HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3391 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 3 May 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 ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, O.B.E., J.P.
3392 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE 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 STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3393 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 ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
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
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ROGER LUK KOON-HOO
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
MR JAMES SO YIU-CHO, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SZE CHO-CHEUNG, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
3394 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
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
MR KWONG KI-CHI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY
MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3395 PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No. Post Office (Amendment) Regulation 1995 .................................................. 151/95
Census and Statistics (Annual Survey of External
Investments in Non-Manufacturing Undertakings)
(Amendment) Order 1995 ..................................................................... 155/95
Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) (No. 2)
Rules 1995 ............................................................................................ 156/95
Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance
(82 of 1994) (Commencement) Notice 1995......................................... 157/95
Sessional Papers 1994-95
No. 81 - Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund Annual Report by the Director of Social Welfare Incorporated for the year from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994
No. 82 - Regional Council Revised list of works annexed to the Regional Council's Revised Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for 1994- 95
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Qualifications for Civil Service Employment
1. MR SIMON IP asked: In view of the Government's recent announcement that recognition of academic and professional qualifications for civil service employment will be broadened, will the Government inform this Council whether it has any plans to recognize only those academic and professional qualifications, when employing professional officers for professional posts, which are recognized by their relevant professional bodies in the territory for private practice?
3396 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, let me make it clear at the outset that the announcement referred to in this question was about appointment criteria for posts requiring a general degree. The announcement did not relate to criteria for appointment to posts in the professional grades in the Civil Service. It is not our intention to change arrangements in respect of professional qualifications which are matters for the relevant professional bodies; arrangement which are well-established and preserved in Article 142 of the Basic Law.
As for general degrees, we have removed previous reference in our recruitment advertisements to British degrees. The guiding elements of our assessment of non-Hong Kong qualifications are as follows:
(a) we must be absolutely satisfied that the qualification in question is at least as good as the comparable Hong Kong qualification for the purpose of recruitment to the Civil Service;
(b) we examine each qualification on a case-by-case basis. We may accept some qualifications but not others from a university. And we may accept a certain qualification only if received after a certain date in a case where the standard of a course has been raised above our threshold between one academic year and the next;
(c) no preference is given to qualifications from a particular country or group of countries. We use the same test for all qualifications. However, we have had difficulties in the past assessing qualifications from some countries. And it was for this reason that we recently enlisted the help of the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation. Since its founding in 1990, the Council has built up an extensive network of international contacts with accreditation bodies and academic institutions. With the Council's help, we are strengthening our system and believe we will shortly have the information necessary to recognize at least some degrees from non-English speaking countries that we have not felt able to recognize in the past. I expect this to include some qualifications obtained in China.
(d) Accepting such qualifications will allow those who have obtained them to participate in the civil service recruitment process, provided of course that they are Hong Kong residents. They will need to pass other tests, including basic physical fitness and language proficiency in Chinese and English, as well as a rigorous assessment of suitability and potential in competition with other applicants.
The steps we are taking to strengthen our assessment of non-Hong Kong degrees are a response to the still small but growing number of Hong Kong youngsters going abroad to study, not just to traditional destinations in the Commonwealth and North America, but to universities in this region.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3397
MR SIMON IP: Mr President, I think the Secretary and I are talking at slightly crossed purposes. Although my question is prefaced by a reference to the Government's recent announcement, it is clear that my question was directed really at professional grades and professional qualifications for professional posts. So the question really is whether the Government has any plans to recognize only those academic and professional qualifications, when employing professional officers for professional posts, which are recognized by their relevant professional bodies in the territory for private practice? The reason I ask this question is that I understand that in relation to recruitment in the public sector for professional posts the Government recognizes professional qualifications, some of which are not recognized by the professional bodies in Hong Kong for the purpose of private practice. That is the thrust of my question.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, the practice that we have in place for recruiting professional officers to professional ranks and grades in the Civil Service will not be affected in any way by our announcement of assessing non-Hong Kong, non-British, non-Commonwealth degrees which may be recognized for the purpose of appointment to grades requiring a general degree.
PRESIDENT: Mr IP, not answered?
MR SIMON IP: I think we are still slightly talking at crossed purposes, Mr President, because I am asking whether the Government has any plans to change the professional qualifications for the purpose of appointing officers to professional grades in relation to qualifications which only the professional bodies in Hong Kong would recognize for private practice? As I understand it, there are qualifications which the Government accepts for professional appointments. For example, in the Attorney General's Chambers, they employ legal officers with qualifications which are not recognized in Hong Kong for private practice. There may be others as well in other professional posts. That is the thrust of my question. Are there any plans for any change?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, whether we are at crossed purposes or otherwise, I am not sure. But I feel that my answer to the last question was absolutely clear in that whatever our practice may be in the future for admission to posts requiring general degrees, we are not changing our existing practice with reference to professional grades. But I think as for the specific example mentioned in the Attorney General's Chambers, may I defer to the Attorney General.
PRESIDENT: Attorney General, do you wish to answer?
3398 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, thank you. Mr IP is quite right, of course, that lawyers from jurisdictions whose qualifications are not recognized for entry into private profession in Hong Kong are permitted to be employed in my Chambers. But Mr IP will recall that the conditions under which they are employed and the jurisdictions from which they are drawn are described and laid down in the Legal Officers Ordinance and Legal Practitioners Ordinance, as amended, I think two or three years ago, by this Council. So the parameters have been fixed by this Council.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, will the Secretary inform this Council apart from the Legal Department, whether qualifications for recruitment to professional grades are in line with those accredited by corresponding professional bodies?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, I have just confirmed in my previous replies that there are no plans to change our current practice for recognizing professional qualifications for the purpose of appointment to ranks and grades requiring professional qualifications within the Civil Service.
PRESIDENT: Mr HO, not answered?
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, in that case, can the Secretary confirm that the present practice is that qualifications will be in line with those accredited by local professional bodies?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, as far as I am aware and except for those exceptions which have been explained by the Attorney General, that is the practice.
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, to what extent will the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation's information relating to overseas degrees be made available to other legitimate users in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation does provide a service to the public. In other words, members of the public who have degrees which are not granted in Hong Kong and who wish to find out whether or not they are comparable to a Hong Kong degree, can approach the Council and seek advice.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3399 Patients with Terminal Renal Failure
2. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Cantonese): As patients with terminal renal failure have to receive Erythropoietin injections as a treatment for anaemia, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of patients with terminal renal failure at present; of these, how many have to receive such injections;
(b) of the average annual expenditure on such treatments over the past three years;
(c) whether any patients are required to pay for the injections; if so, what the number of such patients is; and
(d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, whether consideration will be given to adopting other kinds of medical treatments for patients who cannot afford to pay for the injections; if so, what the costs of such kinds of treatment are?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, as at 31 December 1994, about 2 000 patients suffering from end stage renal failure were provided with dialysis treatment in our public hospitals, of whom some 320 were receiving special anti-anaemic injections. The average annual expenditure incurred by the Hospital Authority in providing such injections over the past three years is $3.13 million.
About half of the 320 renal patients receiving special anti-anaemic injections are contributing towards part or full cost for their treatment. This has been a historical practice when new treatment modalities using expensive drugs were launched in our public hospitals.
In line with the policy that no one should be prevented from obtaining adequate medical treatment through lack of means, patients who cannot afford such injections can apply for waivers through the medical social workers. Furthermore, we are conducting a comprehensive review in conjunction with the Hospital Authority to rationalize the fee structure in public hospitals.
Patients with end stage renal failure who suffer from anaemia could be given other types of treatment such as periodic blood transfusion, the overall cost of which is much less than special anti-anaemic injections. The type of treatment to be used should however be determined by the medical needs of patients as well as the efficacy of the treatment modality prescribed.
3400 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, if these patients receive such injections, their symptoms of anaemia can be alleviated. As their health improves, they can actually find a job. Hence, not only will their living standard be enhanced, their financial situation will also improve. According to statistics provided by the Government, if a patient has to pay for the injections they receive, he or she has to pay almost $20,000 a year. $3.13 million is a small sum to the Government, but it would be very hard on these jobless patients if they have to pay $20,000 a year as medical expenses. Can the Government immediately promise these patients that such injections would be given to them free of charge rather than having to wait for the completion of the review on the fee structure before the question of free injections for these patients will be considered? Many patients could probably not wait that long; they might have already died of illness by then.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: We have a system of waivers of fees for patients in need. If any patient requires this assistance there is a procedure in all public hospitals for the patient to see our medical social workers, so that any families or families of patients can approach the social workers for application to waive various fees.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, the Government has repeatedly said that the policy is no one would be prevented from obtaining adequate medical treatment through lack of means. The Government has also mentioned that health care in Hong Kong is heavily subsidized in that hospital charges are fixed at HK$60 a day and out-patient charges are fixed at something in the region of HK$20 a day, and yet we see a group of patients who will be charged for things like needed injections. The Secretary has also mentioned that a review is being done and I understand that this review has been going on for quite some time. Will the Administration inform this Council when this review will be completed and give us an idea of how the Government would move towards such a situation where the guideline of nobody should be prevented from obtaining adequate medical treatment through lack of means is really taken into consideration?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, we aim to complete this review by the end of the year.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, as we all know, many patients in Hong Kong like to receive injections. They tend to think that if they have not received any injection, they have not really seen a doctor. In fact, when patients with terminal renal failure went to see their doctor for a follow-up and found that other patients with similar illness looked better after receiving special anti-anaemic injections, they would blame their doctor for not giving them such injections. To avoid these unnecessary complaints, can the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3401
Government tell us what kind of guidelines a doctor should follow in deciding when to give injections to one patient and not to another; for example, how serious a patient's anaemia symptoms have to be before injection becomes necessary? That would make patients realize when it is necessary for them to have injections and even if the Government does not have the money, they can raise enough money to have injections from a private medical practitoner. In this way, patients would not have any misunderstanding about the situation and think that government doctors would be unwilling to give them injections and they therefore have to raise money to receive injections from private medical practitioners. I believe that would help patients understand how their illness should be treated.
PRESIDENT: Secretary, are you able to answer?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, it is a duty and responsibility of all the doctors in the public sector to explain to patients the type of treatment that is most efficient for the particular illness or injury required, and it is the duty of the medical practitioner to explain as fully as possible to each patient about the use of different types of treatment for different patients. Each patient's needs are assessed on their own merits. It is not the wish of the doctor to compare one patient's needs with another. It is the duty of each doctor to explain to each patient how their case should be treated.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, it was mentioned in the second paragraph of the reply that patients are contributing towards part or full cost for their treatment. The costs were only slightly more than $3 million over the last three years, which means only slightly more than $1 million per year. The reply also mentioned that according to the present policy, patients have to contribute to the costs of new, expensive drugs. Mr President, I hope the Government can tell us how it would define "new, expensive drugs" under the policy. In fact, $1 million was a very small sum when compared with the total expenditure of the Hospital Authority which was $17.1 billion.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: The current review of the fee structure for different types of consumables will take into account all the factors that the Honourable Michael Ho has listed, that is, the types of consumables that should be charged, what should the charge be, whether it should be a 100% charge, whether it should be a part charge or part waiver. All these will be taken into account in the current review of the fee structure.
PRESIDENT: Mr HO, not answered?
3402 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, my question was: how would the Government define "new, expensive drugs"? Mr President, I hope the Government will tell us how much a drug would have to cost before it would be regarded as "expensive", hence falling within the present policy.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I think it will be premature for me to conclude at this stage before the review exercise has been completed.
Juvenile Crime
3. MR JAMES TO asked (in Cantonese): Regarding the Research Report on the Social Causes of Juvenile Crime which has recently been completed, will the Government inform this Council of the policy to be adopted and the amount of additional resources to be allocated to ameliorate the present serious situation of juvenile delinquency?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the research into the social causes of juvenile crime, commissioned by the Fight Crime Committee and undertaken by the Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong, has recently been completed. The Fight Crime Committee was apprised of the findings of the research at its meeting last Saturday. The conclusions of the research project are wide-ranging, covering educational, social service, police, and correctional service aspects of our policy. These will be examined by the concerned policy branches and departments in detail in the coming months, with a view to recommending specific courses of action. It is the Administration's intention to make public the research report as soon as possible, so as to obtain feedback from this Council, other concerned boards and committees, and the community generally as part of this detailed examination process. Until this examination is completed, it is not possible to quantify the precise resource implications.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, in fact, back in 1990, the Central Fight Crime Committee was already concerned about the problem of juvenile crimes. Each time when the subject was raised by the public, the Government simply said that it was conducting a research on the social causes of juvenile crime and that it was going to consider how the recommendations could be put into practice after the report was completed. Over the past five years since 1990, the Government has never relied solely on the Report on the Social Causes of Juvenile Crime. Now that the report has been completed, insofar as the implementation of policies and allocation of resources are concerned, will the Government regard the problem of juvenile crimes as a matter of first priority and put in more resources to deal with it, just like dealing with the drug problem, on which the Governor has undertaken to put more emphasis?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3403
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, let me put it this way. Of course, the question of juvenile delinquency is one which the Government is very concerned about; if only because of the fact that the number of juveniles and young persons arrested has increased over the years. However, I stress that we should also look at the seriousness of the situation in the context of the overall crime situation in Hong Kong. To take one example, while the absolute number of juveniles and young persons arrested has increased from 11 489 in 1981 to 16 205 in 1994, these numbers, however, could be presented in a slightly different picture if they are shown against the total number of offenders arrested. In 1981, the number of juveniles and young persons arrested accounted for 37.1% of the total number of offenders arrested. In 1984, the number of juveniles and young persons arrested accounted now for 32.6% of the total number of offenders arrested. In other words, the percentage has gone down.
That said, however, I repeat what I have said in the beginning, that the question of juvenile crime is a matter over which the Government remains concerned and obviously we will give due emphasis to the recommendations of the research into the social causes of juvenile crime in formulating our future policy direction and in considering the question of what other additional resources may be required to tackle this problem.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Honourable James TO has just now raised the point of time. In fact, the time for the preparation of this report is unacceptably long. In his answer, the Secretary said that he would make public the research report as soon as possible, can he specify how "soon" it will be? In what way is the Government going to conduct consultation? And how much time does it estimate to take for the consultation exercise? Will it eventually show that the Government is not sincere in undertaking this task, that is, conducting research on the one hand and adopting other policies in practice on the other?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I should just make the point in relation to the comment that this research project has taken a long time. It has of course taken a long time if only because it is a very comprehensive and detailed research project. It involves something like 2 327 questionnaires and interviews with secondary school students and young persons and another 373 persons who were known to be offenders and these persons have to be interviewed. The data collected has to be analyzed and then the final report has to be produced. We have of course just seen that the research project is completed. I did say in my main answer to the Honourable James TO's question that we will make public the research report as soon as possible. I would hope that we would be able to do so before the end of this month.
