
14. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): Regarding the profits tax levied on the property business sector, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the property business sector has been sub-categorized as a separate type of economic activity among the sources of profits tax levied by the Government, so that the precise amount of the profits tax paid and its share of the profits tax can be identified; if so, what the figure and its share in the 1993-94 fiscal year were;
2166 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
(b) if the answer to (a) is in the negative, what was the proportion of the profits tax paid by the listed property companies to the total profits tax collected in the 1993-94 fiscal year; and
(c) how long will the tax assessment and collection process take to reflect the situation of the property companies' sharp decrease in profits due to the fall in property prices in late 1994 and 1995, having regard to the fact that property companies usually enter their profits from the sale of property into their accounts at the end of the fiscal year, and that it takes time to go through the procedures of preparing the accounts, auditing, filing declaration and assessment of tax; and whether the decrease in profits tax can only be fully reflected in the 1997-98 fiscal year?
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr President, in reply to the Honourable Member's questions:
(a) for statistical purposes, the Inland Revenue Department operates a system of trade classifications which enables the profits tax contribution made by various business sectors to be identified. These statistics are published annually in Schedule 3 of the Annual Review of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. However, it is not practicable to maintain records which would permit the precise amount of tax paid by every business sector to be ascertained.
For some years now, the profits tax contribution by the property business sector has been included under the heading "Estate Development, Investment and Finance (other than Banking)". This category takes in not only property businesses (both development and rental) but also share/bullion/commodity brokers and dealers, investment companies and merchant banks and finance houses which are not authorized institutions. Based on a sample of files, the Commissioner estimates that of the total profits tax contributed by companies coming within this category, some 80% was paid by property businesses. On this basis, he estimates that about $8 billion, or 20% of all profits tax contributions in 1993-94, came from the property sector.
(b) see (a) above.
(c) we cannot say yet whether the decline in property prices in late 1994 and 1995 has caused a sharp decrease in the profits of property companies, because the profits for that period have not yet been reported. However, if profits have decreased, the effect on the profits tax yield is likely to be reflected before the 1997-98 fiscal year. For example, companies which close their accounts on 31 March 1995 will have to file their tax returns by October 1995 with
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2167
tax due for payment before 31 March 1996, that is within the 1995-96 fiscal year. Companies which close their accounts on 30 June 1995 will have to file their tax returns by May 1996 with tax due for payment by November 1996, that is, within the 1996-97 fiscal year.
Traffic Congestion along Castle Peak Road
15. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): In regard to the traffic congestion along Castle Peak Road during peak hours in the morning (particularly the section between Sam Shing and Siu Lam), will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the reasons for the congestion;
(b) what measures are in place to improve the situation; and
(c) whether there are any plans to implement a full-scale widening of Castle Peak Road; if so, what the specific plans are; if not, what the reasons are?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, Castle Peak Road can cope with traffic volumes experienced at normal times. Congestion does, however, occur occasionally during peak hours at signal junctions between Sam Shing and Siu Lam, in particular at Sam Shing, Tsing Yung Street and Gordon Hard. To address the problem, the Transport Department made adjustments to the traffic signal timings in January this year. The indications are that this has resulted in an improved traffic flow. The Transport Department will continue to monitor the situation closely.
To cope with the additional traffic generated by the new developments along Castle Peak Road near Tsuen Wan, a new dual two-lane bypass, Hoi On Road, was opened to traffic in early January 1995. Since then, the traffic flow in this location has improved considerably.
There are plans to widen Castle Peak Road between Tsuen Wan and Sam Shing. The programme is as follows:
(i) Tsuen Wan Area 2 to Ka Loon Tsuen
The Highways Department is now carrying out an engineering feasibility study to widen this section of the road. The intention is to upgrade it to dual two-lane. The study will be completed by the end of this year.
2168 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 (ii) Ka Loon Tsuen to Siu Lam
This section has already been widened to 10.3 m to provide three lanes: two Tuen Mun-bound and one Kowloon-bound.
(iii) Siu Lam to So Kwun Wat
The Highways Department is preparing a detailed design for widening this section to a dual two-lane carriageway. Construction work will commence in late 1995 for completion in mid-1998.
(iv) So Kwun Wat to Sam Shing
This section has already been widened to 10.3 m, and there is now a dual two-lane carriageway adjacent to the Gold Coast development.
Environmental Problems Caused by Plastic Envelopes
16. MRS PEGGY LAM asked (in Chinese): Is the Government aware that the environmental problems caused by the extensive use of plastic bags have been exacerbated by the increasingly common use of large quantities of plastic envelopes? If so, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the volume of plastic envelopes currently handled each day by the territory's Post Offices; and
(b) what measures it intends to take to dispose of this type of plastic waste in order to prevent it from becoming another major environmental problem?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, the Government is aware that the environmental problems caused by the extensive use of plastic bags have been exacerbated by the increasingly common use of plastic envelopes in large quantities. Similar to other forms of consumer plastic waste, used plastic envelopes are disposed of mainly in landfills. A small proportion are incinerated. There is virtually no recovery of such waste because of its minimal recycling value.
On the average, the Post Office handles 200 000 plastic envelopes each day. Apart from adding to the volume of plastic waste to be disposed of, these plastic envelopes are also creating a serious operational problem to the Post Office because they cannot be processed by the Post Office's Mechanized Letter Sorting System and have to be sorted manually. To discourage their use, especially by large mailers, the Post Office is now considering removing the printed paper discount from items mailed in plastic envelopes.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2169 Juvenile Drug Offences and Drug Abuse
17. MR TIMOTHY HA asked (in Chinese): Juvenile involvement in drug offences and drug abuse has recently become a serious problem. According to some survey findings, there was a 35% increase in the number of young people who were involved in drug abuse in the 3rd quarter of 1994 as compared with that in the corresponding period in 1993, and the number of youngsters under 21 who were arrested for alleged involvement in drug offences had also risen by more than 30% over the past two years. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council whether it has formulated any long-term policy to tackle the worsening problem of juvenile involvement in drug offences and drug abuse; if so, what the details are; if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Government is indeed very concerned at the rising trend of young people involved in drug abuse and drug offences. An important factor contributing to the recent increase in drug offences is the increased supply from drugs-producing areas. Vigorous enforcement and interdiction action is being undertaken. But enforcement action alone is not enough.
The Government's long-term policy to combat the problems of drug addiction and drug offences takes a multifaceted approach:
(a) Legislation and enforcement
Our policy is to have in place the necessary legislation to combat drug offences, and to keep them up to date. Our enforcement agencies, including the police, Customs and Excise Department and the Department of Health, take vigorous action to detect and prosecute offenders, and to clamp down on the illegal supply of drugs in Hong Kong.
(b) Treatment and rehabilitation
A wide range of both mandatory and voluntary programmes for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts and substance abusers is provided in Hong Kong. These programmes are operated by the Correctional Services Department, the Department of Health, the Hospital Authority, the Society for the Aid and Rehabilitation of Drug Abusers, the Hong Kong Christian Service and a variety of voluntary groups.
(c) Preventive education and publicity
Our aim is to inculcate in our young people a healthy and positive attitude to life, and to encourage them to resist the temptation to take drugs. This is done through a variety of education and
2170 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
publicity programmes and material. The Education Department, the Social Welfare Department, the Information Services Department, district-based organizations, voluntary agencies, schools and the media all contribute towards our joint effort.
Research is also carried out to better guide these various approaches and programmes. Playing an important co-ordinating role in this multifaceted approach is the Action Committee Against Narcotics, supported by the Narcotics Division of the Security Branch.
We recognize that the seriousness of the drug problem, particularly as it affects the young, is such that we need to redouble our anti-drugs effort. The Government will, of course, play its part, but we need the support and participation of non-government organizations, teachers, parents and indeed the community as a whole. In order to highlight the need for a concerted effort, and to tap the ideas of all concerned, the Governor will chair a Summit Meeting on Drugs on 6 March 1995. We hope that this will produce worthwhile ideas, which will be followed through.
