XN000022-1986-03-26 — Page 40

38

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1986

+1 AM CONCERNED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD HAVE SEEN FIT TO INCUP A LIABILITY OF SUCH A MAGNITUDE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THIS COUNCIL, MR LEE SAID, STRESSING THAT HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXCHANGE FUND.

HE CALLED FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING

QUESTIONS:

* WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT?

* IS THERE ANY BETTER ALTERNATIVE OPEN TO THE ADMINISTRATION IN DEALING WITH THIS MATTER?

* WHY WAS THIS MATTER NOT REFERRED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, OR INDEED THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, AS IN THE CASE OF THE HANG LUNG BANK AND THE OVERSEAS TRUST BANK?

* WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY IN RELATION TO OTHER BANKS IN FUTURE WHICH MAY FIND THEMSELVES IN A SIMILAR SITUATION?

MR LEE SAID THAT UNTIL ANSWERS WERE PROVIDED TO THESE QUESTIONS, THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS REALLY IN THE INTEREST OF HONG KONG PEOPLE FOR WHOM THE COUNCILLORS WERE RESPONSIBLE.

HE FURTHER FELT THAT THIS RAISED A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE AS TO THE POWERS OF THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY UNDER THE EXCHANGE FUND ORDINANCE AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE HAD SOUGHT TO EXERCISE THOSE POWERS.

EARLIER, MR LEE COMMENTED ON THE LOCALISATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE CIVIL SERVICE AND THE RECENT CIVIL SERVICE PAY RISE.

HE NOTED THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WAS VERY SHORT OF LOCAL LAWYERS BUT DISPUTED THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS DUE TO THE MORE LUCRATIVE NATURE OF THE PRIVATE PRACTICE.

HE BELIEVED THE REAL REASONS ACCOUNTING FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S FAILURE TO ATTRACT LOCAL PERSONS WERE THAT TOP POSTS HAD BEEN DENIED TO THE LOCALS AND THAT MORE FAVOURABLE TERMS HAD BEEN OFFERED TO EXPATRIATES. HE THEREFORE CALLED FOR EQUAL TERMS WITHOUT DELAY.

TURNING TO THE JUDICIARY, MR LEE SAID HE APPRECIATED THE DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION IN ATTRACTING LAWYERS OF GOOD STANDING TO JOIN.

HE SAID ONE OF THE REASONS WAS THAT LOCAL JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THEIR TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT AND HE SAID THIS WAS CLEARLY WRONG.

/HE POINTED

Page 40Page 41

39