8-
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1987
SHE POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE FEE ASSISTANCE METHODOLOGY PROPOSED BY THE EDUCATION COMMISSION NO. 2 REPORT, THE NET FOR ELIGIBLE PARENTS WOULD BE WIDENED CONSIDERABLY IN 1990 AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD THEREFORE TACKLE THE PRESENT UNSATISFACTORY CONDITION URGENTLY.
STILL ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION, MRS CHOW RECALLED SHE WAS CRITICAL DURING THE DEBATE ON THE EDUCATION COMMISSION NO. 2 REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S BACK-TRACKING ON AN EARLIER DECISION TO SET UP A RESEARCH CENTRE FOR THE TRAINING OF NURSERY AND KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS.
SAYING THAT SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY ANSWER TO HER QUESTION, SHE URGED THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION AND TO PRESS AHEAD WITH THIS INSTITUTE IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE PARENTS ATTACHED TO PRE-PRIMARY EDUCATION.
MRS CHOW ALSO SAID SHE SUPPORTED THE HON HUI YIN-FAT'S VIEWS ON THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY REGARDING THE PROVISION OF SOCIAL WORKERS IN SCHOOLS.
HOWEVER, SHE CAUTIONED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BECOME OVER-TOLERANT WITH DELAYS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE POLICIES AND SHOULD BE MORE VIGILANT IN CENSURING SUCH DELAYS.
TURNING TO THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION, MRS CHOW SAID SHE SUPPORTED THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY'S VIEW THAT HONG KONG SHOULD MOVE TOWARDS A MORE BROADLY BASED INDIRECT TAX SYSTEM.
SHE STRESSED THAT AS INDIRECT TAXES WERE SPENDING-BASED AS OPPOSED TO DIRECT TAXES WHICH WERE EARNING-BASED, THE TAXES SHOULD BE LEVIED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ON THOSE ITEMS ON WHICH THE DECISION OF SPENDING WERE DIRECTLY RATHER THAN INDIRECTLY CONTROLLED BY THE PAYERS.
THIS RULED OUT SPENDING DECIDED ON BY CHILDREN, YOUTHS AND THE ELDERLY WHO WERE BY AND LARGE DEPENDENTS OF EARNERS, SHE SAID.
SHE EXPLAINED THIS WAS THE REASON WHY SHE HAD ALL ALONG OBJECTED TO THE TAX ON SOFT DRINKS.
MRS CHOW DID NOT THINK THAT THE REDUCTION OF HALF A PER CENT ON CORPORATE PROFITS TAX WAS NECESSARY, SAYING THAT THE 18.5 PER CENT WAS STILL LOW BY WORLD STANDARD,
+THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE CAN SPARE THE CONCESSION, SHE SAID.
ON SEPARATE TAXATION, MRS CHOW SAID THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY'S COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE WAS +TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE+.
SHE SAID IT WAS NOT LOGICAL NOR FAIR TO JUSTIFY THE CONTINUATION OF A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MARRIED WORKING WOMEN BY DISMISSING THE REMOVAL OF THAT SAME DISCRIMINATION AS A PRIVILEGE.
SHE APPEALED TO THE GOVERNMENT TO LOOK AT THE MOVE AS A RECTIFICATION OF AN INJUSTICE.
+ IT IS LONG OVERDUE. WE CAN AFFORD IT. LET US HAVE IT,+ SHE ADDED.
19
Page 10Page 11