7
THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1985
MR BROWN EXPLAINED THAT THE COUNCIL'S MONETARY AFFAIRS WORKING GROUP, OF WHICH HE IS THE CONVENER, HAD GONE INTO THE +MINEFIELD OF EMOTIONS+ RAISED BY THESE ISSUES IN SOME DEPTH AND THAT WAS WHY THE EXAMINATION HAD TAKEN A LONG TIME.
HE SAID THE POSITION IN A NUTSHELL WAS AS FOLLOWS:
IRST
* FIRSTLY
* SECONDLY
* THIRDLY
* FOURTHLY
WHEN THE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED IT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE EXISTENCE OF THE THEN EXISTING AUTHORISED AUDITORS WHO WERE LISTED UNDER SECTION 131(3) OF THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE.
THESE AUTHORISED AUDITORS WERE RECOGNISED UNDER SECTION 30(4) AND BECAME ENTITLED TO BE ISSUED WITH A PRACTISING CERTIFICATE. THERE WAS NO RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR THIS GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS WHO WERE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF HONG KONG. THIS IS THEIR SO CALLED +VESTED RIGHTS+, ALL OTHER AUDITORS, WHICH INCLUDE NEWCOMERS TO THE PROFESSION IN HONG KONG BOTH CHINESE AND NON-CHINESE, BECAME SUBJECT TO A RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT.
SINCE THE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS ORDINANCE CAME INTO EFFECT IN 1973, TIME ITSELF WILL GRADUALLY REDUCE TO ZERO THE NUMBER OF AUTHORISED AUDITORS.
ALTHOUGH IN THEORY AN AUTHORISED AUDITOR COULD UNDER THE LAW - SPEND MOST OF HIS TIME OUT OF HONG KONG, AND CONTINUE TO HOLD A PRACTISING CERTIFICATE, WHICH WOULD BE WITHHELD NORMALLY FROM OTHER AUDITORS AS THEY WOULD FAIL THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ON ENQUIRY THE UNOFFICIALS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED WITH ANY KNOWN ABUSE OF THIS PRIVILEGE.
IT IS WITHIN THE CAPABILITY OF THE HONG KONG SOCIETY OF ACCOUNTANTS TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF ALL ITS MEMBERS BY WAY OF CODES OF PRACTICE.
IN SUMMARY, MR BROWN SAID, IT SEEMED THAT IN REGARD TO THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT THE BILL PROVIDED A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT DID NOT EXIST.
/HE THEREFORE