Applications for Authorization to Carry on Insurance Business
18. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) How many companies have applied for authorization to carry on insurance business in the past three years; and
(b) How many applications have been approved; how many have been rejected and what the reasons for rejection are?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) 10 companies have applied for authorization to carry on insurance business in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. The number of applications in each of the three years was three, four and three respectively.
(b) Of the 10 applications, three have been approved, two have been granted approval in principle, subject to their setting up a Hong Kong office in accordance with their business plan, and three are being processed. Further information is still awaited from the three applicants concerned to substantiate their financial position and their proposals for establishment of a Hong Kong office. No application has been rejected. However, two applications were withdrawn after the applicants realized that they were unable to meet the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2171
authorization criteria for a strong financial position or the establishment of an office in Hong Kong.
Children of Hong Kong Residents Living in China
19. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Chinese): According to the Government's recent estimation, about 300 000 children of Hong Kong residents are living in China. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the basis on which the above figure is arrived at and the distribution by age groups in intervals of five years;
(b) the estimated number of such children who will become permanent residents of Hong Kong in 1997; and what variations of this figure are expected in the next two years;
(c) the estimated number of such children born to unmarried couples and the basis of the estimation; whether children of this category will be eligible to become permanent residents of Hong Kong; and whether the Government has discussed the issue with the Chinese Government and reached any agreement; if so, what is the outcome of the discussion; and
(d) the number of children below the age of 15 who came to Hong Kong with one-way exit permits issued by China, together with the proportion of this group of children to the children of the same age group in the territory in percentage terms, in each of the past three years?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) The figure of 300 000 is estimated on available data, including record of applications for Certificates of Absence of Marriage, legal immigration statistics, demographic statistics and assumptions about family size, and a survey conducted in 1991 of the number of Hong Kong men married to women in China. We do not have a breakdown of this figure by age groups of five years.
(b) We estimate that among these 300 000 mainland children, about 64 000 (as at the beginning of 1995) will have the right of abode in Hong Kong as from 1 July 1997 in accordance with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. If the present rate of the entry of these children into Hong Kong for settlement remains unchanged, there will be about 55 000 such children in China by July 1997.
2172 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
That figure may of course be affected by any change to the current one-way permit quota, or by any change to demographic trends.
(c) Both sets of estimated numbers refer to legitimate children only. We do not have any estimate of the number of illegitimate children born in China to Hong Kong residents. Whether illegitimate children born to Hong Kong permanent residents will have automatic right of abode in Hong Kong under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law is under discussion with the Chinese Government.
(d) The numbers of children under 15 who came to settle in Hong Kong under one-way exit permits in 1992, 1993 and 1994 are 7 853, 8 396 and 11 156 respectively. They constituted 0.66%, 0.71% and 0.95% of the under 15 population in Hong Kong in these three years.
Sign Language Interpretation Arrangements for the Elections
20. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): Regarding the elections of the two Municipal Councils and the Legislative Council to be held this year, will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) whether the Government will consider arranging sign-language interpretation when open forums are held for the candidates, so that deaf electors can understand the platforms of the candidates and raise questions thereon; if so, what the estimated manpower and expenses are; and
(b) if the answer to (a) is in the negative, what the reasons are; and what measures will be taken by the Government to facilitate the contact between deaf electors and the candidates?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, open forums organized by the Administration for candidates during last September's district board elections drew mixed response, with some forums having only one candidate appearing and audience size was very small at others. In view of this, no open forums are being organized for the forthcoming municipal council elections.
For the Legislative Council elections in September, the Administration has yet to decide whether open electoral forums will be organized for candidates. The Administration will certainly consider including sign language interpretation if and when such forums are to be held, subject to the availability of sign language interpreters.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2173
Contacts between deaf electors and the candidates are not confined to participation at open electoral forums. Candidates often meet their constituents during home visits and other canvassing activities. They also make known their platform through the distribution of printed literature, either through the free mailing service provided by the Administration or other distributory channels.
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
LEGAL AID SERVICES COUNCIL BILL
CONTROL OF OBSCENE AND INDECENT ARTICLES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
BANKING (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
LEGAL AID SERVICES COUNCIL BILL
THE CHIEF SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to establish the Legal Aid Services Council and for related matters."
She said: Mr President, I move that the Legal Aid Services Council Bill be read the Second time. The Bill provides a legislative framework for the establishment of an independent Legal Aid Services Council to oversee the publicly-funded legal aid services operated by the Legal Aid Department and the Duty Lawyer Service.
The establishment of this Council was one of 25 recommendations in nine subject areas made by a working group whose report was approved by the Executive Council and published in July last year, and which took into account the comments received on proposals set out in a public consultation paper released in April 1993. The other eight subject areas covered by the report involved improvements to the scope and operation of the legal aid scheme, and were the subject of the Legal Aid (Amendment) Bill 1995 that I introduced into this Council on 25 January.
2174 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Let me make it clear at the outset that the Administration does not interfere with the decisions made by the Legal Aid Department or the Duty Lawyer Service on the granting of legal aid. The Director of Legal Aid has a statutory obligation under the Legal Aid Ordinance to consider applications before her independently; and the Duty Lawyer Service is administered jointly by the Bar Association and the Law Society. However, the Administration recognizes that the status of the Legal Aid Department as a government department may create a perception problem in some quarters. We have therefore accepted the recommendation of the working group that an independent Legal Aid Services Council be set up by statute.
To safeguard the independence of the Legal Aid Services Council, clause 3 of the Legal Aid Services Council Bill establishes it as a body corporate which can take action to enforce its legal rights or can be sued for breach of its legal duties. It will not be the agent of the Crown and will therefore not enjoy any status as such. Clause 15 also adds the Council onto the Schedule of public bodies under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
Clause 4 of the Bill sets out the functions of the Council clearly. Its main function will be to oversee the Legal Aid Department and the Duty Lawyer Service, although it will not interfere with their handling of individual cases. The Council will also act as the Government's advisory body on the formulation of policies relating to legal aid and on the funding requirements of its executive agents.
Clause 5 of the Bill states that the Legal Aid Services Council will be chaired by a non-official who is independent of both the Government and the legal profession. Its members will include four lawyers and four lay members, in addition to the Director of Legal Aid and the Administrator of the Duty Lawyer Service who are directly responsible for the provision of legal aid services. Members of the Legal Aid Services Council are required by clause 8 to disclose any interests that they may have in matters being considered by the Council. On the other hand, clause 7 protects individual members who act in good faith from civil liabilities for any act or omission of the Council.
Clauses 9 to 13 of the Bill deal with the modus operandi of the Council. To enhance its accountability, the Council will be required to submit an annual report to the Governor, and to table its report before this Council. The accounts of the Legal Aid Services Council will be subject to examination and inquiry by the Director of Audit.
We aim to establish the Legal Aid Services Council as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted. This is far from a cosmetic change, as some critics have suggested. On the contrary, it represents a significant policy change that will provide a greater opportunity for public participation in legal aid administration and policy formulation and will enhance the independence of legal aid administration. Some people, both from this Council and the legal profession, have argued that we should go further and dis-establish the Legal
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2175
Aid Department. The Administration is not convinced that this is the best way forward, but is not ruling it out. Indeed, once the Legal Aid Services Council is established, we will ask the Council to examine the feasibility and desirability of this option.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
CONTROL OF OBSCENE AND INDECENT ARTICLES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance."
She said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles (Amendment) Bill 1995.
The primary objectives of the Bill are to tighten control over the selling and distribution of indecent articles, to facilitate enforcement actions and to increase the deterrent effect of the penalties under the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance. In designing specific provisions in pursuit of these objectives, we are mindful that all proposals must be the minimum necessary to ensure that freedom of expression is not unjustifiably sacrificed.
