XN000022-1995-02-22 — Page 21

8

What the bill will do, therefore, is to leave in its wake huge uncertainty. Uncertainty as to its effects; uncertainty as to how long that uncertainty itself is going to last; and uncertainty as to what will happen at the end. That is surely not the proper way to go about making public policy!

Let us also be clear about the responsibilities of those who seek to legislate on public policies. They have a responsibility, to this Council and to the community, to make it clear what precisely is the policy that they seek to make. It is not good enough simply to seek to destroy the present arrangement, without proposing at the same time, precisely what the replacement is, so that this Council and the community can make an informed choice. That is a responsibility owed to the public. That is a responsibility which, under our executive-led system has been fully discharged by the executive. As the well-known adage goes: "The Executive proposes, the Legislature disposes". It is a well tried, and effective system for Hong Kong. Underlying that system is the concept of public responsibility that I have just referred to. In the present case, that public responsibility has not been discharged by the Honourable Member moving this bill. Instead, he puts the owners back to the executive in the person of the Director of Immigration.

Mr President, I should like to make one further point. Our system of immigration control, as enshrined in the Immigration Ordinance, is based on the discretion of the Director of Immigration. That system enables the Director to deal effectively, and with flexibility, with the differing circumstances of each individual case, but working under a general policy. That system has worked well in the past, and it would be dangerous to tamper with it likely. Legislative rules on immigration would introduce rigidity into the system. The bill before us is also likely to have. unintended side-effects, for example, the bill before us provides for exemptions from the requirement of legislative rules in respect of foreign domestic helpers, and those in possession of special skills, knowledge or experience not readily available in Hong Kong. It makes no specific exemptions in respect of persons seeking to enter Hong Kong in an employment capacity but bringing with him substantial investments to Hong Kong in the business he is to be engaged in nor does it make specific exemptions in respect of persons entering Hong Kong for employment in international or diplomatic bodies. Apparently, none of these grey areas have been examined carefully nor has any necessary remedy being discussed and agreed. It, that is to say the bill, is to all intents and purposes, a flawed bill and I urge Honourable Members not to support its passage.

For these reasons, and for the reasons which my colleague the Secretary for Education and Manpower will explain later the Administration strongly opposes the second reading of the Honourable Member's private bill.

End/Wednesday, February 22, 1995