3404 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, in his answer to my supplementary question, the Secretary has quoted a series of figures. Judging from his words, I have got the impression that he does not admit the increasing gravity of the problem of juvenile delinquency in recent years. He quoted some figures and by that he even thought that the number has gone down. I would like to ask the Secretary, did he or his staff ever look into the problem of juvenile crime in terms of quality. For example, are crimes committed of more serious nature? This is the general conclusion reached by the public at large. Taking the quantity alone, one may not be able to see the significant change in trend. I hope the Secretary could make it clear once again whether the Government thinks that the problem of juvenile delinquency has become more serious over the past years.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I have repeated the statement that the Government remains concerned over the question of juvenile crime. I have repeated that statement twice in answer to the supplementary question by the Honourable James TO. However, as I also mentioned, figures themselves are facts and if there is any doubt about the figures, let me just quote another one. In the first quarter of 1995, the number of juveniles and young persons arrested was 3 844. This compares, for example, with the January to March quarter in 1994 whose figure was 4 174. So the actual number of people arrested in the first quarter of this year, as compared with the first quarter of last year, has actually gone down. I do not, I repeat, I do not use these figures to justify any degree of complacency, nor am I using these figures to show that the Government believes that the question of juvenile delinquency is not a serious issue. I repeat a third time that the Government remains concerned over the question of juvenile delinquency.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, drug abuse and trafficking in dangerous drugs are relatively serious when compared with various juvenile crimes, particularly in the new towns. Will the Secretary inform this Council, in view of the constant and significant increase in drug abuse and drug trafficking amongst the young people in the last few quarters, what policies and measures will the Government take to prevent the young people of Hong Kong from coming under the pernicious influence of drugs?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the policies and measures that the Government takes to combat the problem of drug abusers, particularly amongst the young, is the subject of a Legislative Council question earlier this year. I refer the Honourable Member to the answers I gave at that particular time. Since then, of course, the Governor has conducted a summit meeting on the question of drugs, particularly young drug abusers, and has announced a programme of action. Suffice at this stage just to repeat the key points of the Government's policy against drugs which is, a multi-disciplinary approach
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3405
which covers the areas of crime prevention and detection, preventive education and publicity and rehabilitation and treatment.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): As far as we know, the Security Branch has never come up with a clear and long-term policy on youth. Since the report has been completed, apart from those short-term measures in support mentioned just now, will the Government draw up a clear policy for the young people in order to help reduce the number of serious crimes committed by young people, so as to be in line with the Youth Charter of which the Government is one of the signatories, and to cope with the needs of the young people?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, my responsibilities cover the area of public order and public safety. My responsibilities do not, unfortunately, cover the whole question of our policy on youth. However, one of the bodies to which we will be sending a copy of the research report is of course the Commission on Youth, and certainly I believe the Administration will be very interested in the views and comments and advice of the Commission.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question fully. In what way and for how long is the Secretary going to consult public opinions on the report? After such a long time has been spent on conducting survey before coming to a conclusion, would it be the case that the Government simply ignores other opinions and has in fact been proceeding with some other policies? In other words, is the Government now proceeding with these policies without any consultation at all?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not have a fixed time scale for conducting the detailed examination of the recommendations arising from this report. As regards the question of how long we are going to give to hear the views of the concerned boards and committees and indeed the community as a whole, again I remain open-minded on this. On the third part of the Honourable Selina CHOW's question, I will simply answer it this way. The recommendations and findings of this very comprehensive research will of course cover in some areas, policies and practices which are already adopted by the Administration currently. For example, they cover the area of the Police Superintendent's Caution Scheme. In other respects, they cover new ideas which we have not hitherto implemented. So in respect of new ideas, we will be looking at whether or not they are practicable in light also of comments from this Council and other related bodies. In respect of policies and practices which are already adopted by the Administration, we will of course be looking at whether any additional actions or resources need to be undertaken. Those policies and practices, which are already adopted and which are touched on in
3406 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
this particular report, were adopted after receiving the views and comments of the community and indeed this Council.
Promotion of the Basic Law
4. MR TANG SIU-TING asked (in Cantonese): In view of the fact that the territory's sovereignty will revert to China in less than three years, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) it has formulated any publicity plan to promote widely the Basic Law among the public in a systematic manner; if so, what the details of the plan are; if not, why not;
(b) the Education Department will include the provisions of the Basic Law in the secondary school curriculum before 1997; if so, what the progress is; and
(c) non-government organizations may seek financial assistance from the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education to promote civic education activities relating to the theme of "the reversion of the territory's sovereignty to China and the promotion of the Basic Law"?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, the importance of the Basic Law is well recognized by the Government. Efforts are made to promote awareness of the Basic Law in the context of school education, in our promotion of Civic Education and also our training for civil servants.
In Hong Kong, the Committee for the Promotion of Civic Education is responsible for the promotion of civic education. This involves enabling the public to have a better understanding of the social, political, economic and legal systems under which Hong Kong is governed. Aand hence, an important objective for the Committee, therefore, is to promote public awareness of the Basic Law and the guarantees that it provides for Hong Kong's systems and way of life.
The Committee has always participated in Basic Law programmes. Since 1991, it has sponsored through its Community Participation Scheme, a number of worthwhile Basic Law projects put forward by community groups and non-government organizations. In 1995-96 another such project will receive the Committee's sponsorship for organizing more Basic Law programmes and bids are welcome from other organization as well.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3407
Since the Basic Law is due to come into effect in a little over two years, the Committee intends to step up its promotional efforts in cooperation with other groups and the media. Ideas being considered include producing a series of three-minute television programmes introducing the Basic Law.
In the context of school education, the Basic Law has been included in the secondary school curriculum since 1990 in subjects like Social Studies, Economic and Public Affairs, Government and Public Affairs. The Education Department has also developed a teaching kit on the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law to assist teachers in presenting the two documents at secondary school level.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the third paragraph of the Government's reply, it is mentioned that since 1991, the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education (CPCE) has been sponsoring through its Community Participation Scheme a number of worthwhile Basic Law projects put forward by community groups and non government organizations, and that other bids are welcome. I would like to ask: How many organizations have held such projects during the five-year period between 1991 and 1995? How many such projects have been held and how much money has been spent? Also, what are the requirements for other organizations should they wish to bid for sponsorship?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, I can provide the answer in writing (Annex I) if the honourable Member wishes to know the details. However, to put it simply, since the Basic Law is concerned with the present spirit of rule of law of Hong Kong as it perpetuates and protects our existing system, the CPCE has in the past few years focusing on introducing the existing legal system of Hong Kong, on the protection of human rights and other aspects, and on introducing how the Basic Law can be further promoted with reference to the present system and how protection can be strengthened. We have organized a lot of activities under this proposition.
As to sponsorship for the relevant schemes, the CPCE has allotted more than $250,000 for non-government and other organizations over the past few years for organizing activities which include sponsored publicity programmes concerning the Basic Law and a number of Community Participation Schemes. The two schemes that are better known are organized by the joint efforts of the Joint Committee for the Promotion of the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the CPCE. One of these is "Futures of Hong Kong - 94 Carnival" which was held last December, and the other one is a similar promotion activity for the Basic Law which was held in the Mid-Autumn Festival last year.
3408 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs it was mentioned that the CPCE would be producing television programmes to introduce the Basic Law. There was a programme produced by RTHK and its subject matter was the Basic Law. In that programme, both the presenters and other people involved in the programme held a doubtful and negative attitude towards the Basic Law. As RTHK is the official radio station of the Government, will the Government make an effort to ensure that staff of either the television or the radio section will be more positive in promoting the Basic Law, instead of holding a negative attitude?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all, I have to state clearly to Members that I am not aware myself of the phenomena described by the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung just now. In my view, both the Government and other organizations are being positive in the promotion of the Basic Law, and we will continue to be as positive as we are in the promotion of the Basic Law. In fact, we have had some experience in this respect. Perhaps Members will remember that a television station produced for us a series of 26 three-minute short films to present the law and order as well as human rights situation of Hong Kong. Therefore, we have had experience in this respect. At present, it is merely that the subject has been changed to the Basic Law to address to the various aspects I have just mentioned, and it is intensified for more people to know about it.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, just now the Government has revealed that a mere sum of $250,000 was allocated over the past few years for the indirect promotion of the Basic Law. Will the Government set up a Basic Law promotion fund to sponsor and encourage more positively non-government organizations to promote the Basic Law?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, we do not intend to set up a special fund because we feel that existing arrangements are already capable to cope with the need in this respect. I have just mentioned that matters in this respect are mainly co-ordinated by the CPCE. In fact, there are already many government departments taking part directly in the Committee, these include the Home Affairs Branch, the Legal Department, Radio-Television Hong Kong, the Information Services Department, the Social Welfare Department, the Education Department and the Police Force. Therefore, the Government has actually put in a great deal of resources. We all know that the appropriation this year for the CPCE amounts to $11 million for the publicity activities on various areas of systems of the Hong Kong Government, human rights as well as other aspects of the Basic Law. Therefore, there is no question of funding as we have had sufficient fund for the necessary work in this respect.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3409
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think we all agree that Hong Kong people should understand every aspect of the Basic Law. We all know that the Basic Law does have grey areas in some provisions. For example, with a certain matter, the Hong Kong Government's interpretation is that it is in line with the Basic Law, but according to China's interpretation it is not. In this respect, I would like to raise a point concerning the principle: While the Government welcomes the application for funding by some organizations for the education of the public to have a better awareness of the Basic Law, should a particular activity result in making members of the public aware of the inadequacies of the Basic Law, or the Basic Law's grey areas that are in need of clarification, an activity known as "Why have people burned the Basic Law? "being one of the examples, would the Government approve of this kind of applications? If not, why not?
PRESIDENT: Secretary, are you able to answer?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is tempting for me to say that this is a hypothetical question and therefore I do not have to answer. However, I think it is not satisfactory for me to say so. Of course there are some grey areas in the Basic Law, but we must understand that the Basic Law is the law applicable to Hong Kong after 1997. Concerning the interpretation of the Basic Law, the Basic Law has already stated in detail how its provisions are to be interpreted. People from various sectors have already raised these matter for discussion before the Basic Law comes into effect. But this is not a major area of our work. Just as I have said, our work centres on making the public know how the Basic Law will affect their daily life and how the Basic Law will safeguard the existing systems and life style after 1997.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, in his main reply the Secretary for Home Affairs said that the public's awareness of the Basic Law is promoted through Civic Education, training for civil servants and school education. Such work is done by the CPCE through sponsorship, but the CPCE may not go and find out which Basic Law related activities will help people have a correct understanding of the Basic Law. As regards the training for civil servants, there is the question as to which are the grey areas, or when would the understanding of the Basic Law by the Hong Kong Government differ from that by China, or when would the views of some scholars differ from that of jurisprudence experts, so which set of views is being adopted by the Government for training purposes? Or is it the case that the Government has presented all the arguments and various views to the civil servants, so that they have an awareness of the Basic Law in all aspects including the grey areas?
3410 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, on the training for civil servants, the Government has been holding seminars for civil servants since 1990, by means of which they are made to be aware of the various aspects of the Basic Law. To date, 14 seminars have been held by the Government with 960 officers from various levels having taken part in. We estimate that in 1995-96, more seminars will be held. At present, it is planned that 15 seminars will be held for 1 500 more officers. As the number of seminars is limited, the number of people participating is also limited. In view of this, we are considering the production of a set of self-teaching material, such as video tapes, so that officers may improve their awareness of the Basic Law in their leisure time. We hope that more officers can be made to understand the Basic Law well in this way.
THE PRESIDENT: Not answered Mr, TO?
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary for Home Affairs has not answered my question. My question was that: Should there be any grey area wherein the interpretation of the Basic Law by the Hong Kong Government may differ from that by China, or people in our community have different interpretations, which one of these will the Government inform the civil servants of? Will it inform them of all the interpretations? I was not asking how many people have participated in the seminars and how many seminars have been held.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Mr President, since the Secretary for the Civil Service happens to be present here, can I ask the Secretary for the Civil Service to answer this question?
PRESIDENT: Are you able to answer, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, these training courses are at two or three different levels. At the first level, it helps civil servants to understand the Basic Law as it stands. In other words, what it does contain and the spirit behind the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. At a different level we invite people - academics, political figures - holding different views to come and hold seminars. So I am quite sure that we are exposed to views that are diverse, or that are at odds with each other, and I think these are very useful thought-provoking seminars.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3411 Appointment of Heads of Departments
5. DR SAMUEL WONG asked: Following the recent announcement of the next appointment to the post of Commissioner for Transport, the new appointee said on television that she had no previous experience in transport matters but that she was willing to learn. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it is now the policy to treat D6 posts as training posts; and
(b) how long on average an appointee with no previous specialist experience is expected to take to learn sufficiently about the subject so as to properly discharge his duties as a head of department requiring specialist attributes?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, it is certainly true that Mrs Lily YAM Pui-ying, whom we have announced to be the next Commissioner for Transport, has no direct experience in transport matters. What she has is a great deal of experience relevant to the duties of Commissioner for Transport. To require directly relevant professional experience for appointments to Head of Department positions would make it a very inflexible system. If anything, we need to move in the direction of a more open directorate.
In the transport field, we have seen time and again that issues can become items of heated public debate very quickly and that political sensitivity and presentation skills in addition to management capabilities are key attributes in the Commissioner for Transport. It was for that very reason that the post was designated as an Administrative Officer post in 1981.
As to the two specific elements to this question:
(a) First, let me say that it is neither our policy nor practice to treat D6 posts as training posts. Our policy, as always, is to find the best officer for the job. It is however often the case that officers selected to fill such posts are those with potential to rise higher, and to that extent, the experience gained in D6 posts will provide valuable training for the future; and
(b) as to how long it would take on average for an appointee with no previous specialist experience to settle into the post, this depends very much on the officer and the post in question. Given that the main attributes of a Head of Department are leadership, the management of resources, political acumen, and presentation skills should come quite naturally to an appointee from the Administrative Service who would have acquired these qualities from the broad range of postings he or she would have had. We
3412 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
would expect such an officer to “hit the ground running” and to be fully effective within a short time.
DR SAMUEL WONG: Mr President, the Secretary for the Civil Service replied that the post of Commissioner for Transport was designated as an Administrative Officer post in 1981. Could we be informed that there has never been an exception to this rule since 1981, and that it would imply that the departmental officers or professional officers in that particular department are in dead-end jobs with no prospect of promotion beyond Deputy Commissioner level, no matter how good they are or how much they were further trained administratively?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, it is a rather long question and I will try my best to remember the various aspects of this question. First of all, the recent appointees to this post have been drawn entirely from the Administrative Service. It is certainly not true that this post is necessarily a preserve for the Administrative Officer grade. We review on a regular basis through directorate succession planning as how best all Head of Department posts should be filled. And indeed, the filling of Head of Department posts is not a simple matter. It involves the convening of a Senior Postings Board chaired by the Chief Secretary, and all officers, including those from within the Department, are considered. And in this case, definitely, officers from different professional streams within the Department have been considered and I think in the final analysis we felt that at this time, given the political sensitivity of the post, that an Administrative Officer would be the best choice.
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr President, last year in his Policy Commitments, the Secretary for the Civil Service announced that he had completed a comprehensive review of human resource management in the Civil Service and intended to introduce improvements in the area of promotion. Can the Secretary inform this Council what specific improvements he plans to introduce in the area of promotion to Head of Department posts with substantially professional and specialist duties?
PRESIDENT: Are you able to answer that general question, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, let me attempt to answer this question by saying, first of all, we have intensified directorate succession planning by making it an annual exercise instead of biennial. Secondly, I have shortened the time frame from a five-year forecast to a three-year, which means that we could better focus on the immediate time frame. Thirdly, we have enhanced the planning for training. In other words, for officers who are identified as having potentials for the post of director or head
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3413
of department, we would decide what training they should have in order to enhance their leadership skills, and that is what we are doing. We also work out various ways of secondment, of sending departmental officers to Secretariat Branches whereby they could acquire more administrative skills, for example, in the management of resources and also to get to know the system of the Government more generally.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, we all know that most directorate, officers except the Attorney General who is a lawyer himself, have to possess presentational skills in answering Members’ questions. In the second paragraph of his reply, the Secretary mentioned that political acumen is one of the main attributes of a Head of Department. Could the Secretary explain to us what that is?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, political acumen is a quality which is more difficult to define but easier to demonstrate in practice, and I think my colleagues on this side of the House have demonstrated it time and again.