I would like to thank Members of this Council, members of the district boards, and members of various political groups and concern groups for their valuable suggestions and views on how obscene and indecent articles could best be regulated. We have very carefully and thoroughly studied their suggestions and revised some of the proposals contained in the Bill in the light of their views.
Owing to the far-reaching consequences and Bill of Rights implications, some of the more restrictive suggestions and views have not been taken on board in this Bill. However, an inter-departmental working group comprising representatives from the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority, the Police Force, the Attorney General's Chambers, the Urban Services Department, the Regional Services Department and my Branch is studying the implications and feasibility of these suggestions.
Mr President, I now wish to summarize the main provisions of the Bill.
Clause 5 of the Bill proposes stricter restrictions on the external appearance of indecent articles to minimize nuisance to the public and to make them more easily distinguishable, thus facilitating control and regulation. Indecent articles will be required to be sealed in completely opaque wrappers. It is also proposed that nothing shall be printed on the wrappers except the
2176 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
warning notice, particulars of the publishers, and the name, date, serial number and selling price of the publication.
Although the existing Ordinance already requires a clear and conspicuous warning notice to be printed on indecent articles, we suggest specifying the minimum size under the law. It is proposed that the warning notice must occupy at least 20% of the size of an indecent article. Furthermore, the warning notice is to be printed on the front and back cover of the indecent article as well as on both sides of the opaque wrapper enclosing it. One of the advantages of such a requirement is that, no matter under what circumstances, there is always an easily noticeable warning notice attached to the indecent article reminding people not to sell or lend the article to persons below the age of 18.
Under the existing Ordinance, it is not mandatory for publishers to print their particulars on the indecent articles. Although enforcement action can still be taken against irresponsible publishers who have committed an offence, extra manpower and time are often needed to track down these publishers. To facilitate identification of publishers of indecent articles, clause 5 requires them to print their correct name, address and telephone number on the front and back cover of the indecent article and on both sides of the opaque wrapper enclosing it. Contravention of this requirement is liable to a maximum fine of $400,000 and imprisonment for one year. The fulfilment of this requirement is the primary responsibility of publishers.
To prevent the selling and distribution of indecent articles which have contravened the legal requirements, clause 7 will make it an offence to possess such articles for the purpose of publication. The presumption clause in the Ordinance will apply to this new offence. If a person possesses more than two copies of such indecent article and the circumstances give rise to such suspicion, he will be deemed to possess it for the purpose of publication.
Clause 10 proposes to grant police officers the power to seize, in public places, any indecent article which commits or constitutes evidence of an offence. Mr President, I wish to illustrate with an example how the new offence and the new seizing power will aid enforcement action. At present, as long as an indecent article is not published, no offence is committed even if the article in question does not carry a warning notice or contravene any other legal requirement. The new offence will help to eliminate this undesirable situation. No matter whether the indecent article is published or not, an offence is committed so long as two copies of the indecent article are found and the circumstances give rise to reasonable suspicion that these copies are possessed for the purpose of publication. The new power of seizure will further enable police officers to seize the article as evidence for prosecution.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2177
There is a strongly-held and widely expressed desire in the community for heavier penalties to be imposed on persons publishing indecent articles in breach of legal requirements. In response to this, we recommend that the maximum fine for offences related to indecent articles be increased from $200,000 to $400,000 on first conviction and $800,000 on second or subsequent convictions. A higher maximum fine for subsequent convictions is proposed in order to increase the deterrent effect.
Mr President, in drawing up these new restrictions on the publication of indecent articles, we have tried our best to introduce measures that are the minimum necessary for the protection of our young people while allowing adults to exercise freedom of choice. We are confident that these legislative proposals are consistent with Article 16 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I very much hope that these well-balanced proposals will gain Members' support.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 1995. The main purpose of this Bill is to strengthen legislation aimed at tackling drunken driving.
The present legislation on drunken driving is extremely difficult to enforce, since it does not specify a blood alcohol limit and suspected offenders are not required by law to provide samples of their breath, blood or urine for testing. As a result, prosecution for the offence is possible only in the most extreme cases.
The Road Safety Council has been deliberating this problem for some time. The amendment Bill now before Council seeks to incorporate the recommendations put forward. The Transport Advisory Committee has strongly endorsed the proposals and, indeed, there has been support from the general public and the media. The Legislative Council Transport Panel has also been briefed.
2178 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Mr President, the police now have firm evidence, based on autopsy reports on drivers killed in traffic accidents, to show that excessive drinking is a significant cause of serious traffic accidents. We propose to prescribe limits for the concentration of alcohol in a driver's blood, urine and breath, and to require drivers to provide samples for testing in certain specified circumstances. We recommend that the limit should be 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. This is the standard adopted in most European Union countries and also in Singapore.
Clause 7 of the Bill makes it an offence to drive with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. Whilst we do not propose to introduce random breath testing for drivers, police officers will be empowered to require a driver to take a screening breath test if he is involved in a traffic accident, has committed a traffic offence, or if a police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that he has been drinking.
If the screening breath test reveals that the alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit, or if the driver fails to provide a sample, then the suspect may be arrested and required to provide samples of blood, urine or breath for further analysis. The Bill sets out the conditions under which the various types of specimen should be required, and where and when they should be provided.
Mr President, the opportunity is also taken to make a number of minor amendments to the Road Traffic Ordinance relating to vehicle registration marks, the powers of traffic wardens, and the authority to vary the fees charged by vehicle testing centres and vehicle emission testing centres.
Thank you, Mr President.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
BANKING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Banking Ordinance."
She said: Mr President, I move that the Banking (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read a Second time.
The two main objectives of the Bill are:
(a) to establish the Monetary Authority as the licensing authority of all three types of authorized institutions under the Banking Ordinance; and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2179
(b) to clarify the scope, objectives, duties and powers of a Manager appointed under the Ordinance to take control of an authorized institution.
There are also other amendments to effect a number of changes designed to improve the working of the Ordinance.
Presently banks, restricted licence banks and deposit-taking companies are authorized by the Governor in Council, the Financial Secretary and the Monetary Authority respectively. Powers to revoke and suspend also rests with the respective designated authorities, except that the Ordinance does not provide for the suspension of a licensed bank.
After a review of the provisions, we conclude that the Ordinance should be amended:
(a) to establish the Monetary Authority as the authority responsible for the authorization, suspension and revocation of all three types of authorized institutions, including new powers to suspend a licensed bank;
(b) to improve the checks and balances in the authorization arrangements by distinguishing more clearly the administrative and appellate functions; and
(c) to improve the transparency in the authorization arrangements by setting out more clearly the criteria which would be used for the authorization and revocation of all three types of authorized institutions.
The proposal for vesting full responsibility for authorization matters in the Monetary Authority would be in line with the objective of enabling the Governor in Council to focus on important policy issues. It would also be consistent with the Monetary Authority's central banking role of maintaining the general stability of the banking system and with the practice in other leading financial centres.
The proposed transfer of powers from the Governor in Council and the Financial Secretary to the Monetary Authority would also improve the checks and balances of the authorization provisions in the Ordinance. The three authorities would play distinctive roles under the new structure: the Monetary Authority would be responsible for administering all authorization matters; the Financial Secretary would provide a check as the Monetary Authority would be required to consult him on important authorization decisions; and the Governor in Council would act as the appellate body for hearing appeals against the decisions made by the Monetary Authority.
2180 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
This represents a significant improvement over the existing system where there is no appeal against a decision of the Governor in Council to refuse to grant, to revoke or to attach conditions to a banking licence. These decisions would be subject to appeal under the proposed structure.
Under the revised regime, it is important that the Monetary Authority should be seen to operate within clearly defined statutory criteria for authorization, suspension and revocation. This would be achieved by introducing the new Seventh and Eighth Schedules to the Ordinance clearly setting out the specific criteria to be applied by the Monetary Authority.
