XN000022-1990-06-06 — Page 12

10

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1990

"TO PREVENT AN UNFIT CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER FROM CONTINUING TO EXERCISE ANY INFLUENCE OVER AN INSURER, WE ALSO PROPOSE THAT THE INSURANCE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO IMPOSE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THE SHARES HELD BY ANY PERSON WHO HAS BECOME A CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE INSURANCE AUTHORITY AND, WHERE NECESSARY, TO APPLY TO THE HIGH COURT FOR THE SALE OF SUCH SHARES.

"A RESTRICTION ORDER IMPOSED BY THE INSURANCE AUTHORITY WILL EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT THE TRANSFER OF THE SHARES, THE EXERCISE OF VOTING RIGHTS, THE ISSUE OF BONUS SHARES AND THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS," MR NENDICK SAID.

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.

CASE FOR PHASING IN LIABILITIES ACCEPTED

P

THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER THE HON K.Y. YEUNG, TOLD THE LEGISLATIVE COUNG 14. TODAY (WEDNESDAY) HE WAS PERSUADED THERE WAS A CASE FOR PHASING IN CERTAIN LIABILITIES UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989.

+

IN REACHING THIS DECISION I HAVE HAD REGARD TO THE PRECEDENT THAT WE HAVE SET WHEN IN 1986 WF PHASED IN EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY TOWARDS LONG SERVICE PAYMENTS. MR ITUNG SAID IN WINDING UP THE DEBATE ON THE BILL.

MR YEUNG NOTED THAT WHEN HE INTRODUCED THE BILL LAST JANUARY, HE HAD SAID THAT ONE OF ITS MAIN PURPOSES HAD BEEN ΤΟ REMOVE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MANUAL AND NON-MANUAL EMPLOYEES, SO THAT ALL EMPLOYEES WOULD BE PROTECTED.

HE AGREED WITH THE HON PAUL CHENG THAT THE REMOVAL OF THIS DISTINCTION WOULD IMMEDIATELY CREATE SUBSTANTIAL LONG SERVICE PAYMENT AND SEVERANCE PAYMENT LIABILITIES FOR EMPLOYERS TOWARDS THEIR MORE HIGHLY PAID NON-MANUAL EMPLOYEES.

"TO SOFTEN THE IMPACT, THE BULL PROVIDES THAT WAGES IN EXCESS OF THE NEW CEILING OF $15,000 PER MONTH SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE CALCULATION OF AN EMPLOYER'S ENTITLEMENTS SAID.

1

MR YEUNG

HE SAID THAT THE AD HOC GROUP, OF WILTCH MR CHENG WAS CONVENER, HAD MANAGED TO ARGUE FORCEFULLY AND CONVINCINGLY THAT, EVEN WITH THIS QUALIFICATION TO THE WAGE CEILING OF $15,000, AN EMPLOYER'S TOWARDS HIS NON-MANUAL EMPLOYEES WHO WERE PAID ABOVE THIS WAGE CEILING COULD BECOME UNACCEPTABLY HIGH.

LIABILITY

"UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION THEIR COULD BE AS HIGH AS $180,000 PER EMPLOYEE, HE ADDED.

IMMEDIATF MAXIMUN EXPOSURE

P

/WHEN THIS