DR SAMUEL WONG: Mr President, the first part of my question was that whether it had been the rule since 1981 that all appointees to that post were Administrative Officers?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, off-hand I cannot remember whether that is the position. I will check on who have been Commissioners of Transport since 1981 and I will supply the Honourable Member with a reply. (Annex II)
The 1996-97 Budget
6. MR FRED LI asked (in Cantonese): It was reported that in his recent meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister, the British Foreign Minister indicated that the Hong Kong Government would consult the Chinese government on the 1996-97 Budget. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the Government has changed its stand regarding its reiterations that there was no need to consult the Chinese side on the 1996-97 Budget; and
(b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, what are the reasons for changing its previous stand; and what the specific mechanism for consultation will be?
3414 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, I am glad to be able to reassure Mr LI that the answer to the first part of his question is “No”. As I have already made clear on the record, in response to media enquiries on 20 April, there was no truth whatsoever in the news report that there had been a change in our stance over discussions with China over the 1996-97 Budget.
We have handed over to the Chinese side a detailed programme of proposed activities. One stage of this programme involves a Chinese team observing the planning and preparation process for the 1996-97 Budget. A later stage involves consultations on the 1997-98 Budget.
We hope to hold further meetings with the Chinese side at mutually convenient times as soon as possible.
As there is no change in our position, the second part of Mr LI’s question does not apply.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, emphasizing that the preparation of the 1996- 97 Budget is closely related to that of the 1997-98 Budget, the Chinese side has asked the British side to consult it fully before the 1996-97 Budget is finalized and wanted the 1997- 98 Budget to be formulated jointly by both sides with the Chinese side taking the lead. This is a very clear position to which, I believe, the British side will not accede. From the reply of the Financial Secretary, it is now suggested that a Chinese team is to observe the planning and preparation process for the 1996-97 Budget. Does it show that the British side has made a certain concession and has this concession rocked the bottom line of the Government?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, I think I have already made the position crystal clear. But to try and make it even clearer, our position remains as I described in my Budget speech, which is where we actually set out the way in which we proposed to deal with the question of the next two budgets. So there was no concession or change of stance or anything else and the newspaper report was a product of a fertile imagination.
MR ERIC LI: I think in the Government’s reply it admits that there will be discussion with the Chinese side, but not a consultation over the 1996-97 Budget. I think the difference in the meaning of the two words “discussion” and “consultation” seems rather fine. I have consulted the Concise Oxford Dictionary in which the word “discussion” seems to mean a debate or examination by argument on a specific subject; and “consult” means to seek or refer to a person for advice, an opinion or information. Now, first of all, both terms seem, to me to imply a two-way dialogue; and secondly, neither term bind the Government in any way to accept the view of the Chinese side; and thirdly, irrespective of whether advice has been actively sought or not from the Chinese
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3415
government, in practice the Chinese side has free and ample opportunity to put their views across in a discussion. So can the Government then use more simple and non-political terms to describe what in fact is the difference in practice?
PRESIDENT: You are seeking a linguistic clarification, Mr LI.
MR ERIC LI: Mr President, I think what I am trying to say is that linguistically, the two terms seem very, very similar. But I am asking the Government to clarify what in fact in practice the difference is because they are not bound to accept the views of the Chinese side and there is a dialogue across the table. So what then is the difference?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, actually, I have not relied simply on the distinction between those two words, though to me it is quite clear. I have used other words which you may find even clearer. I think I used them both in my main answer and in the Budget speech but to repeat the key part:
“the expert team (that is to say the Chinese expert team) will observe each stage of the planning and preparation process for the 1996-97 Budget. This will enable Finance Branch to explain every aspect of the budgetary process.”
I hope those words will help explain the answer to the original question.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the second paragraph of the reply the Financial Secretary stated that the Hong Kong Government will hold consultation with the Chinese side on the 1997-98 Budget. Besides, the Chinese side has recently appointed several members of the Preliminary Working Committee to assist the Chinese side in the preparation of the 1997-98 Budget. Given that the Budget involves many confidential information which will have an impact on the economic activities, what will the Government do to ensure that the confidential information will not leak out; and has the Chinese side given the Hong Kong Government any precise assurance that this information will not leak out?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, the Chinese side has indeed undertaken to observe Joint Liaison Group rules of confidentiality and to take all necessary steps to guard against any conflict of interest. On top of that fact, I should perhaps say that in this process for the 1996-97 Budget, I do not expect any budget information that is very sensitive, such as significant revenue proposals, to be made available to the expert team.
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE, not answered?
3416 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): The Financial Secretary said just now that the Chinese side had pledged confidentiality. Can the Financial Secretary clarify that, apart from the Chinese officials, the consultants appointed by the Chinese side will also be bound by this pledge of confidentiality?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, I do not have the precise wording here but I believe it does. I can clarify that perhaps in writing. (Annex III)
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to follow up the question of confidentiality raised by the Honourable LEE Wing-tat. I think all sectors of the community are most concerned about the part relating to revenue in the Budget. In his reply the Financial Secretary stated that the Chinese side would be allowed to observe the planning and preparation of the Budget but he said just now that the part relating to revenue would not be included. Can the Financial Secretary put in clear terms the planning and preparation of which part of the Budget will allow observation from the Chinese side and which part of it will not?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, of course we have yet to discuss all the details of the process but I think it is very clear that we are seeking to help the Chinese team understand the budget process, not follow every single meeting that we have in preparing the Budget. Hence, it will be perfectly easy to ensure that we can illustrate how we discuss items, whether revenue or expenditure items, without covering sensitive issues such as significant revenue decisions.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Financial Secretary replied that the Chinese side would only observe the process. To put it in idiomatic Cantonese, to “observe” means to “keep an eye on”. I would like to know whether the Chinese side will “observe” or “keep an eye on” the process in a similar way with which Comrade DENG Xiaoping “kept an eye on” the Chinese government. By that time, if the Chinese side pokes its nose into this and that, how can the Government deal with the situation?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Mr President, I am not utterly clear on the question, but perhaps I can say this. We have quite clear ideas on how best to convey to the Chinese side the budget system and part of that will be taking them through examples, and in choosing those examples, as I have said earlier, we will of course take care not to cover particularly sensitive issues. I think as a practical matter it is actually quite simple.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3417 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Quality of Drinking Water
7. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked: Given that the chemical solvent tetrachloro-ethylene has been found to cause leukaemia and bladder cancer, will the Government inform this Council of the respective levels of the following volatile organic chemicals:
(a) tetrachloroethylene;
(b) trihalomethanes;
(c) benzene;
(d) dichloroethylene; and
(e) dichloroethane;
detected in the territory’s drinking water in the past five years?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the Water Supplies Department carries out extensive quality monitoring of treated water supply in Hong Kong on an ongoing basis in accordance with the recommendations as set out in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guideline Values for Drinking Water Quality.
Over the past five years, more than 1 500 water samples have been taken from the supply and distribution network including consumer taps for analysis of trace of organics with the aid of sensitive analytical instruments. The monitoring records indicated that the concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromoform, dibromochloromethane and dichlorobromomethane), benzene, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2- dichloroethene and 1,2-dichloroethane in treated water supply were consistently well below the guideline values laid down by the WHO. According to the WHO, the concentrations of these organic compounds in drinking water at such levels should not pose any threat to public health over a lifetime consumption.
Preventing Noise Nuisance at Cheung On Estate
8. MR LEE WING-TAT asked (in Chinese): Regarding the question of preventing noise nuisance at the airport railway station at Cheung On Estate (Tsing Yi North), will the Government inform this Council:
3418 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
(a) whether it is planned to adopt a design of the total enclosure or other noise prevention facilities for the airport railway station at Cheung On Estates if not, what the reasons are;
(b) of the respective construction costs of noise prevention measures for total enclosure and semi-enclosure designs and their respective effects in reducing the noise level; and
(c) whether the Government will consider further consulting members of the Kwai Tsing District Board, Area Committees and Mutual Aid Committees and the Legislative Council Member of the district concerned about the noise prevention facilities at the Tsing Yi North airport railway station?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,
(a) The criteria for the design of the Airport Railway with respect to the environment were established in the Airport Railway (AR) Environmental Impact Study (EIS), the final report of which has been endorsed by Environmental Protection Department and the Advisory Council on the Environment. The EIS has assessed the worst case operating noise of the AR on the basis of rolling stock noise, train length, operating speed and frequency and the distance separation of the AR from sensitive receivers. The noise prevention facility recommended by the EIS and ultimately to be adopted for the northern side of the AR viaduct facing Cheung On Estate is the provision of a 1.4 m high absorptive track side barrier extending from the western end of the Tsing Yi Station to a point 180 m long.
The EIS has not recommended total enclosure for the Tsing Yi viaduct facing Cheung On Estate as the proposed 1.4 m high barrier incorporating acoustically absorbent materials should be able to reduce the AR operating noise at Cheung On Estate to be within the legal criteria, that is 60 dB (A) Leq (30 min) under the Noise Control Ordinance.
In addition, the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) has also reviewed the design of the turnback siding which had originally planned to be located at the viaduct opposite the West Cheung On Estate. It has now decided to move the alignment of this particular side track (120 m in total) away from the residential blocks and construct it in tunnel. This will further reduce the noise impacts on the West Cheung On Estate.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3419
Apart from the above noise prevention measures, a number of other measures will be adopted for other parts of the western end of Tsing Yi Station. These will include a cover over the upper railway tracks between Tsing Yi Station and Tsing King Road and an extended height barrier of 3.8 m on the southern side of the viaduct nearest to St Paul’s Village. In short, the noise impacts in respect of the AR design and construction have been and will continue to be closely monitored.
(b) The MTRC does not have a cost estimate nor an assessment of the effect of a total enclosure for the AR viaduct facing Cheung On Estate as there has been no need to utilize this measure in accordance with the EIS recommendation. It is also impossible to give a standard rate as each AR section is different. The long tunnel at one end and the Tsing Yi Station at the other would present significant ventilation problems if the design of total enclosure were to be adopted. Very approximately, the cost for the particular AR section involved would probably exceed HK$200 million.
It is impossible either to give a direct dollar per metre price for the design of a semi-enclosure, but the recommended 1.4 m high absorptive barrier will be the most cost-effective solution for the Tsing Yi viaduct facing Cheung On Estate. According to the EIS, with this barrier in place, the AR operating noise at Cheung On Estate would be able to meet the legal requirement under the Noise Control Ordinance.
(c) The MTRC and the Government have already discussed on various occasions with many different parties concerned on issues related to the noise prevention facilities at the Tsing Yi North AR Station, for example, meeting with the Tsing Yi Concern Group in July 1992, meetings with the Kwai Tsing District Board, its various subcommittees and Area Committees concerned respectively in December 1993, March 1994, as well as January, February and April this year. The Kwai Tsing District Office has assisted in these consultations and will continue to arrange various forums for affected local residents to air their views and concerns over the construction and operation of the AR in the district. Indeed, I understand that another meeting with the Honourable LEE Wing-tat and representatives of the Mutual Aid Committee of Cheung On Estate has been scheduled to be held on 8 May. Members can therefore be assured that further consultations and briefing sessions with groups concerned will continue to be conducted as and when appropriate.
3420 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Delivery of Children by Women from China
9. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Chinese): Regarding the question of pregnant Chinese women who enter the territory with two-way permits or by illegal means to give birth to babies, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers of such babies born in the territory, as well as the proportion of such births to the total numbers of babies delivered in each of the public hospitals in the past three years;
(b) of the respective numbers of the babies mentioned in (a) who have obtained the right of abode in the territory in the past three years; whether the remaining ones, who did not have the right of abode, were all sent back to Mainland China;
(c) whether medical and educational facilities have been increased accordingly to cater for such newly increased population, so that the resources and standards of the local medical and educational services will not be affected; and
(d) of the ways to tackle the problem of pregnant Chinese women coming to the territory for childbirth, which the Administration has undertaken to discuss with the Chinese authority concerned; what progress has been made so far?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) The number of children born to such women in the past three years is as follows:
Period
Children born to II mothers
Children born to
Two-way Permit Holders
1992 2 232 4 606
1993 2 634 6 208
1994 2 324 6 943
-------- ----------
Total 7 190 17 757
The percentage of deliveries by Chinese women who entered Hong Kong by two way permits or by illegal means over the total deliveries in public hospitals is about 15%, 19% and 18.5% for 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively. A detailed breakdown by hospital is at Annex.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3421
(b) Not all such children have automatic right of abode in Hong Kong. Their resident status will depend on the resident status of their father. Our statistics show that during the past three years the number of such children granted permission to stay is as follows:
Year
Children born to II mothers
granted stay
Children born to
two-way permit holders granted stay
1992
(Feb to Dec)*
1 902 4 233
1993 2 453 6 035
1994 2 231 6 725
* No statistics are available before February 1992.
All those who were not granted permission to stay were repatriated as a matter of policy.
(c) The Government is committed to provide school places to all children who are eligible for public sector places, including children born to Chinese women who are granted permission to stay. They have, therefore, been taken into account in projecting the need for education facilities. The facilities and services for children born to local residents will not be affected. Provision of hospital services to two-way permit holders and illegal immigrants giving birth in Hong Kong have been made from existing resources through improved efficiency and productivity without affecting the quality of care for other patients.
(d) We believe that the solution lies in tackling the problem at source. There is already good co-operation with the Chinese authorities in tackling the problem of illegal immigration into Hong Kong. As regards those who enter Hong Kong on two-way permits, we have raised the problem with the Chinese authorities during the Annual Border Liaison Meeting in February this year. The Director of Immigration has also raised this with the Director of the Bureau of Exit-Entry Administration of the Public Security Ministry during his recent visit to China. The latter indicated that consideration would be given to adopting measures to try to curb the trend. Such measures may include postponing the issue of two-way permits to women at an advanced stage of pregnancy.