The Bill also deals with the powers of the Monetary Authority to take control of an institution. The powers are based on similar powers introduced into the Insurance Companies Ordinance in 1992. The main objectives of the powers are:
(a) to allow the Monetary Authority, through a Manager, to control the affairs, business and property of a troubled institution so that it can be nursed back to health, perhaps as a prelude to sale; and
(b) to enable the Monetary Authority to take quick action to safeguard the assets and maintain the fabric of the business until a liquidator can be appointed.
It is proposed that subject to certain limits which may be imposed by the Monetary Authority, the Manager be given all powers necessary to properly manage the affairs, business and property of the institution. The new Ninth Schedule sets out the specific powers of the Manager which include, amongst others, the power to enter into contracts on behalf of the institution, and to dispose of the business or property of the institution. Experience in 1991 in the control of the Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Limited revealed ambiguities about the powers of the Manager appointed under Part X of the Ordinance. It is considered both necessary and desirable to spell out more clearly the scope, objectives, duties and powers of the Manager to ensure that he could carry out his duty effectively when an institution runs into problem.
There are a number of miscellaneous amendments made by the Bill, covering areas such as publication of audited annual accounts, submission of returns and information to the Monetary Authority, limitation on advances, restriction on the use of the name "bank" and others. These are considered necessary either to clarify various existing provisions in the Ordinance or cater for new developments in the banking sector.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2181 Thank you, Mr President.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 8 April 1992 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, the Human Organ Transplant Bill was first introduced into the Legislative Council on 8 April 1992. It seeks to achieve a number of objectives, firstly, to prohibit commercial trading in human organs intended for transplant (clause 4); secondly, to restrict the transplant of human organs between living persons who are not genetically related unless with the approval of a Human Organ Transplant Board (clause 5); and thirdly, to regulate the importing of human organs intended for transplanting (a new clause 7 is proposed to cover this area).
The Bill accordingly seeks to set up the Board (clause 3) and provides that specified information on transplant operations (clause 6) and a certificate on the imported organ (new clause 7) should be supplied to it. Failure to comply with these provisions in clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 constitutes an offence.
A Legislative Council ad hoc group was formed on 9 April 1992 to study this Bill. A total of 10 meetings were held. The considerable length of time taken by the ad hoc group to study this Bill was attributed first to the long time taken to gather information (mainly from overseas institutions) on legislation regarding young persons as living donors, then to the detailed examination of some conceptual changes and deliberations on the extraterritorial effect of the Bill by the Administration.
Views from the Kidney Action Group, the Hong Kong College of Physicians and the Hong Kong Medical Association in their submissions to the ad hoc group had been fully taken into account in its deliberations of the Bill.
In considering the Bill, the ad hoc group has expressed a number of concerns. I would like to mention a few of the major ones.
2182 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Members find the definition of "organ" in clause 2 of the Bill rather complex and difficult for the general public to understand. They therefore suggest to replace the definition by a schedule in the Bill listing out all those human organs commonly used for transplant and those organs or activities (for example, blood transfusion) not intended to be covered by the Bill. However, the Administration encounters medical and law drafting difficulties in producing exhaustive lists. Some parts of the body which the Bill intends to cover, for example, corneas, are not "organs" under normal medically-accepted definition. The Administration has also undertaken to launch suitable publicity to explain the intended coverage and other features of the Bill. It will be made clear the blood, gametes and bone marrow will not be regarded as "organ" for the purposes of this Bill.
Clause 4 deals with the prohibition of commercial dealings in human organs. It touches on the very issue of the effectiveness of the Bill. It also touches on the extraterritorial aspect of the Bill which is complex and contentious. The Hong Kong Medical Association express particular concern on this aspect and suggests that it is more desirable to restrict commercial organ transplant in Hong Kong only.
After extensive consultation with the Attorney General's Chambers, the Administration is of the view that there will not be any problem with the extraterritorial effect of the provisions in the Bill provided that the Bill could be justified as being necessary for the order and good government in Hong Kong. To fulfil this requirement, some parts of the process at issue have to take place inside Hong Kong. The policy intention is to make it an offence, as long as there is an element of commercial dealings, for any person to remove or transplant an organ, to make or receive payment for an organ, or to act as an agent in the processes if any of these acts or events takes place in Hong Kong. The present proposal as reflected in the revised Committee Stage amendments will best serve the objective to cover as many probable situations as possible. To improve reading of the provisions and to put beyond doubt the legislative intent, clause 4(1) has been re-written and new clauses 4(3A), (3B) and (3C) added.
Members have mixed views on the new subsections (3A) and (3C) which deal with removal and transplant of a commercially-obtained organ. Some consider that this will place an unfair burden on doctors who are the persons performing the operations. In some circumstances, it might be difficult for doctors to ascertain beforehand whether the operation involves a commercial element. It will be particularly unfair to doctors practising under limited registration for a brief period in Hong Kong as they may not be familiar with the requirements of the Bill. On the other hand, some Members are of the opinion that, for reason of professional ethics, doctors have a duty under the law to ascertain all relevant facts or law before undertaking any operation.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2183
Some of the concern was expressed regarding the onus of proof. The Administration has assured Members that, as laid down in the revised Committee Stage amendments, the onus of proof rests with the prosecution as it will have to prove that the person performing the operation "knew or ought, after reasonable inquiry, to have known that a payment was or was to be made for that organ" before the person can be convicted of an offence under the two subsections. Regarding the concern relating to doctors visiting Hong Kong for temporary practice, the Administration agrees that the Hong Kong Medical Council, which is the authority to issue practising certificates for limited registration, can alert such doctors of various legal requirements concerning the medical profession in Hong Kong. Suitable publicity can also be arranged to ensure that concerned parties are aware of the legal requirements in respect of human organ transplant.
I think some of my honourable colleagues might have more to say on this particular clause.
Another area of concern to the ad hoc group is the age of the donor of organs. It is provided in clause 5(4)(b) of the Bill that, where application for organ transplant has to be approved by the Human Organ Transplant Board, and aside from other conditions, the donor should have reached the age of 18 years. The ad hoc group considers that in certain transplant operations, for example, part of a liver, the use of organs from young persons may be more advantageous. Furthermore, there could be cases where some young persons below the age of 18 are mature enough to make their own decisions on organ transplant. It therefore requests the Administration to obtain from overseas countries/territories with different ethnic origins information on legislation regarding young persons as living donors. Out of 16 overseas countries, only two allow, with certain control measures, children to donate their organs. In May 1993, all District Officers of the then City and New Territories Administration also conducted an informal opinion survey in respective districts on our proposal to lower the age of living donors. The majority of respondents did not support the proposal. They considered that children were too young to be able to decide independently and objectively on those matters and they also feared possible abuse by their parents/guardians.
Having considered these findings, the ad hoc group alternatively proposes that, since persons aged between 16 and 18 years can get married with their parents' consent, it is reasonable to lower the age of living donors, to 16 for married persons. This proposal is agreed by the Administration.
The ad hoc group was also concerned that imported organs should be accompanied by certain specified information so as to deter trading of organs and facilitate easy identification of the origin of the organ. It was generally agreed to add a new clause (clause 7) in the Bill stating that an imported organ should be accompanied by a certificate issued by an authority recognized by the respective government (for example, a registered hospital or recognized authority such as the Sri Lankan International Eye Bank, and signed by a
2184 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
medical practitioner). The certificate should state that: (a) the organ is removed by legal means; (b) it comes from a non-infectious source; and (c) it is removed on a non commercial basis. Other necessary information will be as prescribed by the Human Organ Transplant Board by Regulation, subject to the negative approval procedure of this Council. Failure to comply with the requirement to furnish the certificate (or even specified information) will be an offence, liable to a fine of $50,000 (or at level five) and imprisonment for three months. I am pleased to note that the Hong Kong Eye Bank and Research Foundation and the Hospital Authority envisage no problem in complying with the proposed requirement for import certification and documentation.
