25
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
THIS WAS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO THE HA BECAUSE IT WOULD SET OUT THE SERVICES AND FUNDING THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED TO EACH OTHER AND HOW THEY WOULD BE PAID FOR, MR WONG SAID.
HE BELIEVED THAT THE DELAY IN FINALISING THE MAA WAS ALSO DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEGOTIATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE HA AND THE SUBVENTED HOSPITALS, SINCE A SUBVENTED HOSPITAL COULD NOT BE PROMISED MORE THAN WHAT THE HA COULD GET FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
FLEXIBLE, EFFECTIVE WAY TO TACKLE INSIDER DEALING
THE ADMINISTRATION REMAINS OF THE VIEW THAT INSIDER DEALING SHOULD NOT FOR THE PRESENT BE MADE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE BUT THAT THE POSITION SHOULD BE REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE OF THE EFFECT OF INCREASED TRIBUNAL SANCTIONS AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
THE ACTING FINANCIAL SECRETARY, THE HON DAVID NENDICK, SAID THIS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY) IN THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) BILL 1989.
HE SAID CRIMINAL SANCTIONS HAD IN FACT PROVED -
PROVED INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF PROSECUTION AND OF SECURING
ELSEWHERE CONVICTIONS.
THE
"WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT, AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE TRIBUNAL APPROACH REPRESENTS THE MOST FLEXIBLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO TACKLE PROBLEM IN HONG KONG, HE SAID.
**
ON A SUGGESTION THAT, GIVEN THE QUASI-CRIMINAL SANCTIONS BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE NON-APPLICATION OF THIS RIGHT SHOULD BE LIFTED, MR NENDICK SAID THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT SUPPORT THIS SUGGESTION.
HE SAID THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OR "RIGHT TO SILENCE" APPLIED TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, BUT INSIDER DEALING WAS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRIBUNAL'S POWER TO IMPOSE PENAL SANCTIONS.
"THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF RETAINING THE TRIBUNAL SYSTEM IS TO ENSURE THAT AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE TRIBUNAL IS ABLE TO GET AT THE TRUTH.
NATURE,
IS
"WE BELIEVE THIS APPROACH IS NECESSARY TO TACKLE MORE EFFECTIVELY THE PROBLEM OF INSIDER DEALING WHICH, BY ITS MOST DIFFICULT TO PROVE,' HE SAID.
/AS FOR
----