3422 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Annex
Percentage of Deliveries by Chinese Mothers in the
Total Deliveries of 12 Hospitals from 1992 to 1994
Hospital 1992 1993 1994 CM TD % CM TD % CM TD % CMC 234 2 404 9.7% 409 2 633 15.5% 430 2 529 17.0% KWH 1 017 5 173 19.7% 1 794 5 338 33.6% 1 651 5 237 31.5% PMH 838 4 436 18.9% 950 4 198 22.6% 1 006 4 419 22.8% PWH 1 207 7 939 15.2% 1 565 7 943 19.7% 1 618 7 885 20.5% QEH 1 101 6 906 15.9% 1 306 6 618 19.7% 1 258 6 153 20.4% QMH 281 1 023 27.5% 213 941 22.6% 114 772 14.8% TMH 529 5 454 9.7% 840 5 965 14.1% 924 6 508 14.2% TYH 392 2 871 13.7% 746 5 069 14.7% 734 4 806 15.3% UCH ~207 3 457 ~6.0% 235 3 537 6.6% 255 3 511 7.3% PYNEH# 62 343 18.1% 361 3 281 11.0% POH 91 516 17.6% 90 486 18.5% 103 498 20.7% OLMH ~308 2 058 ~15.0% ~305 2 031 ~15.0% ~348 2 325 ~15.0% Total 6 205 42 237 14.7% 8 515 45 102 18.9% 8 802 47 924 18.4%
CM : Deliveries by Chinese Mothers
TD : Total Deliveries
# : PYNEH Start from 15 October 1993
~ : approximate figure
CMC Caritas Medical Centre
KWH Kwong Wah Hospital
PMH Princess Margaret Hospital
PWH Prince of Wales Hospital
QEH Queen Elizabeth Hospital
QMH Queen Mary Hospital
TMH Tuen Mun Hospital
TYH Tsan Yuk Hospital
UCH United Christian Hospital
PYNEH Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital
POH Pok Oi Hospital
OLMHOur Lady Maryknoll Hospital
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3423 Taxi Stands
10. MR ROGER LUK asked: Will the Administration inform this Council: (a) of the existing policy regarding the setting up of taxi stands;
(b) whether there are plans to increase the provision of taxi stands in the urban areas; and
(c) what measures are being taken to tackle the problem of taxis waiting for fares on the roadside at many locations (for example, Wan Chai, Mong Kok and so on), thereby illegally occupying and using a traffic lane as a taxi stand and creating unnecessary traffic congestion?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, taxi stands are provided at locations where passenger demand for taxi services is high. Before a taxi stand is set up, various factors are taken into account, including local traffic conditions, road space and capacity, the width of pavements and road safety.
At present, there are 104 taxi stands in the urban areas. Most of these are located adjacent to public transport interchanges, major business and shopping centres or large housing estates. There are plans to provide about 10 more taxi stands in the coming 12 months.
To enhance traffic circulation, busy roads are designated as restricted zones where boarding and alighting are prohibited at certain times of the day. Even at locations where such restrictions do not apply, taxi drivers are not allowed to wait for a fare on a roadside except at a taxi stand. Offenders are liable to fixed penalty tickets or prosecution. Indeed, in recent months, the police launched a number of blitz operations at locations where malpractices were common.
Sewer Extension Work in South Bay Road
11. MR JIMMY McGREGOR asked: Will the Government inform this Council when the sewer extension work which has been going on for the past two years in South Bay Road will be completed and whether this road will then be left undisturbed with no further road openings for a reasonable period of time?
3424 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the sewer extension work along South Bay Road is part of the Hong Kong Island South Master Plan aimed to improve the sewerage infrastructure and water quality in the Island South region. Based on the present rate of progress, the Drainage Services Department anticipates that the works will be completed around the end of September 1995.
The Highways Department has also arranged to resurface the road, starting in March this year, to dovetail with the drainage works. After the completion of the road resurfacing works by October 1995, there will be a one-year mandatory restriction on road openings, except for emergencies or other unforeseen circumstances.
Smoking in Government Clinics
12. MR LAM KUI-CHUN asked: Since smoking in government clinics is not a statutory offence, the Director of Health may only carry out the anti-smoking policy through the co operation of the smokers to observe the instructions given by the staff in such clinics. In this regard, will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) whether consideration will be given to making smoking in government clinics a statutory offence as in other public places such as Mass Transit Railway compartments and cinemas, and
(b) what measures the Administration will put in place to effectively prohibit smoking in government clinics if the status quo is maintained?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, an amendment to the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance is proposed which will empower heads of government departments and non-government organizations to designate any part(s) of the premises under their control as no smoking areas. Offenders will be liable to prosecution and a maximum penalty of a fine at $5,000 (Level 2).
It is expected that this amendment will be introduced into the Legislative Council on 10 May 1995. Subject to the amendment being passed, the Director of Health intends to designate the public areas of government clinics as no smoking areas. Meanwhile, clinics have been administratively designated as no smoking areas. Although clinic staff cannot take legal action against people who smoke there, they can and do ask offenders to stop.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3425 Semi-private Beds in Hospitals
13. MR VINCENT CHENG asked: Regarding the introduction of semiprivate beds in the hospitals managed by the Hospital Authority, will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) of the level of subsidy per bed provided by the Government for semi-private beds in hospitals under the Hospital Authority;
(b) of the breakdown of costs for room, food, nursing, surgical fees, theatre/operation fees, drugs and dressings, laboratory charge, diagnostic tests for such beds; and
(c) whether further pilot studies are being contemplated; if so, what are the details, including the location of the hospitals and the projected level of fees?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the level of subsidy provided by the Government for the 39 beds in two hospitals presently operating in the semi-private room pilot scheme is between 40% and 60%. The daily maintenance fee for a semi-private room in Ruttonjee Hospital is $600 per day. For Tsan Yuk Hospital, it is $800 for a double room and $1,200 for a single room. The fee is inclusive of room charges, consultations, meals, drugs, medical investigations and treatment.
Since the level of medical treatment provided to all patients is identical, the operating cost for semi-private beds is essentially the same as for general ward beds, except for a marginal increase in meal and electricity charges as a result of better “hotel” services. The components of the operating cost are as follows:
(a) medical services
(including the cost of medical and nursing staff, depreciation on medical equipment and other related expenses)
(b) patient support services
(including the cost of radiology, pathology and pharmacy)
(c) hotel services
(including the cost of food, accommodation and administration)
70%
15% 15%
A further 18 semi-private beds are planned to be provided under the pilot scheme in Grantham Hospital on Hong Kong Island in the summer of 1995. The daily maintenance fee will reflect the same 40% to 60% government subsidy.
3426 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Collision involving United States Navy Submarine
14. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): As it has been reported that a US Navy submarine collided with a cargo vessel in Hong Kong waters in mid March, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) Whether the submarine was carrying nuclear weapons at the time of collision; if so, whether the Government has any contingency plan in case of nuclear leakage; and
(b) Whether it is aware of the activities of submarines in Hong Kong waters and able to restrict such activities so as to prevent submarines from colliding with other vessels and ensure water-course safety?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) The United States Government policy is neither to confirm nor to deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board any specific United States warship. The United States authorities have, however, advised that it is not currently the practice for attack submarines, such as the one involved in the collision, to carry nuclear weapons.
The British Forces, and the Hong Kong Government, have detailed contingency plans to deal with the very unlikely event of a release of radioactive material from a warship in Hong Kong waters. The plans include measures both to control the incident and to protect the health and safety of the public. These contingency plans are exercised on a regular basis.
(b) The Hong Kong Government is informed in advance of all planned visits to Hong Kong by nuclear powered warships. These warships, like all vessels using Hong Kong waters, are bound by Marine Department regulations, which are designed to ensure the safety of sea traffic, and by the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea. They are assigned to dedicated anchorages, well away from centres of population and busy sea areas.
Use of Car Phones
15. DR LAM KUI-CHUN asked: There is a comparative study in the United States showing that drivers who regularly use car phones are more frequently involved in traffic accidents than those who do not use car phones. Since using mobile telephones while driving is commonplace in the territory, will the Administration inform this Council:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3427
(a) whether the Administration has any information to show whether the above phenomenon also exists in the territory;
(b) if the answer to (a) is in the negative, whether the Administration will consider conducting a similar study and making a report to this Council; and
(c) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, whether the Administration will consider introducing legislation to ban the use of mobile telephones while driving motor vehicles?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) The Administration does not have data on the frequency of use of car phones by drivers. Police investigations into traffic accidents have concluded that the use of mobile phones whilst driving have been a contributory cause of accidents on only two to three occasions each year. Details are annexed.
(b) The Administration will continue to monitor the situation and seek relevant information, including research and other studies, from overseas sources.
(c) The Administration has no plans to legislate to ban the use of mobile telephones by drivers. However, motorists may be prosecuted for careless driving if the use of a mobile telephone is proven to have caused a traffic accident.
The Road Users’ Code advises drivers to stop their cars at a safe place if they need to use their mobile phones. This message is also repeated in ongoing road safety publicity programmes and, for example, has also been included in the Road Safety Quarterly and in the leaflet “Safety Tips for Road Users”.
Annex
Accidents caused by the Use of
Mobile Phones whilst Driving
Accidents 1991 1992 1993 1994 Fatal 0 0 0 0 Serious 0 0 1 1
3428 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
Accidents 1991 1992 1993 1994
Slight 2 3 1 2 -- -- -- --
Total 2 3 2 3 = = = = = = = =
Supermarkets in Public Housing Estates
16. MR FRED LI asked (in Chinese): The report on the study of supermarkets released by the Consumer Council indicates that of the total number of 106 supermarkets in 236 public housing estates and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) estates in the territory, 80% are run by two large consortia, while supermarkets in remote areas such as New Territories North and Island South are even monopolized by a single operator. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the criteria adopted by the Housing Department in planning the number of supermarkets in each public housing or HOS estate;
(b) of the number of public housing and HOS estates with only one supermarket, together with the locations of these estates;
(c) of the number and the locations of public housing and HOS estates with no supermarket, resulting in the residents having to use the supermarkets in nearby public housing or HOS estates; and
(d) what long-term measures the Housing Department will put in place to encourage competition and prevent consortia from monopolizing the operation of supermarkets in public housing and HOS estates, so as to safeguard the interests of consumers living in public housing and HOS estates?
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING: Mr President, when the Consumer Council conducted the survey in March 1994 on which its report was based, 106 out of a total of 236 public rental housing or Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) estates had one or more supermarkets. By April 1995, there were 123 supermarkets in 243 estates, of which about two-thirds were operated by two major chain-store operators. The remainder were run by smaller chain store operators or individual retailers.
Answers to the four specific points raised are:
(a) The Housing Department has guidelines for planning the number of supermarkets in public rental housing and HOS estates. In general,
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3429
an estate with a population below 10 000 is unlikely to generate sufficient business to attract a supermarket operator, and no such provision is made. A supermarket measuring between 400 sq m and 800 sq m is normally provided in a new estate with a population of between 10 000 and 30 000. Two supermarkets may be provided if the population exceeds 30 000. Factors other than population, such as the number of supermarkets in the vicinity of the estate, are also taken into account in determining the number of supermarkets to be provided.
(b) A list of public rental housing and HOS estates with one supermarket is at Annex 1.
(c) A list of public rental housing and HOS estates with no supermarket is at Annex 2.
(d) The Housing Department lets commercial premises to supermarket operators by open tender, and will allow new operators to join provided they can offer a satisfactory service to residents. This practice is supported by the Consumer Council. In fact, major chain-store operators do not monopolize the operation of supermarkets in public rental housing and HOS estates, but also face competition from other operators and individual retailers. There is no evidence to show that the two large operators charge higher prices in supermarkets located in geographical districts where they have a larger market share. Indeed, if any operator is found to be abusing its dominating position or adopting a high pricing policy, the Housing Department will take appropriate action and may not renew the tenancy agreement of the operator concerned. Hence, the interests of consumers living in estates are adequately protected.
Annex 1
Public housing estates with one supermarket
1. Apleichau Estate
2. Chak On Estate
3. Cheung Ching Estate
4. Cheung Hang Estate
5. Cheung Shan Estate
6. Cheung Wah Estate
7. Cheung Wo Court
8. Ching Lai Court
9. Ching Wah Court
10. Choi Ha Estate
3430 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Public housing estates with one supermarket
11. Choi Wan Estate (I)
12. Choi Yuen Estate
13. Chuk Yuen South Estate
14. Chun Shek Estate
15. Fu Heng Estate
16. Fu Shan Estate
17. Fu Shin Estate
18. Fung Tak Estate
19. Fung Wah Estate
20. Hau Tak Estate
21. Heng On Estate
22. Hin Keng Estate
23. Hing Man Estate
24. Hing Wah Estate (II)
25. Hong Tin Court
26. Ka Fuk Estate
27. Kai Yip Estate
28. Kam Ying Court
29. Kin Sang Estate
30. King Lam Estate
31. Kwai Fong Estate
32. Kwai Hing Estate
33. Kwai Shing West Estate
34. Kwong Fuk Estate
35. Kwong Tin Estate
36. Kwong Yuen Estate
37. Lai Kok Estate
38. Lai Yiu Estate
39. Lee On Estate
40. Lei Cheng Uk Estate
41. Lei Muk Shue Estate
42. Lek Tung Estate
43. Lek Yuen Estate
44. Lok Wah North Estate
45. Lung Hung Estate
46. Lung Poon Court
47. Mei Lam Estate
48. Mei Tung Estate
49. Nam Cheong Estate
50. On Kay Court
51. On Ting Estate
52. Pak Tin Estate
53. Ping Shek Estate
54. Po Lam Estate
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3431 Public housing estates with one supermarket
55. Pok Hong Estate
56. Sam Shing Estate
57. Sha Kok Estate
58. Shan King Estate
59. Shek Kip Mei Estate
60. Shek Wai Kok Estate
61. Shui Pin Wai Estate
62. Shun Tin Estate
63. Siu Hong Court
64. Siu Lun Court
65. Siu Sai Wan Estate
66. Sui Wo Court
67. Sun Chui Estate
68. Sun Tin Wai Estate
69. Tai Hang Tung Estate
70. Tai Hing Estate
71. Tai Ping Estate
72. Tai Wo Estate
73. Tai Yuen Estate
74. Tak Tin Estate
75. Tin Ma Court
76. Tin Ping Estate
77. Tin Shui Estate
78. Tin Yiu Estate
79. Tsing Yi Estate
80. Tsui Lam Estate
81. Tsui Ping Estate
82. Tsui Wan Estate
83. Tsui Yiu Court
84. Tung Tau Estate
85. Wah Fu Estate (I)
86. Wah Kwai Estate
87. Wah Ming Estate
88. Wan Tau Tong Estate
89. Wan Tsui Estate
90. Wo Che Estate
91. Wong Tai Sin Estate
92. Yau Oi Estate
93. Yin Lai Court
94. Yiu On Estate
95. Yiu Tung Estate
96. Yue Tin Court
97. Yue Wan Estate
3432 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Annex 2
Public housing estates with no supermarket
1. Chai Wan Estate
2. Cheung Kwai Estate
3. Cheung On Estate
4. Cheung Sha Wan Estate
5. Ching Nga Court
6. Ching Shing Court
7. Ching Tai Court
8. Choi Fa Estate
9. Choi Hung Estate
10. Choi Po Court
11. Choi Wan Estate (II)
12. Chuk Yuen North Estate
13. Chun Man Court
14. Chun Wah Court
15. Chung Ming Court
16. Chung Nga Court
17. Fu Keung Court
18. Fuk Loi Estate
19. Fung Chuen Court
20. Fung Shing Court
21. Hiu Tsui Court
22. Ho Ming Court
23. Homantin Estate
24. Hong Lam Court
25. Hong Nga Court
26. Hong Pak Court
27. Hong Wah Court
28. Hong Ying Court
29. Hung Hom Estate
30. Jordan Valley Estate
31. Ka Lung Court
32. Ka Tin Court
33. Kai Tai Court
34. Kai Tsui Court
35. Kam Hay Court
36. Kam Lung Court
37. Kam On Court
38. King Lai Court
39. King Ming Court
40. King Nga Court
41. King Shan Court
42. King Tin Court
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3433 Public housing estates with no supermarket
43. King Tsui Court
44. Ko Chiu Road Estate
45. Ko Yee Estate
46. Kwai Chung Estate
47. Kwai Hong Court
48. Kwai Shing (East) Estate
49. Kwai Yin Court
50. Kwong Lam Court
51. Kwun Tong (LYMR) Estate
52. Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate (I)
53. Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate (II)
54. Lower Wong Tai Sin Estate (I)
55. Lai King Estate
56. Lai On Estate
57. Lam Tin Estate (I)
58. Lam Tin Estate (II)
59. Lok Nga Court
60. Lok Wah South Estate
61. Lung Tin Estate
62. Lung Yan Court
63. Ma Hang Estate
64. Ma Tai Wai Estate
65. May Shing Court
66. Ming Nga Court
67. Model Housing Estate
68. Nam Shan Estate
69. Ngan Wan Estate
70. North Point Estate
71. On Shing Court
72. On Yam Estate
73. Pang Ching Court
74. Po Hei Court
75. Po Lai Court
76. Po Nga Court
77. Sai Wan Estate
78. San Fat Estate
79. San Wai Court
80. Sau Mau Ping Estate (I)
81. Sau Mau Ping Estate (II)
82. Sau Mau Ping Estate (III)
83. Shan Tsui Court
84. Shatin Pass Estate
85. Shek Lei Estate (II)
86. Shek Pai Wan Estate
87. Shek Yam Estate
88. Shun Chi Court
3434 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Public housing estates with no supermarket
89. Shun On Estate
90. Siu Hei Court
91. Siu Hin Court
92. Siu Kwai Court
93. Siu Lung Court
94. Siu On Court
95. Siu Pong Court
96. Siu Shan Court
97. So Uk Estate
98. Tak Nga Court
99. Tin King Estate
100. Tin Oi Court
101. Tin Wang Court
102. Tin Yau Court
103. Ting Nga Court
104. Tsz Ching Estate
105. Tsz Man Estate
106. Tsz Oi Estate
107. Tsz On Estate
108. Tung Chun Court
109. Upper Ngau Tau Kok Estate
110. Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate
111. Un Chau Street Estate
112. Valley Road Estate
113. Wang Fuk Court
114. Wang Tau Hom Estate
115. Wo Lok Estate
116. Wong Chuk Hang Estate
117. Wu King Estate
118. Yan Ming Court
119. Yan Shing Court
120. Yan Tsui Court
121. Yat Nga Court
122. Yau Tong Estate
123. Yee Ching Court
124. Yee Kok Court
125. Yee Nga Court
126. Yee Tsui Court
127. Ying Ming Court
128. Yu Ming Court
129. Yue Fai Court
130. Yue On Court
131. Yue Shing Court
132. Yuen Long Estate
133. Yuet Lai Court
134. Yuk Po Court
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3435 Breach of Regulation on Registration of Electors
17. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): The Boundary and Election Commission (Registration of Electors) (Functional Constituencies and Election Committee Constituency) Regulation stipulates that any person who provides false and incorrect information upon registration as a voter with the Registration and Election Office is liable to a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for 6 months. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the respective numbers of persons convicted of breaching this regulation in each of the past three years together with the numbers of people convicted who were fined and those who were imprisoned?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, the Boundary and Election Commission (Registration of Electors) (Functional Constituencies and Election Committee Constituency) Regulation only came into operation on 15 December 1994. This Regulation deals with the registration of electors for the Legislative Council functional constituencies and Election Committee Constituency. Since the Regulation’s coming into operation, there has not been any complaint concerning the provision of false and incorrect information by electors for the functional constituencies and the Election Committee Constituency. Nor has there been any conviction for the relevant offence.