In order to strengthen the deterrent effect of the provisions in the Bill, the ad hoc group considers that the level of penalty in commercial trading in human organs, illegal transplant of human organs between living persons and failure to supply information about transplant operations to the Transplant Board, as provided in clauses 4(4), 5(7) and 6(3) respectively, should be substantially raised.
In view of the fact that the offences under the Bill are of such a nature that offenders might not be able to be charged within the normal six-month period stipulated under section 26 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 277), the ad hoc group proposes, and the Administration agrees, to extend the prosecution limitation period of such offences to a maximum of three years.
Besides these major concerns, a few relatively minor points have also been deliberated upon and agreed with the Administration as amendments to the Bill. I shall not go into details of these amendments as they will, I think, be covered by the Secretary for Health and Welfare at the Committee stage.
Before closing, Mr President, I must thank my colleagues for their time, patience and efforts in studying this Bill. I wish also to thank the Administration for their co operation to obtain the necessary information from overseas countries and to work out the amendments to be introduced.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I rise to speak in support of the Bill on behalf of the Medical functional constituency that I represent.
In supporting this Bill, I am putting the strongest condemnation of the medical profession to commercial organ trading, and organ donation under duress. The medical profession also calls on the Government to implement without delay the spirit and words of the Bill, in particular, the setting up of an efficient, properly represented and constituted Human Organ Transplant Board.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2185
Mr President, I am well aware of the pain that the Administration has taken to collect relevant information from overseas. I am also aware of the prolonged consultation and the deliberation that Members of this ad hoc group has dwelled on in relation to technical details and many questions raised by the medical profession. To them the medical profession is in debt. All these are no doubt the causes of the delay of some three years before this Bill is finally presented for resumption of Second Reading debate today.
This Bill, as the convenor of the ad hoc group has pointed out, is in essence to prohibit commercial trading of human organs for transplantation, to restrict the transplanting of human organs using organs from living persons not genetically related, and to regulate the importation of human organs for transplant.
Whilst this Bill is comprehensive in general and addresses the principle of all the issues of concern, there are shortfalls that leave a few imperfect areas. It is hoped that the Administration could respond to some of these during the Secretary's reply or make commitment to have some of these areas amended in the future to make it into a perfect Ordinance.
In essence, the areas that I am concerned are as follows:
Firstly, the title of the Bill is misleading in that whist the Bill aims to annihilate organ trading, the title Human Organ Transplant Bill gives the public an impression, and indeed has been used by the Government to imply, that it aims to promote organ donation, which obviously it is not. The long title is also no less misleading.
Secondly, this Bill has provided no explicit distinction, obvious to any non-legal eyes, between the control and regulation of living versus cadaveric organ donation.
Whilst it would be obvious to all that commercial dealings with cadaveric organ is illegal, the criminality of commercial dealings of an organ or part of it from a living person goes much more beyond — as a start it is definitely amoral.
Furthermore, removal of an organ or part of it from a perfectly healthy individual just for financial gain borders on unnecessary surgery, risking the donor to possible morbidity and mortality of the procedure which no members of the medical profession should ever condone. Transplantation from living donors should therefore only belong to the realm of those with blood relationship or at most between spouses where there may well be unfathomed emotional bondage. In any case, the Human Organ Transplant Board must be fully satisfied that commercialization plays no part.
2186 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Thirdly, the proposed addition of new clauses 4(3A) and 4(3C) which impose a criminal offence on a person who "ought, after reasonable inquiry, to have known that a payment was or was to be made for supplying the organs" leaves many an area which is unsatisfactory:
(a) there is a high degree of uncertainty as to what "reasonable inquiry" is; (b) it may well shift the burden of proof onto the defendant; and
(c) it has a property of changing negligence which should be a civil liability to a criminal liability.
All these is especially burdensome, as the convenor of the ad hoc group which just mentioned, to the doctors who has to remove or transplant an organ and therefore has to bear the onus of proof that he or she has done all he or she could to ensure that he or she has gone through a "reasonable inquiry".
Finally, Mr President, no amount of law will wipe out organ trading as survival is a basic human instinct. We can do no worse than to promote more education in organ donation. The "opt-out system" should really be revived and discussed again. It is only when there are enough donated organs (cadaveric ones) to supply those in the waiting list who need transplantation that those chronically ill who needs transplantation will not risk confrontation with the law to "buy" an organ or to expose his/her life to possible danger by having a transplantation in a foreign environment of uncertain standard.
We support the Bill.
DR LAM KUI-CHUN: Mr President, organ transplantation nowadays brings the only hope of survival to patients with end-stage organ failure. Although a transplanted organ is a disease in itself, current success with this high-technology form of medical treatment offers a near-normal quality of life for otherwise hopeless patients. Success with transplantation for many organs now exceeds 90% in the centres of excellence in various parts of the world. It is inevitable that the donor population, who derives no health benefit from transplantations, is now justifiably extended from cadavers to living people to enhance the chance of survival of otherwise hopeless people.
While the world applauds the magnanimity of selfless donors, social morals should prevent a life-saving procedure from degenerating into commercial profiteering. This Bill is aimed to achieve this. At the same time, the Bill also protects living children from being volunteered to donate their organs by their parents or guardians. For these reasons, I support the spirit of the Bill.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2187
However, in the prolonged period required to fully scrutinize the Bill, the general attitude of the world towards purchase of donor organs has appreciably shifted if not radically changed. It is still accepted that the poor should not be displaced in the queue for organ transplantation because of simple lack of wealth. In so saying, the world of medicine is re-affirming that the rich should not jump ahead of the poor in priority of treatment by payment of money. Nevertheless, the world is beginning to examine a new attitude, namely, that if wealth can bring together a donor and a recipient without displacing poor people in the recipients' queue, then saving a life via commercial means may be more desirable than condemning to death while sticking to high moral principles. Although this attitude is not generally accepted at present in the medical world, a forum on this issue organized late last year in the United States was well attended, with medical participants showing considerable enthusiasm.
Mr President, the field of transplantation is evolving fast. To allow for developments in the future, this Council, while supporting the high moral principle of keeping life-saving measures out of commercial profiteering, may have to keep its mind open for future changes in the attitude towards procuring organs for transplantation. In several years' time, Hong Kong may need an amendment to this present Bill, permitting the purchase of donor organs under defined conditions. Alternatively, an ideal situation may arrive when genetic reactivation by high technology may affect complete regeneration of destroyed organs, thus outdating the need of organ transplantation. When that day comes, this present Bill may become obsolete. Then, this Council may be happy to learn that this Ordinance may be deleted from the Laws of Hong Kong.
Mr President, as of today, I support this Bill.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): In essence, the Human Organ Transplant Bill seeks to prevent commercial trading in human organs. As a result of medical advances, quite a number of human organs can now be transplanted as treatment for patients suffering from various kinds of organ failure. However, since the number of organ donors is far smaller than that of people in need of organ transplants, commercial trading in human organs is the result. My opinions differ from what Dr the Honourable LAM Kui-chun has just said. I trust all of us will agree that we can never subscribe to the idea of poor people selling their eyes, kidneys and so on to wealthy people who seek to restore their health at the expense of others. This is what this Bill seeks to prevent and will prevent. Of course, I believe this has not happened in Hong Kong, and we will not see such heart-breaking scenes in which wealthy people cause bodily damage to others while seeking to restore their own health. But unfortunately, we do have medical practitioners in Hong Kong who refer Hong Kong patients to China or other places for transplants of organs from unknown origins. From time to time, we read in the newspapers that poor people in China sell their own organs because of pressing financial needs. Also, a lot of information has indicated that in some places in China, organs are still being removed from prisoners for transplantation without their consent.
2188 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Mr President, I believe we all agree that human organs are private properties that no state or government can take away for any purpose because this not only infringes human rights, but also tramples on human dignity, reducing men to animals. Although the laws of Hong Kong may not be able to prevent all commercial trading in human organs outside the territory, we hope that the Ordinance will give a clear message that, in Hong Kong, commercial trading in human organs is considered immoral and unacceptable to a civilized community. I hope that one day, China can enact a similar law which can eliminate the infringements on human rights caused by removal of human organs for transplantation.
While we are passing this Bill, we have to address a problem. Commercial trading in human organs has arisen because demand has exceeded supply. I can recall that many years ago in Hong Kong, some people sold their blood. However, as more people are willing to donate blood nowadays, this practice has become very rare. Today, when Hong Kong people receive organ transplants in China, they usually do not know, or simply do not want to know, where the kidneys or any other organs have come from. The reason they go to China for kidney transplants is that they are unable to get them in Hong Kong. If our goal is to get rid of all commercial trading in human organs, we should not stop with the passing of today's Bill. Instead, we should continue to educate the public and encourage them to donate their organs, so that we can have a sufficient supply of organs to meet transplantation demand. Only by doing so can we really root out commercial trading in human organs and eliminate the associated infringement on human rights.
With these remarks, I support the passing of this Bill.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, however precise and comprehensive an ordinance may be, I believe that there are bound to be people who can take advantage of loopholes. Whilst the enactment of the Human Organ Transplant Bill can to a certain extent deter commercial trading in human organs, we cannot expect that all the loopholes can be plugged.
After the enactment of the Human Organ Transplant Bill, who will actually be benefited? We can see that there are three categories of people: patients requiring organs for transplant are benefited; people elsewhere outside Hong Kong wanting to sell their organs for financial reasons, who, however, will sustain physical loss despite their financial gains; and "exploitative intermediaries" to whom we should pay particular attention. Some of these intermediaries gain benefits from organ transplantation because there is demand for their technical skills, and others do so by making use of their authority.
I hope that in the course of setting up the Human Organ Transplant Board after the passage of the Bill, the Government can lay more stress on the representativeness of the Board so as to minimize the benefits that can be reaped by exploitative middlemen.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2189 Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee Stage of Bill
Council went into Committee.
HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT BILL
Clauses 1 and 3 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 4, 5 and 6
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
I would like to thank the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI, convenor of the ad hoc group studying the Bill, and Members of the group for their most thorough examination of the provisions therein. As a result, several amendments are now proposed which will increase the scope of the Bill and make its provisions easier to understand.
The amended clause 4(1)(a) makes it clear that it is an offence for any person in Hong Kong to make or receive payment for supplying or offering to supply an organ, or to act as an intermediary in such arrangement, regardless of whether the organ is removed from a living or dead person and whether the removal and transplant take place in Hong Kong or elsewhere. Clause 4(2)(a) is similarly amended to make it an offence to advertise to buy an organ removed from a dead or living person in Hong Kong or elsewhere for transplant in Hong Kong or elsewhere.
New clauses 4(3A) and 4(3C) respectively make it an offence for a person to transplant in Hong Kong or remove from a dead or living person in Hong Kong an organ that he knew or should have known was a commercially-traded organ, regardless of where payment was to be made for it. A new clause 4(3B) makes it an offence for a person to import such an organ.
2190 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
The purpose of amendments to clauses 4(4), 5(7) and 6(3) and new clause 7(4) is to provide harsher deterrent penalties.
Amendments to clause 5(4) and (5) prescribe arrangements for ensuring that both living organ donors and organ recipients give informed and unpressured consent to the transplant procedure.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, in the definition of "organ" by adding", and includes part of an organ" after "the body".
That clause 2 be amended, in the definition of "付款", by deleting "具金錢價值的物品" and substituting "有價事物".
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended —
(a) by deleting subclause (1) and substituting -
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, in Hong Kong, he -
(a) makes or receives any payment for the supply
of, or for an offer to supply;
(b) seeks to find a person willing to supply for
payment, or offers to supply for payment; or
(c) initiates or negotiates any arrangement
involving the making of a payment for the
supply of, or for an offer to supply,
an organ which has been or is to be removed from a dead or living
person, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, and is intended to be
transplanted into another person, whether in Hong Kong or
elsewhere.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2191
(1A) A person is guilty of an offence if he takes part in the
management or control of a body of persons corporate or unincorporate whose activities consist of or include the initiation or negotiation of any arrangements referred to in subsection (1)(c).".
(b) in subclause (2)(a) by deleting "referred to in subsection (1)(a)" and substituting "which has been or is to be removed from a dead or living person, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, and is intended to be transplanted into another person, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere,".
(c) by adding -
"(3A) A person is guilty of an offence if, in Hong Kong, he
transplants an organ into a person and he knew or ought, after reasonable inquiry, to have known that a payment was or was to be made for supplying the organ, regardless of where the payment was made and, where the payment was not made in Hong Kong, regardless of whether or not such payment was prohibited under the laws of the country where the payment was made.
(3B) A person is guilty of an offence if he imports an organ
for the purpose of -
(a) having it transplanted into a person in Hong
Kong; or
(b) exporting it to a country where it is intended
that it be transplanted into a person,
and he knew or ought, after reasonable inquiry, to have known that a payment was or was to be made for supplying the organ, regardless of whether or not such payment was prohibited under the laws of the country where the payment was made.
(3C) A person is guilty of an offence if, in Hong Kong, he
removes from a dead or living person an organ intended for transplant into another person, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, and he knew or ought, after reasonable inquiry, to have known that a payment was or was to be made for that organ.".
2192 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 That clause 4(2) be amended, by deleting "影響" and substituting "損害".
That clause 4(2)(b) be amended, by deleting "第(1)(c)款所指" and substituting "第(1)(c)款 所提述".
That clause 4(4) be amended —
(a) by deleting "of $10,000" and substituting "at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 months".
(b) by deleting "of $25,000" and substituting "at level 6".
Clause 5
That clause 5(1) be amended, by deleting "在符合第(3)款的規定㆘" and substituting "除 第(3)款另有規定外".
That clause 5(1)(a) be amended, by deleting "供移植予他㆟" and substituting "移植於另 ㆒㆟體內".
That clause 5(1)(b) be amended, by deleting "予他㆟" and substituting "於另㆒㆟體內".
That clause 5(1) be amended, by adding "屬何" before "情況".
That clause 5(2) be amended, by deleting "當作" and substituting "視為". That clause 5(3) be amended, by deleting "所指" and substituting "所提述". That clause 5(4) be amended, by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting — "(b) the donor has reached the age of -
(i) 18 years; or
(ii) 16 years and is married;".
That clause 5(4)(c) be amended —
(a) by adding after "practitioner" -
", who is not the medical practitioner who will remove the organ
from the donor or transplant the donor's organ into another person,".
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2193 (b) by deleting "and the donor" and substituting "and the recipient and each". That clause 5(4)(c)(i) be amended, by deleting "切除器官" and substituting "有關".
That clause 5(4)(c)(iii) be amended, by deleting "該器官捐贈㆟" and substituting "其本㆟ ".
That clause 5(5) be amended, by deleting "both been interviewed" and substituting "each been interviewed separately".
That clause 5(6) be amended —
(a) by deleting "供移植予他㆟" and substituting "移植於另㆒㆟體內". (b) by deleting "確定" and substituting "確使自己能信納".
(c) by deleting "所指" and substituting "所提述".
That clause 5(7) be amended —
(a) by deleting "of $10,000" and substituting "at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 months".
(b) by deleting "of $25,000" and substituting "at level 6".
Clause 6
That clause 6(3) be amended, by deleting "of $20,000" and substituting "at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 months".
That clause 6(3) be amended, by deleting "行為" and substituting "作為". That clause 6(3)(a) be amended, by deleting "解釋" and substituting "辯解". That clause 6(3)(b) be amended —
(a) by deleting "在-
作" and substituting "其意是".
(b) by deleting "時," and substituting ",但".
(c) by deleting "真偽" and substituting "後果".
(d) by deleting "失實" and substituting "虛假".