Prior to December 1994, legal sanction against false registration in functional constituencies was contained in the Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) (Registration of Electors and Appointment of Authorized Representatives) Regulations. (The Regulations did not cover the Election Committee Constituency as it did not exist then.) During the three years immediately preceding December 1994, there was no complaint concerning false registration in functional constituencies; nor was there any conviction for the relevant offence.
There is similar legislation dealing with false registration in geographical constituencies. Before March 1994, the relevant legislative provisions were set out in the Electoral Provisions (Registration of Electors) Regulations. The provisions are now contained in the Boundary and Election Commission (Registration of Electors) (Geographical Constituencies) Regulation. During the past three years, the police and the Independent Commission Against Corruption dealt with a total of 55 cases concerning false registration for geographical constituencies. Following investigation, it was concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations for 21 of the cases. Action on a further 25 cases has stopped, either because the allegations were subsequently withdrawn, or because there was insufficient information for the concerned departments to pursue the cases further. Investigation on the remaining nine cases is still continuing.
3436 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Overseas Education Allowance
18. MISS EMILY LAU asked: Regarding the overseas education allowance for children of civil servants, will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) when and why the allowance was introduced;
(b) how many children are currently benefiting from the allowance;
(c) of the number, ranks and terms of service of the civil servants concerned, who are in receipt of the allowance; and
(d) how much it will cost in total in 1995-96 to send these children to receive education in the United Kingdom?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, my replies to the four questions raised are as follows:
(a) The Overseas Education Allowance Scheme was introduced in 1963 to enable children of overseas officers to continue education in their country of origin. In 1972, the scheme was extended to local officers on grounds of parity.
(b) In 1994-95, 3 683 children were in the scheme.
(c) With the time and resources available, we have not been able to identify the ranks of all the civil servants concerned. The number and terms of service of the civil servants concerned, broken down into salary bands, are as follows:
Salary point Local officers Overseas officers
Total
MPS 1-9 107 - 107 >MPS 9 - MPS 33 2 011 5 2 016 >MPS 33 - MPS 44 451 33 484 >MPS 44 - MPS 49 141 55 196 Directorate 114 94 208
Total 2 824 187 3 011
(The total is lower than (b) above because some officers have more than one child studying abroad.)
(d) in 1995-96, about 4 000 children are estimated to be in the scheme at a cost of $322 million. The great majority of them will be receiving education in the United Kingdom.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3437 Environmental Black Spots in the New Territories
19. MR FUNG CHI-WOOD asked (in Chinese): Regarding the setting up of a task force to tackle and clean up environmental black spots in the New Territories, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the actual work done by the task force in the past six months and the achievements made so far;
(b) of the classification of the black spots identified, together with a breakdown of these black spots by classification; and
(c) how the Government will tackle these black spots and what the specific time frame for action is?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, answers to the three-part question are as follows:
(a) In July 1994, a Black Spots Task Force was set up in the Lands Department to clean up black spots in the New Territories. Since August 1994, the Task Force has been, inter alia:
(i) implementing an action plan to bring early and visible improvement to areas identified as being environmentally degraded, initially in the Pat Heung area. So far, 203 government sites comprising 5.2 hectares of land being illegally occupied have been cleared, with 84 of which landscaped. The Central Enforcement and Prosecution Section set up in the Planning Department in July 1994 has been complementing the action of the Task Force by stepping up its enforcement efforts under the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) in the Pat Heung area to ensure maximum impact of government action;
(ii) studying container-related operations in the Ha Tsuen/Lau Fau Shan area;
(iii) exploring the drawing up of a code of practice for container depot operations in liaison with the Hong Kong Container Depots and Repair Association Limited to encourage self-discipline and improvements; and
(iv) examining suitable sites for relocating port back-up and open storage uses.
3438 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
(b) Black spots, in general, constitute any operations/activities which cause visual, traffic, flooding, dust and odour nuisances/problems. Many open storage and port back-up uses in the rural areas of the New Territories are found to be black spots. According to the recently completed Study on Port Back-up Land and Open Storage Requirements by the Planning Department, there were, as at August 1993, 1 453 sites (covering 362 hectares) for open storage uses and 237 sites (covering 198 hectares) for port back-up uses. The Task Force is ascertaining exactly how many of these are black spots.
(c) There are three courses of action to tackle black spots: seeking to discontinue the operation/activity, moving it to places where the land use is compatible with the planning, environmental and traffic requirements, and allowing it to continue subject to the necessary improvements.
In view of the widespread nature and complexity of the problem, a 10-year implementation programme is thought to be necessary to clean up the New Territories. Over the next few years, the Task Force will be developing strategies and initiatives to bring about improvements. This will be no easy task. The co-operation and involvement of those living and working in the New Territories will be essential. If necessary, we may consider legislative amendments to deal with problematic areas which cannot be effectively dealt with through the means now at our disposal. We intend to consult widely as we develop our plans of action. Proposals will in due course be made for consideration by the Special Committee set up in November 1994 to advise the Government on all matters relating to environmental black spots in the New Territories and to monitor the work of the Task Force.
Highways Department Representatives at District Board Meetings
20. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): It is learnt that despite repeated requests, the Highways Department has been declining to send representatives to some district board meetings, causing dissatisfaction among members of those district boards. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the criteria adopted by government departments in deciding whether to send representatives to or to decline attendance at district board meetings;
(b) the district boards whose meetings the Highways Department has declined to send representatives to in the last district board session;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3439
(c) the district boards whose meetings the Highways Department has declined to send representatives to since the commencement of the current district board session;
(d) of the reasons why the Highways Department declines to send representatives to district board meetings;
(e) whether the operation of a district board was disrupted, as a result of the absence of an official from the Highways Department who had promised to attend a district board meeting but proceeded on leave without arranging for a replacement to attend the meeting, causing delay in the discussion of the projects concerned; and
(f) how the above situation can be improved?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) Departmental attendance at district board meetings is by invitation and determined by the District Officer, in consultation with the District Board Chairman. Instructions to departments have been promulgated in circulars which are reviewed and updated periodically.
(b) and (d)
The present practice and standing arrangement is that the Territory Development Department represents all Works Branch Departments (including the Highways Department) at district board meetings on engineering and project programming matters. It is for this reason that the Highways Department declined requests to attend, on a regular basis, each and every meeting of the Yuen Long, Eastern, and Central and Western District Boards during the past session.
(c) I have been advised that the Highways Department did not send a representative to attend the discussion at the Yuen Long District Board meeting held on 20 April 1995. However, written advice was provided to the district board before that meeting.
(e) and (f)
In retrospect, the Director of Highways recognizes that the business of the district board would have been better facilitated had his representative been able to attend. Meanwhile, to improve communication, the Department has recently agreed to attend Yuen Long District Board Traffic and Transport Committee meetings regularly on a trial basis for one year.
3440 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 BILLS
First Reading of Bills
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1995
ESTATE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance.”
He said: Mr President, I move that the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995 be read the Second time.
This is the first of the three Bills which the Secretary for the Treasury and I will introduce this afternoon to give effect to the revenue proposals in this year’s Budget.
The Bill now before Members has two main purposes. Firstly, it seeks to introduce a number of salaries tax concessions to benefit both the taxpaying population in general and specific target groups. Secondly, it seeks to specify the minimum records which a business must keep for tax purposes, and to increase the maximum penalty for non-compliance. These proposals have already been fully covered in my Budget speech and in the Budget debate. I shall therefore be brief this afternoon.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3441 Salaries tax concessions
Let me first deal with the proposed salaries tax concessions. Briefly, the Bill proposes to improve existing benefits in three ways.
- First, the Bill increases most salaries tax allowances (notably, the single, married person, first and second child, and dependent parent/grandparent allowances) by 10%, slightly above the rate of inflation.
- Secondly, it increases substantially the allowances for those with extra financial responsibilities. Specifically, it doubles the allowance for taxpayers who look after a dependent parent or grandparent at home and increases by 25% the single parent allowance.
- Thirdly, it introduces a new disabled dependent allowance for taxpayers who support a disabled dependent, whether at home or elsewhere in Hong Kong. This new allowance will be in addition to existing allowances (for example, married person, child or dependent parent) received by the taxpayer in respect of the disabled family member in question.
We estimate that the total cost of these salaries tax concessions will amount to $1.2 billion in 1995-96 and $7.7 billion in the period up to 1998-99.
These proposals seek a prudent balance between leaving money in the pockets of taxpayers, especially those with extra financial responsibilities, and maintaining healthy reserves, whilst at the same time taking into account the impact on inflation. I believe that these proposals do represent a reasonable balance and I hope that Members will be able to support them.
Business records
Let me now turn to the proposals on business records. The Bill specifies in greater detail the records which a business must keep to enable its assessable profits to be readily ascertained and increases the penalty for non-compliance from $5,000 to $100,000. These proposals are intended to encourage compliance and to enable the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to detect tax evasion more effectively. Again, I hope that they will receive Members’ support.
Mr President, with these remarks, I commend the Bill to Members.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
3442 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance and the Amusement Rides (Safety) Ordinance.”
He said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Public Entertainment and Amusement (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1995.
The Bill’s aims are to achieve two objectives. Firstly, to repeal the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing’s (CTEL) wide discretionary power to grant, or refuse the grant of, a public entertainment permit under the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance. This is to remove any possible inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Secondly, to amend the definition of amusement ride in the Amusement Rides (Safety) Ordinance to place legislative control on certain manually driven amusement devices such as multi-axis chairs which may be potentially dangerous.
CTEL issues about 3 200 permits every year to various types of public entertainment in accordance with the provisions of the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance. In discharging this duty, CTEL has rarely turned down applications on the ground of objection to the form and content of the entertainment. Despite this, we are proposing to abolish the permit system to remove any possible inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
The proposed removal of the permit system is part of the Government’s continued efforts to give effect to its commitment to promote freedom of expression. The abolition of the permit system will also simplify the existing dual licensing system for public entertainment by making the Urban Council and the Regional Council the sole licensing authorities. In future, an organizer of a public entertainment will only need to obtain one licence from the licensing authority to comply with hygiene, fire and building safety requirements for the venue. These requirements are mainly to ensure the safety of participants.
Mr President, I would like to emphasize that the removal of the permit system does not mean that we will lose control over live public performances. Objectionable public performances will continue to be controlled by section 12A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, under which it is an offence to take part in, provide or manage any public live performance of an indecent, obscene, revolting or offensive nature. Police officers acting under a warrant can enter premises where it is suspected that such a performance is or may be taking place, conduct a search and seize articles related to the performance. In fact, the permit system cannot be an effective safeguard against impromptu indecent public entertainments anyway and enforcement action by the police was relied upon in the past.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3443
The Bill also amends the Amusement Rides (Safety) Ordinance to put amusement devices like multi-axis chairs, which are solely driven by human power but carry potential danger, under comprehensive safety control. However, Members can rest assured that simple and safe mechanical devices found in children’s playgrounds like swings, slides and see-saws are not caught by this amendment. Subject to the passage of this amendment, the design, installation, repair, operation, as well as operating personnel in charge of multi-axis chairs will be subject to the extensive and stringent safety measures prescribed in the Amusement Rides (Safety) Ordinance.
Mr President, I now wish to summarize the main provisions of the Bill.
Clause 2 proposes to revise and update the definition of “entertainment” under the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance. Outdated forms of entertainment like exhibition of abnormal persons or animals will be removed from the definition whereas a new form of entertainment, that is laser projection display, will be included.
The Secretary for Recreation and Culture is empowered under clause 5 to amend the list of entertainments in the Schedule by regulation as well as to determine the circumstances under which licence conditions can be waived, cancelled, added or varied, and the circumstances under which fees can be waived or reduced. An amendment to the Schedule would normally be made at the request of and in consultation with licensing authority.
Clause 6 repeals section 8 of the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance, which deals with the permit system for public entertainment.
To give effect to the relevant recommendations in Mr Justice BOKHARY’s report on the Lan Kwai Fong incident, clause 8 empowers the licensing authority to impose licence conditions, including conditions as regard crowd control measures and the provision of first aid services to better ensure the safety of participants in public entertainment events.
Clauses 11 to 12 add a new Schedule to the Amusement Rides (Safety) Ordinance so as to define “amusement rides” to include manually driven devices which are capable of revolving through more than 90 degrees, including mutliaxis chairs. The Secretary for Recreation and Culture is empowered to amend the new Schedule by regulation.
Mr President, the removal of the permit system on Bill of Rights grounds and the amendment to the Amusement Rides (Safety) Ordinance are proposed in response to public demands for promoting freedom of expression and public safety, respectively. I hope that the Bill will gain the support of Members of this Council.
3444 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Mr President, I beg to move.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
ESTATE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Estate Duty Ordinance.”
He said: Mr President, I move that the Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read the Second time.
The Bill before Members seeks to adjust the Schedule of asset values for the purpose of assessing estate duty so as to offset the effect of inflation on the value of relatively small estates. Specifically it increases, from $5.5 million to $6 million, the level below which no duty is payable and adjust the bands correspondingly above this threshold. Thus estate duty will be payable at 6% on estates between $6 million and $7 million; 12% for estates between $7 million and $8 million; and 18% on estates over $8 million.
We estimate that the cost of these concessions will amount to $20 million in 1995- 96 and $100 million in the period up to 1998-99.
These proposals will help to relieve the tax burden on smaller estates at a relatively modest cost. I hope that Members will be able to support them.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance.”
He said: Mr President, I move that the Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read the Second time.
The Bill before Members seeks to increase the specific duty rates on tobacco and hydrocarbon oils by 8%, in line with inflation in 1994. This is consistent with our overall budgetary strategy whereby we aim to maintain the revenue yield in real terms from the various sources of revenue to ensure financial stability.
In the particular case of tobacco duty, we also believe that there is a need to increase the duty rate in order to maintain the deterrent effect of the duty on smoking. We will work together with the Customs and Excise Department to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3445
ensure that the success of the Task Force in tackling cigarette smuggling is maintained in the future.
We estimate that these proposals will generate additional revenue of $560 million in 1995-96 and $2.6 billion in the period up to 1998-99.
Mr President, with these remarks, I commend the Bill to Members.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to render unlawful discrimination against persons on the ground of their or their associates’ disability in respect of their employment, accommodation, education, access to partnerships, membership of trade unions and clubs, access to to premises, educational establishments, sporting activities and the provision of goods, services and facilities; to make provision against harassment and vilification of persons with a disability and their associates; to extend the jurisdiction of the Equal Opportunities Commission to include discrimination against persons on the ground of their or their associates’ disability, and for connected purposes.”
She said: Mr President, I move that the Disability Discrimination Bill be read a Second time.
With the introduction of this Bill, we are taking a major step forward in achieving our goal of integrating people with a disability into our community. It will require everyone to give them an equal opportunity — a fair chance — to participate fully in the community and it will provide them with the legal means to obtain redress against discrimination, harassment and vilification. It gives the same protection and support to their families and carers as well.
The areas of life in which discrimination and harassment will be unlawful include employment; education; transport; access to buildings and services; and participation in partnerships, professional organizations, clubs and sports. In short, the Bill is comprehensive in its scope. This is important if integration is to be a reality. But, equally important, the Bill is balanced in its approach. It gives people with a disability a means of redress, while ensuring that the interests of the community as a whole are also taken into account.
In future, it will be unlawful to treat a person with a disability less favourably than others because of their disability, in circumstances that are materially the same. But, on the other hand, employers will not have to hire a certain quota of people with a disability. Building owners will not have to change existing buildings — unless they plan to carry out major additions or
3446 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
alterations. Transport operators will not have to make existing buses, ferries or trains more accessible. This is because the Bill provides for two key exemptions; “unjustifiable hardship” and “genuine occupational qualification” which covers “inherent requirements of the job”.
The first means that building owners or transport operators, for example, could defeat a claim of discrimination by proving that it would cause them “unjustifiable hardship” to make special arrangements to meet the needs of a person with a disability.
The second means, for example, that where a person could not meet the requirements of a particular job because of his or her disability, the employer would not be breaking the law in deciding not to hire him or her.
The District Court and the Equal Opportunities Commission will play important complementary roles in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. The Equal Opportunities Commission is to be set up under the Sex Discrimination Bill which was introduced into this Council on 26 October last year. Members will know something of the power of the proposed Commission as set out in that Bill. But it is worth repeating the main points. The Commission will receive and investigate complaints of discrimination. We envisage most cases being settled through conciliation. Where this fails, complainants will be able to take their cases to the District Court.
The Equal Opportunities Commission will issue codes of practice for each sector so that all parties involved will have practical guidelines to follow regarding how they are expected to behave. The Commission will, of course, consult groups representing people with a disability and the sector concerned in drafting these codes. The codes will be laid before this Council before coming into effect. When considering a case under this law, the court will have to take into account any relevant provisions in the codes when making its judgment. These codes of practice will provide practical guidelines to help the different sectors in the community to comply with the Bill. Since employment is a major and complex area which we need to get right, we propose, in line with the Sex Discrimination Bill, that the employment provisions in the Bill should not come into effect until the code of practice has been issued. The Bill also provides that, for five years, employers with fewer than five employees will be exempted. This is another example of how we are trying to achieve a balanced approach.
Disability discrimination legislation is a relatively new approach the world over. In Hong Kong, we continue to believe that the best way to achieve our goals for people with a disability is for the Government, for disability groups and those who may be affected by the Bill to work together to make it work. And it will work best, if everyone aims to improve life for people with a disability progressively, over time and with reasonable requests being met by reasonable responses. We want to see the law and public education complementing each other. We want to see them bringing about conciliation not
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3447
confrontation, co-operation not conflict. I hope I can count on Members of this Chamber to support what we are aiming to achieve by introducing this Bill.
Mr President. I move that the debate on the motion be now adjourned. Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 29 June 1994 Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
HONG KONG ARTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 15 June 1994 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, the Bill before us provides for the establishment and functions of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council as a statutory body for the development of arts in Hong Kong.
It is the original intention for the Bill to resume its Second Reading debate earlier this year on 8 March so that the statutory Council could be established on 1 April. Members, no doubt, are aware of the cause for delaying the resumption of the debate of the Bill. I shall leave it to Miss Christine LOH to explain her proposed amendment to provide for the opening up of meetings of the Council which she will move at the Committee stage, and the Administration to put forward its counter proposal.
First, let me highlight some of the other main concerns discussed by the Bills Committee.
The most controversial issue is on the method of selection of the Council members. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for 20 members, of whom 16,
3448 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
including the Chairman and the Vice-chairman, will be appointed by the Governor, and the remaining four will be ex officio members.
The Bills Committee has noted the strong aspiration from the arts community for elected members in the Council and expressed grave concern over the appointment system by the Governor as proposed in the Bill. Members generally shared the view that a non representative Council might not command the respect of the arts community as it ought to, and that elected elements should be introduced to allow for some degree of democratization.
The Administration explained that in the absence of a well-defined constituency for the arts community, there would be no assurance of open and fair elections. The Administration has also indicated that whilst it did not object in principle to elected membership, it would not be feasible to work out the mechanism for a credible and equitable election system without delaying the setting up of a statutory body by April this year. The Administration, however, subsequently advised us that it would not be prepared to open the membership of the Council for direct election as it was government policy to restrict such election to the three-tier representative government only.
In response to the Bills Committee’s concern, the Administration then proposed providing up to three members of the Council to be nominated by the arts organizations representing the literary, visual and performing arts. It also advised that should the Committee Members insist on direct election for the Council, it would withdraw the Bill.
Having considered the Administration’s firm stance and as the proposed nomination system represented a step towards a more representative Council, the Bills Committee accepted the concept of nominations by the respective sectors of the arts community and proposed that half of the Council should be nominated for appointment by the Governor.
The Administration advised that it was unable to accept the suggested proportion of nominated membership. As there would be four ex officio representatives in the Council and the discretion of the Governor would thus be unaccceptably restricted.
After considerable deliberation, the Bills Committee finally reached a consensus with the Administration. On the basis that the arts community be adequately represented in the Council, nine members of the Council would be nominated by the arts community representing the nine arts categories, namely the literary arts, visual arts, performing arts, drama, dance, music, film arts, arts criticism, arts administration and arts education. The Council would be enlarged to consist of 22 members, four of whom would be ex officio members representing the Urban Council, the Regional Council, the Recreation and Culture Branch and the Education Department, having nine places for appointed members to be determined by the Governor. This represents an acceptable
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3449
compromise as relevant amendments to the Bill will be introduced by the Administration later this afternoon.
The Bills Committee has also considered the draft guidelines on setting up the representative organizations of the nine arts categories and their nominees for membership of the Council. These guidelines, when finalized, should be gazetted as a code for public reference. The issue has been taken up further by the Legislative Council Panel on Recreation and Culture.
Mr President, another area of concern is the inclusion of arts criticism and film arts into clause 4(a) of the Bill. The Administration took the view that arts criticism was not an art form in itself, but a multi-disciplinary activity which permeated through various arts activities. It should therefore not be given the same status as the literary, performing and visual art forms. Our Committee considered the divergent views submitted by individuals and groups of the arts community on the matter and concluded that the issue of whether arts criticism is an art form should be a separate one from whether the discipline was important enough to be explicitly named and included in the law. And as members agreed to the latter, informed criticism of the arts should therefore be inserted in the relevant section alongside arts education and other related aspects.
On the question of film arts, Members of the Bills Committee received an extensive representation from film markers and were persuaded that it is a composite art form and therefore should be duly recognized and incorporated into the Bill. To accord proper status to arts criticism and film arts, the Administration has agreed to the Bills Committee’s suggestion to adopt a combined version of clauses 4(a) and 4(b) incorporating the two elements and will move the appropriate Committee stage amendments.
The Bills Committee has also expressed concern over the Governor’s power, as proposed under clause 16, to give direction to the Council, which might have bearing on its independence and freedom of artistic expression. The Administration has responded that in an executive-led government, the residual power of directions should be vested in the Governor. The parameter in exercising this power is set by the provision under which the direction given must be consistent with the functions and power specified in the Bill and that the power should only be invoked in the public interest. The Bills Committee has been assured that the Council could apply for judicial review should it consider the Governor has not acted in the public interest.
Mr President, I would like to express my appreciation to the organizations and individuals who have put forward their views on the Bill and the Administration for its time and effort. May I also take this opportunity to thank Members of the Bills Committee for their active involvement and contribution in studying the Bill.
3450 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
Before I close, I would like to make clear the position of the Liberal Party regarding Miss LOH’s amendment. We believe it is a matter of constitutional consistency that we have to consider very carefully before we legislate to control the proceedings of any statutory council as it may unnecessarily tie down the flexibility and efficiency of its operation. Currently, none of the three-tier representative bodies are so restricted. Openness of proceeding is of course a principle we must all uphold, but such openness must not be dictated by rigid legislative provisions which cannot cater for the variety of circumstances which might require that openness be temporarily suspended or curtailed for the protection of reputation, commercially sensitive information, legal obligations and so on. Requirement by law would also formalize the process and unnecessarily tie down the flexibility and efficiency of the operation of the Council. It should therefore be up to the Council to determine, having considered each individual case, when open meeting should be suspended. The Liberal Party accepts the Administration’s proposal to provide for such circumstances through the Standing Orders of the Council. I might also add that we have received representation from the Hong Kong Federation of Writers and Artists which is a widely recognized representative body of the arts community supporting the Administration’s proposal.
Mr President, subject to the adoption of the amendments to be moved by the Administration, I support the Bill.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, at last we have the Bill before us.
The Administration’s behaviour in its handling of this Bill has betrayed an unhealthy and unreasonable sense of priorities. This Bill should have come before us a long time ago. The only reason for the Administration’s delay has been to prevent the creation of any statutory obligation for the proposed Arts Development Council (ADC) to hold its meetings in public. It has seemed at times to care more about the fate of this single issue than about the creation and the operation of the ADC itself. It had, in effect, made the ADC a hostage to its own bureaucratic obstinacy.
And yet, the Administration’s objections arise entirely from its own tortuous and incomplete reasoning.
The Administration insists that it is perfectly happy for the ADC to meet in public, and to have the presumption of public meetings written into the ADC’s Standing Orders. The Administration has gone so far as to use my legislative amendments as the basis for those Standing Orders. Mr President, therefore, the Administration in fact has no objection to the substance of my amendments whatsoever.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3451
The Administration says, however, that it cannot accept a legal obligation for the ADC to meet in public, for fear that this might create some unspecified “operational difficulties”, what Mrs CHOW called “inflexibility”, and would establish a precedent for other governmental bodies.
The argument about this unspecified “operational difficulties” is clearly a bogus one, since it is hard to see any necessary difference in practice between open meetings conducted as such in furtherance of standing orders, and open meetings conducted as such in furtherance of a legal obligation. Both would be open meetings, and the difficulties that arose, or did not arise, would be the same in either case.
The same holds for the argument, advanced by three members of the ADC, that: “..... as a general rule people in open meetings are more likely to take the easy option and either approve things they should not, or defer decisions unnecessarily.”
If that is true, then it will be equally true whether the meeting is an open meeting because Standing Orders say so, or an open meeting because the law says so. In fact, I very much doubt that greater openness is likely to encourage weak or bad judgement on the part of ADC members. I think it is more likely to reinforce their sense of responsibility to the public, to reach decisions that they are confident will stand up to public scrutiny.
The Administration argues that, by accepting a principle of open meetings for the ADC, a precedent would be set for other advisory bodies. Mr President, I have to say that this, if it is true, worries me rather less than it seems to worry the Administration. I find nothing inherently offensive or frightening in the notion that advisory bodies should be open to the public. If other statutory bodies would like to open up their meetings by law, I fail to see why that would be a bad thing. Indeed, it would be a very good thing.
As to the practical question of whether a precedent is being set, all I can say is that, if so, that does not form part of my amendments. My purpose here is only to fix a legal obligation upon the ADC. My amendments would only affect the operations of the ADC. The other bodies within the Government’s consultative structure would not be affected by my amendments.
If the Administration is truly worried about setting a precedent for other advisory bodies, then its acceptance of my idea on nominations for the nine artistic disciplines by the arts community to the Governor for appointments to the ADC is, if anything, much more revolutionary. What if other advisory bodies now all want to elect representatives for nomination to various boards by the Governor?
3452 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
I suggest, therefore, that the Administration’s position on open meetings is contradictory at best. It claims to support the principle of open meetings for the ADC. But it refuses to make that principle the subject of a statutory guarantee. In other words, it wants to be sure that the principle it claims to uphold can be overturned in the future.
The purpose of creating a legal obligation on the ADC to meet in public would be to ensure that the principle could not be easily overturned in the future. Mr President, you know this to be true. You disallowed my Access to Information Bill on the ground that it could have charging effect even though I tried to mirror my Bill along the lines of the Administration’s new code of practice, because you recognized that a code could be withdrawn at any time by the Administration, and as such, my Bill would impose expenditure on the Administration should the code be withdrawn. The conclusion is: a legal right is much more secure, and much more certain; and it would impose obligations on the Administration.
Further, the Administration’s disingenuous argument to win support that future amendments to what is guaranteed in legislation is more difficult than changing what is in administrative standing orders, in fact supports what I am trying to say. However, the Administration attempts to argue that standing orders can be refined easily to cope with new circumstances, and is therefore, preferrable.