2194 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 4, 5 and 6, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
New clause 7 Information required for
imported organs
New clause 8 Limitation of time for
proceedings in respect of offences
Clauses read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, the new clause 7 introduces requirements for information to be supplied to accompany imported organs. The purpose of this is to ensure that organs are healthy and that they have not been obtained commercially. A new clause 8 provides an extended time limit of three years for commencing criminal proceedings.
To complement the provisions in the Bill when enacted, we shall solicit co operation from the medical profession to take the lead by reporting any violations to the Administration. Suitable publicity materials will also be produced and made available for the information and guidance of doctors and patients in hospitals.
Question on the Second Reading of the clauses proposed, put and agreed to. Clauses read the Second time.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that new clauses 7 and 8 be added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
New clause 7
That the Bill be amended, by adding —
"7. Information required for
imported organs
(1) Where a human organ is imported for the purpose of transplanting it into a person in Hong Kong, it must be accompanied by a certificate which is signed by a person in the country of origin who is acceptable to the board and which contains the following -
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2195
(a) a statement that, in obtaining the organ, all applicable laws of the country of origin were complied with;
(b) a statement that the source of the organ was not infected with any disease that could be transmitted to the recipient of the
organ through transplanting;
(c) a statement that the organ was removed in a hospital in which the government of the country of origin has authorized organs
to be removed for transplanting;
(d) a statement that no person in the country of origin made or received a payment for supplying the organ;
(e) such other information as the board may, by regulation, require to be supplied, and the board may require different
information to be supplied for different organs.
(2) The person who is to transplant the organ into a person in Hong Kong shall, before transplanting it, supply the certificate to the board.
(3) If the certificate does not accompany the organ, no person shall transplant it into a person in Hong Kong until such a certificate has been obtained and supplied to the board.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (2) or (3) is guilty of an offence and is liable upon conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 months.
New clause 8
That the Bill the amended, by adding —
8. Limitation of time for proceedings
in respect of offences
In respect of an offence under this Ordinance, a complaint may be made or an information laid within 3 years from the time when the matter of such complaint or information respectively arose.".
Question on the addition of the new clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
2196 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 Long title
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr Chairman, I move that the long title be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendment
Long title
That the long title be amended, by adding ", to regulate the importing of human organs intended for transplanting" after "related".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on the long title, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bill
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT BILL
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill. Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Third time and passed.
PRIVATE MEMBER'S MOTIONS
PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 17 February. The movers of the motions will have 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies and another five minutes to reply to proposed amendments. Other Members, including movers of amendments, will have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2197 PUBLIC RENTAL HOUSING
MR ANDREW WONG moved the following motion:
"That in view of the dire need for public rental housing as evidenced by the fact that "some 150 000 families are on the Waiting List", this Council welcomes the Government's 1994 Policy Commitment target to "build an additional 141 000 public rental flats before April 2001", and urges the Government to inject before July 1997 at least an additional 90 hectares of land into the Housing Authority for the construction of public housing in order to accomplish the said target."
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the "Policy Commitments" which is an annex to the Governor's policy address in 1994, the Government made the following commitment, or undertaking, in the section on housing: (page 47 in the Chinese version and page 55 in the English version) "Public Rental Housing — Targets — The Government aims to build an additional 141 000 public rental flats before April 2001". The motion I am moving today urges the Government to inject sufficient land in order to realize its policy objective of "building an additional 141 000 public rental flats".
Regarding the words "build an additional", anyone with common sense will take them to mean that on top of the number of flats already planned to be built, an additional 141 000 units will be constructed. This commitment makes people feel overjoyed and think that the Government has abandoned the policy direction of "building more Home Ownership Scheme housing and fewer public rental housing". I have discussed with a group of young people who are concerned about public housing and who, incidentally, I have to declare, are not my students, as to how we can urge the Government to realize the objective of "building an additional 141 000 public rental flats". This youth concerned group has established a joint committee with people from the 150 000 families who have been on the General Waiting List for many years but not yet allocated public housing. They work together for the realization of the objective of building an additional 141 000 public rental flats by the appointed time. According to our understanding of the words "build an additional" and assuming that about 700 flats can be built on each hectare of land, the additional land required will be about 200 hectares. As we are also aware that production of land is not an easy task at all, we have adopted a conservative approach and have reduced our demand for 200 hectares of land to 75% of the total, that is 150 hectares. Besides, we have assumed that the additional 60 hectares of land promised by the Government at an earlier meeting of the Housing Panel of this Council will entirely be used for the construction of public rental housing, therefore, we have very conservatively and, I think, reasonably, only demanded an injection of an additional 90 hectares of land before July 1997.
2198 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
Mr President, my motion has been supported by 34 non-governmental groups. I urge Members of this Council to show their kindness, act according to their conscience and unanimously support this motion in order to provide people who are most in need of help with basic housing.
Unfortunately, Mr President, the Honourable LAU Wah-sum is going to amend my motion. Although he will be asking for the injection of the additional land to be advanced to 1995, the additional land he asked to be injected will be reduced to 38 hectare. When my friends in the joint committee discussed my motion and his amendment with Mr LAU Wah sum, he pointed out that the additional land the Housing Authority (HA) required was only about 30-odd hectares. I have also discussed with officials of the Housing Department, the HA and the Housing Branch the question of the additional injection of land. They also thought that the Government had largely injected the land required to accomplish the target of the HA of building about 140 000 public rental flats and about 160 000 Home Ownership Scheme flats before 2001. Hence, only an additional 30-odd hectares of land would be required.
Mr President, so it is clear that Mr LAU Wah-sum or perhaps the Liberal Party and the Government (including the Housing Department, the HA and the Housing Branch) have a different interpretation regarding the objective "to build an additional 141 000 public rental flats" as stated in the 1994 Policy Address. They have taken that to mean the housing objective of the HA of "building" flats, but not building "additional" flats. Here, I would like to call upon, you, Mr President, Honourable Members and the people of Hong Kong to pass a fair judgment. Have I misunderstood the meaning of "to build an additional 141 000 public rental flats" or have the Liberal Party and the Government distorted its meaning?
Mr President, right, let us forget it, and let us suppose this is a misunderstanding on my part and that of those who support my motion, but this is not a "pleasant misunderstanding". Thinking of the long General Waiting List, the unreasonable income ceiling, the over-crowded households in public housing estates, and the people living in squatter huts, temporary housing areas and roof-top huts, I would say, Mr President, this is an "ugly misunderstanding".
Mr President, I can accept that "building an additional" does not mean building an additional 141 000 flats on top of the existing housing objective, I suppose I have misunderstood its meaning. However, I cannot accept that "to build an additional 141 000 flats" is equivalent to the housing objective of the HA. According to the figures provided by the HA, the objective of the HA is to build some 146 000 public rental flats from now on until 2001, a number which is greater than 141 000. About 76 000 of these flats will be built on the 130 hectares of land newly made available and the remaining 70 000 flats will be built on about 94 hectares of land obtained in the redevelopment of existing housing estates. However, based on the figures in the Mid-term Review on the Long Term Housing Strategy published by the HA in 1993, my calculation
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2199
reveals that 105 000 flats in the old housing estates will be demolished from the year 1995- 96 to the year 2000-2001.
Mr President, the 76 000 flats to be built on the new sites can be regarded as additionally constructed, but the 70 000 flats to be built on sites of the old housing estates cannot be called additional in any case. Moreover, at the same time when these 70 000 new flats are to be built, 105 000 old flats have to be demolished to make place for them. Instead of building additional flats, this is in effect a reduction in the number of flats. Indeed, this is a reduction in the supply of public rental flats.
Mr President, let us consider the figures carefully. From now on until 2001, 146 000 flats will be built and 105 000 will be demolished, there will only be a net increase of 41 000 flats. Is this an "ugly misunderstanding" or an "ugly lie"?
Mr President, the 105 000 flats under the Public Housing Development Programme of the HA which are lost have to be replaced. The land required will be the 94 hectares of land so lost in the process.