I call upon fellow Councillors that you read my amendments carefully. There is sufficient flexibility there to take into account new circumstances. If you pass my amendment, it is unlikely that we would have to bring further amendments in the foreseeable future to increase flexibility, and you would be giving the public a clear right to attend the ADC’s meetings.
If we believe that the new ADC should be open and accountable, then we should say so in law. It is as simple as that. And if we are not prepared to say so in law, then — like the Administration — we are, at most only half-hearted in our commitment.
The Administration is not being wise, or impartial, in this matter; it is merely giving vent to its bureaucratic instincts. Left to itself, it will always argue for administrative instruments of one sort or another — in this case, the internal “Standing Orders” of the ADC. Administrative instruments are the source of bureaucratic power, and the enemy of public accountability.
Unlike the Administration, I do not wish to see the future of the ADC turn on the outcome of this narrow argument. But I do want it to be recognized that there is an important issue at stake here, and that the Administration’s arguments are both short sighted and self-serving.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3453
Finally, Mr President, I wish to respond to Deputy Secretary, Mrs Rachel CARTLAND’s, angry outburst at a Bills Committee meeting that I have “a personal political agenda” in pushing for a legal right to open meetings in the ADC. It is no secret that much of my political agenda is built around the notion of open government. I believe that we need to see and understand better how our government takes decisions. This desire might cause the Administration some inconvenience, but so be it. I will continue to push for both access to information and open meetings, to be guaranteed by law.
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, we do need courage and a high degree of initiative to have changes made to the existing system, customs or concepts. The “executive-led” way of handling things behind closed doors seems to have become the amulet of a great majority of bureaucrats and executives in the high echelons of Hong Kong’s governing hierachy. Of the existing government councils or committees, which number several hundred, only a handful of them, such as the District Board, the Housing Authority and the Consultative Committee on the New Airport and Related Projects, hold meetings in public. While it is unlikely to change the common practice in one single attempt, we have to take the first step anyhow.
Given that the Arts Development Council (ADC) is set up to promote and plan the development of arts in Hong Kong and since arts belongs to the general public, the process of making decisions will, therefore, concern the quality of living of the people of Hong Kong. Such being the case, it is necessary to open ADC’s meetings and enhance transparency in its operation so that the people will be able to learn of the arts development policies, which are of immediate concern to the public, and the standpoint of ADC members on individual issues as well as their overall performances. Regrettably, some people still pander to outworn beliefs, thinking that to hold meetings in public will give rise to operational difficulties in the ADC. They also hold that in so doing the early development of the Council will be affected and that a precedent will be set in respect of the formulation of legislation, thereby putting pressure on other councils or committees under the Government. These views are beneath contempt. Operational difficulties can in fact be overcome through administrative measures and on no account can they be taken as the pretext for objecting to meetings being held in public. If we recognize the spirit of opening meetings, the ADC will, sooner or later, adopt such practice. The argument of such practice being inappropriate in the early development of the ADC is unfounded, to say the least. Developed countries, such as the United States where common law is practised, and even neighbouring Taiwan, have provided for open meetings by legislative means. It is worthwhile to draw on their experiences. If we consider the spirit of holding public meetings desirable, there is no harm for other government bodies to follow suit and to adopt this practice speedily.
3454 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
The ADC is a public body. It is the fundamental spirit of the ADC that different sectors and different interest groups in the community be allowed to convey their views and exert influence in the formulation of policies. Since its policy will have a direct or indirect bearing on the quality of living of every member of the community, everyone should have the right to know the process through which decisions are reached. This is the simplest rationale ever. In this connection, Members of the Democratic Party and I support the Honourable Miss Christine LOH’s amendment to provide for meetings to be held in public by legislative means.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, originally I did not intend to speak. Yet, in the meeting of the Home Affairs Panel of the Legislative Council this morning when the issue of transparency of advisory bodies was discussed — and in fact the Legislative Council has repeatedly discussed similar subject matters before — Members were dissatisfied with the performance of the representatives of the Home Affairs Branch. In this connection, the Democratic Party will throw its full weight behind the Honourable Miss Christine LOH’s amendment to the Hong Kong Arts Development Council Bill seeking to provide for meetings to be held in public by law so that members of the public can participate in or have knowledge of the operation through sitting in on public meetings.
In fact, under the Government there are at present several hundreds of advisory bodies, a great majority of which do not meet in public. Only a few of them are exceptions. The Honourable MAN Sai-cheong has mentioned this point earlier on. The Government explained that meetings are not held in public because the information concerned is sensitive and the venues of meetings are too small. The first explanation is acceptable and, in fact, for many meetings and even for those of the Legislative Council, while all the meetings are held in public, we would proceed to closed-door meetings when sensitive matters are involved. This explanation, I believe, is acceptable to the public. But as regards the second explanation which is that members of the public are not allowed to sit in on meetings because the venues are too small, it is indeed utterly ludicrous. Government officials concerned have repeatedly said that the Government would step up its effort to encourage advisory bodies to hold meetings in public. Yet, when the Government was asked what substantive action would be taken to assist the advisory bodies to open their meetings, the government officials concerned were silent. Besides, as the government officials concerned have said it is due to the venues being too small that meetings are unlikely to be held in public, they may agree that the meetings of certain advisory bodies can be open to the public and they are not open to the public only because of the space constraint of the venues. The Government, however, has refrained from providing bigger venues to enable meetings to be held in public. Does it show that while the Government said verbally that vigorous steps would be taken as an encouragement, it has taken no concrete action at all to offer assistance? How can the goal be possibly achieved under this circumstance?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3455
The Democratic Party is of the view that if the decisions of the advisory bodies will have a bearing on the public, their meetings should indeed be held in public across the board. Should it be unlikely for some advisory bodies to meet in public, the Government is obliged to give the public an explanation and let the public judge whether it is justified for the bodies concerned not to meet in public. For instance, I do not see anything wrong in the operation of the Housing Authority which did not meet in public in the past but holds public meetings now. As a matter of fact, I remember that during the early deliberation of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council Bill, the Government took exception to the proposal that the Council should meet in public. But subsequent to Miss Christine LOH proposing the amendment seeking to require Arts Development Council’s (ADC) meetings to be open to the public by legislative means, the Government hastily proceeded to hold discussions again and put off the Bill and then attempted to solve the problem administratively by introducing provisions in the Standing Orders. It shows that we have to push the Government before the Government would take any action. In adopting this attitude, is the Government compelling the Legislative Council to require other advisory bodies to meet in public by law before it will take administrative measures in haste to open the meetings? Is it the case that the Government will take action only when the Legislative Council forces it to do so? If Miss Christine LOH has not proposed this amendment, I believe that the Government would not consider opening the meetings by administrative measures. I am greatly disappointed with the attitude of the Government. I, therefore, would very much like to see that the Hong Kong Arts Development Council Bill will set a precedent, whereby the Government will earnestly consider opening the meetings of other advisory bodies to the tune of 400 in addition to enabling the Hong Kong ADC to meet in public. If there are meetings which cannot possibly be held in public, I hope that the Government will explain the reasons to the public.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, on 15 June 1994, the Hong Kong Arts Development Council Bill was introduced into this Council. The main aim of the Bill is to set up the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) as an autonomous statutory body to promote and develop the arts in Hong Kong.
I would first like to thank Members of the Bills Committee, especially its Chairman, Mrs Selina CHOW, for their hard work and thorough examination of the Bill. In the course of this exercise, we have maintained very close liaison with the HKADC and the rest of the arts community to gather their views. We have discussed these views exhaustively with Members of the Bills Committee. We have responded positively to the ideas put forward. As a result, we have now reached an agreement with the Bills Committee and the arts community on a package which broadly meets the aspirations of the arts community and includes significant improvements over the original Bill. I hope this Bill will now receive the full support of this Council.
3456 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
Mr President, I would now like to outline briefly the three major elements of the agreed package.
Firstly, in response to the strong desire of some sectors of the arts community and the Bills Committee, the Government has agreed to include explicit references to film arts and arts criticism in appropriate clauses of the Bill. Whilst the Bill is enabling in nature and does not exclude any art forms from the scope of the HKADC, the proposed amendments I am going to move during the Committee stage will give specific recognition to the contribution of film arts to the local arts scene alongside other art forms such as visual, literary and performing arts. Arts criticism will also be appropriately recognized.
Secondly, we have agreed to amend the clauses dealing with the composition of the Council to provide for the membership to include persons drawn, one each, from nine specified categories of the arts. Furthermore, we have introduced a mechanism whereby organizations representing those categories may each nominate one person for consideration by the Governor for appointment as a member of the HKADC. These measures will ensure that the HKADC will have a good range of expert advice representing a wide cross section of the arts interests available to it, together with strong and credible link to the arts community. However, it should always be remembered that the HKADC’s role is to develop the arts for the benefit of the community as a whole. The latter’s interests must also be represented and this will be done by the other nine non-official members who will be appointed by the Governor from the community at large.
We believe that this creates a proper balance in the non-official membership of the Council. However, since we also need to accommodate four ex officio members, these changes have resulted in the need to increase the size of the Council’s membership from 20 to 22 in total.
These changes have been worked out and agreed by all parties concerned after many rounds of detailed discussions. They have produced a practical and workable solution to a difficult problem. I would like to thank both the Bills Committee and the arts community for their contributions to this process.
In order to help the arts community in the selection of nominees, the Government has prepared a set of guidelines, on which we have consulted the HKADC, the arts community and the Recreation and Culture Panel of this Council. We have now analyzed the feedback obtained and have fine tuned the guidelines accordingly. We are now working out an implementation programme. We have already issued the guidelines and it is our intention to issue the implementation plan when it is ready, so that the arts community can start organizing themselves and preparing for the nomination process to start once this Bill is passed into law.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3457
The third element of the package which I want to discuss is the method of meeting the calls that have been made for the operations of the HKADC to be more open and transparent in future. During the final stage of our discussions with the Bills Committee, the Honourable Christine LOH proposed a series of amendments to the Bill to require Council meetings to be opened to the public, except in certain circumstances. Let me state here firmly that the Government is totally opposed to these proposed amendments. We believe them to be inappropriate, unnecessary, inflexible and motivated by broad political objectives rather than by the particular needs of the arts community. We have stated that whilst we have no objection in principle to the concept of Council meetings being open, we believe strongly that this matter should be addressed by the HKADC administratively through the use of Standing Orders, rather than by enshrining such provisions in the law. This is the norm for all other statutory bodies including the Legislative Council, the two municipal councils and the district boards.
To agree to Miss LOH’s amendment would be to subject the HKADC to additional and unnecessary restrictions to those of other statutory bodies. It may also imply mistrust of the HKADC and I see no justification in fettering the HKADC in this way. Miss LOH’s proposal would also have potentially far-reaching implications for other statutory and advisory bodies in Hong Kong. Her proposed amendments are not germane to the HKADC Bill. It is therefore not appropriate to consider them in the context of this Bill.
Mr President, the objectives of achieving open and transparent operations for the HKADC can be met fully by adopting suitable standing orders. In this regard, I am happy to inform this Council that the present HKADC has already decided to open its meetings to the public shortly and has already considered a set of draft Standing Orders covering this area. These were agreed by the HKADC as a positive and constructive response to Miss LOH’s concern. These Standing Orders have since been issued and will be formally adopted by the HKADC at its next meeting on 11 May 1995.
In the light of this, there is no valid reason for Miss LOH to continue to press for her amendments. Indeed, I am surprised that she should be insisting on moving these amendments, especially since as the current Vice-chairman of the HKADC, she is fully aware that the HKADC has twice voted to reject her proposal to make the holding of open meetings of the Council a legal requirement.
Mr President, I do not wish to reply in great detail to the points that Miss LOH has just made. We have discussed this issue exhaustively and come up with the solution that meets our needs, those of the arts community and of the HKADC. The time has come to heal any wounds caused by the recent disagreements, to go forward and to do the important work required of the HKADC. The only small point I would like to make is that our Standing Orders which have been adopted by the HKADC are, as it happen, not based on Miss
3458 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
LOH’s proposal but on the tried and true methods adopted by, among others, the Legislative Council itself.
Mr President, with these remarks, and subject to the Committee stage amendments proposed by the Administration, I commend the Hong Kong Arts Development Council Bill to Members for approval, but I oppose the Honourable Miss Christine LOH’s proposed amendments.
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 Bills
Council went into Committee.
PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL
Clauses 1 to 7 and 10 were agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members. These are minor drafting amendments which seek to reflect better the meaning of the English text. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendments
Clause 8
That clause 8(5) be amended, by deleting everything after“即使”and substituting “該 法律程序所針對的㆟並不在該法院的司法管轄權範圍內。”.
Clause 9
That clause 9 be amended, in the section heading, by adding“強制”before “執行”. That clause 9(1) be amended —
(a) by adding“強制”before“執行”where it twice occurs.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3459 (b) by deleting“相當於第 8 條”and substituting“與第 8 條相應”. That clause 9(2)(b) be amended, by adding“強制”before“執行”. Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 8 and 9, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
HONG KONG ARTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL BILL
Clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15 and 20
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr Chairman, I move that the various clauses as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members be amended.
The new clause 1 specifies the date on which this new legislation will come into operation. We propose that this date should be 1 June 1995. This will provide a firm target whilst allowing sufficient time for the necessary financial and administrative arrangements to be made to ensure that the transformation of the Council into a statutory body is smooth.
The amendments to clause 3 reflect the consensus achieved following extensive consultations by the Administration with the Bills Committee, the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) and the arts community on the method of selecting members of the HKADC. The present package enables much greater participation by the arts community in the appointment process, and at the same time ensures that the Council will benefit from the presence of a wide range of artistic and professional expertise. This will be conducive to the smooth and efficient operation of Council’s business. The new clause 3(3)(a) will increase the size of the Council from the previously proposed 20 to a total of 22. The reason for this has been explained earlier when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
The new clauses 3(3A) and 3(3B) will enable the arts community to organize themselves in order to nominate their representatives as candidates for consideration by the Governor for appointment as members of the Council. The arts community can nominate up to nine persons for appointment, each of these nine persons shall represent one of the nine categories specified in clause 3(3B). For the purpose of nomination, the Governor is empowered under this clause to specify in the Gazette up to nine organizations or groups of organizations. Each organization so specified shall, in the opinion of the Governor, be representative of one or more of the nine specified categories. The amendment to clause 3(4) is a consequential amendment to take into account the introduction of the nomination mechanism. I have mentioned earlier the Administration has drawn up a set of guidelines to facilitate the nomination process by the arts community. We are now working on the implementation plan. We hope that the arts
3460 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
community can take advantage of the opportunity that they have requested and have been given through these amendments to nominate their representatives onto the Council in the future.
The new clause 4(a) combines the original clauses 4(a) and 4(d) with suitable amendments to clarify that the scope of the HKADC will include film arts as well as the literary, performing and visual arts. It also makes explicit reference to arts criticism in the appropriate place. The reason for this amendment has been explained in my earlier speech moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
Similarly, the amendment to clause 5(2)(b) includes a further explicit reference to arts criticism.
The amendment to clause 5(2)(1) distinguishes between movable and immovable property and accords different powers to the Council with respect to these two categories. The amendment, which places the same obligations on the HKADC as are already in force for other similar bodies, was suggested by the Bills Committee and accepted by the Administration.