Mr President, the amendment proposed by the Honourable Frederick FUNG expresses the spirit of the original motion in an even better way and I will vote in support of his amendment. However, Mr LAU Wah-sum's amendment makes me sad. Is a net addition of 41 000 flats the same as building an additional 141 000 flats? I call upon Members to oppose his amendment.
Mr President, with these remarks, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr LAU Wah-sum have given notice to move amendments to this motion. As Members were informed by circular on 18 February, under Standing Order 25(4) I shall ask Mr Frederick FUNG to speak first, to be followed by Mr LAU Wah-sum; but no amendments are to be moved at this stage. Members may then debate the main motion as well as each of the two amendments listed in the Order Paper.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, over the last few years, this Council has time and again debated on such topics as housing, property price and land. According to telephone surveys conducted by the City and New Territories Administration over the years, the housing problem has always remained at the top of the list as the subject constantly causing the most anxiety and concern for those members of the public who aspire to have their own places to live in. If not for the stringent income calculation requirement under the General Waiting List, I believe many more people would wish to apply for public housing and they would have already been allocated flats. At present,
2200 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
there are 150 000 families on the General Waiting List, which is a considerable number. I believe the Government would not be unaware of the community's great demand for public rental housing. The Governor's undertaking in the Policy Commitments to build 141 000 public rental flats during the period from 1995 to 2001 is certainly welcomed. Having said that, I think this commitment should only be a starting point. With the Housing Authority (HA)'s annual adjustment of the income limit for public rental housing and the continual arrival of new immigrants to Hong Kong, public rental flats would certainly become the housing shelter on which the middle and lower income groups rely. As shown in the information provided by the Housing Department, by 2001, even if these 141 000 flats were built, there would still be 31 000 families waiting to be allocated flats. Hence, the Government must make further commitments in respect of its Public Housing Development Programme in order to fulfil its promises.
On the basis of the Government's claim to produce the target number rather than building additional flats, the commitment I referred to is the allocation of adequate land. At present, land allocated by the Government is far from sufficient. Calculated on the HA's planned construction ratio of 700 flats for each hectare of land, an additional 44 hectares will be required to settle 31 000 families by 2001. Taking together the 58 hectares of land promised to the HA by the Government last year, a total of 102 hectares will need to be allocated. This figure has not yet taken into account the 15 hectares of land reserve demanded by the HA. Therefore, the proposed 90 hectares of land as set out in the motion and its amendment is actually a small number and a very modest demand.
In fact, my amendment is in principle similar to the original motion. I believe the Honourable Andrew WONG shares my hope that the Government would fulfil its rudimentary commitment. However, the amendment differs from Mr Andrew WONG's motion by proposing some changes to the timing of the housing programme. The production of, or building of, an additional 141 000 flats is only a starting point. Usually, it would take five to six years from the planning to the completion of a building project. Hence, this year is of crucial importance.
To devise any housing programme beyond 2001 would require various government departments, in particular the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch, the Housing Branch and the HA, to conduct another study on the long term housing strategy to examine the supply of and demand for housing and land in Hong Kong after 2001. According to my understanding, as yet the various Government departments seem to have no such intention. Their picture of the housing programme after 2001 appears to be a blank. Although the Government is now in its twilight years, I think it should, as a responsible government, plan for policies that extend beyond 1997. We should not wait idly and delay the planning of our housing programme for the years after 2001. If the waiting is allowed to go on, there will come a time when the Government will fail to "deliver" any new public housing flats. By that time, I think the ones
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995 2201
to be reproved should not be the then Special Administration Region Government, but the Hong Kong Government and the responsible officials of today, if only we can still remember whom we should hold responsible for and reprove. Therefore, I think my amendment differs from the original motion in that the former is looking beyond 2001, in the hope that the Government would have more foresight and forward planning in its housing programmes.
As for the Honourable LAU Wah-sum's amendment, I think it has not only embraced the principle of focusing on the interests of businessmen but has been oriented to a probably regressive move. Firstly, I consider Mr LAU's amendment to be conceptually contradictory, as while he urges the Government to allocate additional land for building public housing before the end of 1995, he also subjects it to a prerequisite that the supply of land for private housing would not be reduced. This is just like a modern version of the Biblical incident of "five loaves and two fishes." The availability of land has in fact a fixed limit. How can the Government act like God and suddenly increase the land supply within this year? How can more land be made available without affecting private housing? Secondly, I think the amendment largely protects the interests of real estate developers. A housing strategy with private housing as the principal concern would only allocate land for public housing provided that it would have no impact on private housing development. Therefore, I find this totally unacceptable.
Finally, I hope the Government would give serious consideration to the four requests set out in my amendment:
(1) That land be allocated to the HA on schedule. At present, apart from the problem of land shortage, the HA is faced with the predicament of highly fluctuating amounts of land allocation. According to the information I have, the supply of public housing flats in the two years from 1995 to 1997 will be the lowest in the '90s, less than an average of 30 000 flats a year. From 1998 to 2001, however, there will be a supply of 40 000 to 60 000 flats a year. This shows that the supply is not evenly spread out. As I gathered from the staff of the Housing Department, this situation arises out of the Government's uneven and fluctuating allocation of land. Such practice affects the output under the housing programme of the HA, leaving its staff head over ears in work at one time and sitting idly at another. I urge the Government to spread out the allocation of land more evenly to rectify the present situation.
(2) That various government department co-operate and make their best effort to achieve set targets. The HA's present hope to complete 12 000 flats before 2001 will not be realized due to such factors like environmental protection, planning, geological problems and even red tape. I hope the Government can improve its interdepartmental communications so as not to break the promises it has made to the public.
2202 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 22 February 1995
(3) That an additional 90 hectares of land be allocated before 1997, so that families on the General Waiting List can be housed in time.
(4) That the Housing Project Action Team under the Housing Branch can start its work this year to deliberate on the housing development programme after 2001, so that the people of Hong Kong can soon see the picture of Government's conception of housing in the 21st century, thus averting the possible situation of confusion in, disorientation of, and unavailability of land for, public housing development by 2002.
With these remarks, I move the amendment.
MR LAU WAH-SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have been involved in the formulation of public housing policies since the '60s. Although I later resigned my post as Member of the Housing Authority (HA), I am still very much concerned about the long term housing strategy. The motion moved by the Honourable Andrew WONG this time requests the allocation of 90 hectares of land. The Honourable Edward HO (also a Member of the HA) and I discussed this with the HA, because we know that the figure cannot be obtained by simple calculation. Some new flats have to be built on new sites, and some on redevelopment sites. Some flats on redevelopment sites have already been demolished while others have not. The sites having flats not yet demolished can only be used after five years, that is, after 2001. Therefore, the figure of 38 hectares of land I propose may not be accurate.
The motion I am going to move this time does not involve any political factors or personal attack at all. I hate personal attacks most. I only want to tell the public the truth and warn them not to be deceived by "grand" slogans. Why am I saying this? A few weeks ago, some people from certain concerned groups came to see me with a crowd of elderly people. They asked me to "show a little kindness" and to seek the allocation of more land for the relocation of rooftop squatters. I told them that the two policies were basically different. Since the Government has not decided how the rooftop squatters should be rehoused, it may not be useful even if more land were given to the Housing Department. As what the Honourable Frederick FUNG has just said, it would be of no use if the timing of the allocation is not right. The allocation of more land for this purpose will only deprive other building projects in which land is needed of the chance to go ahead.
I do not want to discuss figures with Mr Andrew WONG, my job is "crunching numbers". Now, I would like to put forward some important amendments. If we are to allocate land to satisfy the housing needs in 2001, disregard the number of hectares for a moment, and as our past experience tells us that we need five years from the allocation of land to the completion of the flats, I have therefore proposed to amend the motion to require the allocation of the land before the end of 1995. Second, land should be given to the HA by