The amendment to clause 15 specifies that the Governor shall not later than three months after the receipt of the annual report, the annual statement of accounts and the auditor’s report on the accounts of the HKADC tabled these reports and statements before this Council. The same time limit is currently adopted by some other statutory organizations. The proposed amendments would give further precision to this clause. Mr Chairman, the other amendments to clauses 3(4)(e), 3(4)(k), 4(c)(2)(b), 9, 10(1), 12 and 20 of the Chinese version of the Bill are purely consequential and technical in nature.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 1
That clause 1 be amended —
(a) in the clause heading, by adding “and commencement” after “Short title”. (b) by renumbering clause 1 as clause 1(1).
(c) by adding -
“(2) This Ordinance is to come into operation on 1 June 1995.”.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3461 Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended —
(a) by deleting subclause (3)(a) to (c) and substituting -
“(a) a Chairman, a Vice-chairman and 16 other members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Governor for a term not exceeding 3 years;”.
(b) by adding -
“(3A) The 16 other members referred to in subsection (3)(a)
may include up to 9 persons nominated by organizations or groups of organizations specified under subsection (3B), and each such organization or group of organizations may nominate for this purpose not more than 1 person for each of the interests represented by that organization or group of organizations, and each such person shall, in the opinion of the Governor, be experienced in the interest for which he has been nominated.
(3B) The Governor may by notice in the Gazette specify for
the purposes of subsection (3A) up to 9 organizations or groups of organizations each of which shall, in the opinion of the Governor, be representative of one or more of the following interests -
(a) literary arts;
(b) music;
(c) dance;
(d) drama;
(e) visual arts;
(f) film arts;
(g) arts administration;
(h) arts education;
(i) arts criticism.”.
That clause 3(4) be amended, by deleting “to (c)” and substituting “or nomination under subsection (3A)”.
3462 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 That clause 3(4)(e) be amended, by deleting“行政事務”.
That clause 3(4)(k) be amended, by deleting“具合法裁判權的”.
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended —
(a) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting -
“(a) to plan, promote and support the broad development of the arts, including the literary, performing, visual and film arts, and to develop and improve the participation and education in and the knowledge, practice, appreciation, accessibility and informed criticism of the arts, with a view to improving the quality of life of the whole community;”.
(b) by deleting paragraph (d).
That clause 4(c) be amended, by deleting“現”where it twice appears and substituting “達”.
Clause 5
That clause 5(2)(b) be amended, by deleting “and accessibility” and substituting “, accessibility and informed criticism”.
That clause 5 be amended, by deleting subclause (2)(1) and substituting —
“(1) acquire, take on lease, purchase, hold and enjoy movable property and sell, let or otherwise dispose of or deal with movable property;
(1a) acquire, take on lease, purchase, hold and enjoy immovable property and lease or, with the approval of the Financial Secretary, sell or otherwise dispose of immovable property;”.
Clause 8
That clause 8(2)(b) be amended, by adding“饋贈、”before“捐贈”.
Clause 9
That clause 9 be amended, by deleting“發展局的”and substituting“的發展局”.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3463
Clause 10
That clause 10(1) be amended, by deleting everything after“資金可”and substituting “撥作及支付償還貸款。”.
Clause 12
That clause 12 be amended, by deleting“會計”and substituting“帳目”.
Clause 15
That clause 15 be amended, by adding “not later than 3 months after the receipt of such statement and reports by the Governor” after “Legislative Council”.
Clause 20
That clause 20 be amended, in the Chinese text —
(a) by deleting the heading before the clause and substituting -
“《申訴專員條例》”；
(b) by deleting the clause and substituting -
“20. 本條例適用的機構
《申訴專員條例》（第 397 章）附表 1 現予修訂，加入 —
“香港藝術發展局。”。”.
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15 and 20, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 2, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14 and 16 to 19 were agreed to.
New clause 16A Council Meetings open to Public
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
3464 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 16A as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
In the Secretary’s speech just now, he seems to have highlighted eight reasons why he is against new clause 16A. He said that it was inappropriate; that it was unnecessary; that it was inflexible; that it was not needed by the arts community; that it was motivated by political objectives; that it implies mistrust of the Council itself; that it has far-reaching implications beyond that of the ADC; and that he said the ADC itself is against it.
Perhaps I could deal with the reason of inappropriateness, that it is unnecessary and that it is not needed by the arts community. I think I have, in fact, dealt with it adequately in my opening speech, but the Secretary said just now that he did not want to go into any detailed comments. I suspect he does not want to go into any comments because he cannot. It really goes to the root of the problem and I urge Members to reconsider the difference between a right guaranteed by law and one that is simply in administrative order. There is a world of difference. Anything in standing orders can be changed and taken away. Something that is given as a right is much more secure and much more permanent.
As to the point about flexibility, what I have done is that I have re-drafted my amendment to make sure that that degree of flexibility can be provided for. All it takes is for two-thirds of the Members present in order to close a meeting, and before they close the meeting, of course, they would have to state the general reason why they are closing the meeting without disclosing the information which may be confidential. I think with that in place you have all the flexibility that you want. But perhaps when the Secretary stands to speak again, he can more properly explain why he feels that that degree of flexibility is not enough. But perhaps he can also enlighten me as to why a statutory right is inappropriate, unnecessary and not needed by the arts community.
As to implying mistrust of the ADC, that really baffles me. I would have thought that something that is guaranteed by law does not imply mistrust of anybody. It is simply a right that is given to the people. It does not imply that if you require somebody to do something by law that you mistrust them. Otherwise we have lots of problems with many of our laws.
As to, of course, this point about far-reaching implications, that is really up to the Government to think about. If the Government is serious about more openness and more transparency, then access to information and open meetings guaranteed by law are two very excellent ways of doing it. Well, yes, it has far-reaching implications. It will make our Government more open, less secretive, and that is a very good thing.
This last point about, again, that I am motivated by political objectives. Well, actually, as I said earlier on, my political agenda is one of open government. I do not need to hide behind anything to enunciate that. If, as the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3465
Secretary says, that my amendment is so unpopular because the ADC members do not want it, or the majority of them do not want it, and other people in the arts community can do without it, then, yes, he is right. I should drop my amendments if I am motivated by political popularity. I am motivated by principles. I want to make this Government more open in every way that I can, and I think pushing for open meetings guaranteed by law is a very good way. And that is why I am doing it, and that is why I have chosen not to withdraw my amendments.
The last point about that the ADC has voted twice against my amendments. I would just like to comment on that. The reason for that to a great extent is because the Government threatened to take away a statutory body. Many artists are afraid that they will not have the ADC. This threat was given, I believe, on 3 March when there was a public meeting. Everybody was aghast. And because of that fear, people thought: Well, let the Bill go through first. And I would like to say and put it on record here that many of those artists, many of those people in the Arts Development Council who have not supported a legislative right to open meetings have said to me that perhaps I would like to move it on another occasion and that they would give me my full support. So, perhaps I could say to the Secretary here that if I lose on votes today, I would probably wish to move an amendment some time in the future on exactly the same thing, and then let us see what happens.
Question on the Second Reading of the new clause proposed.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr Chairman, this amendment, in my estimation, puts the Arts Development Council into a legal straitjacket and leaves the members without freedom or flexibility.
I think we can do without this kind of bureaucracy. The ADC will have open meetings, but will have its own Standing Orders on the criteria under which their meetings may be held, if necessary, in camera. We on this Council would probably object to being tied hand and foot by legislation, and we should not deprive other bodies of freedom.
As a Member of this Bills Committee, Mr Chairman, I consider this amendment unnecessary, and urge colleagues not to support it, in order to give the ADC a little more freedom and flexibility.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr Chairman, let me reiterate once again that the Administration does not object to open meetings and transparency in principle, but we firmly believe, and so does the HKADC, that this should be addressed through a set of Standing Orders to be
3466 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
promulgated with the power conferred on the HKADC under clause 18 of the Bill to make rules and regulate its own procedures.
The amendments proposed by Miss LOH are totally unacceptable to the Administration and therefore the three Official Members of this Council will vote against them, and I hope the other Honourable Members of the Council will see fit to do so.
Mr Chairman, there has never been any dispute over the merits of the idea of the HKADC’s operation being open and transparent. What is in dispute is the means to achieve that openness and transparency. The Administration firmly believes that legislation is not necessary to enable open meetings to take place. Indeed, the Legislative Council meeting is open to the general public but this is not due to any legislative measures. Rather it is in compliance with Standing Order 66 of this Council. The two municipal councils and the Housing Authority, just to quote a few, also provide for open meetings in their Standing Orders. Most statutory bodies in Hong Kong are required under the law to open their meetings. To impose such a legal requirement on any statutory body is not only fettering the discretion of that body unnecessarily, but is also tantamount to casting a vote of no confidence in the ability and integrity of its members to run its business properly and in the public interest. There is nothing wrong with the existing administrative arrangements for open meetings, and there is no reason to suppose that the HKADC circumstances are any different to those of other bodies of similar nature.
Does the Honourable Miss LOH consider that her colleagues on the HKADC are less capable, have any less integrity or that they will abuse or ignore its Standing Orders and not open the meetings to the public? Does she not trust the arts community, who will be nominating nine of their own representatives for membership of the HKADC in running their own business properly? Or is she questioning the performance of her colleagues to date? The answer is clear. The proposed amendments do no more than to serve the purpose of advocating the Honourable Christine LOH’s own personal political agenda at the expense of the genuine needs of the arts community. The HKADC Bill is just being used as a convenient vehicle because it happens to be before Members now, or, to quote from papers issued by Miss LOH on this matter, because “this amendment represents the first legislative attempt to open up meetings of a Government advisory body in Hong Kong”.
The Honourable Miss Christine LOH’s amendments ignore completely the strong wishes of the arts community to have the HKADC established as a statutory body at an early date. It ignores the established practice in Hong Kong, including this Council, of leaving the conduct of meetings to the discretion and wisdom of the members of such councils or boards, and it ignores the fact that the proposed amendments achieve no more than the Standing Orders which have been proposed by the present HKADC and which meet fully the objectives of opening the HKADC’s meetings. The Honourable
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3467
Christine LOH herself has endorsed the Standing Orders in her capacity as Vice-chairman of the HKADC.
I strongly appeal to the Honourable Members of this Council to reject this proposal, which is not central or essential to the HKADC or the Bill itself, in order to avoid holding up the establishment of the statutory HKADC any longer. Mr Chairman, the Administration is unable to support the proposed amendments by Miss LOH. If the amendments are carried, I may have to consider postponing this Bill for further consideration, so as to give the Administration more time to reassess fully the political implications of the amendments.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: The Secretary has repeated on several occasions that I am advocating my own personal political agenda. Well, as I said, my agenda is open government, so I am not ashamed of that. For him also to say that this is a convenient occasion for me to do so and for me to have said in my papers circulated to Members that this is a first legislative attempt to open up meetings, well, yes, yes, Mr Chairman. This is the first legislative attempt, and I wonder if this will be the last. I cannot say that there are no Members here who sit on other statutory councils that they would not ever wish to move amendments to other statutory bodies to open up the meetings.
I cannot guarantee that to the Secretary, and perhaps I could say to him, what is his political agenda for opposing open meetings when he has already admitted that he fully endorses open meetings? He just does not want it guaranteed by law. He is not able to say why he does not want the legal right. Of course he contrasted with this Council and to say that we do not have laws governing our meetings and yet we open up all our meetings. I wonder whether it would be better eventually for there to be laws governing all public bodies and their meetings. This idea is not new to Hong Kong. In other countries, many of them do have open-meeting laws, and it has got nothing to do with whether we trust the members of those various bodies or not. If what Mr SO is saying is that if the imposition of legal obligation means distrust, well, as I said earlier on, that really does not make sense because we impose legal obligations on many people, on many bodies, and yet we do not say that we impose legal obligations on them because we do not trust them.
His last comment was that I, as Vice-chairman of the Arts Development Council endorsed the Standing Orders. Well, of course I endorsed the Standing Orders because that is in no way contradictory to there being a legislative right. The two are not mutually exclusive, and obviously if my amendment is going to lose, then what I want as second-best is for there to be the best set of Standing Orders that there can be, so that we can operate within them and to make sure as soon as possible that the meetings of the ADC are going to be open.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
3468 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 Question on the Second Reading of the new clause put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the “Noes” had it.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Division.
CHAIRMAN: Council will proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: Will Members please proceed to vote?
CHAIRMAN: We are short of the head count. Have all Members pressed the right button? Are there any queries? If not, the results will now be displayed.
Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man kwong, Rev FUNG Chi-wood, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Dr Conrad LAM, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr MAN Sai-cheong, Mr TIK Chi-yuen, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Ms Anna WU and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan voted for the motion.
The Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr Martin BARROW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr LAU Wah-sum, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Peter WONG, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Moses CHENG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Timothy HA, Mr Simon IP, Dr LAM Kui-chun, Mr Eric LI, Mr Steven POON, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Dr TANG Siu-tong and Mr James TIEN voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 20 votes in favour of the motion and 31 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
CHAIRMAN: As the Second Reading of new clause 16A has not been agreed, it cannot be added to the Bill. Consequently, Miss LOH cannot proceed with her proposed amendment to the Schedule because it is dependent on the addition of the new clause 16A to the Bill.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995 3469 Schedule
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr Chairman, I move that section 4(1) of the Schedule of the Bill be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
The amendment to this section will give greater flexibility to the operations of the Council in respect of its schedule of meetings.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
Schedule
That schedule, section 4(1) be amended, by deleting “2” and substituting “3”. Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on Schedule, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL and
HONG KONG ARTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL BILL
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills. Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to. Bills read the Third time and passed.
PRIVATE MEMBER’S MOTIONS
PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on the speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 1 May. 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
3470 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 3 May 1995
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.
EMPLOYMENT POLICY
DR HUANG CHEN-YA moved the following motion:
“That in view of the increasing difficulty faced by local workers in seeking employment and in order to enhance their employment opportunities, this Council urges the Government to terminate the policy for the importation of labour, examine the feasibility of introducing legislation to accord priority to local workers in employment, and formulate a comprehensive employment policy which should include:
(1) special arrangements for assisting older displaced workers, middleaged women and the disabled in seeking employment; and
(2) a long-term manpower training programme.”
DR HUANG CHEN-YA(in Cantonese): Mr President, I move the motion standing under my name in the Order Paper.
The Government recently published the unemployment rate for the first quarter of 1995 which is as high as 2.8%, the highest in nine years. The number of unemployed combined with the number of underemployed means that 100 000 people are having difficulties finding employment. A survey conducted this week also reveals that the economic confidence of the people of Hong Kong has fallen to the lowest point in nine years. The low-paid people, in particular, are worried most about their future and they lack confidence. All these point to the fact that the economy of Hong Kong has entered a danger zone and the Government must draw up policies to help the public overcome employment difficulties.
In fact, over the past few years, the growth of employment opportunities has been outstripped by the growth of our workforce. With the growth in demand lagging behind supply plus the importation of labour and the supply of illegal workers, it is not surprising to find that local workers are encountering difficulties in finding jobs. Moreover, the vacancy rate of the manufacturing industry has fallen from 5.2% in 1989 to 2.49%, the corresponding rate in the hotel industry has dropped from 4.1% to 2.82% and the rate in the construction industry has declined from 5.7% to 1.37%. The figures show that the vacancy rates have dropped significantly and therefore it is just natural that workers are finding it difficult to secure jobs.
The Hong Kong Government has all along been taking pride in the territory’s low unemployment rate. In fact, the Government is pulling wool over the eyes of the Hong Kong people in an attempt to hide its dereliction of duty in